Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Journal
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.
INTRODUCTION
he effects of live load are often reduced to reflect the low
probability of all live load existing simultaneously throughout a substantial portion of a structure. Subject to certain
limitations, ASCE 7-881 provides the following permissible
reduction
15
L = 0.25 +
Lo Lo
Al
(1)
where:
L = reduced design live load
Al = member influence area in square feet
(Al 400 ft2)
Lo = unreduced design live load
= 0.5 for members supporting one floor and 0.4
otherwise
method for incorporating live load reduction in system analyses has been developed.5
OUTLINE OF APPROACH
The method is based on the use of compensating forces
calculated by: (a) applying beam live load reduction factors
to the column connected beams; (b) applying column live
load reduction factors to the columns; and (c) determining
any out of balance at the beam-to-column intersections.
Because columns typically have a larger influence area than
beams (providing for a larger reduction), the compensating
forces are generally upwardly directed (opposite of gravity).
All structural system analyses which include live load are
then performed by applying a combination of the reduced
beam live loads and the calculated compensating forces. By
applying this combination of live load, the resulting forces
in both the main girders and the columns will reflect the
ASCE-7 live load reduction provisions.
The frame shown in Fig. 1 will be used to illustrate the
determination of compensating forces. Each of the relevant
structural components in the frame is assigned a two part
identifier. The first part, a beam, column, or area number,
is defined in the plan view of Fig. 1. The second part, the
level (for beams and areas) or story (for columns), is provided in the corresponding elevation view. For example, the
member designation B1-3 refers to Beam 1 of level 3, and
C2-1 refers to Column 2 of story 1.
The following steps outline how the live load compensating forces could be calculated:
1. Based on tributary area, estimate the axial force in each
column without applying any reduction factors. For column C2-1 (see Fig. 2), an estimate of the unreduced
axial force is
3
+ (B9i LB9i)]
(2)
where:
Bji = unreduced uniform live load along beam Bj-i
LBji = length of beam Bj-i
(In lieu of assuming one-half of the beam loads contributing to each of the column forces, a structural analysis that accounts for the actual continuity of the system could be performed to obtain a more accurate
estimate of the column axial force distribution).
2. Based on each columns influence area, reduce the
above axial force by the ASCE 7-88 live load reduction factor (Eq. 1). For column C2-1, the reduced axial
force is
FC21
= 0.25 +
FC21
3
(Area1i + Area2i)
i=1
15
where:
3
(Area
i=1
1i
FC21
= 12 [(
B1i LB1i) + (
B2i LB2i)
i=1
+ (B9i LB9i)]
(4)
where:
Bji = reduced uniform live load along beam Bj-i
LBji = length of beam Bj-i
As in step 1, a separate structural analysis could be performed to obtain a more accurate estimate of these column axial forces.
4. Determine the difference in axial forces calculated in
steps 2 and 3. For column C2-1, this force is
= FC21
FC21
FC21
(5)
5. Determine the additional upward axial force, compensating force, to be applied at the top of each column
segment. For column C2-1, this force is
3
fC21
fC21 = FC21
(6)
i=2
(3)
Table 1.
Example of Reduced Live Load Calculations
(a) Beams
Member
Length
ft
Tributary
Area
ft2
, Unreduced
Uniform L.L.
k/ft
Influence
Area
ft2
Permissible
Reduction
Factor
, Reduced
Uniform L.L.
k/ft
30
20
200
200
0.500
0.750
600
1200
0.862
0.683
0.431
0.512
B1-i, B2-i
B9-i
for i = 1 to 3
Member
F, Unreduced
Axial L.L.
kips
Influence
Area
ft2
Permissible
Reduction
Factor
F , reduced
Axial L.L.
kips
F , Reduced
Axial L.L.
kips
F = F F
kips
f, Compensating
Force (Upward)
kips
C2-1
C2-2
C2-3
67.50
45.00
22.50
3600
2400
1200
0.500
0.556
0.683
33.75
25.02
15.37
54.15
36.10
18.05
20.40
11.08
2.68
9.32
8.40
2.68
Member
F, Unreduced
Axial L.L.
kips
Influence
Area
ft2
Permissible
Reduction
Factor
F , reduced
Axial L.L.
kips
F , Reduced
Axial L.L.
kips
F = F F
kips
f, Compensating
Force (Upward)
kips
C2-1
C2-2
C2-3
69.48
46.45
23.37
3600
2400
1200
0.500
0.556
0.683
34.74
25.83
15.96
55.71
37.21
18.78
20.97
11.38
2.82
9.59
8.56
2.82
ABSTRACT
The use of substandard and mismatched bolts continues to
be a major concern to bridge owners in the United States.
Based on FHWA-sponsored research at the University of
Texas, supplemental specifications were developed and issued
modifying fastener manufacturing, testing, and installation
procedures.
Nearly all bridge bolts are designed for dynamic loading.
They are designed to resist either tension forces and/or shear
forces. Fatigue concerns govern bolts designed for cyclic tension forces. Cyclic shear forces require slip critical connections. Both loading conditions require bolts to be installed
to a minimum preload.
The FHWA recommendations were developed in order to
assure the ability of bolts to achieve this preload. Minimum
nut strength is increased, maximum bolt strength is reduced,
thread fit tolerance is reduced, additional rotational-capacity
testing is required, and additional testing, documentation,
handling and shipping requirements are imposed. The rationale for these new FHWA provisions are discussed.
Finally, slip critical joints depend upon friction between
faying surfaces to develop strength. Values of slip resistance
or coefficient of friction for various paints and coatings must
be determined by testing. Bolt design parameters depend
upon minimum values of tested coatings.
INTRODUCTION
The behavior of bolted joints depends on a large number of
variables many of which are rather difficult to predict.
Depending on the usage, and concerns for protection from
the environment, different materials and acceptance requirements have been specified by the users depending on their
current knowledge. In spite of over 30 years of experience
with high-strength fasteners, there continue to be problems
in ensuring that fasteners are of adequate quality and are
installed properly. There are concerns that bolted connections in many bridges built over the past 10 years or so might
not meet acceptance criteria if they were subjected to test
requirements of today.
These concerns can be eliminated when fasteners are
tional U.S. units of measurement with fasteners produced in accordance with ASTM specifications using
metric units of measurement seems to suggest that metric fasteners with loose fit and minimum hardness of
89 HRB are less prone to stripping, whereas other
fasteners with tighter thread fit tolerances and minimum hardness of 78 HRB are prone to stripping. The
study revealed that fasteners made using the metric
standard with slightly greater nut strength (approximately two percent), as evidenced by hardness numbers, are more forgiving, even with a loose fit. It is
important to recognize that failures resulting from
thread stripping must be avoided because such failures
could go undetected during the service life of the
bridge, resulting in possible failure of bridge members
and related consequences to the travelling public. However, it may be noted that even though the minimum
hardness requirement of 89 HRB for non-heat treated
nuts 2, C, C3 and D is specified in the FHWA supplemental specifications, stripping failure can still occur
if there are only a few threads in the grip. For that reason it is desirable to ensure that a minimum three to
five complete threads are in the grip. Bolts with more
threads in the grip have greater ductility and lower
apparent tensile strength.
3. Some of the test requirements for bolts, nuts, washers
and fastener assemblies have also been modified by the
FHWA supplemental specifications. Proof load testing
of bolts and nuts is required. Proof load is the tension
applied load which the fasteners must resist without
evidence of any permanent deformation. This test provides a check on the yielding behavior of the material
since the elongation is measured during testing. If galvanized fasteners are used, proof load testing is required
after galvanizing. Wedge testing of bolts and hardness
testing of washers is also required, but in the case of
galvanized fasteners these tests are required after galvanizing. For galvanized fasteners, zinc thickness measurements are also needed. Zinc thickness measurements
on bolts and nuts are important for proper fit and to
control overtapping. Performance capability of these
fasteners together in an assembly is checked via
rotational-capacity testing for either black or galvanized
units. Rotational-capacity testing is required prior to
shipping as well as at the job site. Job site testing is
important but only a minimal amount is needed.
Rotational-capacity testing prior to shipping can be
done either by the manufacturer or the distributor, as
appropriate.
The purpose of the rotational-capacity testing is to
verify the torque tension relationship in order to ensure
(a) efficiency of lubrication, (b) adequate installation
ductility and (c) adequate resistance to stripping. Essentially the rotational-capacity test requires measurement
the faying surfaces in achieving slip critical joints using highstrength fastener assemblies.
The design of a bolted connection may be governed by
bearing on the connected material, shear in the shank, or
thread plane of the fastener or the slip resistance of the contact surfaces of the connection. In nearly all bridge design,
because of dynamic loading, slip resistance of the joint is
the critical criterion. Bolts are seldom used in tension in
bridge structures.
Slip resistance of the contact of faying surfaces is a function of the surface condition. The design specification recognizes three classes of surface conditions:
Class AClean mill scale surfaces and surfaces coated
with a Class A coating.
Class BBlasted surfaces and surfaces coated with a
Class B coating.
Class CGalvanized and roughened surfaces.
The most economical joint design generally occurs using
Class B surfaces. These are either uncoated blasted surfaces
or surfaces coated with a Class B coating. Where the structure is to be unpainted, it makes sense to specify uncoated
blasted surfaces. Where the structure is to be painted, the
structure should be designed with painted faying surfaces
using Class B coatings.
Coatings are classified as Class A or B based on slip coefficient testing performed in accordance with Appendix A of
the Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325
or A490 Bolts. The essential variables for the test are paint
formulation, cure time, dry film thickness, and thinner used.
Actual coating application procedures that deviate from the
essential variables beyond certain limits require retesting.
Because there are many combinations of essential variables,
choosing the proper values when performing the test is very
important.
Part of the test lasts 42 days; to retest is costly and can
delay a project.
As of the summer of 1990, very little testing of candidate
Class B coatings has been performed. Since bridges are currently being designed using the Class B coatings, it is important that testing proceed at a faster rate. Steps are currently
underway to increase the number of paints that have been
tested. Hopefully, by the spring of 1991, the situation relative to the testing will improve and designers will be using
the higher slip values with the full knowledge that there are
an adequate number of paints available to meet the need.
REFERENCES
1. J. A. Yura, K. H. Frank, D. Polyzois. High-Strength Bolts
for Bridges. Publication No. FHWA/RD-87/088. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration.
2. G. L. Kulak, J. W. Fisher, and J. H. A. Struik. Guide to
Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints. A Wiley-
- to 1-in.
Brinell
Min. Max.
248
311
Rockwell C
Min. Max.
24
33
C2. Nuts
1. Nuts to be galvanized (hot dip or mechanically
galvanized) shall be heat treated grade 2H, DH,
or DH3.
2. Plain (ungalvanized) nuts shall be grades 2, C,
D, or C3 with a minimum Rockwell hardness
of 89 HRB (or Brinell hardness 180 HB), or heat
treated grades 2H, DH, or DH3. (The hardness
requirements for grades 2, C, D, and C3 exceed
the current AASHTO/ASTM requirements.)
1
2
5
8
Req. installation
tension (kips)
12 19 28 39 51 56 71 85 103
Turn test
tension (kips)
14 22 32 45 59 64 82 98 118
7
8
10
11
INTRODUCTION
ecent studies have pointed to the behavior of beam-column
connections as having an important effect on stiffness and
strength of steel frames,1,2 and considerable work has been
done to develop analysis methods intended to include not
only member, but also connection behavior.3,4
Design methods as outlined in the AISC Allowable
Stress5 and LRFD6 Specifications authorize inclusion of
connection effects under the heading of Type 3 in the
former, and Partially Restrained (PR) in the latter.
In both analysis and design including connection effects,
connection behavior must be known. For typical beam-tocolumn connections of building frames, voluminous, if fragmentary, data are available.7,8,9 Attempts at rational prediction of connection behavior have been less than successful,
but empirical expressions, based on test data, of the relation
between the applied moment M and the resulting connection rotation are available. Among these, the most commonly used are those of Frye and Morris,10 shown in Fig. 1.
The deterministic moment-rotation curves shown in Fig. 1,
and others similar, are often based on one single test, and
do not account for the scatter which may inevitably be
expected of connection behavior, specially if field-bolted.
Little is available in the way of replicate tests which might
provide a database necessary for statistical prediction of connection behavior. Until such information about reliability of
connection behavior is provided, its inclusion in design or
analysis rests, at best, on a shaky basis.
This paper reports a study the aim of which is to provide a
statistical database for the purpose of establishing the
degree of reliability of strength and stiffness for one connection type. To this end, nominally identical framing connection specimens from different sources were tested under
identical conditions. The individual moment-rotation curves
obtained from these tests form the database for probabilistic determination of the reliability with which specified
12
Table 1.
Test Program
Test
Series
No. of
Fabricators
Connection
Type
No. of
Specimens
No. of
Connections
Angle
Thickness
B-Bolt
12
24
1
4
F-Bolt
12
24
1
4
F-Bolt
12
3
8
of each connection.
In addition, one fabricator supplied us with a set of six
specimens with 38-in. thick web angles with F-bolts, attached
to previously tested members. Table 1 summarizes the test
specimens. This program gave us the opportunity to assess
the following factors:
The ratio of moment to shear transmitted by the connection might have considerable influence on its behavior, but
was not a variable in our study. It was held constant at the
value of shear span shown in Fig. 2.
It should be noted that these double web-angle connections are commonly used as shear connections. Our discussion only concerns their rotational characteristics and therefore none of the conclusions should be interpreted as
addressing their reliability in transmitting shear. We are here
only concerned with the way in which they can be expected
to rotate under applied moment.
The test configuration used in this study, consisting of
beams and column stub as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, should
not be construed as suggesting that web angles should be used
to provide lateral resistance for unbraced frames. This specimen type was used here only to provide a simple connection
test setup.
13
Series 1
Figure 4 shows monotonic moment-rotation curves obtained
from 24 connections in 12 specimens obtained from six different fabricators. As might be expected of connections with
non-tensioned bolts of random location within 116-in. oversize holes, the range of rotational behavior is vast. These
results are sufficiently unpredictable that no reliance whatever can be placed on the rotational resistance of such webangle connections with bearing bolts. No further reference
will be made to the results of Test Series 1.
Series 2
Moment-rotation curves from 22 connections of 11 specimens of Series 2, obtained either from monotonic, or as envelope curves from cyclic tests, are shown in Fig. 5. Although
showing considerable variation, a systematic random pattern
is seen here for both stiffness and strength. Non-linearity
is mainly due to yielding of the outstanding angle legs, and
bolt slip occurs only under rotations well in excess of admissible values.
Series 3
14
Table 2.
Sample Data for Series 2
Ksec (kip-in./radian)
Mel (kip-in.)
Ms (kip-in.)
Test
No.
Loading
Type
os
rs
is
rs
is
rs
1
15
C
C
30,000
46,500
33,000
52,000
168
100
182
167
183
110
200
185
Calibrated wrench
Specified tension
11
14
C
M
80,000
59,500
72,500
39,500
175
160
240
218
172
200
212
220
not available
23
24
C
M
69,000
75,000
74,000
66,000
140
150
179
195
135
133
179
195
Twist-off
13
8
C
M
40,000
50,000
168
200
210
225
Turn-of-nut
(no data recorded)
3
4
M
C
35,000
37,000
34,000
32,500
120
140
135
142
172
155
175
160
Twist-off
6
16
M
M
47,500
24,242
35,000
25,806
175
130
185
165
150
161
118
183
Twist-off
Fabricator
Table 3.
Sample Data Test Series 3
Fabricator
Test
No.
Loading
Type
25
26
27
28
29
30
M
C
C
M
C
M
Ksec (kip-in./radian)
Ms (kip-in.)
is
rs
is
rs
is
rs
95,000
135,000
89,000
95,000
105,000
99,000
115,000
89,000
112,500
115,000
130,000
100,000
338
265
395
265
360
370
338
270
350
230
325
365
345
280
360
243
370
370
345
280
340
280
335
378
Twist-off
Mel (kip-in.)
15
Series 2
Strength
The strengths Mel and Ms, defined in Fig. 7, were subjected
to the statistical treatment outlined, and the results are summarized in Table 4. An ANOVA showed to within a 95 percent confidence level that the strength of all 22 specimens
belonged to one population, whose characteristic values X
and S are shown in Table 4, and that one might expect 95
out of the next 100 specimens to have strengths in excess
__ 1 n
X = xi ; n = Sample Size
ni = 1
S=
__
1 n
(xi X)2
ni = 1
16
Table 4.
Composite Sample Statistics Test Series 2
Series 2
Sample Size: n = 22
Sample mean
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
Stiffness
Strength
Ksec (kip-in./radian)
Ms (kip-in.)
Mel (kip-in.)
48,093
17,710
36.8%
174
32
18.4%
165
35
21.2%
min Ms = 99
min Mel = 89
Table 5.
Population Dependent Statistics Test Series 2
Population A
Population B
Ksec (kip-in./radian)
Ksec (kip-in./radian)
1, 4, 5, 6
n = 14
2, 3
n=8
Sample mean
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
37,325
8,737
23.4%
66,938
12,704
18.9%
Series 2
Fabricator
Sample size
Table 6.
Statistics Test Series 3
Series 3
Sample Size: n = 12
Sample mean
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
Stiffness
Strength
Ksec (kip-in./radian)
Ms (kip-in.)
Mel (kip-in.)
107,667
15,091
14.2%
328
44
13.4%
323
52
16.1%
min Ms = 208
17
18
the observed initial stiffnesses, the stiffness at the 95 percent confidence level is close to the measured values, but
the strength under serviceability is much lower than any
observed value.
It is clear that in any case the choice of either a deterministic formulation such as that of Frye and Morris, or a single
test case, may lead to connection strength and stiffness
grossly on the unsafe side of values in the actual structure.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the test results and analyses which have been
presented, we can draw the following conclusions for rotational behavior of the web angle connections under
consideration:
1. The bearing-bolt connections showed unpredictable
behavior; they are not recommended for joints intended
to offer rotational constraint.
2. The friction-bolt connections exhibited a systematic pattern of behavior, whose non-linearity was caused
largely by yielding for thin web angles, and by bolt slip
for thicker angles.
3. The scatter of stiffness is much less for the stronger
than for the weaker connections; on this basis, it may
be expected that the statistical variation of joints
designed as moment-resistant may be more favorable
than that of the web-angle connections.
4. The strength of the connections, while showing considerable scatter, varied insignificantly among fabri-
19
INTRODUCTION
he basic provisions related to design and evaluation of
bending members in the structural steel specifications, either
according to Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)1 or
Allowable Stress Design (ASD),2 typically are first presented
from the point of view that the magnitude of bending moment
is constant throughout the entire distance between points of
lateral support for the compression flange. Then, to account
for variations in moment, one multiplies the expression associated with constant moment by a correction factor Cb to
arrive at a result which predicts the actual bending strength
(or allowable stress) for a specific moment gradient. What one
accomplishes is to account for changes that occur in the force
within the compression flange of the beam throughout the
unbraced length.
A procedure for selecting beams in situations involving
non-uniform moment is suggested within the prelude to the
charts of design moments in the LRFD manual, but only in
extremely brief fashion. The purpose of this paper is to review
the principles associated with the application of Cb, and to
elaborate on the procedure briefly suggested in the LRFD
manual for selecting beams which experience non-uniform
moment (Cb 1).
BENDING STABILITY
Basic notions of column strength apply to stability-related
issues in the strength of sections in bending. With a beam,
however, only a portion of the cross section resists the compression. The key issues are still the restraint provided at the
boundaries of the element resisting the compression and the
distance between the locations of lateral support.
The magnitude of the compressive force within a beam
cross section, which will nearly always vary with position
along the span, may be determined by inspection of the
moment diagram. Since resistance to bending is composed of
the internal C (compressive force) and T (tensile force) couple, the magnitude of C at any location along a span equals
the applied bending moment divided by the internal moment
arm (Fig. 1). Thus, the variation in force within the compression flange has the same shape as the moment diagram.
Patrick D. Zuraski is assistant professor of civil engineering,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
20
(1)
and for ASD the following usually applies (unless Eq. F1-6
controls)
Fb = Cb {ASD Eq. F1-7 or F1-8, for constant moment}
0.6Fy
(2)
where
2
M1
M1
Cb = 1.75 + 1.05 + 0.3 2.3
M2
M2
(3)
21
12 10 Cb
0.60Fy
d
Lb
Af
3
(4)
The entry point for the beam curves on page 3-66 of the LRFD
Manual is Lb = 20 ft and Mu / Cb = 500 / 1.17 = 427 kip-ft. A
W2484 is found to be the lightest section, providing Mu of
444 kip-ft at Lb = 20 ft, when Cb = 1. Since Cb equals 1.17,
the design strength of this section actually is 444 1.17 = 519
kip-ft (> 500 kip-ft required, o.k.) as long as bMp 500
kip-ft. By inspection of page 3-66 one may note the bMp
value for a W2484 exceeds 500 kip-ft (605 kip-ft, actual value),
LRFD Procedures
For LRFD design, however, it is more appropriate to divide
the required moment strength Mu by Cb (rather than dividing
it into the unbraced length) and use Lb and Mu / Cb as the entry
point in the beam curves. This procedure, suggested on page
3-56 of the LRFD manual, may be justified by observing the
equation (LRFD F1-3) which usually governs for the most
economical section
Lb Lp
Mn = Cb Mp (Mp Mr)
Mp
Lr Lp
(5)
22
The entry point for the beam curves on page 3-70 of the LRFD
manual is Lb = 20 ft and Mu / Cb = 500 / 1.75 = 286 kip-ft. Any
section listed above and to the right of this entry point is
acceptable, if it additionally satisfies bMp 500 kip-ft. The
first two beams encountered are a W1667 and W2168, but
these sections are unacceptable because they have maximum
design strength bMp equal to 351 and 432 kip-ft, respectively,
and 500 kip-ft is required. Having used Mu / Cb as the effective moment for the entry point, one must not forget that it
frequently is not possible to take full advantage of Cb. The
problem one encounters is illustrated for the W2168 in Fig.
