Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AISC Eng
AISC Eng
Journal
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.
INTRODUCTION viceability limit states for the most part are not included
The increasing use and reliance on probability based limit within U.S. building codes. The fact that serviceability limit
states are usually not codified should not diminish their
states design methods, such as the recently adopted AISC
LRFD Specification,1 has focused new attention on the prob- importance. Exceeding a serviceability limit state in a build-
lems of serviceability in steel buildings. These methods, ing or other structure usually means that its function is dis-
along with the development of higher-strength steels and rupted or impaired because of local minor damage, deterio-
concretes and the use of lighter and less rigid building mate- rations, or because of occupant discomfort or annoyance.
rials, have led to more flexible and lightly damped structures While safety is usually not at issue, the economic conse-
than ever before, making serviceability problems more quences can be substantial. Interestingly, there are some
prevalent. serviceability items that can also be safety related. For in-
The purpose of this paper is to focus attention on two stance, excessive building drift can influence frame stability
important serviceability limit states under wind loads; because of the P-∆ effect. Excessive building drift can also
namely, deformation (including deflection, curvature, and cause portions of the building cladding to fall and potentially
drift) and motion perception (acceleration). These issues are injure pedestrians below.
particularly important for tall and/or slender steel and com- Serviceability limit states can be grouped into three cate-
posite structures. A brief review of available information on gories as follows:
these subjects will be presented followed by a discussion of 1. Deformation (deflection, curvature, drift). Common ex-
current standards of practice, particularly in the United States. amples include local damage to nonstructural elements
Finally, proposed standards will be presented that, hopefully, (e.g., ceilings, cladding, partitions) due to deflections
will focus attention, debate, and perhaps new research efforts under dead, live, wind, or seismic load; and damage
on these very important issues in design. from temperature change, moisture, shrinkage, or creep.
2. Motion perception (vibration, acceleration). Common
IMPORTANCE OF SERVICEABILITY examples include human discomfort caused by wind or
LIMIT STATES12,31 machinery, particularly if resonance occurs. Floor vibra-
Every building or other structure must satisfy a strength limit tions from people or machinery and acceleration in tall
state, in which each member is proportioned to carry the buildings under wind load are usual areas of concern in
design loads to resist buckling, yielding, instability, fracture, this category.
etc.; and serviceability limit states which define functional 3. Deterioration. Included are such items as corrosion,
performance and behavior under load and include such items weathering, efflorescence, discoloration, rotting, and
as deflection, vibration, and corrosion. In the United States, fatigue.
strength limit states have traditionally been specified in build- The focus on this paper will be items one and two.
ing codes because they control the safety of the structure.
Serviceability limit states, on the other hand, are usually CURRENT TREATMENT OF SERVICEABILITY
noncatastrophic, define a level of quality of the structure or ISSUES IN U.S. CODES
element, and are a matter of judgment as to their application.
Serviceability limit states involve the perceptions and expec- A review of the three model building codes3,29,35 in the United
tations of the owner or user and are a contractual matter States reveals a somewhat inconsistent and haphazard ap-
between the owner or user and the designer and builder. It is proach to serviceability issues. For instance, it is implied that
for these reasons, and because the benefits themselves are the codes exist strictly to protect life safety of the general
often subjective and difficult to define or quantify, that ser- public. Yet, traditionally they have contained provisions for
deflection control of floor members while ignoring provisions
for other member types (columns, walls, mullions, etc.). No
mention is made of limits for wind drift, vibration, expansion
and contraction (expansion joint guidelines), or corrosion.
The author’s work in professional committees and code
Lawrence G. Griffis is Senior Vice President and Director of
Structural Engineering for Walter P. Moore and Associates,bodies, coupled with a review of recent surveys of the profes-
Houston, TX.
Figure 2
every 10 years. It is logical to define these damage threshold in the structural analysis are “static equivalent” wind loads
shear distortions as the drift damage index (DDI). From the that are intended to estimate the peak load effect (mean plus
standpoint of serviceability limit states it is necessary to dynamic) caused by the vibratory nature of the building
observe the following inequality: motion. The structural analysis must then capture all signifi-
cant components of potential frame deflection as follows:
drift measurementindex ≤ dr ift damage index
1. Flexural deformation of beams and columns.
DMI ≤ DDI 2. Axial deformation of columns.
A significant body of information is available from racking 3. Shear deformation of beams and columns.
tests for different building materials that may be utilized to 4. Beam-column joint deformation.
define DDIs.2 This is discussed further below in conjunction 5. Effect of member joint size.
with Figure 4. 6. P-∆ effect.
as a percentage of the total varied from 16 percent to 41 to 1.0 with 0.1 to 0.3 defined as minor damage, 0.4 to 0.5
percent. defined as moderate damage, 0.6 to 0.7 defined as substantial
4. The P-∆ effect can easily increase total frame dis- damage, and 0.8 to 1.0 defined as major damage. A damage
placement by 10 to 15 percent depending on frame intensity of 1.0 is defined as complete or intolerable. Figure 4
slenderness. shows a plot of damage intensity versus shear distortion for
the partition groups discussed. If the upper limit of the “minor
Errors in the determination of frame stiffness can also damage” range is selected as the maximum acceptable dam-
affect proper design for strength. For example, the P-∆ effect age to occur in a 10-year design period, then the deflection
is a function of frame stiffness; the magnitude of wind forces limit of 0.25 percent (1 / 400) is obtained for veneer or
in tall buildings is affected by building period; and the mag- drywall in Figure 4. This number correlates reasonably well
nitude of seismic forces is also affected by building period. with the first damage threshold limit of 1⁄4-in. displacement
for an eight foot tall test panel as described in Reference 13
DAMAGE THRESHOLDS FOR for gypsum wallboard. The 0.3 damage intensity has been
BUILDING MATERIALS used as the maximum acceptable shear distortion for the
General guidelines to the behavior that might be expected various partition types in Table 3.
