Constructional Steel Research at The University of Cincinnati PDF

Constructional Steel Research
at the University of Cincinnati

Gian A. Rassati
Presentation Layout
Research
R h on ddetails
t il for
f Moment
M t Resisting
R i ti Frames
F
Influence of pretension of fasteners
Research on details for Concentrically Braced Frames

The
Th conceptt off Buckling-Delayed
B kli D l dBBraces
Hybrid Pseudo-Dynamic testing of retrofitted braces
Research on details for Hybrid Coupled Core Wall Systems

What
Wh t is
i a HCCWS
Steel coupling beams
Steel coupling beams with fuse
Current
C t research.h Fib
Fiber-based
b d fformulation
l ti off wallll piers.
i
Research on generic steel details
Hole fabrication study
Resistance
R i ffactors ffor hi
high-strength
h h ffasteners
Rose School Slide #2

Presentation Layout 2
Prequalification of T-Stub beam-to-column connections (ongoing)

Preparation of design provisions, commentary and examples
Design of full-scale tests
Numerical modeling of full-scale connections
Evaluation of secondary prying effects in bolted connections
Evaluation of the influence of hole fabrication methods on the high-stress
cyclic response of steel

Comparison of the behavior of fillet-welded built-up T-Stubs versus CJP-
welded T-Stubs
Prequalification of top-and-seat angle connections (future)
All of the above…
???

Influence of fastener pretension on the behavior of connections
This study used strain-gage

instrumented bolts to evaluate the
i fl
influence off th
the amountt off
pretension in the fasteners on the
response of a T-Stub connection
Finger tight, snug tight, and fully
pretensioned conditions were
investigated.
A Skidmore-Wilhelm calibration
machine was used to calibrate the
desired amount of pretension in
bolts, by taking strain-gage readings
and reproducing those readings
during installation

LVDTs were used to measure the

uplift of the T-flange from the flange
off the
th connectedt d member
b
Change in tension in the bolts was
measured, as prying actions started
taking place.
Results clearly show the onset of
prying actions and the influence of
the initial tension in the fasteners

A325 3/4" x 3-1/2"
70
60
50
Fully Tens ioned

B o lt F o rc e ( k ip )
40
30
Snug Tight
20
Finge r Tight
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
A li d T-s
Applie T tub
t b Load
L d (k ip)
i )

A325 3/4" x 3-1/2"
80
Fullyy Tensioned
70
Snug Tight
60
Finger Tight
50
L o a d ( k ip )
40
30
20
10
0
0.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.1500 0.2000 0.2500 0.3000 0.3500
Deform
f ation ((in))

T-stub Test #FT-1B
70
60
50
Boltt Force (kip)
40
30
20
Left Bolt
10 Right Bolt
No Prying
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Applied T-stub Load (kip)

Conclusions:
Varying pretension didn’t appreciably affect the strength of the
T-stubs.
Initial pretension had a significant affect on connection stiffness.
No appreciable difference in behavior for the specimen with a mixture

of pretensions.

Buckling-delayed braces in CBFs
Proof-of-concept research to retrofit concentrically braced frames.

Focusing on double-
double
angle members
Improve buckling
capacity without
changing tensile
capacity
Use of industrial
strapping to tie heavy
pipe sections.
Concept is similar to
lean-on-columns

Hybrid Pseudo-Dynamic test:

Two braces taken from the ground
floor of a 4-bay CBF, with rigid
di h
diaphragm.
Higher story braces supposed to
remain elastic
Full structure simulated with
ABAQUS simultaneously with the

experimental testing
ABAQUS and the test exchange
displacement demands and

internal forces through Hybrid PSD
driver (developed at UC)
Not a real time PSD analysis. 30
second-long earthquake took 7

hours to be simulated.


During testing, one of the braces is in
tension, the other is in compression
The tension brace will eventually reach
yielding conditions. Actuators reached
capacity just before yielding took place
The connection was detailed so that
150% of the yielding force could be
sustained without damage
The compression brace will buckle at
low forces; the retrofitted brace will
also buckle in the first mode.
The gage of the pipe used was too
light; the increase in compressive
capacity was of the order of 25%

Unrestrained Brace A
120
100
80
60
Force (kip)
40
20
Restrained Brace A
0
120
-20
100
-40
80
0.8
-0.8 -0.6
0.6 -0.4
0.4 -0.2
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Displacement (in) 60
Force (kip)
40
20
-20
-40
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Displacement (in)