7. With Cb = 1 and Lb = 20 ft, the design strength of the beam
is 303 kip-ft (page 3-68 of LRFD manual), and 303 1.75 >
500. The maximum design strength (bMp) of the section is
only 432 kip-ft, however, and using the full value of Cb
elevates the design strength of the W2168 to an unattainable
level.
To find an acceptable beam, though, one need only continue to move straight up along the line Lb = 20 ft, discarding
several unacceptable sections (W2468, W2173, W1677,
and W1876), until eventually reaching a W2476. It provides Mn of 386 kip-ft at Lb = 540 kip-ft, which is greater
than the 500 kip-ft required. (Although Cb has a value of 1.75
for the actual moment gradient, the maximum effective value
is only 540 / 386 = 1.40.) Use a W2476, Fy = 36 ksi.
=
= 1.12
Mr (Fy Fr )S
(Fy Fr )
(6)
WHEN Cb > Mp / Mr
23
Example 3
Given:
With Cb > 1.55 (Mp / Mr for 36 ksi steel), one may proceed
directly to the Load Factor Design Selection Table, searching
for bMp > 352 kip-ft and Lr > 15 ft. Use a W2455, Fy = 36
ksi (bMp > 352 kip-ft and Lr = 16.6 ft).
If one elects to use the beam curves on page 3-70 of the
LRFD manual, the entry point is Lb = 15 ft and Mu / Cb =
352 / 1.75 = 201 kip-ft. Similar to the situation illustrated in
Example 2, several beams must be discarded because their
maximum design strength bMp is less than Mu = 352 kip-ft.
In the example in the LRFD manual, although inadequate
sections are appropriately disregarded, the lightest section
was not selected. A W2162 was selected instead of a
W2455. While sorting through the various beams that must
be discarded when using an effective moment (Mu / Cb) obtained with a large Cb, it is easy enough to overlook a section
that is actually satisfactory. On the other hand, by using the
selection table, as illustrated previously within this example,
the path to finding the W2455 is very direct. (Incidentally,
on page 3-70 at Lb = 15 ft and Cb = 1, Mn for a W2455 is
242 kip-ft, and 1.75 242 > 352 kip-ft, o.k.)
A comment is in order regarding a statement appearing in
the example in the LRFD manual. With regard to using an
entry point based on an effective moment, the example states,
Any beam listed above and to the right of the point satisfies
the design moment. It should read, instead, Any beam listed
above and to the right of the point, and with bMp > Mu , will
have a strength which exceeds the design moment. Although
the example acted in accordance with the latter version of the
With Cb > 1.55 and 36 ksi steel, one may proceed directly to
the Load Factor Design Selection Table, searching for
bMp 406 kip-ft and Lr 16 ft. One obtains a W2462, with
bMp = 413 kip-ft and Lr = 17.2 ft.
Alternatively, electing to use the beam curves, one enters
24
25
INTRODUCTION
26
p2xO2
=0
rO2
(1)
where:
Px = 2EIx / L2
Py = 2EIy / L2
Pz =
(2)
Cw 2
1
2 GJ + E
L2
rO
J = bt3 / 3
(3)
(5)
1
2 ECw
2 GJ +
2
L
rO
and the governing critical load will be the lowest load P. For
columns in which the shear center and centroid are coincident, i.e., doubly symmetric shapes such as a wide flange,
buckling will occur by the usual bending about one of the
principal axes (flexural buckling) or by twisting (torsion)
about the shear center (centroid). Combined flexural-torsional buckling does not occur since there are three independent solutions resulting in the fact that the twisting and
flexural modes do not interfere (interact) with one another. In
addition, torsional buckling will not generally control the
design unless the member is relatively short, and this is not
usually encountered in practice. In fact, material yielding may
result before torsional buckling can occur in these sections.
When the cross-section has only one axis of symmetry, say
the y axis, the shear center lies on that axis and xO = 0. For
this case the cubic equation for the critical buckling load
reduces to
p2yO2
(Px P) (Py P)(Pz P) 2 = 0
rO
(4)
(6)
p2yO2
=0
rO2
(7)
1
[P + Py
(Pz + Py )2 4kPz Py ]
2k z
(8)
where:
27
k = 1 (yO / rO)2
and
(9)
rx =
Ix /A
Iy /A
ry =
EQUIVALENT RADIUS OF GYRATION CONCEPT
Converting the expression for the critical torsional buckling
load Pz given by Eq. 2 to a critical stress yields
Fz =
1
Ip
2ECw
GJ +
L2
(10)
EC
L2
GJ + 2 2w
L
EIp
2
Cw
GJL2
EIp +
2
Ip
28
0.04JL2 Cw
+
Ip
Ip
(11)
rt =
(12)
0.04JL2 Cw
+
Ip
Ip
(13)
yields
1
1
1
+
2 =
2 +
2ry 2
rft 2rt
1 1 + YO
2r 2 2r 2 rt ry rO
y
(14)
Fig. 2. rft vs. KL for double angles 841 LLBB, 38-in. spacing.
Determine the design strength using the AISC LRFD Specification for a pair of 5338 angles (long legs back to back,
3 -in. spacing) with KL = KL = 14 ft. Use A36 steel and
8
x
y
assume two intermediate connections.
Solution:
rz = 0.654 in.
ry = 1.23 in.
Ag = 5.72 in.2
Fig. 3. rft vs. KL for double angles 3338, equal legs, 0-in.
spacing.
29
KL
=
r m
c =
12(14)
2
1.19 + (85.63 50) = 145.60
145.60
36
= 1.633 (AISC LRFD Eq. E2-4)
29,000
since c
Q = 1.633
Given:
Example 2
Given:
Determine the design strength using the AISC LRFD Specifications for a pair of 5312 angles (long legs back to back,
0-in. spacing) with KLx = 20 ft. and KLy = 15 ft. Use A36 steel
and assume 2 intermediate connections.
From the AISC LRFD Manual Part 1:
rz = 0.648 in.
rx = 1.59 in.
Determine the design strength using the AISC LRFD Specification for a WT10.525 with KLx = KLy = 14 ft. Use A36
steel.
Solution:
Solution:
Ag = 7.5 in.2
Ag = 7.36 in.2
rx = 3.30 in.
14(12)
1.20
36
= 1.570 (AISC LRFD Eq. E2-4)
29,000
since c
Q = 1.570
a = (15)(12) / 3 = 60 in.
a / ri = 60 / 0.648 = 92.6 > 50. Therefore, a modified slenderness ratio using AISC LRFD Eq. E4-2 must be computed.
KL
=
r m
Example 3
Pu = 57 kip
Qs = 1.0
ry = 1.12 in
0.877
Fcr =
(36) = 9.93 ksi
2
(1.88)
12(15)
2
1.11 + (92.6 50) = 167.66
Pu = 77 kip
Example 4
c =
167.66
36
= 1.88 (AISC LRFD Eq. E2-4)
29,000
30
Given:
Determine the allowable load using the AISC ASD Specification for a pair of 7434 angles (long legs back to back,
3 -in. spacing) with KL = KL = 12 ft. Use A36 steel.
8
x
y
Solution:
Ag = 15.4 in.2
rx = 2.22 in.
22E / Fy =
22(29,000) / 36
= 126.1
Cc =
Since KL / r < Cc, use AISC ASD Eq. E2-1.
(92.31)2
1
36
2(126.1)2
Fa =
= 13.93 ksi
5 3(92.31) (92.31)3
+
3 8(126.1) 8(126.1)3
Or using AISC ASD Table C-36 (p. 3-16):
For KL / r = 92.31, Fa = 13.93 ksi
P = Fa Ag = (13.93)(15.4) = 214.5 kip, say 214 kip
Using the AISC ASD column load tables (p. 3-68) for
verification
P = 214 kip
Example 5
Given:
Determine the allowable load using the AISC ASD Specification for a WT1566 with KLx = 40 ft. and KLy = 20 ft. Use
GR50 steel.
Solution:
Ag = 19.4 in.2
rx = 4.66 in.
22E
=
QFy
22(29,000)
= 131.31
(0.664)(50)
where Qs = Q
Since KL / r < Cc, use AISC ASD Eq. A-B5-11.
(113.21)2
(0.664) 1
(50)
2(131.31)2
Fa =
= 10.92 ksi
5 3(113.21) (113.21)3
+
3 8(131.31) 8(131.31)3
P = Fa Ag = (10.92)(19.4) = 211.85 kip, say 212 kip
Using the AISC ASD column load tables (p. 3-88) for
verification
P = 211 kip
CONCLUSIONS
Flexural-torsional buckling is a concept unfamiliar to most
designers, and yet it can be the predominant factor in the
design of singly symmetric compression members. A detailed
explanation of this buckling mode cannot be found in most
elementary steel design texts, and thus the seasoned designer,
as well as the steel design student, are left to using a series of
complicated design equations as a means of evaluating this
phenomenon. While the column load tables in the AISC
manuals deal effectively with this buckling mode, a student
or novice designer would have some difficulty duplicating
these tabular values. For grades of steel other than A36 or
GR50, these designers would be left to their own means to
consider the flexural-torsional contribution to the design
process.
The introduction of the equivalent radius of gyration for
flexural-torsional buckling (and torsional buckling to some
degree) is an effective way of introducing the concept of this
buckling mode to the steel design student or the novice
designer. The tables associated with this equivalent radius of
gyration provide an excellent supplement to the AISC manuals and an easy way to introduce this buckling mode into the
usual design procedure for compression members. With some
brief initial explanation of this buckling phenomena and how
it interacts with the usual flexural buckling considerations (as
presented herein), the introduction of the equivalent radius of
gyration for flexural-torsional buckling blends right into
usual design considerations and computations.
NOMENCLATURE
The symbols used in this paper follow the usage of the AISC
ASD Manual, 9th Edition and the AISC LRFD Manual, 1st
Edition.
REFERENCES
1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design Manual of Steel Construction, 1st
ed., Chicago: AISC, 1986.
2. American Institute of Steel Construction, Allowable
Stress Design Manual of Steel, 9th ed., Chicago: AISC,
1989.
3. Zahn, Cynthia J. and Iwankiw, Nestor R., Flexural-Tor-
31
sional Buckling and Its Implications for Steel Compression Member Design, AISC Engineering Journal, (4th
Quarter 1989), Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 143154.
4. Bleich, Freidrich, Buckling Strength of Metal Structures,
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1952, pp. 104
138.
5. Gaylord, E. H. and Gaylord, C. N., Design of Steel Structures, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.,
1957, pp. 132137.
6. Goodier, J. N., The Buckling of Compressed Bars by
Torsion and Flexure, Cornell University Experiment Station Bulletin, No. 27. Ithaca, N.Y., 1941.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
INTRODUCTION
The bracing systems that are the subject of this work are
structural components or assemblies that are intended to
prevent buckling or reduce the effective unsupported length
of columns, towers, truss chords, and other members or
structures loaded in compression. (In some applications, the
same system is also used to resist externally applied loads.)
Widely varying criteria, with little or no rational basis, are in
use for the design of these bracing systems.
It is generally recognized that bracing systems need stiffness (to limit deformation of the braced components or structures and to cause them to behave in the intended manner) and
strength (to provide the necessary stabilizing forces). In many
situations, the stiffness and strength requirements are related
to each other: reduced stiffness allows greater deformation,
which in turn results in increased force on the bracing.
Rigorous analysis to determine the required stiffness and
strength of bracing systems can be very complicated. Fortunately, rigorous analysis is rarely necessary. The simple,
approximate, bounded solution proposed in this paper is
applicable to most situations that designers are likely to face.
PROPOSED TECHNIQUE
The proposed technique is based on the fact that, typically,
there is a clear and direct relationship between the displaced
configuration of the braced element or structure and the
magnitude of the stabilizing force that must be provided by
the bracing system. It is important to note that the displaced
configuration in the preceding statement is the configuration
after all displacements have occurred, including those caused
by deformation of the bracing system. While bracing stiffness
is not mentioned explicitly, it is significant in that it affects
the displaced configuration. The proposed general procedure
for determining bracing forces for design consists of the
following steps:
1. Estimate the critical displaced geometry of the structure,
i.e., the geometry that results in the largest value of the
particular bracing force that is being determined. The
critical geometry may be different for different bracing
components; maximum forces on the different components may not occur simultaneously. The estimated displaced configuration should include the effects of initial
R. Shankar Nair, PhD, PE is a principal with the architecture/
engineering firm of RTKL Associates Inc. in Baltimore, MD.
45
(1)
where Pa, Pb, a, and b are axial forces and skew angles
(relative to a common datum) of the member segments adjacent to the brace point, as indicated in Fig. 1. The rules of
statics also result in the following shear forces in the bracing
system due to forces from the braced member:
Sa = Pa a
(2a)
Sb = Pb b
(2b)
(3)
46
47
Engineering
Journal
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.
INTRODUCTION
same setting. Load was applied via two 100 kip capacity
hydraulic jacks which allowed the load on each side of the
truss to be kept balanced. Each specimen was monitored with
eight linear strain gages and displacements were measured in
two orthogonal directions at the center of the specimens. In
addition, each hydraulic jack had a corresponding load cell
and digital readout to allow visual monitoring of the load
during the test. All data was recorded by a computer except
for the load cell readings which were taken manually. The
eight strain gages were located in pairs to account for differential strains through the leg thickness as shown in Fig. 3. The
displacement transducers were located as shown in Fig. 4.
Transducers 1 and 2 monitored the movement of the center
of the specimen relative to the reaction frame, and transducers
3 and 4 measured the movement of the top and bottom joints
of the specimen relative to the reaction frame. Based on the
four displacement readings, the displacements at the center
of the specimen in two orthogonal directions can be determined. It should be noted that it was assumed that the truss
did not deform out-of-plane and no provisions were made to
measure the torsional rotation at the center of the angle.
Calculation of Member Forces from Strain Readings:
The method used to calculate member forces from strain
readings involves numerical integration of the stress over the
crosssectional area and was developed to handle the inelastic
failures encountered for the specimens tested. An advantage
of this method is that it easily allows the inclusion of residual
stresses in the analysis. This is accomplished by combining
49
Table 1.
Test Specimens
Group
Size
L/r
End Conditions
Test Nos.
1
2
3
4
5
134 134 18
134 134 316
2 2 18
2 2 316
212 212 316
98
99
85
86
87
double bolt
double bolt
double bolt
double bolt
double bolt
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
6, 7, 8, 33, 35
9, 10, 11, 12, 13
20, 21, 22, 43, 44
18, 19, 50, 51, 52
6
7
8
9
10
134 134 18
134 134 316
2 2 18
2 2 316
212 212 316
92
93
80
81
65
single bolt
single bolt
single bolt
single bolt
single bolt
the residual stress diagram with the stress distribution calculated from the measured strains, and using elastic-perfectlyplastic material properties. The residual stress distribution
shown in Fig. 5 was assumed. A sensitivity analysis was
performed where the maximum value of the residual stress
was varied from 0 to 0.3Fy where Fy is the actual yield stress
of the specimen. It was found that the effect on the calculated
axial force was on the order of five percent or less for most
50
51
Fig. 10. Member force vs. strain and displacement Specimen 42.
52
Table 2.
Tests Results for Double Bolted Specimens
Dimensions
76
Fy
(6)
Failure
Mode
(7)
Failure
Load
(kips)
(8)
n*
(9)
49.9
52.7
49.5
50.0
49.4
10.76
10.47
10.80
10.75
10.81
LG
LG
LM
LM
LG
11.07
14.87
14.30
13.86
13.08
0.480
0.607
0.638
0.595
0.588
8.85
9.11
8.92
9.02
9.11
47.6
48.7
47.7
51.2
49.7
11.02
10.89
11.00
10.62
10.78
FM
FM
FG
FM
FM
22.08
21.81
21.03
19.22
18.03
0.701
0.691
0.667
0.573
0.543
0.133
0.131
0.135
0.131
0.133
14.82
15.06
14.62
15.39
14.79
47.0
46.4
47.1
49.7
47.8
11.09
11.16
11.07
10.78
10.99
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
11.55
10.98
14.50
11.87
14.50
0.485
0.473
0.598
0.467
0.600
1.992
1.987
1.985
2.001
2.008
0.200
0.202
0.195
0.200
0.198
9.96
9.84
10.18
10.00
10.17
47.4
45.8
47.6
45.8
45.5
11.04
11.23
11.02
11.23
11.27
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
21.91
19.85
21.27
19.08
18.45
0.611
0.569
0.607
0.548
0.538
2.487
2.483
2.504
2.508
2.512
0.199
0.199
0.203
0.200
0.209
12.50
12.48
12.33
12.54
12.02
45.7
47.5
48.8
47.5
47.8
11.24
11.03
10.88
11.03
10.99
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
25.33
24.76
26.50
24.95
26.10
0.583
0.549
0.557
0.545
0.543
b/t
(4)
Fy
(ksi)
(5)
0.139
0.141
0.136
0.140
0.135
12.45
12.20
12.74
12.38
12.85
1.762
1.767
1.767
1.768
1.794
0.199
0.194
0.198
0.196
0.197
9
10
11
12
13
1.971
1.973
1.974
2.016
1.967
20
21
22
43
44
18
19
50
51
52
Test
(1)
Width
(in.)
(2)
Thickness
(in.)
(3)
1
2
3
4
5
1.731
1.720
1.732
1.733
1.735
6
7
8
33
34
members) are accounted for by the use of an effective slenderness ratio, (KL/r). The manual gives six formulas to calculate KL/r, three formulas are for non-slender members
L/r < 120, namely for concentric loading at both ends, concentric loading at one end and eccentric at the other, and for
eccentric loading at both ends. The other three formulas are
for slender members L/r > 120, where elastic buckling prevails and rotational end restraint conditions control the design. One formula applies when the member is unrestrained
against rotation at both ends, the second when the member is
restrained at one end and unrestrained at the other, and the
third applies when both ends are restrained. Local buckling
53
Table 3.
Tests Results for Single Bolted Specimens
Dimensions
b/t
(4)
Fy
(ksi)
(5)
13.15
13.23
12.90
12.96
12.87
51.2
49.5
51.2
51.0
52.2
76
Fy
(6)
Failure
Mode
(7)
Failure
Load
(kips)
(8)
n*
(9)
10.62
10.80
10.62
10.64
10.52
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
10.80
9.96
10.07
10.42
9.89
0.471
0.453
0.429
0.450
0.414
FT
FT
FT
FT
15.16
16.96
17.49
13.49
0.467
0.511
0.507
0.419
LT
LT
LT
LT
10.26
8.74
9.53
11.21
0.378
0.345
0.330
0.418
Test
(1)
Width
(in.)
(2)
Thickness
(in.)
(3)
53
54
55
56
57
1.749
1.747
1.754
1.749
1.751
0.133
0.132
0.136
0.135
0.136
23
24
35
36
37
1.788
1.769
1.778
1.776
0.195
0.202
0.207
0.190
9.17
8.76
8.59
9.35
49.2
49.3
49.8
50.4
10.84
10.82
10.77
10.71
1.985
1.976
2.001
1.967
0.143
0.138
0.145
0.139
13.88
14.32
13.80
14.15
49.6
48.1
51.7
50.8
10.79
10.96
10.57
10.66
26
27
28
38
39
29
31
40
41
42
1.984
1.998
1.995
1.998
0.200
0.196
0.197
0.190
9.92
10.19
10.13
10.52
49.2
46.8
46.0
46.1
10.84
11.11
11.21
11.19
FT
FT
FT
FT
19.33
15.98
18.22
18.10
0.521
0.458
0.530
0.543
45
46
47
48
49
2.480
2.501
2.505
2.498
2.483
0.202
0.203
0.197
0.194
0.198
12.28
12.32
12.72
12.88
12.54
47.4
48.1
48.1
47.7
49.8
11.04
10.96
10.96
11.00
10.77
LT
LT
LG
LT
LT
19.64
19.49
20.19
21.07
19.94
0.431
0.416
0.443
0.474
0.424
54
Table 4.
AISC-LRFD Predicted Failure Loads
for Double Bolted Specimens
AISC-LRFD
Failure Load
Manual
52
Load
(kips)
(5)
e = 0*
(kips)
(6)
e 0*
(kips)
(7)
Test
(1)
b/t
(2)
L/r
(3)
Actual
Failure
Load
(kips)
(4)
1
2
3
4
5
12.45
12.20
12.74
12.38
12.85
98
98
98
98
98
11.07
14.87
14.30
13.86
13.08
10.90
10.78
10.76
11.07
10.75
11.03
11.17
10.77
11.15
10.72
5.32
5.47
5.22
5.38
5.18
6
7
8
33
34
8.85
9.11
8.92
9.02
9.11
99
99
99
99
99
22.08
21.81
21.03
19.22
18.03
15.90
15.89
15.90
15.67
16.39
16.04
15.90
16.09
16.31
16.84
7.02
7.04
7.03
7.28
7.41
9
10
11
12
13
14.82
15.06
14.62
15.39
14.79
85
85
85
85
85
11.55
10.98
14.50
11.87
14.50
13.38
13.13
13.53
13.62
13.24
13.31
13.02
13.60
13.87
13.36
6.24
6.13
6.36
6.61
6.29
20
21
22
43
44
9.96
9.84
10.18
10.00
10.17
86
86
86
86
86
21.91
19.85
21.27
19.08
18.45
20.01
19.91
19.34
20.09
19.96
21.27
21.00
20.67
21.12
21.00
8.99
8.74
8.78
8.79
8.75
18
19
50
51
52
12.50
12.48
12.33
12.54
12.02
67
67
67
67
67
25.33
24.76
26.50
24.95
26.10
28.42
28.38
29.53
28.73
30.23
30.72
31.31
32.65
31.71
33.20
12.66
12.96
13.60
13.25
13.74
Specification (with and without the effect of the load eccentricity), and Manual 52 are given in Tables 4 and 5. In the
same tables the experimental failure loads are given.