from different building elements and materials at various drift
indices may be obtained from a review of the literature.2,13,31 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE—DEFORMATION
A summary of behavior, taken from a recent study on ser- (CURVATURE, DEFLECTION, DRIFT)
viceability research needs31 is shown in Table 2. Another Once a wind load (mean recurrence interval) has been defined
source of information may be found in seismic racking tests for use in the serviceability check, the appropriate deforma-
of exterior cladding systems for buildings sometimes per- tion to measure it has been defined (drift measurement index
formed during routine testing of mock-ups at testing labora- (DMI)) and damage thresholds are determined from tests or
tories. One of the most comprehensive studies of damage estimated, it remains only to establish an appropriate limit for
intensity as a function of shear distortion can be found in different building components. Table 3 is a compilation of
Reference 2 which contains a summary of over 700 racking most common building elements with recommended defor-
tests on various nonstructural partitions taken from more than mation limits. The building elements considered include roof,
30 different sources. Partition types surveyed included tile exterior cladding, interior partitions, elevators, and cranes.
and hollow brick, concrete block, brick and “veneer”; walls Most of the more common building cladding and partition
which consisted of gypsum wall board, plaster, and plywood. types are considered. Deformation types addressed include
Veneer walls are often referred to as “drywall” in engineering deflection perpendicular to the plane of the building element
practice. Damage intensity was defined on a scale from 0.0 and shear deformation (racking) in the plane of the element.
Roof Membrane Roof Purlin, Joist, Truss Deflection ⊥ Roof Plane L / 240 —
Metal Roof Purlin, Joist, Truss Deflection ⊥ Roof Plane L / 150 Note 1
Skylights Purlin, Joist, Truss Differential Support Deflection L / 240 ≤ 1⁄2-in. Note 2
Exterior Brick Veneer Metal/Wood Stud Deflection ⊥ Wall Plane H / 600 Note 3
Cladding Horizontal Girts Deflection ⊥ Wall Plane L / 300 Note 4
Vertical Girts/Cols. Deflection ⊥ Wall Plane L / 600 Note 4
Wind Frame Shear Strain (DMI) H / 400 Note 5
Interior Gypsum Drywall, Wind Frame Shear Strain (DMI) H / 400 Note 20
Partitions Plaster
Concrete Masonry Wind Frame Shear Strain (DMI) H / 400 Note 10, 20
Reinforced
(Note 6)
Tile, Hollow Clay Wind Frame Shear Strain (DMI) H / 2000 Note 20
Brick
Cranes Cab Operated Wind Frame Shear Strain (DMI) H / 240 ≤ 2-in. Note 22
Notes to Table C.
H = story height L = span length of supporting member DMI = drift measurement index
1. Metal roofs include standing seam and thru fastener type roofs.12
2. Deflection limit shown is relative support movement measured perpendicular to a line drawn between skylight support points. Racking movements in the plane
of the glass should be limited to 1⁄4-in. for gasketed mullions and 1⁄8-in. for flush (butt) glazing.12
3. Deflection limits recommended by the Brick Institute of America34 are L/600 – L/720.
4. L/600 is recommended for the case when predominant flexural stress in masonry is perpendicular to bed joint. L/300 may be used for the case when
predominant flexural stress in masonry is parallel to bed joint.
5. H/400 limit applies if brick is supported on relief angles at each floor with 3⁄8-in. soft joint and 3⁄8-in. control joints are used in each column bay.
6. Reinforced concrete masonry implies vertical reinforcing bars in grouted cells and/or horizontal reinforcing bars in bond beams.
7. Assumes only windframe designed to carry lateral loads and flexible connections used between wall and parallel windframe. H/600 limit also protects wall
perpendicular to plane of windframe from excessive flexural cracking. A horizontal crack control joint at base of wall is recommended. Limit crack width
under wind load to 1⁄16-in. if no joint is used and 1⁄8-in. if control joint is used.12
8. Assumes only windframe designed to carry lateral loads and flexible connections used between wall and parallel windframe. H/400 applies only if in-fill walls
have 3⁄8-in. soft joints against structural frame.
9. Assumes only windframe designed to carry lateral loads and flexible connections used between wall and parallel windframe. Stricter limit should be considered
if required to protect other building elements. If walls designed as shear walls, then design DMI should be based on damage control of other building elements.
H/200 limit also protects wall perpendicular to plane of windframe from excessive flexural cracking. If a horizontal control joint at base of wall is used, then
limit may be changed to H/100.12
10. H/400 limit applies to reinforced masonry walls designed as shear walls unless stricter limit is required to protect other more critical building elements. Reinforced
masonry walls infilled “hard” against structural windframe should not be used without assessing their stiffness in a compatibility analysis with windframe, unless
isolation joints are provided between wall and building frame.
11. In cases where wall support is indeterminate, differential support deflection should be considered in design of wall panel.
12. Assumes only windframe designed to carry lateral loads and flexible connections are used between wall and parallel windframe. Stricter limit should be
considered if required to protect other building elements. If panels designed as shear walls then H/400 is recommended limit with minimum 3⁄4-in. panel joints.
13. Control joints are recommended to limit cracking from shrinkage, thermal, and building movement.
14. H/400 limit applies if wall is panelized with 3⁄8-in. control joints and relief joints are used between floors and at each column bay. If plaster applied to unreinforced
masonry, then limits should be same as masonry.
15. H/400 applies if panel connection to frame is determinate, flexible connections are used between panel and parallel windframe and minimum3⁄4-in. panel joints
are used. Panels with indeterminate support to frame should be designed for differential support movement.
16. Consult metal panel manufacturer for possible stricter requirements.
17. L/100 limit applies for metal panel only. Other building components may warrant stricter limit.
18. L/175 recommended by American Architectural Manufacturers Association.27 Recommended limit changes to L/360 when a plastered surface or dry wall
subjected to bending is affected. At roof parapet or other overhangs recommended limit is 2L/175 except that the deflection of a member overhanging an
anchor joint with sealed joint (such as for roof flashing, parapet cover, soffit) shall be limited to no more than one half the sealant joint depth between the
framing member and fixed building element.