Heavier pipes were used in
component tests to verify behavior
Also, a mortar-filled FRP wrapped
retrofitting solution has been
investigated as part of the additional
component testing
Heavier pipe retrofit prevented global
buckling.
Local buckling of the braces, outside
the last strapping location, occurred

Increase in buckling capacity of ~35%
Mortar-filled RFP wrap p did not prevent

p
global buckling.
Increase in buckling capacity of ~30%

Hybrid Coupled Wall Systems
Steel Beams embedded into shear

wall piers
Threaded rods pretensioned to
simulate axial forces in shear walls
One wall pier moving vertically, the
other fixed on strong floor

Main actuator is aligned with
centerline of coupling beam, so that

no additional moments are
introduced
Stiffener in coupling beam detailed
as pper EBF requirements

q for SMFs.
Cyclic test was stopped for onset of
instability in tall frame. Test was

finished monotonically.


2
1.5
0.5
Vp
V/V
-0.5
-1
Due to concerns for stability of the reaction
frame, specimen was loaded monotonically
-1.5 after reaching shear angle = 4%
-2
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Shear Angle (rad.)

Steel Beams with Fuse element

embedded into shear wall piers
Same testing setup and load history
Built-up steel beam embedded into
wall piers. Built-up ‘fuse’ with same

flange thickness, reduced web
thickness to force shear yielding first
Slip critical connections for splices
Fillet
Fill t welds
ld for
f built-up
b ilt sections
ti
One fuse detailed for 50% of original
beam’s shear capacity, one for 70%

of it.
it

Fillet welds were not detailed as a demand

critical weld. The strain concentrations produced
premature fracture of the welded section

Hybrid
200
Coupled Wall Systems
80% of max
150
100
50
s]
Force [kips
-50
-100
80% of max
-150
-200
5
-5 -4
4 -3
3 -2
2 -1
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Chord rotation [%]

Steel Beams with Fuse element

embedded into shear wall piers
After failure of the 50% fuse, it was
removed, with the walls returning into
their original position
The embedded steel sections were
well into their elastic range at this

point
The 70% fuse was installed
installed, and
again a full load history was applied
to the structure

Steel Beams with Fuse Shear -v- Shear Angle -- FCB-2

element embedded into
shear wall piers 2.0
70% fuse carried shear 1.5
forces as predicted. 1.0
Welds eventually failed
0.5
with
ith the
th same failure
f il mode
d
V/Vp
as before, only at much 0.0
larger displacements -0.5
-11.00
-1.5
-2.0
-33 -22 -11 0 1 2 3
Shear Angle (%)
Main Beam Fuse Beam

Innovative solutions for

hybrid coupling beams
NSF $400,000 grantg
currently active
Details designed with
reparability in mind
Hybrid, pseudo-dynamic
testing with 6-DOF testing

setups
Nonlinear finite element
solver using ABAQUS






Innovative solutions for

hybrid coupling beams
Analytical model will use
especially
i ll d
developed
l d
reinforced concrete fiber-
based elements for the
walls
Need to account for
cracking and neutral axis
shifting in both piers
Difference stiffness of
the ttwo
o piers will
ill change
the amounts of base
shears and overturning
moments
In turn,
turn coupling beams
will be un-symmetrically
loaded Æ behavior never
tested before

Effects of Fabrication Methods on Strength and Ductility
Study funded by AISC

Investigates hole-making
hole making methods and their
effect on strength and ductility
Drilled holes
Punched holes
With new punch & die

With worn punch & die
Punched and reamed holes
Flame-Cut holes
Results used in the development of the new

AISC Steel Design Specifications (2005)
Two sets of specimens:
Steel bar stock with one hole (shown)
Steel split Tee with two holes

Drilled Bolt Holes

Punched Bolt Holes (“New” Punch and Die)

Punched Bolt Holes (“Worn” Punch and Die)

Flame Cut Bolt Holes

Results: 3” x ½” A36 Bar Stock with 13/16” hole
120
Drilled
Good Punched
Bad Punched
100
Flame Cut
80
plied Load (kip)
60
App
40
20
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Elongation (in)

Conclusions
On average measured strength was 10% higher
than nominal.
No well-defined trends in strength were noted
Holes made with “Worn Punches” are not always

worse than those made with “New Punches”
No reduction in strength and only a minor

reduction in ductility were noted due to cyclic load
Substantial loss of ductility for punched

specimens, but enough ductility remains to
develop the full plastic moment in a beam section
The results of this study were used in the

development of Section F13 of the 13th Ed. AISC
Specification


Evaluation of the Resistance Factors for High-Strength Bolts
Research sponsored by RCSC and AISC