The predicted allowable loads for the test specimens (with
and without the effect of the load eccentricity) based on the
AISC ASD Specification are given in Tables 6 and 7. In the
same tables the actual failure loads and the corresponding
factors of safety (Failure Load/Allowable Load) are given.
As can be noted from Tables 4 and 5, the nominal loads
calculated from Manual 52 are very close to or exceed the
actual failure loads. A similar conclusion can be reached by
examining the AISC LRFD Specification nominal loads for
the concentrically loaded struts. When the eccentricity of the
applied loads is taken into consideration, the AISC LRFD
Specification nominal loads are very conservative. As can be
noted from Tables 6 and 7, the safety factors are generally low
if one ignores the effect of the load eccentricity. However,
they are high if the effect of the load eccentricity is taken into
consideration in the manner described earlier.
One possible way to resolve the overdesign in the AISC
specifications is to consider the end restraint effect by using
an effective length factor less than one. Another issue, which
can be resolved more easily to get rid of the conservatism, is
not to add the worst case bending stresses due to load eccentricities that do not occur at the same point of the angle cross
section as suggested in the AISC Manual. It is more correct
to combine the axial and bending stresses at the angle tips and
heel and then to use the interaction equation to determine the
allowable load based on the most critical point.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this paper a test program for non-slender single angle
members with equal legs, utilizing a three-dimensional truss,
was briefly described. The test results were given and ana-
55
Table 5.
AISC-LRFD Predicted Failure Loads
for Single Bolted Specimens
Test
(1)
b/t
(2)
L/r
(3)
Actual
Failure
Load
(kips)
(4)
53
54
55
56
57
13.15
13.23
12.90
12.96
12.87
92
92
92
92
92
10.80
9.96
10.07
10.42
9.89
23
24
35
36
37
26
27
28
38
39
AISC-LRFD
Failure Load
Manual
52
Load
(kips)
(5)
e = 0*
(kips)
(6)
e 0*
(kips)
(7)
11.35
11.25
11.62
11.62
11.64
11.70
11.44
12.06
11.88
12.09
5.56
5.42
5.70
5.62
5.75
93
93
93
93
15.16
16.96
17.49
13.49
16.90
17.02
17.57
16.30
17.82
17.97
18.67
17.30
7.62
7.61
7.91
7.50
13.88
14.32
13.80
14.15
80
80
80
80
10.26
8.74
9.53
11.21
15.15
14.46
15.76
14.59
15.57
14.90
15.97
15.27
7.17
6.84
7.52
7.08
29
31
40
41
42
9.92
10.19
10.13
10.52
81
81
81
81
19.33
15.98
18.22
18.10
20.83
20.49
20.34
19.67
22.84
22.14
21.97
21.33
9.43
9.07
9.01
8.81
45
46
47
48
49
12.28
12.32
12.72
12.88
12.54
65
65
65
65
65
19.64
19.49
20.19
21.07
19.94
29.38
30.12
29.29
28.61
28.99
32.16
32.57
31.61
30.99
32.39
13.28
13.57
13.29
13.04
13.61
56
Table 6.
AISC Allowable Stress Predicted Failure Loads
for Double Bolted Specimens
e 0*
e = 0*
Test
(1)
Failure
Load
(kips)
(2)
Ra
(kips)
(3)
Safety
Factor
(4)
Ra
(kips)
(5)
Safety
Factor
(6)
1
2
3
4
5
11.07
14.87
14.30
13.86
13.08
6.76
6.83
6.60
6.83
6.57
1.64
2.18
2.17
2.03
1.99
2.91
2.99
2.84
2.94
2.83
3.80
4.97
5.04
4.71
4.62
6
7
8
33
34
22.08
21.81
21.03
19.22
18.03
9.83
9.74
9.86
9.98
10.32
2.25
2.24
2.13
1.93
1.75
3.93
3.92
3.94
4.07
4.16
5.62
5.56
5.34
4.72
4.33
9
10
11
12
13
11.55
10.98
14.50
11.87
14.50
8.08
7.89
8.26
8.41
8.11
1.43
1.39
1.76
1.41
1.79
3.30
3.22
3.37
3.43
3.31
3.50
3.41
4.30
3.46
4.38
20
21
22
43
44
21.91
19.85
21.27
19.08
18.45
12.98
12.80
12.61
12.86
12.78
1.69
1.55
1.69
1.48
1.44
5.01
4.87
4.91
4.93
4.90
4.37
4.08
4.33
3.87
3.77
18
19
50
51
52
25.33
24.76
26.50
24.95
26.10
18.28
18.66
19.44
18.85
20.20
1.39
1.33
1.36
1.32
1.29
6.86
7.00
7.35
7.13
7.52
3.69
3.54
3.61
3.50
3.47
57
Table 7.
AISC Allowable Stress Predicted Failure Loads
for SIngle Bolted Specimens
Test
(1)
Ra
(kips)
(3)
53
54
55
56
57
10.80
9.96
10.07
10.42
9.89
7.16
7.00
7.39
7.28
7.41
23
24
35
36
37
15.16
16.96
17.49
13.49
10.92
11.02
11.44
10.60
10.26
8.74
9.53
11.21
9.41
8.98
9.68
9.25
26
27
28
38
39
e 0*
e = 0*
Failure
Load
(kips)
(2)
Safety
Factor
(4)
Ra
(kips)
(5)
Safety
Factor
(6)
1.51
1.42
1.36
1.43
1.33
3.00
2.92
3.08
3.05
3.10
3.60
3.41
3.27
3.42
3.19
1.39
1.54
1.53
1.27
4.25
4.25
4.42
4.18
3.57
3.99
3.96
3.23
1.09
0.97
0.98
1.21
3.82
3.59
3.98
3.72
2.69
2.43
2.39
3.01
29
31
40
41
42
19.33
15.98
18.22
18.10
13.89
13.42
13.31
12.92
1.39
1.19
1.37
1.40
5.29
5.07
4.99
4.89
3.65
3.15
3.65
3.70
45
46
47
48
49
19.64
19.49
20.19
21.07
19.94
19.09
19.36
18.76
18.37
19.24
1.03
1.01
1.08
1.15
1.04
7.21
7.37
7.14
6.99
7.27
2.72
2.64
2.83
3.01
2.74
58
Pu
Muy
8 Mux
+
+
1.0
c Pn 9 b Mnx bMny
SUMMARY
Case 2: For
Pu
0.2,
c Pn
Pu
< 0.2,
c Pn
Mux
Pu
Muy
+
+
1.0
2c Pn bMnx bMny
INTRODUCTION
(1)
(2)
where
Pu = required compressive strength
Pn = nominal compressive strength for concentric axial load
Mu = required flexural strength
Mn = nominal flexural strength
c = resistance factor for compression = 0.85
b = resistance factor for flexure = 0.90
These formulas take into consideration the load-moment
interaction effect on the section and the amplification of the
end moments due to P effect. The values for moment
interaction factors are obtained from experimental investigation on 82 sidesway frames made of doubly symmetric wide
flange shapes (AISC LRFD, 1986). The stability and strength
checks for the member are essentially combined in the above
formulas. The basis for LRFD provisions in general is the first
order probabilistic design procedure (Ravindra and Galambos, 1978). The basic form of the above formulas is derived
from beam-column theory and is adjusted by using experimental observations to achieve an acceptable level of complexity. The load factors and resistance factors are arrived at
by using a uniform probability of failure level for the full
range of basic variables for all member types. In the case of
beam-columns (as in the case of several stuctural components), the accepted level of safety corresponds to = 3.0,
where is the safety index. This value is used to estimate the
load and resistance factors for the member for a chosen set of
design formulas.
Interaction formulas similar to those in LRFD are also
provided in AISC ASD (1989) Specification. For single angle
members, the ASD Specification gives special provisions for
calculating the allowable bending stress about principal axes
and geometric axes. Such special treatment is not given for
single angle members in LRFD Specification. As a guide, the
LRFD Manual gives an example for the design of a single
angle strut under eccentric loading in which the critical bend-
59
ing stress for the section is taken as Fy for bending about either
of the principal axes.
The design provisions as per ASD are as follows:
Cmx fbx
fa
+
+
Fa
fa
1
F
bx
Fex
Cmy fby
1.0
fa
F
by
Fey
(3)
fa
fbx fby
+ + 1.0
0.60Fy Fbx Fby
(4)
where
Fa = the allowable axial compression stress
Fb = the permissible bending compression stress
Fc = the Euler stress divided by 23/12
fa = the computed axial compression stress
fb = the computed bending compression stress
Cm = the coefficient as specified in AISC ASD specification
Equation 4 above does not govern the design of eccentrically loaded single angle struts and hence need not be accounted for. As mentioned above, these formulas are derived
primarily for doubly symmetric wide flange sections. In the
case of singly symmetric sections (such as equal leg single
angles, tees, and channels) and unsymmetric sections, the
formulas lead to conservative results. This is due to the fact
that the moment ratios in the interaction formulas are evaluated for the case of maximum stresses about each of the
principal axes independent of the other. This practice does not
result in any problem for the design of doubly symmetric
sections since one of the four corners is critical for moments
60
Table 1a.
Results of Experimental Study on Eccentrically Loaded Single Angles
Wakabayashi & Nonaka (1965)
SPECIMEN #
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
Ser.
2- 20
2- 40
2- 60
2- 70
2- 80
2- 90
2-100
2-110
2-130
2-150
3- 20
3- 40
3- 60
3- 70
3- 80
3- 90
3-100
3-110
3-130
3-150
4- 20
4- 40
4- 60
4- 70
4- 80
4- 90
4-100
4-110
4-130
4-150
5- 20
5- 40
5- 60
5- 70
5- 80
5- 90
5-100
5-110
5-130
5-150
1- 20
1- 40
1- 60
1- 70
1- 80
1- 90
1-100
1-110
D
in.
B
in.
t
in.
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.543.540.276
3.453.540.276
KL
r
Ey
ksi
19.4
39.8
59.7
69.6
79.5
89.5
99.4
109.4
129.3
149.2
19.4
39.8
59.7
69.6
79.5
89.5
99.4
109.4
129.3
149.2
19.4
39.8
59.7
69.6
79.5
89.5
99.4
109.4
129.3
149.2
19.4
39.8
59.7
69.6
79.5
89.5
99.4
109.4
129.3
149.2
19.4
39.8
59.7
69.6
79.5
89.5
99.4
109.4
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
Z-eccen. W-eccen.
in.
in.
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
0.697
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
000.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
P-test
kips
43.7
38.6
32.5
29.9
28.2
25.8
23.6
21.6
17.8
15.5
51.6
41.7
35.8
33.4
31.0
27.8
26.1
21.6
17.8
15.5
50.9
48.9
46.5
43.7
45.3
46.2
42.5
43.3
34.2
25.8
37.8
31.6
27.9
25.4
23.8
22.1
21.7
20.7
18.2
14.7
79.0
79.0
76.7
78.0
70.6
62.4
59.0
51.1
61
Table 1b.
Results of Experimental Study on Eccentrically Loaded Single Angles
Mueller & Erzurumlu (1983)
SPECIMEN #
D
in.
B
in.
t
in.
S3 BB 36-1
S3 BB 36-2
S1 BB 36-2
S2 BB 36-3
T2 BB 50-1
T2 BB 36-1
T1 BB 50-1
T3 BB 50-1
T3 BB 36-1
S3 BB 50-1
SR3 BB 36-1
TR3 BB 5011
TR3 BB 50-1
TR2 BB 50-1
T4 BB 36-1
T4 BB 36-2
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.003.000.250
3.005.000.250
3.005.000.250
62
KL
r
Fy
ksi
60.8
60.8
111.4
192.4
192.4
192.4
111.4
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.8
192.0
77.4
77.4
54.8
54.8
54.8
50.6
53.8
54.8
53.8
53.8
54.8
56.4
54.8
61.3
61.3
51.0
48.1
48.1
Z-eccen. W-eccen.
in.
in.
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.086
0.086
0.086
0.086
0.086
0.200
0.200
0.086
0.086
0.086
0.200
0.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.105
1.105
1.105
1.105
1.105
1.390
0.000
1.105
1.105
1.105
0.000
0.000
P-test
kips
33.0
37.5
22.0
9.9
8.6
10.0
22.0
35.8
30.2
26.2
46.0
44.0
41.0
10.6
12.3
11.8
Fig. 3. Load ratio vs. moment ratio for test specimens as per
AISC LRFD provisions with critical bending stress computed
from formulas adapted from AISC ASD specification.
Table 1c.
Results of Experimental Study on Eccentrically Loaded Single Angles
Ishida (1968)
SPECIMEN #
D
in.
B
in.
t
in.
SHY40-1E-1
SHY40-1E-2
SHY40-1E-3
SHY40-1E-4
SHY40-1E-5
SHY36-2E-1
SHY36-2E-2
2.972.970.255
2.952.990.255
2.962.960.256
2.942.940.260
2.942.940.253
2.952.950.255
2.952.950.252
Fig. 4. Load ratio vs. moment ratio for test specimens using
AISC LRFD provisions with critical bending stress computed
from formulas adapted from AISC ASD specification and
interaction applied at all possible critical points.
KL
r
Fy
ksi
19.8
39.5
59.6
79.9
99.7
39.7
79.5
63.9
63.9
63.9
63.9
63.9
58.8
58.8
Z-eccen. W-eccen.
in.
in.
0.586
0.586
0.583
0.580
0.581
0.583
0.583
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
P-test
kips
47.4
39.1
30.5
25.6
19.4
35.6
23.4
63
application of interaction at all salient points on the crosssection. An additional benefit could be obtained simply by
changing the values of the moment interaction factors resulting in equations given below:
Case 1: For
Muy
Pu
2 Mux
+
+
1.0
3
c Pn
bMnx bMny
Case 2: For
DISCUSSION
The current interaction formulas in AISC LRFD Specification
were derived mainly for doubly symmetric sections that are
normally used in frames. But as can be seen from Figs. 2 to 6
and Table 2, these interaction formulas are highly conservative when applied to eccentrically loaded single angle struts.
Several alternatives which are not reported herein were studied to predict the strength of eccentrically loaded single angle
struts. The alternatives included approaches similar to those
adopted by different national specifications and other approaches which manipulate the interaction factors such as the
moment amplification factors. All such methods are found to
be either highly conservative or unacceptable. The simplest
approach for modifying the present formulas is to retain the
present interaction formulas in their entirety and imposing the
Pu
0.5,
c Pn
Pu
< 0.5,
c Pn
Mux
Muy
Pu
+
+
1.0
2c Pn bMnx bMny
64
(6)
Fig. 6. Load ratio vs. moment ratio for test specimens using
AISC LRFD provisions with interaction applied at all
possible critical points.
(5)
Rm V
e r
Rn
(7)
Table 2.
Comparison of Compressive Strengths Calculated According to AISC
Interaction Formulas with Test Failure Loads (P_calc/P_test)
Wakabayashi...
Method of
Calculation
Mueller...
Ishida
Total
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Mean
Std.
Dev.
AISC LRFD
existing provisions (Fig. 2)
0.65
0.08
0.69
0.10
0.68
0.08
0.66
0.08
Same as above
but with interaction factor
changed to 2/3
0.70
0.07
0.75
0.10
0.77
0.08
0.72
0.08
0.62
0.06
0.66
0.11
0.62
0.08
0.63
0.08
Same as above
but with
interaction factor
changed to 2/3
0.67
0.07
0.71
0.11
0.69
0.08
0.68
0.08
0.63
0.06
0.71
0.09
0.64
0.08
0.65
0.08
Same as above
but with
interaction factor
changed to 2/3
0.68
0.07
0.76
0.09
0.72
0.08
0.71
0.08
AISC ASD
existing provisions (Fig. 5)
0.77
0.08
0.83
0.14
0.76
0.10
0.78
0.10
AISC ASD
with interaction
at all critical
points (Fig. 6)
0.79
0.07
0.90
0.12
0.79
0.10
0.81
0.10
than 6.0 for the cases listed and for several cases not presented
herein. A consistently high value for the reliability index
shows that the present alternatives relying on simple variation
to the current LRFD formulas are unusually conservative
when compared to the reliability index for the other types of
members which is usually between two and four. Any further
reduction in the degree of conservatism of the sections would
warrant recourse to more complicated but exact formulas.
One such set of formulas derived for beam columns uses an
exponential format for the two moment ratios (Chen and
Atsuta, 1976 and Chen and Lui, 1987). The calibration of
these formulas involves extensive numerical integration and
comparison with test results. This has been done for the case
of I-sections in braced frames and the corresponding formulas
are given in the appendix to AISC LRFD (1986). Such formulas tend to be very complicated for practical design applications and are not normally used. The alternative to such
methods is simpler variations of the existing formulas in a
more empirical sense. The present study shows the amount of
improvement possible through such methods. Any further
improvement in the formulas would most likely result in more
complicated formulas.
The calculations also show that the critical bending stress
calculated using the more rational formulas of ASD is less
65
66
REFERENCES
1. American Institute of Steel Construction, 1989. Manual
of Steel ConstructionAllowable Stress Design, 9th ed.,
Chicago, IL.
2. American Institute of Steel Construction, 1986. Manual
of Steel ConstructionLoad and Resistance Factor Design, 1st ed., Chicago, IL.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers, Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 52, 1988. Guide for
Design of Steel Transmission Towers, 2nd ed., New York.
4. Bjorhovde, R., Galambos, T. V., and Ravindra, M. K.
1978. LRFD Criteria for Steel Beam-Columns, Journal
of Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Vol. 104 , No. ST9, Proc. paper 14008
pp. 13711387.
5. British Standards Institution, 1985. Structural Use of
Steel Work in Buildings, BS 5950:PART I:1985, London,
U.K.
6. Canadian Standards Association, 1986. Antennas, Towers
and Antenna-Supporting Structures, CAN/CSA-S37M86, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
7. Canadian Standards Association, 1989. Limit States Design of Steel Structures, CAN/CSA-S16.1-M89, Rexdale,
Ontario, Canada.
8. Chen, W. F. and Atsuta, T. 1976. Theory of Beam-Columns, Vols. 1&2, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
9. Chen, W. F. and Lui, E. M. 1987. Structural Stability
Theory and Implementation, Elsevier Science Publishing
Co. Inc., New York.
10. Ishida, A., 1968. Experimental Study on Column Carrying
Capacity of SHY Steel Angles, Yawata Technical Report No. 265, December, pp. 85648582 and 87618763,
Yawata lron and Steel Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.
11. Mueller, W. H. and Erzurumlu, H., 1983, Behaviour and
Strength of Angles in Compression: An Experimental
Investigation, Research Report of Civil-Structural Engineering, Division of Engineering and Applied Science,
Portland State University, Oregon, USA.
12. Ravindra, M. K. and Galambos, T. V. 1978. Load and
Resistance Factor Design for Steel, Journal of Structural
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, Vol.104 No. ST9, Proc. paper 14016, pp. l337
1353.
13. Wakabayashi, M. and Nonaka, T., 1965. On the Buckling Strength of Angles in Transmission Towers, Bulletin
of the Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan, Vol. 15, Part 2, No. 91, November, pp.
118.
INTRODUCTION
WT sections are commonly used as chord members in lightly
and moderately loaded roof and floor trusses. In this application, these members are subjected to combined axial and
flexural loads. The design of these sections for flexural loads
was not specifically addressed in the ASD Specification. Not
until the publication of the LRFD Specification was flexural
loading of these sections directly addressed. With the advent
of ultimate strength design methods included in the LRFD
Specification, it became obvious that these sections could
carry increased loads.
This paper will look at design capacity for these sections
and will report on laboratory experimentation supporting
these limits.
SECTION STRENGTH
A doubly symmetric, compact, braced wide flange section has
an allowable moment (Mn) of Mp in LRFD. The mean value
for the plastic shape factor (SF) for wide flange sections is
1.12. Considering a live to dead load ratio of 3/1 (effective
load factor (LF) of 1.5), the section utilizes:
Mn / LF(Mp)
0.9(Mp) / 1.5(Mp) = 0.6
or 60 percent of the ultimate capacity of the section, where
Mp = 1.12My.
For weak axis bending of this same section, the design
moment is again Mp. The plastic shape factor for a wide
flange section in weak axis bending is 1.50. Using the same
load ratio, the section utilizes:
67
(Mn / LF) / S
0.9(1.12My) / 1.5S = 0.67Fy
For weak axis flexure of a wide flange, where Mp =
1.50My, the flexural stress in the section at service load is:
0.9(1.5My) / 1.5S = 0.90Fy
Using 1.78 as the mean shape factor for WT sections and
letting Mp = 1.78My for the flexural limit where the stem is
in tension, would result in a flexural stress at service load of:
0.9(1.78My) / 1.5S = 1.07Fy
This would mean that the section has begun to yield in the
stem at service load, a condition to be avoided for reasons of
deflection control.
The flexural stress at service load is now less than the yield
stress, and the same as for a wide flange section in weak axis
bending.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was conducted to study the behavior of
WT sections in both positive (stem in tension) and negative
(stem in compression) flexure. The specimens were tested
over a 7-ft span and were loaded using a mechanically driven
universal testing machine, as shown in Fig. 2. Loads were
measured using a load cell and deflections were measured
using an LVDT.
Negative bending was induced by rotationally fixing the
ends of the span to create a fixed ended beam. Schematics of
the testing apparatus are shown in Fig. 3 for positive bending
and Fig. 4 for negative bending.
Tests 1 through 5 were performed for positive bending and
tests 6 through 8 had the ends fixed creating negative bending
at the supports. Table 1 lists the cross section measurements
and measured yield strengths for all eight specimens. The
listed section designations are assumed since they were not
initially known and cannot be conclusively determined from
the listed measurements. Table 2 lists the calculated cross
section properties for all eight sections.
Load versus deflection curves were developed from the
experimental measurements of Tests 1 through 5. As expected, the sections, on average, developed the calculated
68
Table 1.