19. H/400 limit is to protect connections to building frame and also sealants between panels. More liberal limits may be applicable for custom designed
curtain/window walls where racking can be accounted for in design and where wall will be tested in a labortory mock-up. Consult manufacturer for racking
limits of off-the-shelf systems.
20. Recommended limits shown assume partition is constructed “hard” against structural frame. More liberal limits may be appropriate if isolation (“soft”) joints are
designed between partition edge and structural frame. Design of structural frame for DMI limits stricter than H/600 is probably not practical or cost effective.
21. In addition to the static deflection limit shown, proper elevator performance requires consideration of building dynamic behavior. Design of elevator systems
(guide rails, cables, sheaves) will require knowledge of predominant building frequencies and amplitude of dynamic motion. This information should be furnished
on the drawings or in the specifications.
22. Limit shown applies to wind loads or crane forces, either lateral or longitudinal to crane runway. Deflection limit specified is to be measured at the elevation of
crane runways.12
23. Buildings designed to H/100 limit will exhibit observable movements during crane operation. Stricter limits may be appropriate to control this and/or to protect
other building components.12
Table 5.
Traditional Motion Perception (Acceleration) Guidelines (Note 1)
10-year Mean Recurrence Interval
Root-mean-square (RMS)
Acceleration (Milli-g)
Notation:
T = period (seconds)
f = frequency (hertz)
gp = peak factor
NOTE:
1. RMS and peak accelerations listed in this table are the traditional “unofficial” standard applied in U.S. practice
based on the author’s experience.
Fig. 10. RMS acceleration—ISO 6897–1984 Fig. 12. Design standard—peak acceleration
5-yr return period. 10-yr return period.
FUNDAMENTAL FORMULAE
For an unequal-angle member under concentric loading the
elastic flexural-torsional buckling stress is defined as the
√
A
Iu + Iv
ro = u2o + v2o + (4)
u2o + v2o
H=1− (7)
r2o
Equation 2 is identical to AISC LRFD Equation A-E3-7
and can be written conveniently in the form
SOLUTION OF THE CUBIC EQUATION
Fe 3 + a2Fe 2 + a1Fe + a0 = 0 (5) In general, a cubic equation has either three real roots or one
real and two complex conjugate roots. In the case of buckling
of an unsymmetrical section, however, it can be shown that
the three roots of the cubic equation are always real and
positive (See, for example, the proof in texts by Timoshenko
and Gere, 1961 or Galambos, 1968). In such a case the
solution of the cubic equation can most conveniently be
obtained as follows: Let
N
θ = arccos (8)
√−M
3
θ a2 θ 2π a2
Fe1 = 2√ −M cos − , Fe2 = 2√ −M cos + − ,
3 3 3 3 3
θ 4π a2
Fe3 = 2√−M cos + −
(9)
3 3 3
The above solution was first presented in 1615 by the
French mathematician François Viète (Kline 1972) and is
used in most mathematical handbooks nowadays (Tuma
1970, Beyer 1982). In the above equation the quantity M is
always negative.
√
√
Iu 5.698
ru = = = 1.713 in.
A 1.94
π2(29,000)(0.0606) 1
_ t = +(11,200)(0.0438)
xo = x − = 0.657 −
0.25
= 0.532 in. (108)2
(1.94)(2.453)2
2 2
_ t (1.48 + 490)
0.25 = = 42.1 ksi
yo = y − = 1.66 − = 1.535 in. 11.67
2 2
Now it is required to solve the cubic equation
uo = yo sin α + xo cos α = 1.535 sin (20.35°) + Fe 3 + a2Fe 2 + a1Fe + a0 = 0, where
0.532 cos (20.35°) = 1.033 in.
−1 v2o u2o
vo = yo cos α − xo sin α = 1.535 cos (20.35°) − a2 = 1 − 2 Feu + 1 − 2 Fev + Fez
H ro ro
0.532 sin (20.35°) = 1.254 in.
√
Iu + Iv 1 (1.254)2 (1.033)2
ro = u2o + v2o + − 1− ( 72)+1− (10.78)+(42.1)
A 0.561 (2.453)2 (2.453)
2
√
5.698 + 0.852 = −186
= (1.033)2 + (1.254)2 + = 2.453 in.
1.94
1 1
a1 = (Feu Fev + Feu Fez + Fev Fez ) = [(72)(10.78)
H 0.561
u2o + v2o (1.033)2 + (1.254)2
H=1− =1− = 0.561
2
ro (2.452)2 + (72)(42.1) + (10.78)(42.1)] = 7,596
Check local buckling 1 1
a0 = − (F F F ) = − (72)(10.78)(42.1) = −58,247
b 5 76 155 H eu ev ez 0.561
= = 20 > = 12.67 < = 25.83
t 1⁄4 36
√ 36
√ 3a1 − a22 3(7,596) − (−186)2
M= = = −1,312
Thus, use AISC LRFD Eq. A-B5-1 9 9
√
√
9.98 = 1.9
Fy 36 ers, Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 52,
λe = =
Fe Second Edition, New York.
λe√
Q = 1.9√
0.804 = 1.704 > 1.5 Beyer, William H. (1982). CRC Mathematical Tables, 26th
Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
0.877 0.877
Fcr = 2 Fy = 2
(36) = 8.74 ksi Galambos, T. V. (1968). Structural Members and Frames,
λ
e (1.9) Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
φPn = φFcr Ag = 0.85(8.74)(1.94) = 14.4 kips Galambos, T. V. (1991), “Design of Axially Loaded Com-
pressed Angles,” Proceedings of the SSRC Annual Technical
Of some note, if the flexural buckling stress with respect to
Meeting, April 15–17, Chicago, pp. 353–359.
the minor axis (Fev = 10.78 ksi) were used instead of the
flexural-torsional buckling stress (Fe = 9.98 ksi), the design Kline, Morris, (1972). Mathematical Thought from Ancient
strength of the angle member would be 15.6 kips. Such an to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, New York.
