Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THIRD QUARTER/1993 77
procedure could be simplified/^ The simplification is in the tion pertaining to the issue of weld quality was made while
form of coefficients given in the AISC Specifications.^'^ Al- reviewing the AWS report. The last column of Table 1 is a
though the work of Chesson and Munse included the effects code used in the report to indicate the welding process (arc or
of several factors on the net section efficiency, the AISC gas), fabricating shop, welder, and mill that supplied the steel.
specifications only account for the two dominant factors, net Nine specimens, all of which were arc-welded, failed at an
area and shear lag. The commentaries of both specifications efficiency less that 0.80. Most of these specimens had com-
include Equation 1 as an alternate approach for determining panion specimens, which had similar fabrication details, yet
the shear lag coefficients. The calculation of the effective net they exhibited test efficiencies well above 0.80. A hypothesis
area, A^, incorporates the shear lag coefficient and is given by that welding techniques, which may have created gouges or
notches in the base material, caused the scatter in the data was
A=UA„ (2) formed by the authors of this paper. This seems plausible
where because the nine tests with efficiencies below 0.80 were
fabricated in two shops, by three welders, using steel from
A„ = net area two mills (3 heats), and seven of those were welded in the
same shop by two welders. Unfortunately, this hypothesis
Welded Connections cannot be confirmed for tests conducted more than 60 years
In 1931 the American Bureau of Welding published the results ago.
of an extensive study in which safe working stresses for welds The results of the AWS research were considered in the
were determined. The American Bureau of Welding was an development of the AISC specification provisions accounting
advisory board for welding research and standardization of for shear lag in welded members. However, as will be pre-
the American Welding Society (AWS) and the National Re-
search Council Division of Engineering."^ The study was a ///^^y^j'yyy// i 1 /yyyy/////y//
through the plate. The tests that ruptured are the ones appli- -i-
cable to the study described here. Key results from these tests 1 1
have been taken from the report and are presented in Table 1.
Figure 2 is a plot of the results in terms of plate thickness vs.
/////yy/y/yyy 1 1
experimental shear lag coefficient (efficiency), U^. yyyyyyyyyyyyy
f Series
Several trends are apparent in Figure 2. First, as the plate w 2400
thickness increases, the scatter in the data tends to increase, /•//////////// 1 1 /yyyyyyyyyyyj
1
with the average experimental shear lag coefficient increasing
slightly. This trend appears to hold except for the Vg-in. group,
-i-
which shows the least scatter, although this is the group with ,, ^ ,, ,,
the smallest number of tests. '""""""
Second, the amount of scatter in the %-m. group is unexpect-
edly high. There are groups of tests in which specimens have //y/yyy/y/yyy \ 1 yyyyyyyyyyyyy .
sented later in this paper, questions have arisen regarding the the experimental specimens, as well as a review of the AISC
appUcation of the provisions to welded members. A research specification provisions pertaining to shear lag.
program was initiated to address the questions. The remainder
of this paper presents the results of the research program. Description of Experimental Specimens
Each test specimen consisted of two members welded back-
RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR WELDED to-back to gusset plates, as shown in Figure 3. The gusset
TENSION MEMBERS plates were then gripped in a universal testing machine and
This section of the paper summarizes a research project pulled until failure. Use of double members minimized the
conducted at Virginia Tech focusing on the application of distortion due to the out-of-plane eccentricity, however,
shear lag specification provisions to welded tension mem- eccentric effects were ignored in the design of the test
bers, presenting both experimental and analytical results. The specimens.
experimental program included tests of 27 welded tension Three types of member were tested: plates, angles, and
members, along with the associated tensile coupon tests. channels. Fillet weld configurations used for each member
Analytical studies included elastic finite element analyses of type, except the plates, were longitudinal, transverse, and a
THIRD QUARTER/1993 79
combination of both longitudinal and transverse. For the transverse) and specimen number for a given member type
plates, two different lengths of longitudinal weld and a com- and weld configuration. For instance, test designation P-B-2
bination of longitudinal and transverse welds were used. is a plate specimen with both longitudinal and transverse
For a given specimen configuration, three nominally iden- welds and is the second test in that particular group. An
tical tests were conducted; specimens with only transverse additional number appears in the weld designation for some
welds were the exception. Calculations indicate that tension of the plate specimens (e.g. P-L2-3). This is because the
members connected with only transverse fillet welds will longitudinal weld lengths were varied in some of the plate
always fail through the welds. For the purpose of confirming specimens that were fabricated with only longitudinal welds.