Section Measurements
Test No.
bf
tf
tw
Fy
Measured
Nominal
Section
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5.71
5.72
6.44
6.52
6.49
6.21
6.13
6.14
0.449
0.477
0.360
0.359
0.367
0.415
0.415
0.416
5.15
5.10
6.12
6.19
6.08
6.54
6.54
6.55
0.287
0.302
0.277
0.275
0.269
0.293
0.270
0.255
51.0
51.0
55.7
55.7
55.7
50.0
50.0
50.0
WT513
WT513
WT613
WT613
WT613
WT615
WT615
WT615
Table 2.
Cross-Section Properties
Test No.
Ix
Iy
Zx
Sxf
Sxs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8.39
8.54
13.28
13.69
12.84
16.96
15.92
15.34
6.98
7.46
8.02
8.31
8.38
8.29
7.98
8.03
3.68
3.80
4.99
5.07
4.80
6.01
5.56
5.29
7.54
7.76
9.31
9.52
9.34
10.94
10.64
10.57
2.08
2.14
2.83
2.88
2.73
3.40
3.16
3.01
Table 4 compares the measured capacities versus calculated capacities. If the provisions of the LRFD specification
are followed directly, the stems of all three specimens are
slender elements and the capacity of the sections must be
reduced according to LRFD Appendix B. But the criteria for
tee stems was derived for stems in axial compression, not
stems in flexural compression and uses a very conservative
assumption for the length of the unstiffened element. It is
possible to derive a somewhat less conservative limit for
stems in flexural compression, using the same basic criteria,
which shows the test specimen stems not to be slender elements. This derivation is shown in Appendix B of this paper.
The collected test data for negative bending is rather slim
to base a specification provision on. It is possible, however,
to conservatively set initiation of stem yielding (My) as an
upper limit for strength in negative bending. Further research
may reasonably allow a design moment greater than My.
69
Table 3.
Test Results for Positive Bending
Test No.
Mn +
Mys
Mp
Mtest
Mp / Mtest
1
2
3
4
5
1,711
1,856
2,061
2,148
2,137
105.9
109.0
157.7
160.4
152.0
187.8
193.8
278.0
282.6
267.3
180.0
187.5
318.7
281.2
288.7
Avg.
0.958
0.967
1.146
0.995
1.080
1.029
Table 4.
Test Results for Negative Bending
Test No.
Mn
Mys
Mp
Mtest
Mys / Mtest
6
7
8
322.5
302.5
295.2
169.9
157.8
150.5
300.3
278.0
264.4
168.0
187.5
168.0
Avg.
0.989
1.131
1.116
1.078
LRFD SPECIFICATION1
LRFD equation F1-15 is the limiting lateral buckling equation
for WT strength in both positive and negative bending. This
equation is theoretically correct for elastic buckling of tee
shaped beams. In positive bending, it is impossible in practice
to develop this elastic strength before a plastic hinge is
formed. Note the calculated capacities using Eq. F1-15 in
Table 3 as compared to the plastic moment capacities. Also
note Fig. 10 which shows Eq. F1-15 plotted for a WT620.
Note that a WT620 will not experience lateral buckling with
the flange in compression until the unbraced length reaches
75 ft! It would probably be better just to note the capacity in
positive flexure to be 1.5My and to eliminate the use of
Eq. F1-15 for positive bending.
It may be possible to exceed the elastic buckling strength
in negative bending in some rare cases, however. Table 5 lists
the elastic buckling stress computed from F1-15, using Cb =
1.0, for all WT, ST, and MT sections listed in the manual
where the buckling stress at a length of 25 times the section
depth (25D) is 50 ksi or less. Note that this list excludes most
sections listed in the Manual of Steel Construction.1,2 For any
case where the elastic buckling stress is greater than the yield
stress, Eq. F1-15 will not control. For cases where the elastic
buckling stress is less than the yield stress, lateral buckling
will govern for negative bending, and lesser of My and Eq.
70
Fb = (34,000Cb
IyJ / LbSx)(
1+B
2 B)
where:
Iy / J
B = (2.3d / Lb)
CONCLUSION
Laboratory testing has verified the strength limits for WT
sections in both positive and negative bending. Based on this
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Testing was performed in the Structures and Materials Testing
Laboratory at the University of Florida. Test specimens were
donated by Whitley Steel, Baldwin, FL.
The conclusions and recommendations are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Institute of Steel Construction.
71
APPENDIX AREFERENCES
1. Load and Resistance Factor Design Manual of Steel Construction, 1st ed., AISC, Chicago, 1986.
2. Allowable Stress Design Manual of Steel Construction, 9th
ed., AISC, Chicago, 1989.
3. Standard Specifications, Load Tables, and Weight Tables
for Steel Joists and Joist Girders, Steel Joist Institute,
Myrtle Beach, SC, 1990.
4. Salmon, Charles G., and John E. Johnson, Steel Structures,
Design and Behavior, 2nd ed., Harper and Row, New York,
1980., pp. 310314, 318319.
5. Galambos, Theodore V., ed., Guide to Stability Design
Criteria for Metal Structures, 4th ed., Wiley, New York,
1988, p. 103.
6. Milek, William A., One Engineers Opinion, Engineering Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 103104.
plate where one unloaded edge is fixed and the other unloaded
edge is free. The limit is derived from classical plate buckling
theory where k = 1.227 for this case of loads and fixity. See
Ref. 4, pages 310314 for the full background of this derivation.
This limit is not correct for a case where the stem is in
flexural compression. Reference 5, page 103, gives a value of
k = 1.61 for a case where flexural compression exists. This
case assumes no compression at the fixed edge and full
compression at the free edge as is shown in Fig. 11.
Starting with the classical plate buckling equation of:
Fcr = k2E / [12(1 M2)(b / t)2
AISC provisions require that the critical buckling stress (Fcr)
be no less than the yield stress, Fy. Substituting in M = 0.3 for
steel and E = 29,000 ksi yields:
(b / t) 161
k / Fy
72
k / Fy or
(b / t) 113
k / Fy
Substituting in k = 1.277 produces the limit of 127 /
Fy for
uniform axial load.
Substituting in k = 1.61 produces a limit of 144 /
Fy for
flexural compression.
Next, it needs to be determined what is the correct value of
b to use. Using the full depth of the section is unnecessarily
conservative. Considering that the elastic neutral axis for
almost all WT sections is somewhere in the stem near the
Table 5.
Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling Stress
by LRFD F1-15 for various Unbraced Lengths.
Only Sections where Fy < 50 ksi at L = 25D Listed.
Elastic Lateral Buckling Stress for Negative
Bending at Various Unbraced Lengths, ksi
Section
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
MT
MT
MT
MT
18.00 85.00
18.00 80.00
18.00 75.00
18.00 67.50
16.50 70.50
16.50 65.00
16.50 59.00
15.00 58.00
15.00 54.00
15.00 49.50
13.50 47.00
13.50 42.00
12.00 34.00
12.00 31.00
12.00 27.50
10.50 31.00
10.50 28.50
10.50 25.00
10.50 22.00
9.00 20.00
9.00 17.50
8.00 15.50
8.00 13.00
7.00 11.00
6.00 9.50
6.00 8.00
6.00 7.00
5.00 6.00
7.00 9.00
6.00 5.90
5.00 4.50
4.00 3.25
L = 10D
L = 15D
L = 20D
L = 25D
73.1
64.6
56.5
43.0
69.0
56.9
45.1
67.4
56.3
46.3
68.0
53.0
55.7
47.3
37.4
46.9
71.6
53.3
40.9
70.4
49.7
66.4
44.8
56.9
67.1
44.7
35.2
50.0
33.2
32.0
41.1
63.0
63.6
56.7
50.0
38.5
60.7
50.7
40.6
59.4
50.1
41.6
60.7
47.9
50.4
40.9
32.9
43.5
61.2
46.4
36.2
61.6
44.3
58.8
40.4
51.1
58.3
39.6
31.6
45.4
28.9
27.2
34.6
52.2
55.4
49.7
44.1
34.3
53.5
45.0
36.4
52.3
44.4
37.2
54.0
43.1
45.4
35.6
28.9
39.9
52.8
40.5
31.9
54.1
39.4
51.9
36.3
45.7
50.7
35.0
28.3
41.0
25.3
23.3
29.6
44.0
48.8
44.0
39.2
30.8
47.4
40.2
32.7
46.4
39.6
33.4
48.3
38.9
40.9
31.3
25.6
36.6
46.1
35.7
28.4
47.8
35.2
46.1
32.7
41.0
44.6
31.2
25.3
37.1
22.3
20.3
25.6
37.9
flange-stem juncture, a more realistic and still slightly conservative choice would be:
b = d tf
where:
tf = flange thickness
d = section depth
LRFD Eqs. A-B5-5 and A-B5-6 would need to be modified
for the new slenderness limit. They have been modified by
proportionally shifting the limits and providing the same
values of Qs at each end of the new range as was previously
provided for stems in axial compression. Reference 4, pages
318319 show this methodology to be in keeping with AISC
provisions.
73
tw = 0.260 in.
Fy = 36 ksi
Required:
When 144 /
Fy < b / t < 203 /
Fy
Qs = 1.908 0.00715(b / t)
Fy
Solution:
When b / t 203 /
Fy
Axial compression:
Qs = 26,780 / [Fy (b / t) ]
2
127 /
Fy = 21.17
d = 6.17 in.
tf = 0.440 in.
bf = 6.52 in.
74
INTRODUCTION
tructural tension members are designed to resist yielding
of the gross section or rupture of the minimum net section,
taking into account the effects of stagger and shear lag. The
shear lag effect must be considered when all the components of a tension member are not transmitting the load to
the connection. For short connections, an angle connected
by one leg may fail in a combination of tension perpendicular to and shear parallel to the loaded axis. This type of
failure has been termed block shear when investigated for
beam web connections.1,2,3
Most of the international codes for steel design have not
considered this type of failure.4 The current AISC ASD5 and
LRFD6 specifications do incorporate formulae, in their respective commentaries, to calculate block shear failure capacities. The current ASD Specification is based on the work
of Birkemoe and Gilmor1 and is given by
P = 0.3Anv Fu + 0.5Ant Fu
(1)
where Fu is the ultimate strength, and Anv and Ant are the net
shear and tensile areas, respectively.
In 1985, Hardash and Bjorhovde,7 reported on tests conducted on gusset plates in tension and suggested a different
approach to calculate block shear strength. They recommended that the yield strength on the gross section on one
plane be added to the fracture strength of the net section on
the perpendicular plane. The first edition of the LRFD Specification6 uses this approach to calculate nominal block shear
strength. The two equations given are
Pn = 0.6Fy Avg + Fu Ant
(2)
(3)
where Fy is the yield strength, Avg and Atg are the gross shear
and tension areas, respectively, and Ans and Ant are the net
shear and tension areas, respectively. As explained in the
original paper and in the commentary, the larger of Eqs. 2 or
3 is to be used as the nominal block shear strength. The LRFD
resistance factor to be used in conjunction with these
equations is given as 0.75.
Howard I. Epstein is professor of civil engineering at the
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
75
76
77
Table 1.
Connections Tested
Connection
#
Angle Size
(in.)
Connection
Geometry
Yield
Strength
Fy
(ksi)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
66516
2/2+
2/2
2/2
2/3
3/2+
2/3
3/3
4/4
51.9
51.4
51.0
53.0
49.3
51.4
51.6
52.0
73.9
77.0
75.5
77.2
73.6
75.0
74.8
74.6
182.5
204.2
188.7
242.7
204.9
259.7
237.1
>297.7<
A
A-B
A-B
B
C
E
B-C
D
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
64516
2/2+
2/2
2/2
2/3
3/2+
2/3
3/3
4/4
51.0
46.8
50.3
55.5
50.5
49.4
46.5
48.1
72.4
68.2
71.0
80.0
70.2
68.9
64.9
65.7
202.7
203.9
194.2
247.1
189.1
219.8
218.6
243.5
A
B
A
B-C
C
E
C
D
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
63.5516
2/2+
2/2
2/2
2/3
3/2+
2/3
3/3
4/4
48.3
52.5
52.1
50.3
49.5
48.0
45.6
46.8
74.5
76.6
78.2
68.5
69.4
69.1
69.3
69.7
198.2
198.8
199.3
238.5
216.1
250.6
236.5
255.2
B
B
B
C
B
E
C-D
D
25
26
27
28
55516
2/2+
2/2
2/3
3/2+
44.3
44.6
45.1
50.4
62.0
61.5
63.2
70.1
154.1
155.8
194.9
169.6
A
B
B
C
29
30
31
32
53.5516
2/2+
2/2
2/3
3/2+
47.9
45.0
45.2
48.8
71.6
67.8
68.2
72.6
174.1
171.8
208.8
189.9
B
B
C
B
33
34
35
36
37
38
53516
2/2+
2/2
2/3
3/2+
1/2
2/1+
42.5
43.1
42.5
42.2
46.1
44.1
59.4
61.0
62.6
61.1
65.4
61.8
149.4
161.5
187.2
163.0
173.3
126.8
B
B
B
C
A
B
78
Ultimate
Strength
Fu
(ksi)
Average
Failure
Load
(kips)
Failure
Type
The allowable ASD load for yielding of the gross crosssection is given by 0.6Fy Ag, where Ag is the gross area. The
LRFD design strength is 50 percent greater than this ASD
allowable. Neither yielding provision came close to governing the strength of any connection tested.
For each connection tested, the ASD allowable load PA and
the LRFD design load Pn were calculated on the basis of the
actual yield and ultimate strengths given in Table 1. The ASD
and LRFD governing loads are presented in Table 2 along
with the code equation numbers which produce them. Most
79
Table 2.
Comparison of Test Loads to AISC Codes
ASD
LRFD
Conn.
#
Average
Failure
Load
(kips)
PA
(kips)
Equation
No.
RA
PN
(kips)
Equation
No.
RL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
182.5
204.2
188.7
242.7
204.9
259.7
237.1
>297.7<
105.7
131.7
102.6
141.1
125.9
137.2
131.5
160.9
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4,3-2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
1.727
1.550
1.839
1.720
1.627
1.893
1.803
1.850
157.9
191.9
157.3
208.5
183.7
209.3
202.5
247.4
C-J4-1
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
J3+CJ4
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
0.867
0.798
0.900
0.873
0.837
0.931
0.878
0.902
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
202.7
203.9
194.2
247.1
189.1
219.8
218.6
243.5
103.5
116.7
96.5
146.3
120.1
128.9
114.1
138.7
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4,3-2
J4-1,2
D1
1.958
1.747
2.012
1.689
1.575
1.705
1.916
1.756
154.9
172.2
152.1
217.1
181.3
200.3
178.7
208.0
C-J4-1
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
J3+CJ4
C-J4-2
D1-2
0.981
0.888
0.958
0.854
0.782
0.823
0.917
0.878
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
198.2
198.8
199.3
238.5
216.1
250.6
236.5
255.2
106.5
131.1
106.3
125.2
118.7
129.2
121.8
137.6
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4,3-2
J4-1,2
D1
1.861
1.516
1.875
1.905
1.821
1.940
1.942
1.855
154.1
193.3
161.7
191.6
178.5
198.0
183.7
206.4
C-J4-1
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
C-J4-1
C-J4-2
J3+CJ4
C-J4-2
D1-2
0.965
0.771
0.924
0.934
0.908
0.949
0.966
0.927
25
26
27
28
154.1
155.8
194.9
169.6
76.0
92.7
102.6
105.6
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
2.028
1.681
1.900
1.606
117.9
143.8
157.9
163.3
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
0.980
0.813
0.926
0.779
29
30
31
32
174.1
171.8
208.8
189.9
87.7
102.2
110.7
109.4
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
1.985
1.681
1.886
1.736
131.6
152.7
165.5
164.3
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
0.992
0.844
0.946
0.867
33
34
35
36
37
38
149.4
161.5
187.2
163.0
173.3
126.8
72.8
89.4
97.8
92.1
80.1
68.5
J4-1,2
D1
D1
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
J4-1,2
2.052
1.806
1.914
1.770
2.164
1.851
113.0
134.1
146.8
139.9
123.5
106.6
C-J4-2
D1-21
D1-2
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
C-J4-2
0.992
0.903
0.956
0.874
1.052
0.892
average = 1.820
80
average = 0.901
a 2/2, or an unstaggered 2/20 connection, if that is appropriate. There are opposing factors at work in making this decision. The first is the increase in block shear strength associated with an increase in shear length. The second is the
decrease probably associated with negative stagger.
The test results indicate that the increase in shear length,
associated with the negative stagger patterns, more than offsets the decrease due to the stagger. Therefore, if block shear
is the mode of failure and stagger is either desirable or
required, the negative stagger pattern should be specified.
However, when the connections become long enough so that
net section is the failure mode, the positive stagger pattern
should probably be specified.
ADEQUACY OF THE AISC CODES
FOR BLOCK SHEAR
For ASD, the assumed factor of safety in connection designs
is 2.0. As seen in Table 2, the tests averaged nine percent less
than their desired strength. For LRFD, the nominal code
capacity should equal the failure loads of tests. On this basis,
the tests averaged 9.9 percent less than their desired strength.
It also takes into account the scatter of the test data by finding
the coefficient of variation of the test resistance.
Analysis of the data from the 38 connections tested on the
basis of a statistical approach is inappropriate for this study.
If the tests were only for block shear, this would make sense.
However, the tests spanned the range from true block shear
failure through net section failures. Therefore, while on the
surface the average results indicate that the codes reasonably
predict failure loads, a delineation from block shear to net
section failure must be accomplished.
When the results are grouped, consistent trends appear. For
instance, the ratios RA or RL are seen to increase, on the
average, as connections become longer. For the same length
of connections, these ratios also increase as the outstanding
81
Table 3.
Stagger Effects
Table 4.
Shear Length Effects
legs become shorter. Putting this another way, the ratios are
closer to their desired values the more that net section is the
mode of failure and for true block shear failures, the equations
are not as conservative.
There are many ways of representing the results to demonstrate the observed trends. The parameter that best represents
the transition from block shear to net section failures is the
same used in the study of the shear lag effects,13 1 x / L. As
the connection length increases, this coefficient increases and
approaches one for long connections (net section). Also, as
the outstanding leg decreases, the centroidal distance x decreases and the coefficient again increases and approaches
one.
Figure 5 plots the ratio RA and RL as functions of 1 x / L.
The 38 data points for each represent the ratios given in Table
2 and the corresponding 1 x / L calculated from the centroidal distance and the length of each connection.14, 15 The trends
in the data become evident when a regression analysis is
accomplished. Least square straight line fits of the data are
shown in the figure. It appears that if connections were
considered that only exhibited block shear failure, the code
equations would be significantly deficient.
NEEDED AISC CODE MODIFICATIONS
There are many factors that point to the modifications needed
82
(4)
(5)
or (C-J4-1):
Pn = 0.75(0.6Fu Ans + Fy UAtg)
(6)
Fig. 5. R versus 1 x / L.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was made possible by grants from the American
Institute of Steel Construction, The National Science Foundation, and the University of Connecticut Research Foundation. Special thanks are due to the Berlin Steel Construction
Company, Berlin, CT, for donating the test specimens. David
Ricker, of Berlin Steel, generously gave his time and effort to
this project.
Three Connecticutt firms, The New Haven Testing Company (New Haven), Raymond Engineering (Middletown),
and George Torello, Jr., Consulting Engineers (Old Lyme), all
donated to this project. Their contributions are gratefully
acknowledged. Naren Adidam, a very gifted graduate student
who contributed immensely to this project, tragically died in
an automobile accident near the conclusion of this study. This
work is dedicated to his memory.
REFERENCES
1. Birkemoe, P. C., and M. I. Gilmor, Behavior of Bearing
Critical Double-Angle Beam Connections, AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 15, 4th Quarter, 1978, pp. 109115.
2. Yura, J. A., P. C. Birkemoe, and J. R. Ricles, BeamWeb
Shear Connections: An Experimental Study, ASCE
Journal of the Structural Division, Vol 108, No. ST2, Feb.
1982, pp. 311325.
3. Ricles, J. R., and J. A. Yura, Strength of Double-Row
Bolted Web Connections, ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 109, No. ST1, Jan. 1983, pp. 126142.
4. Madugula, M. K. S., and S. Mohan, Angles in Eccentric
Tension, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
114, No. ST10, Nov. 1988, pp. 23872396.
83
84
Engineering
Journal
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.
1. INTRODUCTION
mutual presence of an abrupt change in stiffness and a periodic force opposing it.5 This type of cracking is most prevalent if, in addition to the required conditions of a discontinuity
in stiffness subjected to a periodic distortion, there is also a
weld toe located in the high cyclic stress region.1 Current
design code provisions only peripherally address distortioninduced cracking. The current AASHTO design specifications, for example, indirectly address distortion-induced
cracking by requiring a rigid attachment of connection plates
to both top and bottom flanges.
To understand distortion-induced cracking, it is useful to
determine what conditions commonly lead to this type of
cracking and then look at some specific examples. A survey6,7
of 142 bridges that had developed cracking gathered information on 149 instances of primary cracking causes (several sites
developed more than one type of cracking in different structural details). These 149 cases can be grouped into 28 categories of cracking.1 These categories can be organized into a
hierarchical classification of the most prevalent causes of
cracking in steel bridges.8 Figure 1 shows such a classification
of the primary causes for cracking in steel bridges, with the
most commonly occurring items listed first. It is interesting
to note that low toughness material was not observed to be a
primary cause of cracking in this survey, showing that specifying higher toughness will not avoid cracking problems in
many cases. The most frequent type of cracking is that caused
by secondary and/or distortion-induced stress. Figure 2 shows
85
duced fatigue of the tension flange.9 To preclude distortioninduced cracking, the connection plate must be either rigidly
attached to the flange as required in the AASHTO provisions,
or the gap length must be significantly increased. Increasing
the gap length does not always solve the problem of distortion-induced cracking. The increased flexibility may lead to
increased deformations in the web gap and, consequently, the
same stress levels. In-service web-gap cracking has been
observed in all of the following types of details:
86
87
88
Stem of WT at rolled
radius
Stem of WT at weld
Gusset plate at weld
one-sided crack
two-sided crack
28
18
18
25
12
13
89
two-sided crack
58
38
38
54
26
28
Stem of WT at rolled
radius
Stem of WT at weld
Gusset plate at weld
. toughness of 51 ksi
for an intermediate strain rate ( 103 sec 1) at a temperature of 62F. This is in agreement with the observed behavior
of crack growth only by fatigue for winter truck shipment.