increase (8.3 percent) may not be regarded as significant. It
Timoshenko, S. P., and Gere, J. M. (1961). Theory of Elastic
should be emphasized, however, that for a strut with a small
Stability, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
slenderness ratio the difference between the elastic flexural
and the elastic flexural-torsional buckling stresses can be Tuma, Jan J. (1970). Engineering Mathematics Handbook,
quite large. A procedure related to the design of axially loaded McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Fy = 50 ksi
u
CONCENTRICALLY LOADED x x
COLUMNS
Single Angles u
Design axial strength in kips (φ = 0.85) y v
Size 9×4
5⁄ 9⁄ 1⁄
Thickness 8 16 2
11 64 64 57 57 50 50
12 54 54 49 49 43 43
13 46 46 42 42 37 37
14 40 40 36 36 32 32
Size 8×6
7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 9⁄ 1⁄ 7⁄
Thickness 1 8 4 8 16 2 16
0 398 553 352 489 304 422 255 332 222 286 188 239 154 192
1 383 524 335 457 285 385 232 293 198 247 164 201 131 156
2 376 511 327 442 276 369 222 277 188 231 154 186 121 142
3 371 502 323 434 272 362 218 271 184 225 151 181 118 138
4 363 487 317 423 268 354 215 266 182 222 149 178 117 135
5 350 462 307 405 262 343 211 260 179 217 147 175 115 133
Effective length in feet, kL
6 333 432 293 379 251 324 205 250 175 211 144 171 113 131
7 314 398 277 350 238 301 196 236 169 201 140 165 111 128
8 293 362 258 318 223 274 184 218 161 189 135 157 108 123
9 271 324 239 286 207 247 171 198 150 173 128 146 104 117
10 248 287 219 253 190 219 158 178 139 157 119 134 98 110
11 225 251 199 221 173 192 144 157 128 140 110 121 92 101
12 203 217 179 191 155 166 130 137 116 124 100 108 85 91
13 181 185 159 163 139 142 116 119 104 108 91 95 78 82
14 159 160 141 141 123 123 102 103 93 94 82 83 70 72
15 139 139 123 123 107 107 90 90 82 82 73 73 63 64
Fy = 50 ksi
u
CONCENTRICALLY LOADED x x
COLUMNS
Single Angles u
Design axial strength in kips (φ = 0.85) y v
Size 8×4
3⁄ 9⁄ 1⁄
Thickness 1 4 16 2
Size 7×4
3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄ 3⁄
Thickness 4 8 2 8
Fy = 50 ksi
u
CONCENTRICALLY LOADED x x
COLUMNS
Single Angles u
Design axial strength in kips (φ = 0.85) y v
Size 6×4
7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 9⁄ 1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄
Thickness 8 4 8 16 2 16 8 16
0 244 339 212 295 179 249 162 226 145 194 124 161 101 128 76 94
1 236 324 203 277 168 228 150 202 132 170 110 137 86 105 62 73
Effective length in feet, kL
2 230 313 198 268 164 220 146 194 127 163 106 130 82 99 59 68
3 220 293 190 253 158 209 141 186 124 156 103 126 80 96 58 66
4 205 266 177 230 149 192 133 172 118 146 99 119 78 92 56 64
5 187 234 162 203 136 170 123 153 109 132 92 109 73 86 54 61
11 71 71 62 62 53 53 48 48 43 43 38 38 33 33 27 27
12 60 60 52 52 44 44 40 40 36 36 32 32 28 28 23 23
13 51 51 45 45 38 38 34 34 31 31 27 27 24 24 20 20
14 44 44 39 39 33 33 30 30 27 27 24 24 20 20 17 17
Size 6 × 31⁄2
Thickness 1⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄
2 8 16
1 125 161 82 99 59 70
2 120 153 78 93 56 65
3 114 143 75 89 54 62
4 106 129 71 83 52 59
5 95 111 65 74 48 54
6 82 92 58 64 44 48
7 69 74 50 53 39 42
8 57 57 42 43 34 35
9 46 46 34 34 28 28
10 37 37 28 28 23 23
11 31 31 24 24 20 20
12 26 26 20 20 17 17
Fy = 50 ksi
u
CONCENTRICALLY LOADED x x
COLUMNS
Single Angles u
Design axial strength in kips (φ = 0.85) y v
Size 5 × 31⁄2
3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄
Thickness 4 8 2 16 8 16 4
Size 5×3
5⁄ 1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄
Thickness 8 2 16 8 16 4
6 72 77 58 62 51 55 44 46 35 37 26 28
7 57 57 46 46 41 41 35 35 29 29 22 22
8 44 44 36 36 32 32 27 27 23 23 18 18
9 35 35 28 28 25 25 22 22 18 18 14 14
10 28 28 23 23 20 20 18 18 15 15 12 12
Fy = 50 ksi
u
CONCENTRICALLY LOADED COLUMNS x x
Single Angles u
Design axial strength in kips (φ = 0.85) y v
Size 4 × 31⁄2
5⁄ 1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄
Thickness 8 2 16 8 16 4
Fy 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50
0 132 183 107 149 95 131 82 113 69 89 50 64
Effective length in feet, kL
11 27 27 22 22 20 20 17 17 15 15 12 12
12 19 19 17 17 14 14 12 12 10 10
Size 4×3
5⁄ 1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄
Thickness 8 2 16 8 16 4
6 62 66 51 54 45 48 39 41 33 35 25 27
7 49 49 40 40 35 35 31 31 26 26 21 21
8 37 37 31 31 27 27 24 24 20 20 16 16
9 29 29 24 24 21 21 19 19 16 16 13 13
10 24 24 20 20 17 17 15 15 13 13 10 10
Size 31⁄2 × 3
1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄
Thickness 2 16 8 16 4
Fy 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50
0 92 128 81 113 70 98 59 81 46 60
Effective length in feet, kL
1 88 120 76 104 65 88 53 69 39 48