the calculations three specimens were fabricated with only In an attempt to ensure net section failures in the members,
transverse welds. Details of the specimens are given in all welds, except the transverse welds, were designed to have
Table 2. Test designations in Table 2 indicate the type of 10-15 percent greater strength than the gross section tensile
member (P = plate, L = angle, C = channel), weld configura- strength of the member. The width and thickness of the
tion (L = longitudinal, T = transverse, B = longitudinal and connected member elements prevented oversizing of the
transverse welds. Welds were balanced by size for all angle
specimens, except L-B-la, with the longitudinal weld lengths
1.0 -
o being equal on each specimen. Specimen L-B-la was unbal-
• i t anced with the two longitudinal welds being the same size
i ' * * and length.
0.8 - • Strain gages were used in one of the tests for each member
^^ n.6 -
• . 2
A
type to study the stress distribution near the critical section of
A
the member and the distribution of stress in the member along
o (2200)-Long.-w = 7.5"
the length of the connected region. A displacement transducer
0.4 -
• (2400)-Long.-w = 7.5" was used to monitor the overall cross head movement. This
n ( 2 5 0 0 ) - L o n g . 4- Trans.-w = 4" measurement is only of qualitative value since it includes any
0.2 - A (2600)-Long. + Trans.-w = 7.5"
• ^2700j-Long. + Trans.-w = 4" slip between the specimen and the testing machine grips.
'
A (2800)-Long. + Trans.-w = 7.5" Each specimen was whitewashed before testing to permit the
0.0 - ^ • 1 • ' ' • 1 • • • • 1 ' 1 1 1 1
observance of qualitative yield pattern formation. Complete
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 specimen details are reported by Gonzalez and Easterling.^
Plate Thickness (in.) Two aspects of the authors' research program should be
kept in mind while reviewing the following results. The first
Fig. 2. Plate thickness vs. experimental shear lag is that the number of tests was limited, compared to the many
coefficient for AWS tests. tests available for consideration when the shear lag provisions
were developed by Munse and Chesson. Second, the member
sizes used to fabricate the test specimens were small. The
8-20 in. I
capacity of the testing equipment available at the time the
tests were conducted limited the member sizes. There are
^P--<W1, typ.
undoubtedly size effects that the results of this study do not
reflect. However, the same can be said of the data base that
forms the basis for the current shear lag specification provi-
W2, typ; IX sions, and thus the results of this study can be considered
1^^-<W3. typ. similar to the bolted and riveted test results.
the gusset plates were considered to be rigid. Interface, or gap, process, the model was analyzed with eight different weld
elements were used to prevent the member from displacing stiffness values, ranging from 100 to 5,000 k/in. The com-
into the gusset plate. A typical finite element mesh and pletely rigid case was also considered. The remaining analyti-
boundary conditions for a model of an angle specimen are cal stresses and displacements were then compared to those
illustrated in Figure 4. Plate and channel models were con- observed experimentally. A spring constant of 350 k/in. pro-
structed in a similar manner. Only results from the plate vided the best correlation between the analytical and experi-
models are presented in this paper. Results from other analy- mental stresses. The calibration weld size was Vi6-in. The
ses are reported by Gonzalez and Easterling.^ spring constant for other weld sizes were determined assum-
The stiffness for the weld elements was determined by ing a linear relationship between the shear stiffness of the
calibrating a model of a plate with 5-in. longitudinal welds to weld and the spring constant. All models contained the same
the corresponding experimental specimen. In the calibration number of spring elements per linear inch of weld.