3.5. Probable Cause and Sequence of Crack Growth
The probable cause of cracking was therefore concluded to
be displacement-induced cyclic stress during shipment. The
observed crack locations were in thin plates subject to cyclic
bending where short gaps would be expected to result in a
geometric amplification of the cyclic stress leading to cracking. The cracks initiated on one or both faces of the plates,
most frequently at the toe of fillet welds but sometimes at a
rolled radius. The cracks grew by fatigue through the thickness of the plates. Vibration amplitudes of 0.04 in. to 0.2 in.
at the end of the clip angle and 0.5 in. to 2.5 in. for sway at
the top of stacked trusses are sufficient to produce the observed cracking over the given shipment distance. The vibration amplitudes and number of loading cycles required were
in agreement with expected ranges for trusses shipped in this
manner. For this case, blocking of the clip angle (Fig. 5, Detail
A) would be recommended for proper shipping.
3.6. Evaluation of Appropriateness of Repair Procedures
The cracks in the roof trusses were repaired by gouging and
rewelding. Although this was an appropriate repair technique
for building trusses subject to static loads, gouging and rewelding is not an appropriate repair for bridge members. An
alternate suggested repair of drilling holes approximately
1 -in. in diameter at the ends of the cracks was not used. Either
2
of these repair procedures were appropriate in view of the
cause of cracking and the required in-service behavior of the
90
trusses because further fatigue crack propagation during service loading would not be expected.
The cracks in the stem of the tee at the rolled radius and at
the top of the clip angle were in regions carrying negligible
loads in service. This material could be completely coped out
without decreasing the strength of the trusses for in-plane
behavior. Gouging and rewelding was a more than adequate
fix in this region. Drilling holes at the end of the cracks to
eliminate the stress concentration at the sharp crack tip would
also have been a satisfactory fix.
The cracks at the ends of the diagonals were in a stressed
region of the gusset plate. Gouging and rewelding was an
adequate fix in this region. Where sufficient net area and
sound weld remained for full load transfer, drilling holes at
the ends of the cracks also would have provided a satisfactory
repair at the ends of the diagonals. The condition of the crack
with end holes would have then been analogous to any other
situation resulting in a reduced section at this location such
as the presence of bolt holes or a penetration opening through
the gusset.
In summary, the cracks were caused by out-of-plane dynamic vibrations during shipment. The in-service trusses
carry in-plane static loads. The cyclic stresses leading to
fatigue crack growth are not present under service conditions
and repaired cracks would not be expected to re-initiate.
In this case study, the fatigue cracks were detected and
repairs performed. It is of interest to postulate the case where
the cracks were not detected and the resulting implications
for in-service performance of the cracked trusses. As mentioned above, the cracks in the stem of the tee and at the top
of the clip angle were essentially unstressed. The cracks at the
ends of the diagonals did not reduce the section enough to
govern the load carrying capacity. The cracks would not grow
by fatigue in-service, since the loads would be static. The
existing cracks would not become unstable, under design
loads, so fracture failure would not occur. Thus, for this
particular case, the trusses would be expected to perform
satisfactorily in-service even if the cracks were undetected.
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. Conditions that Lead to Cracking During Shipment
Two conditions must coexist to cause distortion-induced
cracking:
1. an abrupt change in stiffness, and
2. a recurring displacement taking place across this stiffness discontinuity.
In addition, presence of a weld toe within this small region
acts as a crack initiation site and exacerbates the problem.
These conditions conducive to cracking occur most frequently in plate girders, especially where there are small web
gaps. The conditions may also arise for trusses, especially
where thin plates and heavy angles cause severe stiffness
loads shipped at the shop and at the site will rapidly identify
transit cracking and avoid costly rejection or rework on many
components. Implementation of these recommendations
should minimize the possibility of distortion-induced cracking during transit.
REFERENCES
91
INTRODUCTION
fter the advent of Hollow Structural Sections (HSS) in
Britain, experimental and theoretical studies on welded connections with square and round members took place at Sheffield University, leading to the design recommendations of
Eastwood and Wood.1,2 These were quickly implemented in
Canada and publicized by Stelco3 in the worlds first HSS
connections manual. Shortly thereafter they were available to
U.S. engineers in an AISI Guide.4 The more well known
reference document in the U.S. for the design of tubular
connections is Chapter 10 of AWS D1.1.5 These AWS recommendations originally evolved from a background of practices
and experience with fixed offshore steel platforms of welded
tubular construction. The connection capacities therefore were
expressed with much greater confidence for circular tubes than
for box tubes (square or rectangular hollow sections).
During the 1970s and 1980s a large amount of experimental and theoretical research on connections between manufactured HSS has taken place in many countries, but almost
exclusively outside the U.S. Much of it has been coordinated
and synthesized by technical committees of CIDECT (Comit
International pour le Dveloppement et lEtude de la Construction Tubulaire) and IIW (International Institute of Welding). An excellent appreciation of the behavior of welded
connections in HSS trusses has evolved and comprehensive
design recommendations have consequently been issued by
IIW,6 Kurobane,7 Wardenier,8 CIDECT9,10,11 and Dutta and
Wurker.12 Very recently an international consensus has been
obtained for LRFD design of statically-loaded, welded connections involving hollow section members in planar
trusses.13 These IIW recommendations are slightly different
from the 1981 first edition6 and other versions issued during
the 1980s8,9,10,12 but have already been partially or fully implemented in several countries. Of particular note is that they
92
Table 2.
Factored Resistance of Axially Loaded Welded
Connections Between Square or Circular
Web Members and a Square Chord Section
Table 1.
Factored Resistance of Axially Loaded Welded
Connections Between Circular Hollow Sections
Table 1a.
Range of Validity of Table 1
be(ov)
bep
bi
di
93
Table 2a.
Range of Validity of Table 2
Note: a Outside this range of validity other failure criteria may be governing: e.g., punching shear, effective
width, side wall failure, chord shear or local buckling. If these particular limits of validity are violated the
connection may still be checked as one having a rectangular chord using Table 3, provided the limits of
validity in Table 3a are still met.
Noding eccentricity for a connectionpositive being towards the outside of the truss.
E
Modulus of elasticity.
fi
Axial stress in member i (i = 0,1,2,3).
fk
Web buckling stress.
fyi
Yield strength of member i (i = 0,1,2,3).
f(n), f(n) Functions which incorporate the chord stress in the
connection strength equations.
fO
Maximum applied axial stress in chord, (or maximum stress due to axial force and bending moment
where moment is taken into account).
fOp
Additional stress in chord, other than that required
to maintain equilibrium with web member forces.
g
Gap between the web members (ignoring welds)
of a K, N, or KT-connection, at the face of the
chord.
g
Gap divided by chord wall thickness, g = g / tO.
Exter naldepthofsquareor rectangular boxsection
hi
member i (in plane of tr uss). (i = 0,1,2,3).
i
Subscr ipt to denote member of connection; i = 0
designates chor d; i = 1 refer s in gener al to a web
member for T, Y, and X-connections, or it refer s to
the compression web for K, N, and KT-connections; i = 2 refers to the tension web for K, N, and
KT-connections, i = 3 refers to the vertical for
KT-connections; i = i refers to the overlapping web
member for K and N-type overlap connections.
j
Subscript to denote the overlapped web member
for K and N-type overlap connections.
KL
Effective length.
L
Length.
P
Applied load.
94
fo
No
Mo
=
+
fyo Ao fyo So fyo
fop
Nop
Mo
=
+
fyo Ao fyo So fyo
Ni
Ni
NO (in gap)
NOp
Ov
p
q
Si
ti
V
Vp
d1 d1 b1
, , (T,Y,X)
do bo bo
Table 3.
Factored Resistance of Axially Loaded Welded
Connections Between Rectangular, Square, or Circular
Web Members and a Rectangular Chord Section
Resistance factor.
Half width to thickness ratio of the chord,
bo
do
or .
=
2to 2to
Web member depth to chord width ratio, =
hi / bO .
Included angle between web member i (i = 1,2,3)
and the chord.
2. Determine loads at connections and on members; simplify these to equivalent loads at the panel points.
3. Determine axial forces in all members, assuming
pinned joints and that member centerlines are all
noding.
4. Determine chord member sizes considering axial loading, corrosion protection, and tube wall slenderness.
(Usual width to thickness ratios are 15 to 25). An
effective length factor of K = 0.9 can be used for the
design of the compression chord.11
5. Determine web member sizes based on axial loading,
preferably with thickness smaller than the chord thickness. The effective length factor for the web members
can initially be assumed to be 0.75.11
6. Standardize the web members to a few selected dimensions, (perhaps even two), to minimize the number of
section sizes for the structure. Consider availability of
all sections when making member selections. For aesthetic reasons, a constant outside member width may
be preferred for all web members, with wall thickness
varying; but this will require special quality control
procedures in the fabrication shop.
7. Layout the connections, trying gap joints first. Check
that the connection geometry and member dimensions
satisfy the validity ranges for the dimensional parameters given in Tables 2a and 3a, with particular attention
to the eccentricity limits. Consider the fabrication procedure when deciding on a connection layout.
8. Check the connection factored resistances using equations given in Tables 2 and 3.
9. If the connection resistances are not adequate, modify
the connection layout (for example, overlap rather than
gap), or modify the web or chord members as appropriate, and recheck the connection capacities. Generally only a few connections will need checking.
10. Check the effect of primary moments on the design of
the chords. For example, use the proper load positions,
(rather than equivalent panel point loading), and determine the bending moments in the chords by assuming
either: (a) pinned joints everywhere, or (b) continuous
chords with pinended web members. For the compression chord, also determine the bending moments produced by any noding eccentricities, by using either of
the above analysis assumptions. Then check that the
factored resistance of all chord members is still adequate, under the influence of both axial loads and
primary bending moments.
11. Check truss deflections at the specified (unfactored)
load level, using the proper load positions.
12. Design the welds.
TRUSS DESIGN EXAMPLE
Figure 1 shows the truss and factored loads along with member axial forces, determined by a pin-jointed analysis. The top
95
Table 3a.
Range of Validity of Table 3
96
(Table 2a)
(Table 2a)
E / fy1 = 1.25
29,000 / 50
b1 / t1 = 26.7 1.25
= 30.1 o.k.
b2 / t2 = 4 / (3 / 16) = 21.3 35 o.k.
bo / to = 6 / (5 / 16) = 19.2 15
and 35 o.k.
Determine connection resistance of compression diagonal
(i = 1)
(Table 2)
(Table 2)
97
= 126 kips
N1 = 118 kips o.k.
Determine connection resistance of tension diagonal (i = 2)
From Table 2 one can see that N sin1 = N sin2, which in this
case means that N1 = N2, therefore N2 = 126 kips N2 = 118
kips o.k.
Hence, Panel Points 3 and 5 are acceptable. Note that the
connection resistances would have been insufficient if the
chord had a 14-in. thickness rather than the 516-in. selected.
Panel Point No. 4
A gap connection can again be shown to be feasible, and a
review of the dimensional parameters shows that they are
valid.
The purlin load midway between Panel Points 2 and 4, as
well as midway between Panel Points 4 and 6, will create
bending moments within members 2-4 and 4-6 as well as at
Panel Point 4. An approximation of the chord bending moment at Panel Point 4 can be obtained by considering the
portion of the top chord from the end of the truss to Panel
Point 6 to be a two-span continuous beam. The moment at
Panel Point 4, the interior support, would then be 0.188PL =
0.188(13.5)(147.6) = 375 kip-in. The forces acting on Panel
Point 4 are shown in Fig. 3.
(Table 2)
(Table 2)
(Table 2)
= 0.643
n = No / Ao fyo + Mo / So fyo, by definition (see Notation)
= 192 / (9.58 50) + (375) / (19.6 50) = 0.784
= (5 + 3) / (2 7) = 0.571
n = No / Ao fyo + Mo / So fyo, by definition (See Notation)
= 279 / (9.58 50) + (249) / (19.6 50) = 0.837
f(n) = 1.3 + (0.4 / 0.571)(0.837) = 0.714
98
0.5
(Table 2)
(7 / 2) = 1.08 in.
(Hence e / ho = 0.15 0.25 which is acceptable)
Determine bending moments in the chord at Panel Point 4.
Moment from noding eccentricity
= e [(118 + 84.4) kips] cos = 131 kip-ins.
or 65.6 kip-in. each side of the panel point.
Moment from purlin loads is considered to be 0.188PL at the
connection = 375 kip-in., as discussed previously.
For the design of the compression chord, both the moment
due to transverse loading (purlin loads) and the moment due
to noding eccentricity must be taken into account. Thus,
Fig. 4 shows the moment combinations existing at Panel
Point 4 which are:
375 + 65.6 = 441 kip-in., for chord length 2-4
Use of the same model that was employed for the chord
moment at Panel Point 4, (chord being two continuous spans
over the panel point), gives a conservative value of 0.156PL
= 0.156(13.5)(147.6) = 311 kip-in. Figure 4 shows the total
midspan moments under the purlins, which are:
(Table 2a)
Mux
M 1.0
b nx
Eq. H1-1a
Pu
8
+
c Pn 9
8 1.0 441
Mux
M = 0.21 + 9 0.90 1,175
b nx
99
8 1.003 344
Mux
M = 0.56 + 9 0.90 1,175
b nx
(Table 2)
2
0.5
sin + 4(1 ) f(n)
1
(Table 2)
b3 / bO = 2.5 / 6
= 0.42 0.25 o.k. (Table 2a for overlap connections)
b3 / bj = 2.5 / 3 = 0.83 0.75 o.k.
t3 / tj = 0.125 / 0.1875 = 0.67 1.0 o.k.
N1 = 24.0 kips
100
101
INTRODUCTION
n the buckled configuration of a built-up compression member, shear force is developed between individual components
due to secondary moments caused by P effect. AISC-ASD1
requires that stitches be designed such that they have adequate
strength to resist the shear force developed between individual components. AISC-LRFD2 also has a similar requirement
(see Section E4, p. 6-40). However, neither specification
gives a procedure to calculate the shear force developed
between individual components in a buckled configuration.
This paper presents a derivation of analytical equations to
calculate the shear force developed between individual components of built-up struts in buckled configuration. The equations are presented for two cases. First, for the case in which
only the first buckling load is of interest. Second, for the case
in which, in addition to the first buckling load, post-buckling
bending is involved such as in seismic-resistant design. The
proposed equations are general enough so that they are applicable to any end condition including the two extreme cases
of hinged- and fixed-end conditions.
The proposed equations are verified analytically and experimentally. For analytical verification, the results from the
proposed equations are examined for the extreme cases of end
conditions and separation between the components. For experimental verification, test results by the authors are used.3,4
The stitch strength required for some test specimens are
calculated according to the proposed equations. The results
are compared with actual strength provided by the stitch
welds of the corresponding specimens. It was found that
specimens which suffered unsymmetrical buckling and/or
post-buckling behavior did not have adequate stitch strength
according to the proposed equations.
1. NOTATION
Following notations are used in this paper:
a The distance between batten plates or stitches.
Ai Cross sectional area of each individual component.
102
E
f
y = f sin
x
L
(1)
y =
f=
y cr
Aih
Pcr
FScr = 2
(3)
x
f Q
VQ
=
P cos
L It
L
It
Qh
It
(8)
(9)
Q = Aih / 2
y cr
Q
Qh
Aih Pcr = 2Ai(y cr)
It
It
Pcr
x
f
dM d(Py )
=
= Py = P cos
dx
L
L
dx
V=
(7)
L2
Fs
x
f Q
f Q L
= t dx =
P cos dx =
P
L It
L It
2
L
0
0
Iib
It = 2Iib + 2 2 (h / 2)2 = 2Iib[1 + (h / 2rib)2]
rib
The ratio h / 2rib is commonly called separation ratio,
=
h
2rib
Thus,
or
Fs = 2f
Q
P
It
(5)
(Aih / 2)h
(h / 2rib)2
Qh
=
=
It
2Airib2 (1 + 2)
2 + 1
Using the definition = h / 2rib leads to:
2
Qh
= 2
It
+1
FScr =
(6)
(11)
(10)
p =
It = 2Iib(1 + 2)
2
2
(Py Pcr ) = 2
Py 1
+1
+ 1
2
Pcr
Py
(12)
103
Mp
P
(13)
Mp Q
Q
P = 2Mp
It
P It
(14)
FSPb =
22 Mp
2 + 1 h
1 cos L
The above equation satisfies the geometric boundary conditions. The bending moment, denoted by M, is different from
that of a hinged-end member, since the end fixity causes
non-zero moments at the two ends. The equation for bending
moment at a given section is,
y=
f
2
2x
f
1 cos
+ Me
(17)
L
2
The term Me can be determined by basic mechanics approach in which the moment equation is integrated twice to
derive the expression for the deflection curve. Then, the
boundary conditions are imposed to determine the constants
of integration as well as the end moment Me. Such a procedure
results in:
M = Py + Me = P
Me = P
(15)
(16)
f
2
2x
f
f
(18)
1 cos L P 2 = P 2 cos L
The above equation gives the moments at the ends and at mid
span as:
M=P
f
2
M(x = 0) = Pf / 2
104
M(x = L / 2) = P
f
(1 cos ) Pf / 2 = +Pf / 2
2
2x
dM
f
= P sin
dx
L
L
(19)
2x
VQ
f Q
=
P sin
It
L It
L
(20)
L2
FS
2x
f Q
f Q L
= t dx =
P sin
dx =
P
L It
L It
L
2
0
0
FS = 2f
Q
P
It
(21)
Pcr
2
Py 1
2
P
+1
y
(22)
2Mp
P
(23)
(25)
Py 1
Py
+ 1
Equation 25 gives the total shear force for which the
stitches or batten plates should be designed in order to have
a first buckling load identical to that of an integral section
with a moment of inertia equal to It. It should be noted that
Eq. 25 is derived by using an ultimate strength approach
which is the basis of AISC-LRFD (1986). Thus, it is convenient to calculate Pcr by LRFD formulas and substitute for it in
Eq. 25 to find FScr. If AISC-ASD formulas are used, the factor
of safety should not be included in the calculation of Pcr.
FcrS =
Mp
22
2
K( + 1) h
(26)
2Mp Q
Q
P = 4Mp
It
P It
42 Mp
2 + 1 h
(24)
105
106
Table 1.
Geometric Properties of the Test Specimens
Specimen
(1)
End
Condition
(2)
A
(in.2)
(4)
2L3.5 2.5 38
AB4
AXH12
Section
(3)
Hinged
AXH13
KxL
KyL
rx
ry
(5)
(6)
60
95
57
83
Stitch Weld
Length (in.)
(7)
4.22
2L3 3 38
AXFS16
Fixed
6.72
56
Stitch Plate
Spacing (in.)
(9)
37
37
110
58
AXFS17
Number of
Stitches
(8)
60
Rw = (.707)(14)(11 2) = 135 kips
3
The distance between the centroids of the two components is,
h = 2[(3cos 45) (0.888 / cos 45) + (38 cos 45)]+ 58
= 2.886 in.
The separation ratio for the section is calculated as:
=
2.886
h
=
= 2.46
2rib 2(0.587)
Py 1
+ 1
2
Pcr
Py
(2.46)2
(47 4.22)(1 0.94)
(2.46)2 + 1
a. Specimen AXH12
Specimen AXH12 had nine 2-in. long 14-in. stitch welds every
12 inches. For E70 electrodes, the ultimate strength of weld
metal in shear is taken as 60 /
3 . If the two end gusset plates
are counted as two stitches, the ultimate shear capacity provided by the eleven 2-in. long stitch welds is,
107
Table 2.
Stitch Strength of the Test Specimens
Weld
Dimension
(in.)
Specimen
(2)
(1)
AXH12
0.25
Weld
Strength
(kips)
(3)
0.25
49
AB4
0.25
49
AXFS16
0.25
673
0.25
Separation
Ratio,
(5)
2.886
2.46
Yield
Capacity, Py
(6)
Plastic Moment
Capacity,
(kip-in.)
(7)
FScr
(Eq. 25)
(8)
FSPb
(Eq. 26)
(9)
198
286
10
170
184
266
56
158
198
194
51
128
309
447
34
531
312
451
40
536
135
AXH13
AXFS17
Component
Separation, h
(in.)
(4)
1.950
1.35
2.886
2.46
135
Mp
22
2
K( + 1) h
2(2.46)2 286
=
2
(2.46) + 1 2.886
= 170 kips > Rw = 135 kips n.g.
However, no individual component behavior or stitch failure
occurred in the post-buckling range for this specimen. This
may be attributed to the conservative use of unmodified value
of the plastic moment capacity Mp, whereas, it may be reduced
by about 20 percent due to the presence of axial compression
load. If such a reduction in the plastic moment capacity is
considered, it follows that,
FSPb = 80% (170) = 136 vs. Rw = 135 kips almost o.k.
b . Specimen AXH13
Table 1 shows that Specimen AXH13 did not have adequate
stitch strength for the first buckling load as well as for the
post-buckling range. Consistent with the prediction by Eqs.
25 and 26, individual component bending was observed at the
first buckling of specimen AXH13 which caused the occurrence of unsymmetrical buckling mode. The individual bending of the two angle components in Specimen AXH13 is
shown in Fig. 9.
c. Specimen AB4
108
CONCLUSIONS
1. Built-up compression members are susceptible to individual behavior of their components. Equation 25 can be
used to calculate the required stitch strength to ensure a
symmetric first buckling mode.
109
110
(1)
4
tan / K
2
2
tan / 2K
=1
/K
(2)
(3)
Slightly simpler equations apply to special cases. If the column is hinged at B, GB is infinitely large, and 1 / GB = 0:
K=
3GA + 0.64
3GA + 1.28
(4)
GA =
0.7GA + 0.32
GA + 0.64
(5)
G + 0.4
G + 0.8
(6)
(7)
111
Table 1.