2 84 114 74 100 64 85 52 67 38 46
3 77 99 68 88 59 76 49 62 37 45
4 67 82 59 73 51 63 43 52 34 40
5 56 64 50 57 43 50 36 41 29 32
6 45 47 40 42 35 37 29 31 24 25
7 35 35 31 31 27 27 23 23 19 19
8 27 27 24 24 21 21 17 17 14 14
9 21 21 19 19 16 16 14 14 11 11
10 17 17 15 15 13 13 11 11 9 9
Fy = 50 ksi
u
CONCENTRICALLY LOADED COLUMNS x x
Single Angles u
Design axial strength in kips (φ = 0.85) y v
Fy 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50
Effective length in feet, kL
0 84 117 74 103 65 90 54 75 43 55
1 80 109 70 95 60 80 49 64 36 44
2 75 99 66 87 57 75 47 60 35 42
3 66 83 58 73 50 63 42 52 32 38
4 55 64 48 57 42 49 35 41 28 31
5 43 46 38 41 33 35 28 30 22 24
6 32 32 28 28 25 25 21 21 17 17
7 24 24 21 21 18 18 15 15 13 13
8 18 18 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10
9 9 9 8 8
Size 3 × 21⁄2
1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄ 3⁄
Thickness 2 16 8 16 4 16
Fy 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50
Effective length in feet,
0 77 106 68 94 59 82 50 69 40 53 28 35
1 74 101 65 88 55 75 45 61 35 45 23 27
2 68 91 60 80 52 69 44 58 34 43 22 26
3 59 75 52 66 46 57 38 48 31 38 21 25
kL
4 49 57 43 50 38 44 32 37 26 30 18 21
5 38 40 34 35 29 31 25 26 20 21 15 16
6 28 28 25 25 21 21 18 18 15 15 11 11
7 20 20 18 18 16 16 13 13 11 11 8 8
8 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6
Size 3×2
1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄ 3⁄
Thickness 2 16 8 16 4 16
0 69 96 61 85 53 74 45 62 36 49 25 32
Effective length in feet,
1 65 89 58 78 49 67 41 55 32 41 21 25
2 58 75 51 67 44 57 37 48 30 37 20 23
kL
3 47 56 42 50 36 43 30 36 25 29 17 19
4 35 38 31 34 27 29 23 25 19 20 13 14
5 24 24 22 22 19 19 16 16 13 13 10 10
6 17 17 15 15 13 13 11 11 9 9 7 7
7 12 12 11 11 10 10 8 8 7 7 5 5
Size 21⁄2 × 2
3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄ 3⁄
Thickness 8 16 4 16
Fy 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50
0 47 66 40 56 32 45 24 32
Effective length in feet,
1 45 61 37 51 29 39 21 25
2 40 52 34 44 27 35 20 24
kL
3 32 38 27 32 22 26 16 19
4 24 25 20 21 16 17 12 13
5 16 16 14 14 11 11 9 9
6 11 11 10 10 8 8 6 6
7 8 8 7 7 6 6 4 4
Size 8×8
Thickness 11⁄8 1 7⁄
8
3⁄
4
5⁄
8
9⁄
16
1⁄
2
8 419 538 376 483 332 427 287 370 237 289 198 238 161 189
9 397 500 357 449 315 397 273 344 229 278 197 236 160 188
10 374 460 336 414 297 366 257 318 217 258 191 227 159 186
11 351 420 315 378 278 335 242 291 203 237 180 210 155 180
12 326 381 293 342 259 303 225 264 190 216 168 193 146 167
13 302 342 271 307 240 273 209 238 176 196 157 176 136 153
14 278 304 249 273 221 243 192 212 162 176 145 159 126 139
15 254 268 228 240 202 214 176 187 148 157 133 143 117 126
16 230 235 207 211 184 188 160 165 135 139 122 127 107 113
17 208 208 187 187 166 167 145 146 122 123 111 113 98 100
18 186 186 167 167 149 149 130 130 110 110 100 100 89 90
19 167 167 150 150 134 134 117 117 98 98 90 90 80 80
20 151 151 135 135 121 121 105 105 89 89 81 81 73 73
21 137 137 123 123 109 109 96 96 81 81 74 74 66 66
22 124 124 112 112 100 100 87 87 73 73 67 67 60 60
23 114 114 102 102 91 91 80 80 67 67 61 61 55 55
24 105 105 94 94 84 84 73 73 62 62 56 56 50 50
25 96 96 87 87 77 77 67 67 57 57 52 52 46 46
26 89 89 80 80 71 71 62 62 53 53 48 48 43 43
Size 6×6
7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 9⁄ 1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄
Thickness 1 8 4 8 16 2 16 8 16
Wt. / ft 37.4 33.1 28.7 24.2 21.9 19.6 17.2 14.9 12.4
Fy 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50 36 50
0 337 468 298 414 258 359 218 302 197 273 176 235 151 195 122 155 92 114
1 327 449 287 392 245 334 202 272 179 240 157 201 130 161 101 122 72 84
2 324 443 283 385 241 326 197 263 174 230 151 191 124 151 95 113 67 76
3 320 436 281 382 239 322 195 260 172 227 149 188 122 148 93 110 65 74
Effective length in feet, kL
4 308 413 272 366 236 317 194 258 171 225 148 186 121 147 92 109 65 73
5 293 368 259 341 225 296 190 250 170 223 147 184 120 145 92 108 64 73
6 276 354 244 314 212 272 179 230 162 208 145 181 119 144 91 107 64 72
7 257 321 227 284 197 246 167 209 151 189 135 164 117 140 90 106 63 71
8 236 286 209 253 181 219 154 186 139 168 124 147 108 127 89 104 63 71
9 215 251 190 222 165 192 140 164 127 148 113 130 99 113 82 94 62 70
10 193 217 171 192 148 166 126 142 114 128 102 114 89 99 75 83 60 67
11 172 184 152 163 132 141 113 121 102 109 91 97 80 86 67 73 54 59
12 152 155 134 137 116 119 99 102 90 92 80 82 71 74 60 63 49 53
13 132 132 117 117 101 101 87 87 78 78 70 70 62 63 53 54 44 46
14 114 114 101 101 87 87 75 75 68 68 61 61 54 54 47 47 39 40
15 99 99 88 88 76 76 65 65 59 59 53 53 47 47 41 41 35 35