THIRD QUARTER/1993 81
General Results from the current AISC specifications,^'^ which give the coef-
In all tests with cross section ruptures, the failure occurred ficients according to:
after the cross section yielded. The yielding was qualitatively a. If/>2w ^=1.0
observed by flaking of whitewash and quantitatively ob- b.If2w>/>1.5w . . [7 = 0.87
served in the instrumented specimens from strain readings c. If 1.5w>/>w . . ^=0.75
and in all specimens from load cell readings, which exceeded
the yield load. Ideally, specimens used to determine shear lag where
coefficients would rupture at the critical section prior to w = plate width (distance between welds)
yielding on the gross cross section. Shear lag coefficients
determined from tests in which yielding occurs on the gross The shear lag coefficient for longitudinally welded plates can
cross section prior to rupture on the net cross section may also be calculated using Equation 1 with each half of the plate
differ from those determined from tests that do not yield prior treated independently. Therefore, jc would be one-fourth of
to rupture. This hypothesis has not been verified in the study the plate width. These values are not shown in Table 3.
reported here, nor in past studies. As indicated in the review Coefficients for the transversely welded members were cal-
of past research, this limitation was also present in most of culated as the ratio of the area of the directly connected
the tests conducted as part of the research reported by Ches- elements to the gross area. This is also an AISC specification
son and Munse.^ provision. The calculation procedure for the shear lag coeffi-
Yield lines, indicated by flaking of the whitewash, gener- cients is deemed acceptable if the ratios of experimental to
ally were not observed within the directly connected portion calculated shear lag coefficients, given in Table 3, fall within
of the members. In some instances, the portion of the cross a 10 percent scatter band, i.e. 0.9 to 1.1. A similar evaluation
section that was not connected, e.g. outstanding angle leg, was made for bolted and riveted tests reported by Munse and
showed indications of yielding. Yielding mostly occurred in Chesson.^^
the portion of the member between the welded ends.
Plate Specimens
Experimental results are given in Table 3. The experimen-
tal shear lag coefficients, U^, were calculated as the ratio of Results are summarized in Table 3 and as indicated, the plate
the failure load to the rupture strength (gross area x tensile tests can be divided into three groups according to the speci-
stress). The shear lag coefficients for the specimens that did fication shear lag coefficients of 0.75, 0.87, and 1.0. (Values
not exhibit rupture at the critical cross section can be taken at computed using Equation 1, as described in the previous
least equal to those shown in Table 3. The values for these paragraph, are 0.82, 0.85, and 1.0.) Two of the groups have
tests do not explicitly represent shear lag coefficients because only longitudinal welds and one has both transverse and
rupture was not the controlling limit state. Calculated shear longitudinal welds.
lag coefficients, U^, were determined using Equation 1, except The plate specimens exhibited tearing across the member
for the plate specimens and the transversely welded speci- at the critical section, which was at the end of the welds.
mens. Coefficients for the plate specimens were determined Yielding in the plates was first observed at the critical cross
section at the end of the welds. None of the plate specimens
displayed significant out-of-plane effects. For all of the plate
specimens the ratio of U^ / U^ was greater than 0.9. Six of the
nine tests have values of U^ / U^ greater than or equal to 1.1.
Note that a failure load was not obtained for Test 1 because
the testing machine capacity was exceeded. However a shear
lag coefficient of 0.92 is reported. This represents the maxi-
mum load applied, and the true coefficient would have been
greater.
Longitudinal strains were recorded across the width of the
-see Detail A instrumented plate specimens near the end of the welds. The
strain gage locations for Test 3 are shown in Figure 5. Strains
were converted to stresses and distributions plotted along the
critical section. The stress distribution at various load levels
within the elastic range of material behavior for Test 3 is
illustrated in Figure 6.
gap element force-displacennent elements
Note the unsymmetrical stress distributions shown in Fig-
Detail A ure 6(a), most likely caused by imbalance in the longitudinal
welds or eccentrically applied load. The welds were detailed
Fig. 4. Finite element model of typical angle. for a balanced configuration, but given the stress distribu-
tions, they apparently were not fabricated symmetrically. One is a plot of the distributions in which the symmetric strain
would expect the distributions to be symmetric if the welds readings, e.g. gages 1 and 5 and gages 2 and 4, were averaged
were balanced and the load applied concentrically. prior to converting the values to stresses.