Comparison of Eqs. 2 and 3Braced Frames
GA
GB
K exact
K approx
Error, %
0.10
0.40
0.603
0.61
0.9
0.25
0.25
0.611
0.62
1.3
0.10
0.90
0.648
0.65
0.4
0.25
0.75
0.680
0.67
0.8
0.50
0.50
0.686
0.69
0.9
0.10
1.90
0.683
0.72
0.4
0.25
1.75
0.716
0.76
0.7
0.50
1.50
0.751
0.78
0.6
GA
GB
K exact
K approx
Error, %
1.00
1.00
0.774
0.78
0.5
0.50
4.50
0.792
0.80
0.7
1.00
4.00
0.840
0.84
0.4
2.50
2.50
0.877
0.88
0.2
0.50
9.50
0.806
0.81
0.8
1.00
9.00
0.858
0.86
0.5
2.50
7.50
0.913
0.91
0.2
5.00
5.00
0.930
0.93
0.1
Table 2.
Comparison of Eqs. 7 and 8Unbraced Frames
GA
GB
K exact
K approx
Error, %
0.10
0.40
0.603
0.61
0.9
0.25
0.25
0.611
0.62
1.3
0.10
0.90
0.648
0.65
0.4
0.25
0.75
0.680
0.67
0.8
0.50
0.50
0.686
0.69
0.9
0.10
1.90
0.683
0.72
0.4
0.25
1.75
0.716
0.76
0.7
0.50
1.50
0.751
0.78
0.6
GA
GB
K exact
K approx
Error, %
1.00
1.00
0.774
0.78
0.5
0.50
4.50
0.792
0.80
0.7
1.00
4.00
0.840
0.84
0.4
2.50
2.50
0.877
0.88
0.2
0.50
9.50
0.806
0.81
0.8
1.00
9.00
0.858
0.86
0.5
2.50
7.50
0.913
0.91
0.2
5.00
5.00
0.930
0.93
0.1
(8)
1.6GA + 4.0
(9)
4.0GA + 7.5
GA + 7.5
(10)
When GA = GB = G:
K=
0.8G + 1.0
2. BACKGROUND
(11)
112
(Ib / Lb)
(Ic / Lc) + (Ib / Lb)
(12)
K=
(13)
AL
=f
3EI A
(16)
(17)
(14)
A =
or
3EI
f
A =
L A
AB + 0.7(A + B) + 0.48
AB + A + B + 0.96
Lb
2EIb
(18)
3 Ic Lb
= 1.5GA
2 Lc Ib
(19)
so that
(15)
A =
For braced frames, the equivalent flexural springs are obtained with A,B = 1.5GA,B. Equation 3 was derived by substituting these values in Eq. 16.
2.2. Sway Frames
For a frame free to sway, the effective length factor K is:
113
K=
3.2AB + 4A + 4B + 3.75
A + B + 3.75
(20)
4B 2A + 3.75
A + B+ 3.75
(21)
4A 2B+ 3.75
A + B+ 3.75
(22)
Note that the buckling mode has only one point of inflexion
within the length L, the other one being obviously at a distance
KL > L.
Referring to Fig. 4, which shows a symmetrical unbraced
frame in the sidesway mode, it is seen that, because of
symmetry, the beams present a point of inflexion at mid-span.
The restraint on the columns is that provided by each half
beam hinged at the axis of symmetry. Consequently, we find:
A =
3EIc (Lb / 2)
= 0.5GA
Lc 3EIb
(23)
114
Eq. 20. While one would normally use the G-ratios, there are
cases where the flexural spring model may be better, in truss
calculations8 for instance.
3. VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTIONS
The derivation of either the exact or the approximate equations requires several assumptions that are never exactly
fullfilled, whether the frame is braced or not. Examine the
frames of Figs. 2 and 4: it is evident that the assumed symmetries seldom exist. With the flexural spring model, one
could move the points of inflexion along the beams to see how
sensitive the K-factor is to their positions, but how much to
move them can only be estimated. Fortunately, the K-factor
is not too sensitive to variations in GA and GB, and its sensitivity is further dampened by the inelastic effect described by
Yura.10 Nonetheless, estimating a K-factor is sometimes difficult, and it would certainly be desirable to do away with
K-factors and effective lengths altogether. There is a definite
trend in modern codes to do precisely that.
In the AISC LRFD Specification, the designer has two
options: either make a P calculation, or determine the
required flexural strength Mu by means of Eq. H1-2. In the
later case, one must establish not one, but two K-factors. The
first one is calculated assuming that there is no lateral translation of the frame; always smaller than 1.0, it serves to
calculate factor B1. The other one produces B2 which reflects
the effects of sidesway; it is always larger than 1.0. The latest
Canadian code7 goes one step further: it eliminates K-factors
altogether for unbraced frames and calls for a P analysis
instead. Presumably, specifying K = 1.0 takes care of the
second-order effects (or P effects) within the beam-column
itself. Professor McGuire9 expresses a fairly common point
REFERENCES
1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
ConstructionLoad and Resistance Factor Design, 1st
Ed., 1986.
2. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
ConstructionAllowable Stress Design, 9th Ed., 1989.
3. Barakat, M., and Chen, W. F., Practical Analysis of
Semi-Rigid Frames, AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 27,
No. 2 (2nd Quarter 1990), pp. 5468.
4. American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete/Commentary, ACI 318R89, Paragraph R10.11.2.
5. Regles de calcul des constructions en acier CM66,
Eyrolles, Paris, 1975.
6. European Convention for Constructional Steelwork,
European Recommendations for Steel Construction,
1978.
7. National Standard of Canada CAN/CSA-S16.1-M89.
Limit States Design of Steel Structures, 1989.
8. Dumonteil, P., In-Plane Buckling of Trusses, Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, 1989, pp. 504518.
9. McGuire, W., Computers and Steel Design, Modern
Steel Construction, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 3942, July 1992.
10. Yura, J. A., The Effective Length of Columns in Unbraced Frames, AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 8,
No. 2, pp. 3742.
115
INTRODUCTION
lthough the incidence of floor vibration problems appears
to be on the rise,1,2 the use of mechanical damping devices to
control vibrations is limited. In a recent survey of vibration
control methods, Murray3 reports that passive-mechanical
damping methods, including viscous damping, visco-elastic
damping, and tuned-mass dampers, have often gone untried
outside the laboratory or have had marginal impact in actual
buildings. This is particularly unfortunate because mechanical dampers can sometimes control floor vibrations more
cheaply than structural stiffening, and are often the only
viable means of vibration control in existing structures.
This paper details the successful implementation of a
tuned-mass damping system to reduce the steady-state vibrations of the longspan, cantilevered, composite floor system at
the Terrace on the Park Building in New York City. The
experience with this implementation suggests that tuned mass
dampers (TMDs) can be successfully employed to control
steady-state vibration problems of other composite floor systems. The potential for general application of TMDs in composite floor systems is discussed, and areas for further
research are suggested.
BACKGROUND
The Terrace on the Park Building was designed by The Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey as its exhibition
building for the 1964 Worlds Fair (Fig. 1). The building
features elliptical promenade and roughly-rectangular ballroom levels, both suspended six floors above the ground on
four steel supercolumns. The columns support a cross-shaped
pattern of floor-girders and an elliptical ring girder, which in
turn support a radial set of cantilevered floorbeams (Fig. 2).
The floorbeams span between the floor and ring girders, and
cantilever from the ring girder to the face of the building
(Fig. 3). The ballroom sub-floor is a reinforced concrete
deck-formed slab, resting on top of and periodically welded
to the floor-beams.
116
(1)
where:
f = the frequency of vibration of the floor
K = a coefficient depending on ratio of overhang to backspan [tabulated in Ref. 6]
g = 386.4 in/s2
E = modulus of elasticity
It = transformed moment of inertia
W = weight supported by tee beam
L = length of cantilever
Assuming composite action of the floorbeam and concrete
deck, Eq. 1 agreed with the earlier rough measurements taken
at the structure, which showed that the floors first natural
frequency of vibration was about 2.3 Hz. Although for most
of their length, the bottom flanges of the floorbeams are in
compression, the composite floorbeam assumption made
sense because the deck was significantly reinforced, its steel
underside was frequently welded to the floorbeams, and the
ratio of live load to dead load was very small, reducing the
tendency for the concrete to crack and act independent of the
floorbeams.
Next, a detailed, finite element model of a typical floor
quadrant (corresponding to one dining/dance hall) was created, to determine the fundamental floor frequency more
accurately, compute the associated mode shape, and see if
higher floor frequencies and mode shapes were being excited.
The floorbeams were modeled with composite bending properties and the concrete deck was modeled with plate elements.
The mass included all the structural loads, nonstructural loads
such as windows, mullions, partitions, and hung ceilings, and
about 15 percent of the 100 psf, code-prescribed live load.
Free vibration analysis of this model showed that the
reinforced concrete deck and ring girder tied the floor together, making an entire quadrant of the ballroom level vibrate as a unit. The fundamental mode shape described a
continuously deformed floor, with maximum deflection at the
extreme cantilevered corner, and monotomically decreasing
in deformations toward the ring and floor girders. The first
frequency of the floor system was predicted at 2.22 Hz. The
second resonant floor frequency was found at 3.9 Hz.
While the structure was being examined analytically, we
also measured the natural frequencies of each floor quadrant
(corresponding to one dining/dance hall) of the actual structure, the mode-shape associated with the first natural fre-
117
Table 1.
Experimentally Determined Floor Frequencies and
Damping
Fundamental
Frequency
(Hz)
Second
Frequency
(Hz)
Damping
% of Critical
Rose
Paradise
Crystal
Regency
2.23
2.31
2.27
2.46
3.75
3.75
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.6
Computer model
2.22
3.91
Quadrant
(Dining/Dance Hall)
..
y2(t), of the tip of the floor are essentially sinusoidal functions
in time. Their maximums are related by:
..
(2)
|y2max| = |y2max| / 2
where:
= the frequency of vibration of the floor, in radians per
second
|y2max| = the maximum tip displacement at this frequency
..
|y2max| = the measured RMS floor acceleration
This gave an estimated maximum floor displacement of
about 0.11 inches corresponding to the measured 0.06G peak
RMS acceleration.
ASSESSMENT OF MECHANICAL VIBRATION
CONTROL SYSTEMS
The decision to employ tuned mass dampers was influenced
by the functional layout and geometry of the structure; the
clients budget; the fact that the floors were being excited
primarily at their first resonant frequencies; the large amplitudes of floor motion; and the light structural floor damping.
Simple Passive Dampers
Simple passive dampers, including viscous, friction, and
visco-elastic systems, rely on a damper mounted between a
vibrating structure and a stationary object to dissipate vibration energy as heat. As the two systems move relative to each
other, the simple passive damper is stretched and compressed,
reducing the vibrations of the structure by increasing its
effecting damping. At the Terrace, there was no non-moving
element nearby to attach a damper to, so these systems were
rejected.
Tuned Mass Dampers
Tuned mass dampers (TMDs) work by fastening a mass-block
to a structural component (such as a floor) via a spring
(Fig. 3). This system is set up so that, when the floor vibrates
at a resonant frequency (which could be caused by dancing,
for example), it induces analogous movement of the mass
118
where:
Ff (t) = idealized, periodic forcing function on dance floor
Yt = deflection of tip of floor in first mode
Yf = deflection of floor under forcing function
(k2 / m2) = f 1
(3)
(4)
119
Table 2.
Stiffness and Mass of 1 DOF Floor Models
m2
(kips)
Equations 4, 3, 6
(Computer)
197
389
.874
3.1%
(Determined from (Chosen to match
choice of 2)
experimental data)
Equations 12, 10
(Experimental)
205
406
.912
(Determined by 2)
(5)
where:
Fo = the amplitude of the forcing function driving the floor
at its cantilevered tip
y2 = the peak floor response measured at the same location
f1 = the resonant frequency of the floor
h = a phase angle
k2 = the equivalent displacement generalized stiffness of
the floor
= the measured damping of the floor, expressed as a
percent of the floors critical damping, cc*
from which:
|y2max| = Fo / (2k2), (in.)
(8)
k2 = Fo / (2|y2max|), (kips/in.)
(9)
c2
(kips*s/in.)
k2
(kips/in.)
(% of Critical)
3.1%
and:
(6)
where
cc = 2
(k2 / m2)
120
(kip*sec/in.)
(7)
Table 3.
Summary of TMD Parameters*
Quantity
Mass, m1 (kips)
Trial Optimum
Value
Initial Construction
Value
Final Tuned
Value
18.0
(Controlled by 20 kip
floor beam capacity)
19.0
18.4
Damping, c1
(kips*s/in.)
Spring stiffness, k1
(kips/in.)
0.19
Equation 13
0.19
0.15
8.3
Equations 12, 11
8.8
8.8
(Cannot be field
adjusted)
* Values are presented for the Rose floor quadrant, whose measured natural frequency without TMDs installed was
2.23 Hz. Results for other quadrants are similar.
The TMDs needed to minimize the floors vibrations without using so much mass that the existing floorbeams would
be overstressed. Although to a point TMDs become more
effective with increased mass,10 calculations showed that the
floorbeams supporting the TMDs would be overstressed with
masses greater than about 20 kips located at tips. Therefore,
18 kips became our trial-optimal TMD mass. This corresponds to a mass ratio (m1 / m2) of about 4.6 percent.
Because each actual ballroom floor was responding primarily in its first mode shape, the TMDs needed to be operating near the associated resonant frequency to maximize the
amount of energy shifted from the vibrating floor to themselves. Various approaches to optimizing a TMDs natural
frequency have been reported.11,12 As a start point, we used
the approach outlined by Reed,12 in which the natural frequency of the TMD attached to a fixed base is denoted 1.
Then:
(11)
where k1 and m1 are the spring-stiffness and mass, respectively, of the TMD.
And Reeds optimum value for 1 is given by:
1,optimum = 1 / [1 + (m1 / m2)], (rad/sec)
(12)
(13)
..
.
m1 0 ..y1 + c1 c1 y. 1 + k1 k1 y1
0 m1 y2 c c +c y2 k k +k y2
1 1 2 1 1 2
0
__ kips
=
F2 (t) = Fo sin( t )
(14)
__
Where is the frequency of the forcing function (rad/sec).
These equations were used to: check the validity of the
TMD parameters given in Eqs. 12 and 13; predict the reduction in floor acceleration caused by the TMDs; and estimate
the maximum accelerations and relative displacements of the
TMD mass (m1). Because Eq. 14 cannot be solved modally
(due to the high damping in the system), they were integrated
13
numerically
__ with the Runge-Kutta fourth order method. For
values of between 1 and 8 Hz, time histories were produced
..
and maximum values of y2, y2, and y2 y1 were recorded.
Because it was our experience that TMDs needed to be
adjusted in the field, we designed the actual TMDs to be
tuned for frequency and damping after installation. This
was done by varying the TMDs mass (m1) with 200 pound
steel plates, and adjusting its damping (c1) with variable
energy dissipation dashpots. Two types of variable energy
dissipation viscous dashpots were tested at the Carleton Lab
of Columbia Universitys Engineering School (Fig. 8), and
found to need a minimum stroke (in the form of enough
relative floor-TMD mass movement) of about 0.05 inches to
be effective. In practice, the relative motion between the
TMD and floor (y2 y1 in Fig. 7) is reduced with increasing
TMD mass (m1) and increased damping (c1). To obtain a
desired stroke, it was found by manipulating m1 and c1 in
Eq. 14 that the TMDs performed better if their damping was
slightly decreased than if their mass was reduced. Thus,
ensuring the stroke of the TMDs was large enough effectively
put an upper bound on their damping.
The TMD stiffness, k1, was limited by the properties of
commercially available springs. The spring stiffness, of
course, could not be modified in the field, which did not pose
much of a problem because the natural frequency of the
121
122
x=d
(A2)
123
(A3)
(A4)
..
uy2 + zy2 = dn2 Fn (t) = dn2 F(t)
(A5)
124
Engineering
Journal
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.
d
= Fu tw lh ht
2
= 0.6Fu tw N (3 dhs) +
3 + lv
2
where
= resistance factor, 0.75
Fu = specified minimum tensile strength, ksi
tw = thickness of element (web), in.
lh = distance from center of hole to edge along tension
plane, in.
lv = distance from center of hole to edge along shear plane,
in.
dht = diameter of hole (bolt diameter + 18-in.)
dhs = diameter of hole (hole diameter + 116-in.)
d = bolt diameter
N = number of bolts
Let lv = 1.5d (lower bound), set RTF = RSF and solve for lh.
lh = 2.375 0.4d
For this value of lh both planes have the same fracture
strength. Since this is a special value of lh it will be called lh*.
For a value of lh less than lh* it is obvious that shear fracture
will be the stronger fracture strength and the table in the
Manual for shear fracture, tension yield is used for selecting
values for C1 and C2. If the number of bolts is increased shear
fracture strength will increase (shear area increases) and will
continue to be the failure mode to use. If lh exceeds lh* tension
fracture will be the stronger and the table for tension fracture,
shear yield is used for determining C1 and C2.
For different bolt sizes and number of bolts the values of lh*
have been calculated and are tabulated below (Table A). If
lh is less than the value tabulated the shear fracture, tension
yield table should be used. For the designers convenience,
values of lv = 1.5d are included in the table.
An examination of Table A indicates that, for most beam
end connection situations, shear fracture, tension yield will
govern the strength of the connection. For instance, if three
or more bolts of 112-in. or less in diameter are used shear
fracture will govern if lh is less than 338-in. This is also the
governing case for two bolts if lh is less than 2332-in.
Example:
125
Table A.
lh*
Bolt Size
C2 = 149
5
8
3
4
7
8
118
114
138
112
218
2316
214
2516
238
214
212
2916
312
312
314
3716 31332
458
6932
618
53132 52532
lv = 1.5d
15
16
118
1516
112
41732 4932
438
4932
558
5932
5516
5532
11116
178
2116
214
Figure 1
Figure 2
126
Figure 3
REFERENCES
Manual of Steel ConstructionLoad and Resistance Factor
Design, First Revised Edition, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Inc., Chicago, 1991.
Ans
(0.6Fu Ans) 0.3Fu Anw
=
= 0.6
0.5F
A
Fu Ant
u nt
Ant
127
Table B.
ASD
Shear Fracture, Tension Yield
Fy = 36
Fu = 58
C1
lh
lv
118
114
138
112
158
134
178
114
43.4
46.1
48.8
51.5
54.2
56.9
59.6
62.3
138
45.5
48.2
50.9
53.6
56.3
59.0
61.7
112
47.7
50.4
53.1
55.8
58.5
61.2
158
49.9
52.6
55.3
58.0
60.7
134
52.1
54.8
57.5
60.2
178
54.2
56.9
59.6
56.4
59.1
214
60.8
212
234
3
214
212
234
65.0
70.4
75.8
81.2
86.6
64.4
67.1
72.5
77.9
83.3
88.7
63.9
66.6
69.3
74.7
80.1
85.5
90.9
63.4
66.1
68.8
71.5
76.9
82.3
87.7
93.1
62.9
65.6
68.3
71.0
73.7
79.1
84.5
89.9
95.3
62.3
65.0
67.7
70.4
73.1
75.8
81.2
86.6
92.0
97.4
61.8
64.5
67.2
69.9
72.6
75.3
78.0
83.4
88.8
94.2
99.6
63.5
66.2
68.9
71.6
74.3
77.0
79.7
82.4
87.8
93.2
98.6
104.0
65.1
67.8
70.5
73.2
75.9
78.6
81.3
84.0
86.7
92.1
97.5
103.0
108.0
69.5
72.2
74.9
77.6
80.3
83.0
85.7
88.4
91.1
96.5
102.0
107.0
113.0
73.8
76.5
79.2
81.9
84.6
87.3
90.0
92.7
95.4
101.0
106.0
112.0
117.0
C2
Bolt Diameter
3
4
7
8
32.6
29.4
26.1
71.8
66.3
60.9
111.0
103.0
95.7
150.0
140.0
131.0
189.0
177.0
165.0
228.0
214.0
200.0
268.0
251.0
235.0
307.0
288.0
270.0
10
346.0
325.0
305.0
128
Table B.
ASD
Tension Fracture, Shear Yield
Fy = 36
Fu = 58
C1
lh
lv
118
114
138
112
158
134
178
114
47.0
50.6
54.2
57.9
61.5
65.1
68.7
72.4
138
48.8
52.4
56.0
59.7
63.3
66.9
70.6
112
50.6
54.2
57.8
61.5
65.1
68.7
158
52.4
56.0
59.6
63.3
66.9
134
54.2
57.8
61.4
65.1
178
56.0
59.6
63.2
57.8
61.4
214
61.4
212
234
3
214
212
234
76.0
83.2
90.5
97.7
105.0
74.2
77.8
85.0
92.3
99.6
107.0
72.3
76.0
79.6
86.8
94.1
101.0
109.0
70.5
74.1
77.8
81.4
88.6
95.9
103.0
110.0
68.7
72.3
75.9
79.6
83.2
90.4
97.7
105.0
112.0
66.9
70.5
74.1
77.7
81.4
85.0
92.2
99.5
107.0
114.0
65.0
68.7
72.3
75.9
79.5
83.2
86.8
94.0
101.0
109.0
116.0
65.0
68.6
72.3
75.9
79.5
83.1
86.8
90.4
97.6
105.0
112.0
119.0
65.0
68.6
72.2
75.9
79.5
83.1
86.7
90.4
94.0
101.0
108.0
116.0
123.0
68.6
72.2
75.8
79.5
83.1
86.7
90.3
94.0
97.6
105.0
112.0
119.0
127.0
72.2
75.8
79.4
83.1
86.7
90.3
93.9
97.6
101.0
108.0
116.0
123.0
130.0
C2
Bolt Diameter
3
4
7
8
32.3
30.5
28.7
75.6
73.7
71.9
119.0
117.0
115.0
162.0
160.0
158.0
205.0
203.0
202.0
248.0
247.0
245.0
292.0
290.0
288.0
335.0
333.0
331.0
10
378.0
376.0
374.0
129
Table B.