16 87 87 77 77 67 67 57 57 52 52 46 46 41 41 36 36 30 30
17 77 77 68 68 59 59 51 51 46 46 41 41 37 37 32 32 27 27
18 69 69 61 61 53 53 45 45 41 41 37 37 33 33 28 28 24 24
19 62 62 55 55 47 47 41 41 37 37 33 33 29 29 25 25 22 22
Size 5×5
7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄
Thickness 8 4 8 2 16 8 16
4 215 284 187 247 158 209 128 169 109 140 88 107 64 76
5 200 257 174 224 147 189 119 154 105 133 87 106 64 75
6 183 227 159 198 135 168 110 136 97 119 83 99 63 74
7 165 197 144 171 122 145 99 118 87 103 75 87 60 69
8 146 166 127 145 108 123 88 101 78 88 67 75 54 61
9 128 138 111 120 94 102 77 84 68 74 59 63 48 52
10 110 112 96 98 81 83 66 68 59 60 51 52 42 44
11 93 93 81 81 69 59 56 56 50 50 43 43 36 37
12 78 78 68 68 58 58 47 47 42 42 36 36 31 31
13 66 66 58 58 49 49 40 40 36 36 31 31 26 26
14 57 57 50 50 42 42 35 35 31 31 27 27 23 23
15 50 50 43 43 37 37 30 30 27 27 23 23 20 20
16 44 44 38 38 32 32 27 27 24 24 20 20 17 17
Size 4×4
3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄
Thickness 4 8 2 16 8 16 4
1 95 129 82 111 70 93 56 74 41 50
2 93 126 81 110 68 91 55 72 40 49
3 86 113 76 100 66 86 55 71 40 48
4 77 96 68 85 59 74 50 62 39 47
5 66 79 59 69 51 60 43 51 34 39
6 55 61 49 54 43 47 36 40 29 32
7 45 46 40 41 35 35 29 30 24 25
8 35 35 31 31 27 27 23 23 19 19
9 28 28 25 25 21 21 18 18 15 15
10 22 22 20 20 17 17 15 15 12 12
11 19 19 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10
Size 3×3
1⁄ 7⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄ 3⁄
Thickness 2 16 8 16 4 16
1 81 111 71 96 60 82 49 66 38 48 24 28
2 77 103 68 91 59 79 49 65 37 47 23 27
3 69 89 61 78 53 68 45 58 36 45 23 27
4 59 71 52 63 45 55 38 47 31 37 22 26
5 48 54 43 48 37 42 32 35 26 29 19 21
6 38 39 33 34 29 30 25 25 20 21 15 16
7 28 28 25 25 22 22 19 19 15 15 12 12
8 22 22 19 19 17 17 14 14 12 12 9 9
9 17 17 15 15 13 13 11 11 9 9 7 7
Thickness 1⁄ 3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄ 3⁄
2 8 16 4 16
1 67 91 50 69 42 56 32 43 23 28
2 51 80 47 62 39 52 32 42 22 27
3 52 64 40 49 34 42 27 34 21 25
4 41 47 32 36 27 31 22 25 17 19
5 31 32 24 24 20 21 17 17 13 13
6 22 22 17 17 14 14 12 12 9 9
7 16 16 12 12 11 11 9 9 7 7
8 12 12 9 9 8 8 7 7 5 5
Size 2×2
3⁄ 5⁄ 1⁄ 3⁄ 1⁄
Thickness 8 16 4 16 8
0 42 58 35 49 29 40 22 30 13 17
1 40 54 33 46 27 36 19 25 10 12
2 34 44 29 37 24 30 18 23 10 12
kL
3 27 31 22 26 18 21 14 17 9 10
4 19 19 16 16 13 13 10 10 7 7
5 12 12 10 10 8 8 7 7 5 5
6 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 3 3
1⁄ 3⁄ 1⁄ 3⁄
Thickness 4 16 4 16
0 25 35 19 26 21 29 16 22
1 23 32 17 23 19 26 15 20
feet, kL
2 19 24 15 19 15 18 11 14
3 14 15 11 12 10 10 7 7
4 9 9 7 7 5 5 4 4
5 6 6 4 4
Thickness 1⁄ 3⁄ 1⁄ 1⁄
4 16 8 8
1 15 20 12 16 7 9 6 8
2 10 12 8 9 4 5 3 3
3 6 6 4 4 2 2 1 1
4 3 3 2 2
I t is common practice in crane runway beams to place a Iyt = moment of inertia of the tension flange about the axis
channel, open-side down, over the top flange of a W-section, parallel to web
as shown in Figure 1, to increase its lateral stability. This is hc = distance from the centroid of the compression flange
done because it is not always convenient to brace the com- to the centroid of the tension flange
pression flange between columns. h = distance from the shear center of the compression
The lateral-torsional buckling capacity of a singly symmet- flange to the centroid of the tension flange
ric section may be determined by the formulas (Footnote c on e = distance from the shear center of the compression
page 6-96 of the current LRFD manual1) without knowing the flange to the centroid of the compression flange
warping section constant. However, these formulas were DL = the depth of the lip
developed from research on three-plate monosymmetric sec- Bc = the width of the lipped flange
tions.2,3,4,5,6,7 If one is to develop a similar equation for the case TL = the thickness of the lip
of the W-section with a channel cap, it is necessary to return
to the basic theory of lateral-torsional buckling and that
means that one must calculate the warping constant (Cwc) for
the cross-section.
It is not a difficult matter to do this with a computer, but
since the program may not be available to everyone, it would
be useful to develop a simple empirical equation for prelimi-
nary design, making use of the section properties already
given in the AISC steel manual.
According to Kitipornchai and Trahair,3 Equation 1, which
provides for calculating the warping section constant, “is
exact for an unlipped section and approximate for a lipped
section.” Their “lipped” section of Figure 2 closely approxi-
mates the subject of this paper, the W-section with a channel
cap.
Fig. 1. Crane runway beam.