Figure 7 is a plot of the stress distributions at approximately In Figure 8, the three tests show similar distribution pat-
the critical section for Tests 3,6, and 8. The strain gages were terns, but with varying magnitudes of stress. The highest
within 0.5 in. of the critical section. Note that both specimens stresses occurred for Test 8, which had 3-in. longitudinal
welded only longitudinally exhibited unsymmetric stress dis- welds along with a transverse weld. Test 3, which had 4V4-in.
tributions, while the specimen that was welded with both longitudinal welds, exhibited lower stresses than Test 6,
longitudinal and transverse welds exhibited essentially a sym- which had 5-in. longitudinal welds. The variations in the
metric distribution. Assuming that the stress distribution stresses for Tests 3 and 6 ranged between 3 and 7 percent,
would be symmetric if the welds were balanced, then the while the stresses for Test 8 were 5-7 percent higher than
experimental stresses may be modified to permit an evalu- those for Test 6.
ation of the influence of the longitudinal weld length. Figure 8 The analytical, based on finite element analyses, and ex-
THIRD QUARTER/1993 83
perimental stresses for Tests 3,6, and 8 can be compared with
3® 1-1/8" Figures 9-11. The trend for each of the three cases is similar.
3/4r
The experimental stresses near the center of the plate are
approximately the same, or somewhat less, than the calcu-
lated stresses. Experimental stresses nearer the edge of the
plate are greater than the calculated stresses. This trend may
have been caused by the stopping or starting of the welding
process, causing imperfections at the critical section in the
form of gouges or notches due to blow out. These imperfec-
tions would result in stress concentrations adjacent to the edge
(strain gage numbers in circles) of the plate, which would in turn cause yielding earlier in the
loading process. Stress concentrations caused by the imper-
Fig. 5. Strain gage locations for Test 3.
fections at the critical cross section were not considered in the
finite element model.
The experimental results for the plate specimens indicated
that the longitudinal weld length appears to not influence the
rupture strength based on shear lag effects. This observation
was reinforced by the elastic finite element results which
showed virtually the same stress distribution at the critical
section for models in which the weld length is 3, A% and 5 in.
0)
Neither the stress distribution at the critical section nor the
-4—'
experimental shear lag coefficient were significantly affected
00 by the addition of the transverse weld, as compared to the
specimens with only longitudinal welds. However, note that
the differences in longitudinal weld length were relatively
small.
1 2 3 4 5
(a) Strain Gage Number Angle Specimens
All but two of the angle specimens exhibited a tearing
failure, with the tearing initiating at the welded toe. The
Applied Load per Member (kips)
welds sheared in Tests 15 and 19. The outstanding legs of
o 10.0
• 20.0 the specimens generally exhibited more signs of yielding
V 30.0 at the critical section, evident by whitewash flaking, than
• 35.0 the area of the angles directly connected to the gusset
D 40.0
• 45.0 60
Member Yield Stress
60
50 Experimental
[ Member Yield Stress
50 Load = 20 kips
[ CO 40 4-
*cn 40 h /
cn 30
^ ^_-——-—^'
0)
en 30
en
_ _ — — — — • ' ^
20 4-
0) ^ - 00
20 A P-L1-2
00 10
A P-L2-2
10 o P-B-1
0
L T 1 1 1 1
1 2 + 3 4 +5
0
8 7 6 3
Strain Gage Nunnber
(b) Strain Gage Nunnber
Fig. 7. Experimental stresses at the critical section
Fig. 6. Experimental stresses for Test 3. for Tests 3, 6, and 8.
60 T ^
t Menr ber Yield Stress
50 4- Ex p. (Averaged)
Lo ad = 20 kips
^ 40 +
en 30
if)
CD ^ ^
| _ ^ i ^ i ^
-b 20
A P-L1-2
10 "r"
A P-L2-2
0 P-B-1
\
0 H \ H h 1 \— 1
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 9. Analytical vs. experimental stresses for Test 3. Fig. 11. Analytical vs. experimental stresses for Test 8.
THIRD QUARTER/1993 85
nels, and all but one of the longitudinally and transversely dinal welds, then no provisions exist for cases in which a
welded channels, failed in the center of the specimen. This combination of longitudinal and transverse welds are used.
was attributed to the combined state of stress induced in the Results of this study indicate that the addition of a transverse
members by the out-of-plane load eccentricity. weld does not significantly affect the rupture strength com-
Initial yielding was generally concentrated in the channel pared to a specimen with only longitudinal welds.