Research Council on Structural Connections
American Institute of Steel Construction
Available data in literature show that on average A325 bolts (8.8) are
18% stronger
g than nominal and A490 bolts (10.8)
( ) are 10% stronger
g
than nominal
Preliminary statistical reduction of data showed potential for
resistance factors in excess of 0.90
Current resistance factor for both tension and shear (X and N) is 0.75
Available data set do not represent a meaningful statistical population

1500 bolts have been tested in tension, shear with threads excluded (X)
andd shear
h with
ith th
threads
d nott excluded
l d d (N)
Data have been statistically reduced to obtain resistance factors


Tension – A325/F1852
F1852 A325 A325/F1852
60
22% greater than AISC

50
40
Frequency
y
30
20
10
0
1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.36
Experimental/Nominal

Tension – A490/F2280
70
12% greater than AISC F2280 A490 A490/F2280
60
50
Frequency
40
30
20
10
0
1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 1 20
1.20
Experimental/Nominal 1.22 1.24 1.26
Rose School Never less than 2.3% greater Slide #41

Shear Excluded
A325/F1852
/
25 F1852 A325 A325/F1852
18% g
greater than AISC
20
15
Frequency
10
0
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.20
1.22
1.24
1.26
1.28
1.30
1
Shear Excluded
A490/F2280
/
F2280 A490 A490/F2280
50
45
40
35
30
Frequency
25
20
15
10 13 A490 bolts
5
0
0.93 0.94 0.95
0.96 0.97 0.98
0.99 1.00 1.01
1.02 1.03 1.04
6.22% A490 bolts 1.05 1.06 1.07
1.08 1.09 1.10
1.11 1.12 1.13
1.14 1.15 1.16
Experimental/Nominal 1.17
2.64% of all grades less than AISC

Shear Not Excluded
A325/F1852
20 F1852 A325 A325/F1852
18
16
14
12
Frequency
10
0
0.95
0.97
0.99
1.01
1.03
1.05
1.07
1.09
1.11
1.13
1.15
1.17
1.19
1.21
23
25
1.2
1.27
7
1
1.2
1.29
9
1.31
1.33
7 A325 bolts Experimental/Nominal
3.45% A325 bolts

Shear Not Excluded
A490/F2280
F2280 A490 A490/F2280
25
20
118 A490 bolts Equal to AISC
57% A490 bolts
15
23 F2280 bolts
Frequency
y
46% F2280 bolts

10
0
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1
Shear Excluded
versus Tension
Average shear stress with the threads excluded from the shear plane is
approximately 60.4% (0.143) of the average tensile stress
5/8" 3/4" 7/8" 1" 1-1/8" 1-1/4"
100
80
Excluded (ksi)
60
Shear E
40 Average shear strength is

approximately 62% of the
tensile strength
20 (Kulak et al. 2001)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Tension (ksi)

Shear Not Excluded
versus Tension
Average shear
A h strength
t th with
ith th
the th
threads
d nott excluded
l d d ffrom th
the shear
h
plane is approximately 46% (0.173) of the average tensile strength
5/8" 3/4" 7/8" 1" 1-1/8" 1-1/4"
80
60
ot Excluded (ksi)
Shear No
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Tension (ksi)

Shear Not Excluded
versus Shear Excluded
Average shear strength with the threads not excluded is about 76.2%
(0.0248) of the average shear strength with the threads excluded
5/8" 3/4" 7/8" 1" 1-1/8" 1-1/4"
80
60
ot Excluded (ksi)
Shear No
40
Fastener with threads not

excluded from the shear plane
20 had a strength equal to about
83% of the tensile strength
(Frank & Yura 1981)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Shear Excluded (ksi)

Ductility
60
F1852 F2280 A325 A490
50
A325/F1852: 9.83%
40
A490/F2280: 6.75%
Frequency
30
20
10
0
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
Percent Elongations 20% 22% 24%

Levels of Resistance Factors Calculated
Level II Level III Level IV Level V
7/8 1 1/8
1-1/8
A325
5/8 25 1-1/4
All Sizes A3
120-ksi 3/4 1
A325 F1852
A325-F1852
7/8 1-1/8
All Sizes
F1852 2
5/8 85 1-1/4
All Sizes F1
All Strengths 3/4 1