Iw = a2Iyc + b2Iyt (1)
where
a = (1 − ρ)h b = ρh
h = hc + e ρ = Iyc / Iy e = (D2LB2c TL ) / (4ρIy)
Iw = warping section constant
Iy = moment of inertia of the combined section about the
axis parallel to web
Iyc = moment of inertia of the compression flange about
the axis parallel to web
W C or MC Ac Aw Cwc Cw Ac / Aw Cwc / Cw
*MC
Metric Conversion:
To convert to Multiply by
inches(in.) millimeters(mm) 25.4
The authors have enhanced a computer program, which gram, as shown in Figure 4, it can be observed that Equation 1
was originally written in BASIC language by Professor Theo- gives a very conservative estimate (−7 percent to −17 percent)
dore V. Galambos of the University of Minnesota in Minnea- for this case (the W-section with a channel cap). The equation
polis and converted to FORTRAN language by Dr. Thomas also has the added disadvantage of requiring the user to
Sputo of the University of Florida, to calculate the exact calculate certain section properties and parameters (Iy, Iyt, Iyc,
values of warping section constants (Cwc) of the W-section ρ, hc, h, e, a, and b) first.
with a channel cap. The user need only input the W-section The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to present a reason-
and channel dimensions. The 28 combined sections shown on ably accurate method of calculating the warping section
pages 1-98 and 1-99 of the AISC LRFD steel manual are constant (Cwc), using a simple model which can be expressed
shown in Table 1 with their warping section constants (Cwc) by Equations 2, 3, or 4 and known section properties that can
as calculated by the program described. be found in the AISC steel manual.
The ratios of Cwc / Cw are plotted against the ratios of The proposed method which seemed to offer the most
Ac / Aw, as shown in Figure 3 for the 28 combined sections, promise was to use the ratio of the channel area (Ac) to the
where Cw, Ac, and Aw are explained in Table 1. W-section area (Aw) as the independent variable and plot it
When Equation 1 was applied to the case of the W-section against the ratio of the warping section constant (Cwc) for the
with a channel cap and the results Iw / Cw were compared with combined section to the warping section constant (Cw) for the
the Cwc / Cw values obtained from the above-mentioned pro- W-section alone.
Fig. 3. Plot of Cwc / Cw vs. Ac / Aw. Fig. 5. Equations 2, 3, and 4 fit to the data of Figure 3.
W27 217-84 5 8
COMPATIBILITY WITH BEAM SHAPES
The deepest compatible standard connection must fit within W24 176-55 4 7
the T-dimension of the beam as listed in Part 1 of the ASD W21 166-44 4 6
and LRFD Manuals. As recommended in Part 4 of the ASD
Manual and Part 5 of the LRFD Manual, the depth of the W18 143-35 3 5
minimum standard connection should be greater than T/2. W16 100-26 3 4
Given these limits, the compatibility of the nine standard
connections with W-shapes is summarized in Table 2. Note W14 132-90 3 3
that limitations such as coping, which may further restrict the 82-43 2 3
38-22 2 4
maximum value of n are not considered.
W12 87-40 2 3
35-14 2 3
PERCENT INCREASE IN CONNECTION COST
W10 112-33 2 2
Given the allowable variations in n of Table 2, percent in- 30-12 2 3
creases in connection cost per unnecessary row of bolts
provided are listed in Figure 1. Cells below the heavy line fall W8 67-24 2 2
outside the spacially permissible variations in n given in 21-10 2 2
Table 2. As an example of the use of Figure 1, consider a
W18×50 and assume an end reaction which would require of bolts in a W21×44 requiring only five rows would result
four rows of bolts. Using five rows of bolts instead, the largest in a cost increase of 17 percent.
n possible given the T-dimension of a W18, would increase Some general observations may be made from Figure 1.
the connection cost by 26 percent. Similarly, using six rows The predicted range of economic sacrifice when all beams
3GA + 1.4
K=
3GA + 2.0
Table 2.
Comparison of Eqs. 7 and 8—Unbraced frames
p. 125: Second Column, Line 12 should read: p. 125: Second Column, Line 17 should read:
dht = diameter of hole in tension plane lh = N(1.8 0.6dhs) + 0.3dns + 0.9d + 0.5dht − 1.8
(bolt diameter + 1⁄8-in.)
p. 126: Figure 2 should read:
p. 125: Second Column, Line 13 should read:
Figure 2
fp = P / πD2
Figure 3
Figure 2 Figure 4
EXAMPLE NOMENCLATURE
Given: B = Base plate width
Pipe Column, Standard Weight, 4 in. nominal diameter D = Radius of loaded area of base plate (D ≤ 2R)
(OD = 4.500 in., ID = 4.026 in.) Fb = Allowable bending stress in base plate = 0.75Fy
Load = 12 kips
Fp = Allowable concrete bearing pressure as defined in
Base Plate = 7 in. × 7 in.
manual
Steel = A36
fp = Actual bearing pressure as defined in manual
Concrete = 3,000 psi
M = Base plate internal resisting moment per unit length
Solution: P = Total column load
R = (4.500 + 4.026) / 4 = 2.13 in. R = Average radius of pipe column
D = 7.0 / 2 = 3.5 in. = (Ri + Ro) / 2
fp = 12 kips / π(3.5)2 = 0.31 ksi < 0.35fc′ Rc = Inside radius of loaded area for lightly loaded column
t = (2.13)[2(0.31) / (3)(36)]1/2 = 0.161 in. (1) Ri = Pipe column outside radius
t = [(4 / 3)(0.31 / 36)(2(3.5)2 − 3(2.13)(3.5) + Ro = Pipe column inside radius
(2.13)2 / 3.15] = 0.237 in. (2) t = Thickness of base plate
Fp = 0.35fc′ = 0 35(3) = 1.05 ksi We = External work done by bearing
Rc = [2.252 − (12 / π(1.05))]1⁄2 = 1.19 in. Wi = Internal work done by plate bending
Fig. 1. Strong and weak position shear stud locations. Fig. 2. Normalized moment versus percent shear connection.