flanges and near the web-flange intersection. In the welded The shear lag provision for members welded only with
area, as with the angles, yielding was visible in the outstand- transverse welds specifies that the effective area shall be the
ing flanges while none was present in the directly connected area of the connected element. Reviewing the limit states of
web. The propagation of yielding into the channel flanges was weld shear and shear lag, summarized in the Appendix of this
attributed to the combined axial stress and bending stress due paper, indicates that weld shear will always control the
to out-of-plane eccentricity. strength if fillet welds are used. If partial- or full-penetration
Note in Table 3 that all the experimental shear lag coeffi- welds are used then the present specification provision is
cients for the channels ranged between 0.88 and 0.92. How- appropriate.
ever, the predominant limit state was rupture of the gross cross According to the specification commentary, previous re-
section approximately halfway between the two ends of the search"^ determined that plates welded only longitudinally can
specimen, and not rupture of the net section. These results fail prematurely due to shear lag if the distance between the
agree with the observed practical upper limit of 0.9 that welds is too great. Thus, a minimum weld length equal to the
Chesson and Munse^^ identified from their studies. Due to plate width or distance between the welds, w, is required.
eccentricities and fabrication imperfections in welded speci- Currently, the specification does not consider shear lag a
mens, an upper limit of 0.9 for the shear lag coefficient limiting factor as long as the weld length is greater than twice
appears prudent. As with the plate and angle specimens, the the plate width. Two shear lag coefficients are specified for
maximum loads and experimental shear lag coefficients were intermediate ranges of longitudinal weld length between w
not affected by the addition of a transverse weld. and 2w. Results from this study indicate that the weld lengths
greater than the distance between the welds have little influ-
SPECIFICATION REVIEW AND ence on the shear lag coefficient. However, due to the limited
RECOMMENDED REVISIONS number of tests conducted and to the small size of the mem-
The AISC design specifications for shear lag pertained only bers, no modifications are recommended to the shear lag
to bolted or riveted connections prior to the inclusion of coefficients for longitudinally welded plates.
welded members in the 1986 LRFD Specification,^ and sub- Reviewing the AWS"^ results, along with the statement by
sequently in the 1989 ASD Specification.^ Welded members Munse and Chesson^^ that efficiencies greater than 90 percent
are treated similar to bolted members to maintain continuity are seldom observed, an upper limit for L^ of 0.9 is deemed
in the specifications. However, the provisions for welded appropriate. This is also consistent with the upper limit that
members are not clear in all instances and have therefore appears in the current specifications^'^ in section B3 subpara-
raised questions regarding their application. A review of the graph a. The strength of welded tension members is reduced
questions and related issues, along with recommended due to the coupled effects of shear lag, stress concentrations,
changes to the specification, are presented in this section of and eccentricities. The stress concentrations are due to the
the paper. sudden change in stiffness caused by the presence of the weld,
Although the specification indicates that welded members or to notches or gouges created at the critical section by the
are subject to shear lag reductions, there is no minimum weld welding process. Although all play a role in reducing the
length criterion to distinguish between different coefficient strength, it is difficult to determine the relative participation
values in Chapter B3. The first set of subparagraphs a, b, and of each component. Using an empirical approach, such as the
c in section B3 identify a minimum fastener length indirectly, shear lag coefficient, is an approximate way to account for all
by specifying a minimum number of fasteners, in the direction the effects.
of stress for bolted or riveted connections but not for welded
connections. In fact, because welding is not mentioned in Recommended Revisions to the
subparagraphs a, b, or c, while bolting and riveting are, it is Specification and Commentary
unclear that the definitions apply to welded members. Nev- Recommended revisions to the specification were developed
ertheless, these sections are intended to be applicable to jointly by the authors of this paper and the AISC Task Com-
welded specimens. mittee 108—Connections and Force Introduction. The rec-
Another unclear portion of the specification pertains to the ommended changes address all of the issues identified in the
use of members with both transverse and longitudinal welds. previous section. All of the recommended changes apply to
A specification provision is given for members connected by section B3 of the AISC Specifications.^'^
only transverse welds. If the first group of subparagraphs a, Subparagraphs a, b, and c that follow the line "Unless a
b, and c are assumed to apply only to members with longitu- larger coefficient can be justified by tests or other rational
T r e a t as ¥T
^
rrix T T r e a t half t h e web a n d
p o r t i o n of t h e flange
as an a n g l e Use out—to—out
Use m a x . X
distance for J2 .