All Grades
7/8 1-1/8
All Sizes
A490
5/8 90 1-1/4
All Sizes A4
150-ksi 3/4 1
A490-F2280
A490 F2280
7/8 1-1/8
All Sizes
F2280 0
5/8 28 1-1/4
All Sizes F2
3/4 1

Resistance Factors From Literature – Level III
120 ksi 150 ksi
(A325/F1852) (A490/F2280)
β = 4.0 β = 4.5 β = 4.0 β = 4.5
Method 1A
(0.75Ag)
0.824 0.770 0.920 0.868
Method 1B
Tension 0.804 0.750 0.902 0.852
(Aeff)
Methods
2A & 2B
0 781
0.781 0 727
0.727 0 860
0.860 0 808
0.808
Shear
Method 1A 0.876 0.824 0.954 0.913
E l d d
Excluded
Shear
Not Method 1A 0.808 0.758 1.017 0.973
Excluded

Resistance Factors From Literature – Level II
β = 4.0 β = 4.5
Method
1A 0.844 0.790
(0.75Ag)
Method
Tension 1B 0.824 0.771
(Aeff)
Method
2A & 2B
0.799 0.744
Shear Method
1A
0.875 0.823
Excluded
Shear
Method
Not 0.827 0.776
1A
E l d d
Excluded

Resistance Factors Level III
120 ksi 150 ksi
(A325/F1852) (A490/F2280)
β = 4.0 β = 4.5 β = 4.0 β = 4.5
Method 1A
(0 75Ag)
(0.75Ag)
1.006 0.950 0.955 0.906
Method 1B
(Aeff) 0.983 0.928 0.948 0.901
Tension
Method 2A
(0.75Ag) 0 989
0.989 0 933
0.933 0 947
0.947 0 898
0.898
Method 2B
(Aeff) 0.979 0.924 0.941 0.893
Method 1A 0.961 0.907 0.909 0.863

Shear
Excluded
Method 2A 0.952 0.897 0.896 0.850
Shear Method 1A 0.913 0.861 0.830 0.786

NOT
Excluded Method 2A 0 899
0.899 0 847
0.847 0 817
0.817 0 772
0.772

Resistance Factors Level II
β = 4.0 β = 4.5
Method 1A
(0.75Ag)
0.934 0.879
Method 1B
(Aeff) 0 916
0.916 0 863
0.863
Tension
Method 2A
(0.75Ag) 0.924 0.869
Method 2B
(Aeff) 0.913 0.860
Method 1A 0 877
0.877 0 824
0.824
Shear
Excluded
Method 2A 0.881 0.828
Shear Method 1A 0.814 0.763

NOT
Excluded Method 2A 0.820 0.770

Resistance Factors Level I
β = 4.0 β = 4.5
Tension 1A
Shear 1A
0.854 0.800
Tension
T i 1B
Shear 1A
0.855 0.801
Tension 2A
Shear 2A
0 854
0.854 0 800
0.800
Tension 2B
Shear 2A
0.856 0.803

AISC Specification’s Commentary (2005) states a reliability

index of 4.0
Recommendations will be based on this
T
Tension
i
φ = 0.90
i.e., in tension a 20% savings on the number of bolts
needed can be attained without affecting safety
Shear with the threads excluded
φ = 0.85
This corresponds to 13% savings
Shear with the threads not excluded
φ = 0.80
This only
y corresponds
p to 7% savings.g Forcingg the shear
plane in the threads activates all kinds of uncertainties in
the response

A few research projects derived from this one

Evaluation of resistance factors for Fully-Threaded
Fasteners
E l ti off reliability
Evaluation li bilit off multi-bolt
lti b lt connections
ti
Statistical analysis of the influence of the length of the
connection on its response
Evaluation of the resistance factors for Very
Very-High
High Strength
Fasteners (14.10)
Evaluation of the resistance factors for high-strength bolts
for use in AASHTO provisions
Fully-threaded fasteners research is complete
All other projects are open for business…

Prequalification of T-Stub Beam-to-Column Connections

T-Stub connections (also referred to as Double-

Tee or Split Tee connections)) are NOT prequalified
for IMFs or SMFs
A design procedure is necessary in order to
establish guidelines and limitations for design and
application
li ti
Currently in the balloting phase with CPRP
Component tests are necessary to clarify the

behavior of some details or inform the design
procedure
Fillet welds or CJP welds in built-up T-Stubs
Punched,
Punched drilled,
drilled or flame-cut
flame cut holes
Full-Scale tests are necessary for prequalification
of the connections, using various sizes of
connected members