ASD
Shear Fracture, Tension Yield
Fy = 50
Fu = 65
C1
lh
lv
118
114
138
112
158
134
178
114
54.4
58.1
61.9
65.6
69.4
73.1
76.9
80.6
84.4
91.9
138
56.8
60.6
64.3
68.1
71.8
75.6
79.3
83.1
86.8
112
59.3
63.0
66.8
70.5
74.3
78.0
81.8
85.5
158
61.7
65.4
69.2
72.9
76.7
80.4
84.2
134
64.1
67.9
71.6
75.4
79.1
82.9
178
66.6
70.3
74.1
77.8
81.6
69.0
72.8
76.5
80.3
214
73.9
77.6
81.4
212
78.8
82.5
234
83.6
88.5
234
99.4
107.0
114.0
94.3
102.0
109.0
117.0
89.3
96.8
104.0
112.0
119.0
87.9
91.7
99.2
107.0
114.0
122.0
86.6
90.4
94.1
102.0
109.0
117.0
124.0
85.3
89.1
92.8
96.6
104.0
112.0
119.0
127.0
84.0
87.8
91.5
95.3
99.0
107.0
114.0
122.0
129.0
85.1
88.9
92.6
96.4
100.0
104.0
111.0
119.0
126.0
134.0
86.3
90.0
93.8
97.5
101.0
105.0
109.0
116.0
124.0
131.0
139.0
87.4
91.1
94.9
98.6
102.0
106.0
110.0
114.0
121.0
129.0
136.0
144.0
92.3
96.0
99.8
104.0
107.0
111.0
115.0
119.0
126.0
134.0
141.0
149.0
214
212
C2
Bolt Diameter
3
4
7
8
36.6
32.9
29.3
80.4
74.3
68.3
124.0
116.0
107.0
168.0
157.0
146.0
212.0
199.0
185.0
256.0
240.0
224.0
300.0
282.0
263.0
344.0
323.0
302.0
10
388.0
364.0
341.0
130
Table B.
ASD
Tension Fracture, Shear Yield
Fy = 50
Fu = 65
C1
lh
lv
118
114
138
112
158
134
178
114
57.5
61.1
65.6
69.7
73.7
77.8
81.9
85.9
90.0
138
60.0
64.1
68.1
72.2
76.2
80.3
84.4
88.4
112
62.5
66.6
70.6
74.7
78.8
82.8
86.9
158
65.0
69.1
73.1
77.2
81.2
85.3
134
67.5
71.6
75.6
79.7
83.7
178
70.0
74.1
78.1
82.2
72.5
76.6
80.6
214
77.5
81.6
212
82.5
234
3
212
234
98.1
106.0
114.0
122.0
92.5
101.0
109.0
117.0
125.0
90.9
95.0
103.0
111.0
119.0
127.0
89.4
93.4
97.5
106.0
114.0
122.0
130.0
87.8
91.9
95.9
100.0
108.0
116.0
124.0
132.0
86.2
90.3
94.4
98.4
102.0
111.0
119.0
127.0
135.0
84.7
88.7
92.8
96.9
101.0
105.0
113.0
121.0
129.0
137.0
85.6
89.7
93.7
97.8
102.0
106.0
110.0
118.0
126.0
134.0
142.0
86.6
90.6
94.7
98.7
103.0
107.0
111.0
115.0
123.0
131.0
139.0
147.0
87.5
91.6
95.6
99.7
104.0
108.0
112.0
116.0
120.0
128.0
136.0
144.0
152.0
92.5
96.6
101.0
105
109.0
113.0
117.0
121.0
125.0
133.0
141.0
149.0
157.0
214
C2
Bolt Diameter
3
4
7
8
47.8
45.8
43.8
108.0
106.0
104.0
168.0
166.0
164.0
228.0
226.0
224.0
288.0
286.0
284.0
348.0
346.0
344.0
408.0
406.0
404.0
468.0
466.0
464.0
10
528.0
526.0
524.0
131
132
Figure 1
value of 20 ksi. There are two shear stresses because there are
two circles: circle 1-3 and circle 2-3. The third circle, 1-2, has
no radius, hence no shear stress, since it is a point.
Any value of shear for 13 and 23 above the critical 20 ksi
will cause plastic strain.
Notice in Fig. 4b that both circle 1-3 and circle 2-3 cause
plastic strain 3(13) and 3(23). Therefore, the total plastic strain
in the direction of the applied stress 3 will be:
3 = 3(13) + 3(23)
Since 3(13) = 3(23), we then have:
3 = 23(13)
which will tend to reduce the residual tensile stress.
If the specimen is pulled to failure, 3 will reach its critical
value, or tensile strength. (See Fig. 5.) By this time the two
shear stresses are above the critical value and plastic strain or
movement will take place. Notice that the total plastic strain
consists of two values: 3(13) and 3(23). The movement 3 acts
in the direction of the stress 3 and would tend to reduce any
residual stress.
This member should behave in a ductile manner.
Plastic behavior takes place from 3 = 40 ksi up to 70 ksi
and is caused by two different plastic strains, 3(13) and
3(23).
In this case of triaxial stresses, all are tensile (Fig. 6). If
Figure 4a
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4b
133
Figure 7
Figure 5
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 6
134
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Table 1.
3 =
116
6.8
1
Normal
Stress
2
Elastic
Strain
3
Total
Strain
4
Plastic
Strain
3
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
e
.00033
.00050
.00067
.00083
.00100
.00117
.00133
.00150
.00170
.00180
.00200
.00220
.00230
.00033
.00050
.00067
.00083
.00100
.00117
.00133
.00230
.00330
.00500
.00760
.01180
.01830
.0008
.0016
.0032
.0056
.0096
.0160
Figure 13
135
since 3 = 2 and 3 = 2, so
Table 2.
3 =
64
6.8
2
2 =
116
Shear Stress
Plastic Strain
13
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
3
.00036
.00080
.00160
.00310
.00570
.00970
.01610
the critical value, its plastic strain does not act in the direction
of stress 3.
This condition should result in rather ductile behavior. Plastic
behavior occurs from = 26 ksi up to 70 ksi. (See Fig. 13.)
It would be very helpful if this data on plastic strain could
be put into the form of a stress-strain curve for this critical
location.
Table 1 lists the data from a typical stress-strain curve for
structural steel (Fig. 14a). Total strain is listed in Column 3.
The elastic strain, calculated from = / E, is listed in Column 2. By subtracting the elastic strain from the corresponding total strain, we obtain the plastic strain (Column 4). This
plastic strain is shown in Fig. 14b.
Since the plastic strain in Column 4 and Fig. 14b is caused
by the corresponding shear stress which exceeds its critical
value cr, we would like to convert the tensile plastic stress
tensile-strain curve into a plastic stress shear-strain curve
(Fig. 14c). This can be done with Fig. 14b by taking one-half
of the tensile stress value, since = 12, and also one-half of
the plastic strain, since, in a simple tensile specimen, we
found 3 = 23(13). From this we get the curve of Fig. 14c.
For plastic strain in terms of tensile stress:
3
3 =
116
Figure 14
136
6.8
Figure 15
C = 1 / 0.7 = 1.43
steel plate against concrete or grout surface (plate exposed)
C = 1 / 0.55 = 1.82
steel plate on grout pad on top of concrete surface
The authors of Ref. 1 recommended a numerically equivalent value () be used, which is unrelated to friction and
corresponds to ACI 349 Appendix B as follows:
= ACI 349 -factor (friction coeff.)
= 0.85 0.9 = 0.765
= 0.85 0.7 = 0.595
= 0.85 0.55 = 0.468
137
138
Service loads:
T = 15 kips (ASTM A36 anchor bolts)
139
Table 1.
ASD Allowable Loads per AISC5
A) Tension, kips
Area (based on nominal diameter) in.2
0.196
Material
Fy
(ksi)
Ft
(ksi)
A307
A36
A325*
.3068
.4418
.6013
.7854
.9940
1.227
1.485
1.767
2.405
3.142
3.976
214
5
8
3
4
7
8
118
114
138
112
134
20.0
3.9
6.1
8.8
12.0
15.7
19.9
24.5
29.7
35.3
48.1
62.8
79.5
36
19.1
3.8
5.9
8.4
11.5
15.0
19.0
23.4
28.4
33.7
45.9
60.0
75.9
92
81
44.0
8.6
13.5
19.4
26.5
34.6
43.7
54.0
65.3
77.7
105.8
138.2
174.9
1.485
1.767
2.405
3.142
3.976
B) Shear, kips
Area (based on nominal diameter) in.2
0.196
Material
Fy
(ksi)
Fv
(ksi)
A307
A36
A325*
.3068
.4418
.6013
.7854
.9940
1.227
5
8
3
4
7
8
118
114
138
112
134
214
10.0
2.0
3.1
4.4
6.0
7.9
9.9
12.3
14.8
17.7
24.1
31.4
39.8
36
9.9
1.9
3.0
4.4
6.0
7.8
9.8
12.1
14.7
17.5
23.8
31.1
39.4
92
81
21.0
4.1
6.4
9.3
12.6
16.5
20.9
25.8
31.2
37.1
50.5
66.0
83.5
*A325 spec. includes bolt diameters from 12-in. to 112-in. for bolt diameter geater than 112-in., equivalent strength material is available.
140
INTRODUCTION
ccupants of some buildings may observe that routine
activities cause floors to vibrate noticeably. This may be a
consequence of the high strength-to-weight ratio of the structural material and system, and is not necessarily indicative of
inadequate strength or excessive deflection. In addition to
assuring that a floor satisfies strength and static deflection
requirements, the designer should be concerned with vibration perceived by occupants. The chart presented as Fig. 1
facilitates estimating the level of acceptability of the expected
vibration of an office or residential floor. The chart implements two acceptance criteria8,10 of many that have been
proposed. Those criteria were developed by determining occupants perceptions of vibrations caused by routine activities
and then correlating those perceptions to measured or predicted levels of vibration caused by heel-drop tests. Application of the criteria embodied in Fig. 1 is limited to quiet but
tolerant environments such as offices and residences, and to
vibration caused by activities normally associated with those
occupancies. In particular, the criteria in the chart may be
unconservative for floors supporting precise work such as
surgery, and for excitation by vehicles, machinery, or rhythmic activities such as dancing and aerobic exercise.
BACKGROUND
In 1931 Reiher and Meister11 published a study on human
sensitivity to continuous vibration that included empirical
functions of amplitude and frequency that define thresholds
of various levels of perception. The perceptibility scale for
standing persons subjected to vertical vibration suggests a
methodology for rating floors.
People are less sensitive to vibration of short duration than
to continuous vibration. In order to develop acceptance criteria for transient floor vibration, Lenzen7 conducted laboratory
tests on concrete floors supported on steel joists and also
collected data on actual building floors. Based on results of
those tests, he modified the Reiher and Meister functions by
a factor of 10. However, Lenzen observed that his data
supported an alternative interpretation, namely that the floors
Frank J. Hatfield is professor of civil and environmental engineering at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
141
142
Ao =
0.60(DLF)
48
f = 1.57
L3
EIt Neff
g EIt Neff
WNeff L3
(2)
(3)
where DLF is the dynamic load factor (from table9 or formula10), L is length of the beam, E is modulus of elasticity of
steel, It is moment of inertia of the transformed cross section
of a beam with composite concrete flange, Neff is the number
of beams considered to be effective, g is the acceleration of
gravity, and W is the total weight supported by the beam. Units
are inches, kips, and seconds. The formulas apply also to
girders supporting the beams. The fundamental natural frequency of a beam and girder floor system is computed from
an approximation also used by D. L. Allen4
1 1 1
= +
fs2 fb2 fg2
(4)
(5)
appropriate acceptance limit. Computation of the acceleration response must include an amplification factor, which can
be as high as 20 for lightly damped floors if the frequency of
the load matches a natural frequency of the floor. Therefore
it is advisable that office and residential floors have fundamental natural frequencies exceeding four cycles per second,
which is about the upper limit for footfall frequency of a
running human.
Recently D. E. Allen1,2 focused attention on building vibration caused by aerobic exercise, audience participation, and
dancing. He discussed dynamic loads, estimation of vibrational response, acceptance limits, and remedial measures, as
well as presenting case studies.
DESIGN CHART
Figure 1 is a chart that implements two acceptability criteria
proposed by Murray.8,10 The criteria, and therefore the chart,
are applicable for quiet but tolerant environments such as
offices and residences, and to vibration caused by routine
human activities normally associated with those occupancies.
The relationship of the three axes is expressed by Eq. 3.
Using Eqs. 2 and 3, the product of the deflection amplitude
caused by a heel-drop and the fundamental natural frequency
may be written
Ao f =
0.386(DLF)
(6)
EIt Neff
L3 (WNeff)
Equation 6 was used to plot the perceptibility ranges defined by Eq. 1 and damping criteria based on Eq. 5. The latter
curves end at a natural frequency of 10 because Murray
recommended that his criterion not be used if natural frequency exceeds that value.9
The chart is meant to be used in conjunction with Murrays
paper,9 which provides complete instructions for computing
the necessary parameters, as well as guidelines for assessing
available damping. To use the chart, the designer first computes the stiffness coordinate (EIt Neff / L3) and the weight
coordinate (WNeff), then locates the corresponding point. Fundamental natural frequency (f) is read from the third axis. If
fundamental natural frequency does not exceed four cycles
per second, redesign is necessary to prevent resonant response to walking or running. The position of the point within
a region bounded by the textured curves indicates the estimated perceptibility of vibration for a lightly damped floor.
The position of the point relative to the solid lines indicates
the damping required to achieve acceptability. If the damping
provided by ceilings, partitions, and other attachments will be
less than the level required, the design should be modified.
EXAMPLES
9
= 432 in.
= 21.87 kip (including 20 percent live load)
= 1,765 in.4
= 1.93
1
1
fs = 2 +
2
7.2
5.3
= 4.3 cps
143
144
INTRODUCTION
For serviceability:
y =
1
(1 + )
4By b
pt2F
y
If y 0, Ty = By
If 0 < y 1, Ty =
pt2Fy
(1 + y)
4b
(1)
(2)
(3)
1
(1 + )
4Bub
pt2F 1
u
If u 0, Tu = Bu
If 0 < u 1, Tu =
pt2Fu
(1 + u)
4b
(4)
(5)
(6)
145
146
Table 1.
Douty and McGuire T-Stub TestsData (from Refs. 5 and 6)
Bolt Strength
T-Stub
Base
Bolt Dia.
Geometric Parameters
T-Stub Strength
Yield
Ultimate
Yield
Ultimate
Test
No.
tf
(in.)
tw
(in.)
tf
(in.)
tw
(in.)
d
(in.)
a
(in.)
b
(in.)
a
(in.)
b
(in.)
By
(kips)
Bu
(kips)
Fy
(ksi)
Fu
(ksi)
A1
A3
A4
A5
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
B1
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B9
B10
B12
B13
0.751
1.680
2.000
0.751
1.680
2.500
0.751
1.102
1.680
2.000
0.751
1.102
1.680
2.500
0.751
1.102
1.102
1.102
1.680
1.680
1.680
1.680
2.500
2.500
0.438
0.945
1.000
0.438
0.945
1.000
0.438
0.625
0.945
1.000
0.438
0.625
0.945
1.000
0.438
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.945
0.945
0.945
0.945
1.000
1.000
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
1.128
1.128
2.093
3.033
1.128
2.093
1.128
2.093
1.128
2.093
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
0.695
0.695
1.310
1.875
0.695
1.310
0.695
1.310
0.695
1.310
7
8
7
8
7
8
118
118
118
7
8
7
8
7
8
7
8
118
118
118
118
7
8
7
8
7
8
7
8
7
8
7
8
118
118
118
118
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.75
1.66
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.66
1.75
1.75
1.50
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.50*
1.50
1.50*
1.50
1.50*
1.50
2.43
1.78
1.75
2.03
1.78
1.75
2.03
1.94
1.78
1.75
2.03
1.94
1.78
1.75
2.03
1.94
1.94
1.94
2.40*
1.78
2.40*
1.78
2.40*
1.75
1.94
1.94
1.94
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.19
2.10
2.19
2.19
2.31
2.22
2.31
2.31
1.94
2.10
2.10
2.10
1.94*
1.94
2.06*
2.06
2.06*
2.06
1.59
1.34
1.31
1.47
1.22
1.19
1.59
1.50
1.34
1.31
1.47
1.38
1.22
1.19
1.59
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.96*
1.34
1.24*
1.22
1.84
1.14
0.82
0.69
0.68
0.71
0.59
0.58
0.73
0.72
0.61
0.60
0.64
0.62
0.53
0.51
0.82
0.72
0.72
0.72
1.01*
0.69
0.89*
0.59
0.89*
0.58
37.40
37.40
37.40
58.75
58.75
58.75
37.40
37.40
37.40
37.40
58.75
58.75
58.75
58.70
37.40
37.40
37.40
37.40
37.40
37.40
58.75
58.75
58.75
58.75
56.0
62.0
59.0
102.0
102.0
105.7
56.0
61.0
61.7
59.7
101.0
97.0
100.0
106.0
64.0
62.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
55.5
97.0
99.0
100.0
99.4
34.5
26.0
31.1
33.3
27.0
31.0
34.5
31.1
26.0
31.1
33.3
29.5
27.0
31.0
34.5
31.1
31.1
31.1
33.0*
26.0
33.0*
27.0
33.0*
31.0
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
6075
Superscripts
a = actual (experimental)
d = design
t = theoretical
Subscripts
e = elastic
u = ultimate
y = yield or separation
REFERENCES
1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
Construction, ASD, 9th. Edition, 1989, AISC, Chicago,
Illinois, U.S.A., pp. 4-89 through 4-95.
2. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
147
Table 2.
Douty and McGuire T-Stub TestsTheoretical and Actual Results (from Refs. 5 and 6)
Computed Strength (Theoretical)
Bolts and Flange
Yield
Test
No.
A1
A3
A4
A5
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
B1
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B9
B10
B12
B13
y
1.32
.27
.48
2.70
.10
.58
1.39
.30
.28
.50
2.82
.97
.01
.61
1.32
.51*
.29
.29
.51*
.27
1.35*
.10
1.35*
.58
Ultimate
Ty
Py
(kips) (kips)
23.10
37.40
37.40
23.40
58.75
58.75
23.10
32.90
37.40
37.40
23.40
46.80
58.75
58.75
23.10
29.00*
32.90
32.90
28.70*
37.40
39.00*
58.75
39.00*
58.75
Web
92.5
150.0
150.0
93.4
235.0
235.0
92.5
132.0
150.0
150.0
93.4
187.0
235.0
235.0
92.5
116.0*
132.0
132.0
115.0*
150.0
156.0*
235.0
156.0*
235.0
Actual Strength
(Experimental)
Tu
(kips)
Pu
(kips)
Py
(kips)
Pu
(kips)
Py
(kips)
Pu
(kips)
1.04, .69
.47, .48
.53, .58
2.57, 1.89
.27, .39
.60, .66
1.09, .73
.14, .04
.43, .50
.56, .60
2.65, 1.95
.62, .33
.27, .42
.63, .69
1.29, .89
.15, .03
.12, .05
.12, .05
.05*,.16*
.44, .59
.25*, .07*
.29, .40
.28*, .09*
.62, .67
40.243.5
62.0
59.0
52.665.8
102.0
105.7
40.244.3
57.161.0
67.1
59.7
52.665.8
81.486.7
100.0
106.0
40.247.9
57.662.0
56.560.0
56.560.0
60.0
55.5
84.4*92.5*
99.0
86.2*94.0*
99.4
161174
248
236
168210
408
423
161177
228244
247
239
168210
325345
400
424
161192
231248
226240
226240
240
222
338*370*
396
345*376*
398
128
209
264
124
217
263
128
165
209
264
124
157
217
263
128
165
165
165
1
2091
209
1
2191
217
2
2642
264
273279
482602
510638
223279
482602
510638
223279
319398
482602
510638
223279
319398
482602
510638
223279
319398
319398
319398
482602
482602
482602
482602
510638
510638
88
136
140
108
180
240
96
112
5
140
108
140
5
240
100
6
936
96
120
100
140
220
160
216
176
256
219
224
392
>404>
177
240
256
245
228
3
2863
404
>404>
202
230
228
230
254
233
348
403
378
>404>
Computed
Failure
Mode
Actual
Failure
Mode
Flange, Bolts
Bolts
Bolts
Flange
Bolts
Bolts
Flange, Bolts
Bolts, Flange
Bolts
Bolts
Flange
Flange, Bolts, Web
Bolts
Bolts
Flange, Bolts
Bolts, Flange
Bolts, Flange
Bolts, Flange
Bolts
Bolts
Bolts, Flange
Bolts
Bolts, Flange
Bolts
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Nut Stripping
Flange
Bolt Fracture
Did Not Fail4
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Web
Web3
Bolt Fracture
Did Not Fail4
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Bolt Fracture
Did Not Fail
148
Table 3.
Comparison of Actual and Theoretical Results
Yield Strength
Test
No.
A1
A3
A4
A5
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
B1
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B9
B10
B12
B13
Ultimate Strength
Actual Pya
(kips)
Theoretical Pyt
(kips)
Actual/Theoretical
Pya / Pyt
Actual Pua
(kips)
Theoretical Put
(kips)
Actual/Theoretical
Pua / Put
88
136
140
108
180
240
96
112
140
108
140
240
100
93
96
120
100
140
220
160
216
92.5
150.0
150.0
93.4
217.0
235.0
92.5
132.0
150.0
150.0
93.4
157.0
217.0
235.0
92.5
116.0
132.0
132.0
115.0
150.0
156.0
217.0
156.0
235.0
.95
.91
.93
1.16
.83
1.02
1.04
.85
176
256
219
224
392
>404>
177
240
256
245
228
286
404
>404>
202
230
228
230
254
233
348
403
378
>404>
168
248
236
189
408
423
169
236
247
239
189
335
400
424
177
240
233
233
240
222
354
396
361
398
1.05
1.03
.93
1.19
.96
.93
1.16
.89
1.02
1.08
.80
.73
.91
.87
.90
1.01
1.03
.92
1.05
1.02
1.04
1.03
1.21
.80
1.01
1.14
.96
.98
.99
1.06
1.05
.98
1.02
1.05
Table 4.