Treat as an
Angle
L
Use ]•nax. X
T
( u s e s i m i l a r c o n c e p t s for welded members)
a
_L
Fig. 12. Definition of x for various members. Fig. 14. Definition of I for welded members.
THIRD QUARTER/1993 87
tensile tests. The analytical and experimental stress patterns Iwankiw of AISC. Steel for the test specimens was provided
in the elastic region were compared. Shear lag criteria are by Montague-Betts Co., Inc. The technical input provided by
recommended based on the experimental results. The current the AISC Task Committee 108, particularly comments by J.
AISC provisions have been reviewed and revisions recom- W. Fisher, T. M. Murray and W. A. Thornton, was very
mended. beneficial to the authors. Additionally, comments provided by
The recommended revisions to the specification are based D. R. Sherman proved very useful. The authors are grateful
on the results of the experimental and analytical studies to all of the above. Many of the specimens were tested in the
reported here, a review of the specification and judgment of materials testing laboratory at Virginia Military Institute. The
the authors. In particular the definitions of x in Figure 14 and willingness of C. D. Buckner and D. K. Jamison to permit
/ in Figures 15 and 16 are based on the authors' judgment. access to the laboratory made the completion of the experi-
Further, the hypothesis that the net section failure is due to a mental parts of this project possible, and for this the authors
combination of the shear lag effect and stress concentration are grateful.
caused by welding induced imperfections is also based on the
authors'judgment, given the insight gained from the research APPENDIX
program. Each of these topics would require further study to The strength of members welded only with transverse fillet
be proven explicitly. welds will not be controlled by the rupture based on shear lag
The following conclusions have been drawn from the effects, but rather will be controlled by weld shear. This is true
experimental and analytical investigations: regardless of the steel or electrode strength. This can be
shown by considering the following parameters:
1. Shear lag controlled the strength of the angle and plate
specimens. A^ = bt= area of connected element
2. For plates connected only by longitudinal welds, con- E70XX electrodes (fillet welds)
nection length had little influence on the experimental A36 steel
shear lag coefficient.
The strength of the tension member based on rupture is given
3. The transverse weld in the angle members welded both
by:
longitudinally and transversely did not increase the
shear lag coefficient as expected. The experimental (t)P„ = (|)F„A, = 0.75(58 ksi)bt (Al)
shear lag coefficients of the longitudinally welded an-
gles and the angles with both longitudinal and transverse where (]) for tension rupture is 0.75.
welds were equivalent. The weld strength is given by:
4. Shear lag will not control the strength of tension mem-
bers connected only by transverse fillet welds. Weld (^R^ = (^0.6F,^A^ (A2)
shear will be the controlling limit state, regardless of
where (|) for weld shear is 0.75 and R^ = nominal weld
electrode strength or fillet weld size. This conclusion
resistance.
does not apply to partial- or full-penetration welds.
5. Due to the small size of the experimental specimens in If the weld area, A^, is taken as {0J01t)b (the maximum
this study as well as past studies, caution should be possible dimension for a fillet weld made along the edge of
exercised when applying the design provisions to much plate element), then (^R^ becomes
larger tension members. There is a need for some limited
confirmatory testing on large tension members designed ^R^ = 0.75(0.6)(70 ksi)(0 J01t)b = 0.75(29.7 ksi)bt (A3)
so that shear lag effects control the strength. Comparing Equations Al and A3, one observes that the weld
6. The recommended upper limit for the shear lag coeffi- strength. Equation A3, is less and will therefore control the
cient is 0.9. strength. The same conclusion will be reached for any prac-
7. The implementation of the recommended changes to tical combination of weld electrode and steel. If the sub-
AISC specifications and commentaries would result in merged arc process were used, the weld strength result. Equa-
a simpler, more uniform approach to the application of tion A3, would increase, but it would still remain less than
shear lag provisions to bolted and welded tension mem- Equation Al.
bers. The changes should result in fewer questions re-
garding the application of the provisions. REFERENCES
1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Specification
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural
Financial support for this project was provided by the Ameri- Steel for Buildings with Commentary, Chicago: AISC,
can Institute of Steel Construction and Virginia Tech. Valu- 1978.
able assistance was provided throughout the project by Nestor 2. American Institute of Steel Construction, Load and Re-
THIRD QUARTER/1993 89