Design procedure establishes limits for applicability

Beam sections limited to W36 (~900 mm depth)
Beam weight limited to 150 lbs/ft (223kg/m)
Span-to-depth ratio of beam is limited to 9
Column depth limited to W36 with concrete slab, to W14
(~360mm) without slab, no weight limit
T-Stubs
Rolled or built-up T-stubs are allowed
CJP welds specified
Fillet welds may be specified depending on the results of
the component tests
Other details
O
Continuity plates are required (requirement may be
eliminated pending component tests)
Doubler plates as required
Bolts and bolt holes
STD holes in beam and column flange
STD, OVS, or SSL in either beam web or shear plate
STD, OVS, or SSL in T-Flange
STD or OVS in T T-Stem
Stem

Component Tests
Component tests on welding techniques
CJP welded built-up T-stubs

Fillet-welded built-up T-stubs
Parameters
T-Flange to Column Flange Thickness Ratio
Component tests on hole fabrication

Continuation
C ti ti off previous
i research
h
Focusing on high-stress, low-cycle fatigue
Component tests on need for continuity plates
Investigations on secondary prying in fasteners

Component
p Tests

Component
p Tests

Component
p Tests

Full-Scale test design

3D numerical simulations
Ongoing effort, aimed at
Expanding database of tests
Predicting stress distributions and concentrations
Predicting failure loads and displacements
Evaluating prying forces, need for continuity plates, etc.
Full-scale tests for prequalification

In design phase
CJP T-Stubs:
2 full-scale W24x76 to W14x257 (W610x113 to W360x382) tests
Fillet-welded T-Stubs

Nonlinear
N li FE modeling
d li
Full material
nonlinearity
Full geometric
nonlinearity
Contact surfaces
at fasteners
T-Stubs and
doubler plates
modeled explicitly

Nonlinear
N li FE modeling
d li
W36x150 to
W14x257
Continuity plates
Doubler plates
16 1-1/2” A490
on T-Flanges
T Flanges
28 1-1/4” A490
on T-Stem
6 1-1/4” A490 on
Shear Tab

Nonlinear
N li FE modeling
d li
Plastic hinge
formation outside
T Stubs
T-Stubs
No instability of
beam flanges

Nonlinear
N li FE modeling
d li
Differences between
tension and
compression
T-Stubs
Different action of
various rows of
bolts

Nonlinear
N li FE modeling
d li
Column starts forming
yield line on flange at
the tension T-Stub
T Stub
Web panel of column
remains elastic thanks
to the doubler plate
Shear tab accounts
for some moment

capacity

Nonlinear
N li FE modeling
d li
Snapshot right before
formation of the plastic
hinge
Fully yielded flanges
Yielding spread well
into beam web
Some local yielding
at shear tab connec-

tion
As
A expected,
t d plastic
l ti
hinge forms within the
protected zone (i.e.,
one beam depthp away y
from last bolt row)

Nonlinear
N li FE modeling
d li
Central bolts (tension
T-Stub flange) are
considerably more
stressed than outside
bolts Æ secondary
prying
Actually, due to this
phenomenon, the bolts

might fail before the
beam can form the
plastic hinge
This phenomenon
appears despite the

presence of the
continuity plates
Without continuity plates
bolts would have failed
failed. This suggests they need to be required
required.

F ll S l Experimental
Full-Scale E i t l Testing
T ti

Full-Scale E i t l Testing:
T ti W24x76
W24 76 beam
b

T ti W30x108
W30 108 beam
b

T ti W36x150
W36 150 beam
b
1” Continuity Plate 4 Places
8, 1-1/2" A490
14, 1-1/4" A490-X
6, 1-1/4” A490-X
W36x150
W14 257
W14x257 5/8" Doubler
D bl Plate
Pl t on Each
E h Side
Sid

In summary…
Projects currently in progress

Hybrid coupled wall systems
Evaluation of the resistance factors for very-high-strength fasteners
Evaluation of LRFD coefficients for high-strength fasteners for use in
AASHTO provisions
p
Finite element formulation of reinforced concrete-infilled frames with PR
connections
Component testing for evaluating fillet welds vs. CJP welds for built-up
T-Stubs
Component testing for the evaluation of the influence of hole-making
practices on the high-stress cyclic response of steel plates

Nonlinear
N li fifinite
it element
l t modeling
d li off ffull-scale
ll l TT-Stub
St b connections
ti
Full-Scale testing of T-Stub connections

In summary…
Projects for the near future

Formulation of fiber-based
fiber based finite elements for reinforced concrete wall
piers for use in hybrid structures
Nonlinear FE modeling of secondary prying actions
Development
p of a design
g g guide for Top-and-Seat
p angle
g connections
Nonlinear FE modeling of full-scale Top-and-Seat angle connections
Implementation of SIMCOR and OpenFRESCO for uses in hybrid,
pseudo-dynamic analyses with ABAQUS

???