Comparison of Ultimate Strength Design Values with
Actual Yield Strength Values
Test No.
Put
2
(kips)
Pya
(kips)
Pya
Pud
A1
A3
A4
A5
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
B1
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B9
B10
B12
B13
84.0
124.0
118.0
94.5
204.0
212.0
84.5
118.0
124.0
120.0
94.5
168.0
200.0
212.0
88.5
120.0
117.0
117.0
120.0
111.0
177.0
198.0
181.0
199.0
88
136
140
108
180
240
96
112
140
108
140
240
100
93
96
120
100
140
220
160
216
1.05
1.10
1.19
1.14
.88
1.13
1.14
.95
1.17
1.14
.83
1.13
1.13
.78
.82
1.03
.83
.79
1.11
.88
1.08
Pud=
149
INTRODUCTION
1,2
150
(1)
(2)
(3)
2EIi
Pi L2i
(4)
Table 1.
Theoretical K Factors for Columns of Frame A
= Iright column / Ileft column
Kleft column
Kright column
1
2
4
6
8
10
2.00
1.64
1.27
1.08
0.96
0.88
2.00
2.31
2.54
2.65
2.72
2.78
Table 2.
Theoretical K Factors for Columns of Frame B
= Pleft column / Pright column
Kleft column
Kright column
1
2
4
6
8
10
2.00
1.73
1.59
1.53
1.51
1.49
2.00
2.45
3.17
3.76
4.26
4.72
Table 3.
Theoretical K Factors for Columns of Frame C
Kleft column
Kright column
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.00
1.51
1.16
0.93
2.00
2.27
2.31
2.32
151
2EI
2
L
SL
(5)
K = larger of
(6)
2EI
SL3
For frames of usual proportions, the quantity 2EI / SL3 normally does not exceed unity and so K = 1 often governs. In
the context of design, a designer can use K = 1 for the leaner
columns provided that accurate values of K are used for the
rigid columns. In evaluating K factors for the rigid columns,
the P effect generated in the leaner column must be considered to reflect the destabilizing influence of the leaner
column has on the overall stability of the frame.
Table 4.
Theoretical K Factors for the Rigid Column of the
Leaner Column Frame
= Pleft column / Pright column
Kright column
0
2
4
6
8
10
2.000
3.249
4.139
4.871
5.502
6.077
152
EI
(s + s )
L ii A ij B
EI
(s + s )
MB =
L ij A ii B
(7a)
(7b)
EI
(4A + 2B)
L
(8a)
MB =
EI
(2A + 4B)
L
(8b)
EI
(s + s )
L ii ij
(9)
MA = MB
(10)
MB =
6EI
PL2
1
L
60EI
(12)
EI
(s s )
L ii ij
(16)
s2ij
EI
sii B
L
sii
(17)
3EI
L B
(18)
(19)
(11)
2EI
PL2
1
L
12EI
sii
6EI
(15)
Retaining the first two terms in the series and substituting the
result into Eq. 13, we have
For the case in which the member bends in reverse curvature so that A = B = , Eqs. 7a and 7b become
MA = MB =
PL2
+
6EI
3EI
PL2
1
L
15EI B
(20)
(13)
2EI
(14)
153
P
S = rsIm
L
P
5L
(21)
where
=
(3 + 4.8m + 4.2m2)EI
L3
(22)
154
(23)
(24)
P 1
S = r
SI
L SI
(25)
or
P r
(P / L)
S = 1
SI
5
L H
(26)
1
(P / L)
P I
1 5 L
H
(27)
1
1
Pi
(Pek )i
(28)
2EIi P 1
I
+
P L2 L
H
5
i
i
(29)
equation, EIi and Li are the flexural rigidity and length of the
member, respectively. Pi is the axial force in the member,
(P / L) is the sum of the axial force to length ratio of all
members in a story, H is the story lateral loads producing
I, I is the first-order inter-story deflection, and is the
member stiffness index defined in Eq. 22. It is important to
note that the term H used in Eq. 29 is not the actual applied
lateral load. Rather, it is a small disturbing force (taken as a
fraction of the story gravity loads) to be applied to each story
of the frame. This disturbing force is applied in a direction
such that the displaced configuration of the frame will resemble its buckled shape. The member-end moments calculated
using a first-order analysis under the action of this disturbing
force will be used in Eq. 22 to evaluate the member stiffness
index.
The derivation of Eq. 29 takes into account both the P
and P effects that are present in the frame at buckling. As
a result, the equation is expected to give accurate results for
design. In applying Eq. 29, the designer must perform a
first-order frame analysis under a small disturbing force H
to determine I and the member-end moments. The member
stiffness index (Eq. 22) is then calculated for each member.
Once and I are calculated, Eq. 29 can be used to calculate
K. The procedure will be demonstrated in an illustrative
example in a following section.
Before proceeding any further, it is of interest to compare
Eq. 29 with Eq. 4. In Eq. 4, the term Pi is the axial force in
the column at buckling (i.e., the critical load). Both the P
and P effects are implicit in Pi . In Eq. 29, Pi is the axial
force in the column without accounting for the two instability
effects. These effects are accounted for explicitly by the terms
in brackets. A relationship between Pi and Pi can be obtained
by equating the two equations giving
I
Pi P 1
=
+
Pi L 5 H
PI
1
1
or
=1
AF
HL
PI
1
HL
2EIi
1
1
AF
Pi L2i
(32)
1
P
1
Pek
(33)
(30)
(31)
2EIi P
Pi L2i Pek
(34)
Equation 34 was proposed by LeMessurier14 for the evaluation of effective length factors for framed columns. A more
elaborate formula for K was also proposed by LeMessurier.4
However, the application of the LeMessuriers formulas requires the use of the alignment chart for solutions. The use of
Eq. 29, on the other hand, is completely independent of the
alignment chart solutions.
AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
As mentioned earlier in this paper, a correlation exists between the K factor and the moment magnification effect. This
correlation is rather transparent in Eq. 29. Recalling that the
terms in brackets represent the instability effects associated
with frame buckling, it is not difficult to infer that as these
effects intensify, the K factor increases for the member. From
Eq. 28, it can be seen readily that AF increases with K. Thus,
an accurate assessment for K is rather important in a valid
limit state design of frames subjected to heavy gravity loads.
To demonstrate the procedure for applying Eq. 29 to determine K factors for columns in sway frames, the frame shown
in Fig. 5a will be used. To initiate sway in a buckling analysis,
a small lateral load (a disturbing force) H equals to 0.1
percent of the story gravity loads (i.e., H = 0.1 percent
5P = 0.005P) is applied to the frame. This is shown in Fig.
5b. The value of 0.1 percent was selected purely for conceptual purpose. In practice, any value can be chosen since the
quantities I / H and MA / MB required for applying Eq. 29
155
Table 5
Column
left
right
MA
MB
m = MA / MB
P/L
288
480
240
480
2P
2P
0.419P
0.245P
0.530P
0.256P
0.791
0.957
5.89
1.49
0.00833P
0.00625P
1.35
0.71
156
Table 6
K Factors
Load Case
Column
Eq. 29
Theoretical
Alignment
Chart
Eq. 34
left
1.42
1.46
2.3
1.35
left
right
2.01
3.48
1.99
3.44
2.3
2.9
1.91
3.32
right
2.46
2.38
2.9
2.34
Table 7
K Factors
Load Case
Column
Eq. 29
Theoretical
Alignment
Chart
Eq. 34
A
B
right
right
3.70
2.62
3.69
2.64
2.60
2.60
3.68
2.60
0.1 percent times the total gravity loads acting on the frame
(i.e., 0.1 percent 2P = 0.002P) was applied laterally to the
frame to establish an adjacent equilibrium configuration for
the frame from which the moment ratios were calculated
using a first order analysis. The K factors for the loaded
columns evaluated using Eq. 29 are compared with those
evaluated using an eigenvalue analysis as well as those evalu-
157
Table 8
First-story
Column
P/L
left
middle
right
920
626
472
138.96
138.96
138.96
352.5
604.5
252.0
0.735
0.935
0.878
87.5
75.5
53.3
2.537
4.350
1.813
1.39
0.87
1.18
Second-story
Column
P/L
left
middle
right
470
470
200
120
120
120
105.0
183.4
78.4
0.382
0.947
0.800
42.9
89.2
32.0
0.875
1.528
0.653
1.58
1.21
1.20
Table 9
K Factors
Column
Eq. 29
Theoretical
Alignment
Chart
Eq. 34
first
left
middle
right
1.39
0.87
1.18
1.36
0.86
1.16
1.19
1.06
1.07
1.40
0.88
1.18
second
left
middle
right
1.58
1.21
1.20
1.73
1.31
1.30
1.25
1.11
1.12
1.40
1.06
1.05
Story
158
Example 3
As a final example, Eq. 29 is used to calculate the K factors
for the six columns of the two-story two-bay frame shown in
Fig. 8. The small disturbing forces required to establish an
adjacent equilibrium position for the frame are calculated
from the equation 0.1 percent Applied Story Gravity Load.
This gives a value of 0.367 kips for the top story and 0.842
kips for the bottom story. Subjecting the frame to these
disturbing forces, a first-order analysis gives I / H =
0.00483 for the first story and 0.00792 for the second story.
The remaining calculations are depicted in tabulated form
shown in Table 8. (Units are in kips and inches.)
For purpose of comparison, values of the K factors obtained
using different approaches are shown in Table 9.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A simple and effective formula for evaluating elastic effective
length factors for framed columns in sway frames was derived. The formula takes into consideration the member instability and frame instability effects explicitly. As a result, in
addition to providing the users with a clear physical picture
of the two destabilizing influences on column stability, the
formula gives reasonably accurate results for design application. The explicit consideration of the two instability effects
also eliminates the need for a second-order analysis. The
application of the proposed formula only requires the user to
perform a first-order analysis. No special charts or iterations
are required for solutions. The formula provides sufficiently
accurate estimates for K factors of columns in frames with
unequal distribution of column stiffness, unequal distribution
of gravity loads and for frames with leaner columns. The
validity of the proposed K factor equation when applied to
these cases was demonstrated by numerical examples.
The applicability of Eq. 29 for determining K factors of
columns stressed into the inelastic range is currently being
investigated. The approach makes use of the tangent modulus
concept and uses the tangent modulus Et in place of the elastic
modulus E in determining the various parameters in Eq. 29.
Detailed discussion for determining this inelastic K factor will
be addressed in a subsequent paper.
REFERENCES
1. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 1986.
159
INTRODUCTION
160
which contains three units: MPA (Analysis), MPD (Design), and MPMD (ModelDraft).5 MPA has frame modeling, analysis, and analysis postprocessing capabilities.
Line, plane, and solid elements are available, as are
linear elastic static and dynamic analysis and nonlinear
elastic static analysis. MPD evaluates results generated
by MPA. It contains provisions of several American and
foreign steel and concrete specifications. They can be
used either in selecting member sizes or to check the
adequacy of preassigned members. MPMD is an associated drawing production package. To my knowledge, the
analysis and design capabilities of commercial programs
of this type are still limited to those for which there is a
clear demand.
4. Commercial inelastic analysis programs are available,
but in civil engineering practice they are presently used
mainly for special studies. Figure 8 contains results of
one application, the use of a second order inelastic
analysis program to verify the intended post yield behavior of an earthquake resistant frame consisting of outer
braced super columns connected by moment resistant
link beams, a system that does not fit conveniently into
code defined categories. This study, which demonstrates
some of the potential of advanced analysis, was made by
engineers of the firm of Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill.
The program ANSR-III, with graphical postprocessing
developed by the SOM staff, was used.6 In Fig. 8b, the
dots that represent plastic hinges in successive stages of
an equivalent static analysis verified that, as intended,
there would be extensive yielding in the link beams prior
to any yielding in the braced bays. This desirable mode
of response, which has better energy dissipation proper-
161
162
Cornell Research. For the near future our research in computer aided engineering will focus on the development of
practicable numerical methods for handling some of the
outstanding nonlinear problems in analysis and design.10 One
effort is directed toward the inclusion of inelastic torsionalflexural effects in existing programs. Another, under the
direction of my colleague, Greg Deierlein, deals with the
simulation of the geometric and material behavior of semirigid connections.
These projects are in the natural progression of the line of
research we have been pursuing for 15 years. And they are
examples of the university research I referred to as still
needed for the development of practical, reasonably comprehensive second order inelastic analysis.
The General Climate. Measures of the vitality of university
research can be conflicting and misleading. Judged only on
the volume of output it looks healthier than ever before. Thirty
years ago I could keep up on the technical literature; I could
study many of the papers related to steel behavior, analysis,
or design. Twenty years ago I was reduced to reading journal
abstracts, ten years ago to skimming their tables of contents,
and now I cant get through all of the table-of-contents
services that cross my desk.
Much of this material is beyond the limits of helpfulness
however; at one end it is too close to theoretical mechanics to
have any near-time application to design and at the other end
too trivial a modification of things done before to be of value.
And much that is relevant is narrowly focused and heavily
explored. For example, a good second order inelastic analysis
163
(a)
(b)
164
165
is sensitive to the choice, numerically consistent but completely unrealistic results may be obtained.
Nonlinearity. All design requires accounting for the possible
effects of geometric and material nonlinear behavior in some
way. But a good understanding of their physical causes and
the mathematical methods for handling both requires going
beyond elementary mechanics of materials and structural
analysis.
Torsion. Understanding the ways in which steel sections can
resist twisting (the significance of the J and the Cw
quantities in the steel manuals) is another subject that requires
going beyond elementary mechanics of materials.
Just as ominous for the future, if I am correct, is my
impression that many of the graduate students now studying
for the doctorate in structural engineering are not obtaining
the depth of understanding of these subjects that they should
have as tomorrows teachers and leaders of research.
STANDARDIZATION
Years ago, Hardy Cross commented on design practice in an
article on Standardization and Its Abuse, subtitled Intelligent Standards Versus Standardized Intelligence.13 He distinguished between the creative and the routine aspects of
engineering, and what he said cant be improved upon. To
quote: As the size and complexity of projects increased, the
time came when there was more work to do than men to do it
or time in which to think out problems. It became desirable
and even necessary to set up a series of routine procedures for
analysis and design. This meant the development of a series
of formulas and rules and standards which could be followed
within limits by men trained in that vocation. He observed
that there appeared then an intellectual assembly line without which it would be impossible to turn out the volume of
work that comes from engineering offices. And, after noting
tragic results of standardization used without discrimination
or control, he balanced the picture by saying, The important
point is that some types of planning, designing, and experimenting can be put on an assembly line and some types can
be put on an assembly line of skilled brains only, but much of
the most important work cannot be done by using fixed rules,
standardized formulas, or rigid methods.
Standards, therefore, are essential but they are not everything. Over the years the AISC specifications have been more
discriminating than any of the other standards I know of in
providing for the everyday problems that can be reduced to
simple routines and those that may benefit from special
attention, and in stopping short of the line between the routine
and the creative sides of engineering. I think credit should go
to the mix of steel men, consulting engineers, and academicians on its Specification Committee, and the checks and
balances they exert on each other. George Winter was too
level-headed to do so, but I can imagine another academic of
his time proposing adoption of the effective length concept in
166
made after weighing all the business and technical factors that
affect its operation. An outsider, particularly a non-practitioner, is in no position to offer general advice. But my subject
of the use and misuse of new technology makes a few comments on the technological factors unavoidable.
To make a point Ill use a simplified picture: that there are
just two types of practice: 1) the large A & E or multidisciplinary engineering organization; and 2) the small structural
engineering office. My experience has been that the same
levels of creativity, intelligence, and expertise can be found
in each and both can produce structures of high quality. But
Ill assume that the large organization has resources of capital
and manpower the small one doesnt have.
In this imaginary world, I would have little sympathy for
the large organization that didnt keep abreast of, and take
advantage of, the latest advances in technology. This would
mean, for example, adopting the AISC LRFD Specification
wholeheartedly, and having the latest in computer hardware
and computer aided engineering software. It would also mean
the continuing education and training of its engineers in the
use of the new technology and having a staff to advise and
assist in its use and to maintain it. The possibility of producing
a more finally engineered, more reliable product should be all
the motivation the large, adequately endowed organization
would need to adopt such policies.
I would, however, have understanding for the small practitioner who tries to keep abreast of change but finds the
present pace too fast for the constraints on his time and money.
Such a person should have no difficulty in making the transition from the concepts of ASD to those of LRFD. But continually upgrading computer hardware and software as new
models and versions are announced could be impossible. It
seems to me the only response to such constraints would be
to accept them and to continue a practice based on the
conscientious application of the principles and methods mastered by the talent at hand. Im an obvious believer in the
possibilities of computer aided engineering, but a position
that the newest program or machine is essential to the production of a fine structure would be fatuous, as any glance at
history will show.
CHANGING TIMES
Strange things have happened to the image and maybe even
the substance of engineering over the years. In looking to the
future it is worth considering the change.
The Nineteenth Century
One hundred years ago Robert Louis Stevenson gave a view
of nineteenth century civil engineering in an account of the
work of his grandfather, Robert Stevenson, a pioneering civil
engineer:14
He was above all things a projector of works in the face
of nature, and a modifier of nature itself. A road to be made,
a tower to be built, a harbour to be constructedthese were
167
168
169
Annual Index
First Quarter 147
Second Quarter 4984
SUBJECT INDEX
ANCHOR BOLTS
Design Aid: Anchor Bolt Interaction of Shear and
Tension Loads Scacco, Mario N. . . . . . . . . . . . 137
High-Strength Bolts for Bridges Verma, Krishna K.
Fred R. Beckman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
BEAMS
Flexural Strength of WT Sections Ellifritt,
Duane S., Gregory Wine, Thomas Sputo,
and Santosh Samuel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Significance and Application of Cb in Beam
Design Zuraski, Patrick D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BRACING
Forces on Bracing Systems Nair, R. Shankar. . . .
67
20
45
BRIDGES
High-Strength Bolts for Bridges Verma, Krishna K.
Fred R. Beckman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
BUCKLING
An Equivalent Radius of Gyration Approach
to Flexural-Torsional Buckling for Singly
Symmetric Sections Bakos, Jack D. Jr.
and James A. OLeary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
BUILT-UP MEMBERS
Analytical Criteria for Stitch Strength of Built-up
Compression Members Aslani, Farhang and
Subhash C. Goel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
COLUMNS
A Novel Approach for K Factor Determination
Lui, Eric M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Simple Equations for Effective Length Factors
Dumonteil, Pierre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
COMPUTERS
Computers and Steel Design McGuire, W. . . . . . . 160
CONNECTIONS
An Experimental Study of Block Shear Failure of
Angles in Tension Epstein, Howard I. . . . . . . .
170
75
85
FRAMES
A Method for Incorporating Live Load Reduction
Provisions in Frame Analysis Ziemian,
Ronald D. and William McGuire . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
SINGLE-ANGLE
Eccentrically Loaded Steel Single Angle Struts
Adluri, Seshu Madhavarao and Murty
K. S. Madugula. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-Slender Single Angle Struts Elgaaly, M.,
W. Davids, and H. Dagher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TUBULAR SECTIONS
Load and Resistance Factor Design of Welded Box
Section Trusses Packer, Jeffrey A., J. E. (Ted)
Henderson, and Jaap Wardenier . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
49
92
VIBRATION
Application of Tuned Mass Dampers To Control
Vibrations of Composite Floor Systems
Webster, Anthony C. and Rimas Vaicaitis . . . . . . . 116
Design Chart for Vibration of Office and Residential
Floors Hatfield, Frank J.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
AUTHOR INDEX
Adluri, Seshu Madhavarao and Murty K. S. Madugula
Eccentrically Loaded Steel Single Angle Struts . . . .
59
26
Beckman, Fred R.
See Verma, Krishna K.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Blodgett, Omer W.
Structural Details To Increase Ductility of
Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Burgett, Lewis B.
Fast Check for Block Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Dagher, H.
See Elgaaly, M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Davids, W.
See Elgaaly, M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
49
Dumonteil, Pierre
Simple Equations for Effective Length Factors . . . . 111
Elgaaly, M., W. Davids, and H. Dagher
Non-Slender Single Angle Struts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ellifritt, Duane S., Gregory Wine, Thomas Sputo, and
Santosh Samuel
Flexural Strength of WT Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
67
McGuire, W.
Computers and Steel Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
McGuire, William
See Ziemian, Ronald D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nair, R. Shankar
Forces on Bracing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
OLeary, James A.
See Bakos, Jack D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
92
12
Roddis, W. M. Kim
Distortion-Induced Cracking During Transit. . . . . . .
85
Samuel, Santosh
See Ellifritt, Duane S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
Scacco, Mario N.
Design Aid: Anchor Bolt Interaction of Shear and
Tension Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Sputo, Thomas
See Ellifritt, Duane S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
Thornton, W. A.
Strength and Serviceability of Hanger
Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Vaicaitis, Rimas
See Webster, Anthony C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Epstein, Howard I.
An Experimental Study of Block Shear Failure of
Angles in Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
Gerstle, Kurt H.
See Rauscher, Thomas R.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Wardenier, Jaap
See Packer, Jeffrey A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
Goel, Subhash
See Aslani, Farhang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Hatfield, Frank J.
Design Chart for Vibration of Office and Residential
Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Henderson, J. E. (Ted)
See Packer, Jeffrey A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
Lui, Eric M.
A Novel Approach for K Factor Determination . . . . 150
Madugula, Murty K. S.
See Adluri, Seshu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
67
Zuraski, Patrick D.
The Significance and Application of Cb in Beam
Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
171