Thank you for your attention
Come see me if you are interested
Think about it, and email me in the near future, if you are interested
gian.rassati@uc.edu

Constructional Steel Research at The University of Cincinnati PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constructional Steel Research at The University of Cincinnati PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constructional Steel Research

at the University of Cincinnati

 Research on details for Concentrically Braced Frames

 Research on details for Hybrid Coupled Core Wall Systems

 Steel coupling beams with fuse

Rose School Slide #2

 Prequalification of T-Stub beam-to-column connections (ongoing)

 Design of full-scale tests

 Numerical modeling of full-scale connections

 Evaluation of secondary prying effects in bolted connections

 Evaluation of the influence of hole fabrication methods on the high-stress

cyclic response of steel

Rose School Slide #3

 This study used strain-gage

Rose School Slide #4

 LVDTs were used to measure the

Rose School Slide #5

A325 3/4" x 3-1/2"

Fully Tens ioned

Rose School Slide #6

A325 3/4" x 3-1/2"

Rose School Slide #7

T-stub Test #FT-1B

Rose School Slide #8

 Initial pretension had a significant affect on connection stiffness.

 No appreciable difference in behavior for the specimen with a mixture

Rose School Slide #9

 Proof-of-concept research to retrofit concentrically braced frames.

Rose School Slide #10

 Hybrid Pseudo-Dynamic test:

ABAQUS simultaneously with the

displacement demands and

second-long earthquake took 7

Rose School Slide #11

 Hybrid Pseudo-Dynamic test:

Rose School Slide #12

Rose School Slide #13

 Hybrid Pseudo-Dynamic test:

the last strapping location, occurred

 Mortar-filled RFP wrap p did not prevent

Rose School Slide #14

 Steel Beams embedded into shear

other fixed on strong floor

centerline of coupling beam, so that

as pper EBF requirements

instability in tall frame. Test was

Rose School Slide #15

Rose School Slide #16

Rose School Slide #17

 Steel Beams with Fuse element

 Built-up steel beam embedded into

wall piers. Built-up ‘fuse’ with same

beam’s shear capacity, one for 70%

Rose School Slide #18

Fillet welds were not detailed as a demand

Rose School Slide #19

Rose School Slide #20

 Steel Beams with Fuse element

well into their elastic range at this

Rose School Slide #21

 Steel Beams with Fuse Shear -v- Shear Angle -- FCB-2

Rose School Slide #22

 Innovative solutions for

Research on details for Concentrically Braced Frames

Research on details for Hybrid Coupled Core Wall Systems

Steel coupling beams with fuse

Prequalification of T-Stub beam-to-column connections (ongoing)

Design of full-scale tests

Numerical modeling of full-scale connections

Evaluation of secondary prying effects in bolted connections

Evaluation of the influence of hole fabrication methods on the high-stress

This study used strain-gage

LVDTs were used to measure the

Initial pretension had a significant affect on connection stiffness.

No appreciable difference in behavior for the specimen with a mixture

Proof-of-concept research to retrofit concentrically braced frames.

Hybrid Pseudo-Dynamic test:

Hybrid Pseudo-Dynamic test:

Hybrid Pseudo-Dynamic test:

Mortar-filled RFP wrap p did not prevent

Steel Beams embedded into shear

Steel Beams with Fuse element

Built-up steel beam embedded into

Steel Beams with Fuse element

Steel Beams with Fuse Shear -v- Shear Angle -- FCB-2

Innovative solutions for

Innovative solutions for

Study funded by AISC

With new punch & die

Results used in the development of the new

Steel split Tee with two holes

No well-defined trends in strength were noted

Holes made with “Worn Punches” are not always

No reduction in strength and only a minor

Substantial loss of ductility for punched

The results of this study were used in the

Research sponsored by RCSC and AISC

American Institute of Steel Construction

Available data set do not represent a meaningful statistical population

AISC Specification’s Commentary (2005) states a reliability

A few research projects derived from this one

T-Stub connections (also referred to as Double-

Component tests are necessary to clarify the

Design procedure establishes limits for applicability

CJP welded built-up T-stubs

Component tests on hole fabrication