Beam Instrumentation
A standard instrumentation arrangement for strain, deflec-
tion, end rotation and slip measurement was used for all beam
tests. All of the instruments were monitored using a computer
controlled data acquisition system.
Fig. 5. Deck/slab detail.
Fig. 4. Shear stud locations for composite beam specimens. Fig. 6. Strain gage locations for composite beam specimens.
Fig. 8. Detail of strain gage in a shear stud. Fig. 9. Loading frame for composite beam specimens.
1 (str.) 28.7 19.3 18.8 344 303 304 0.66 0.67 0.97 0.88 1.00
2 (weak) 22.6 13.6 13.4 316 274 273 0.59 0.60 0.99 0.87 1.00
3 (alt.) 17.5 13.3 14.5 297 277 283 0.83 0.76 1.09 0.95 1.02
4 (alt.) 28.7 16.6 17.0 354 301 303 0.59 0.58 1.02 0.86 1.01
in the concrete. None of the shear studs exhibited a shear primarily a function of concrete strength. Rather, the stud
failure in the shank. strength is primarily a function of the steel deck strength (i.e.,
The response of the studs in the weak position, in terms of the yield stress of the steel deck). Certainly some interaction
load versus slip, was more ductile than that of the studs in the between the concrete and the deck occurred, but the dominant
strong position. This difference is attributed to the way in component was the steel deck. Based on this hypothesis, the
which the load appeared to be resisted, based on the observed weak position push-out test strengths were averaged and used
failure modes. The failure mode for the strong position tests for all the weak position stud strengths in the calculations for
was brittle; concrete shear, and the failure mode for the weak the beam tests. No adjustment was made to account for
position tests was more ductile; bearing and eventual tearing variable concrete strengths.
of the steel deck web. A typical plot of load versus slip The strength of the shear studs in the strong position was
behavior for strong and weak position shear studs is illus- taken as a function of the concrete strength. The strong
trated in Figure 12.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The results of the beam and push-out tests were compared
with calculated values. Several comparisons have been made
and are presented in this section. The calculated moment
values were based on the expressions described previously in
this paper, using measured material properties and values of
shear connector strength that were calculated using the LRFD
specification or taken from normalized push-out test results.
Shear connector strength was also back calculated using the
experimental moment values obtained from the beam tests.
The results of each of these calculations and comparisons are
given in Table 2.
The values Qc given in Table 2 are calculated stud strengths.
These were determined using Equations 1 and 2 with meas-
ured material properties. Stud strengths Qcb, were back-
calculated using the experimental moment from the beam
tests, measured material properties and the calculation proce-
dure described previously.
Because the shear studs in the weak position, in both the
push-out and beam tests, failed by punching through the web Fig. 12. Load vs. slip for strong and weak
of the deck it was hypothesized that their strength was not position shear studs for push-out tests.
√
fc′
Qpo = 18.82 kips (8) 1 2.7 0.78 3.13 3.15
4.57 ksi 2 4.2 2.32 4.56 4.61
3 3.9 3.88 4.64 4.57
4 3.6 0.88 3.85 3.76
where fc′ is the concrete compressive strength for the compos-
ite beam test, 18.82 kips is the average stud strength from the All values of PNA are measured from top of steel section.
DESIGN IMPLICATIONS
Fig. 13. Applied moment versus position of neutral The implications of the study described here, as well as
axis for composite beam specimens. previous studies, on composite beam design merit considera-
Fig. 14. Shear strength comparison for AISC, CSA, and Eurocode specifications.
Single Story Buildings (Assumed to have a C = 2.75 [UBC] and a Cs = 2.5 Aa / R [NEHRP])
[Z = Av]
UBC Drift UBC Drift NEHRP Allowable Elastic Drift Ratio of NEHRP to UBC
Moment Resisting
Frame System
SMF Steel 5.5 8 12 1.37 0.0033 0.0027 0.0046 0.0036 0.0045 0.0036 0.0027 0.0018 1.00 0.75
OMF Steel 4 4.5 6 1.21 0.0050 0.0040 0.0061 0.0049 0.0063 0.0050 0.0038 0.0025 1.03 0.77
SMF Conc. 5.5 8 12 1.37 0.0033 0.0027 0.0046 0.0036 0.0045 0.0036 0.0027 0.0018 1.00 0.75
IMF Conc. 3.5 4 8 1.82 0.0050 0.0040 0.0091 0.0073 0.0071 0.0057 0.0043 0.0029 0.78 0.59
OMF Conc. 2 2 5 2.28 0.0050 0.0040 0.0114 0.0091 0.0125 0.0100 0.0075 0.0050 1.10 0.82
(sizing of members, connections, etc.) is based on the internal tain specific seismic drift limits, but there are major differ-
forces resulting from a linear elastic analysis using the pre- ences among them, i.e., UBC drift allowable is 1⁄3 greater than
scribed forces. It assumes that the structure as a whole, under that allowed by NEHRP for a Special Moment Frame in steel,
the prescribed forces, will not deform beyond a point of Seismic Hazard Exposure Group I for “All other buildings”
significant yield. The elastic deformations then are amplified category, Table 7.19
to estimate the real deformations in response to the design There are many reasons for controlling story drift in a
ground motion.1 building. Stability considerations dictate that flexibility be
Earthquake load combinations in the AISC Provision16 are: controlled. The stability problem is resolved by limiting the
drift of the building columns and the resulting secondary
1.2D + 0.5L + 0.2S ± 0.4R × E (3-7) moments commonly referred to as P-∆ effects. Buildings
0.9D ± 0.4R × E (3-8) subject to earthquakes also need drift control in order to limit
damage to partitions, emergency stair towers, exterior curtain
The amplification factor (3Rw / 8) was derived by using the walls and other fragile nonstructural elements. The design
similar assumptions that were used in deriving the factor for story drift limits of NEHRP take into account these needs, and
ASCE 7-93. The same building type with R = 5 in ASCE 7-93 in order to provide a higher performance standard for essen-
has a Structural System Coefficient Rw = 8 in the 1991 tial facilities the drift limit for Seismic Hazard Exposure
Uniform Building Code. The deflection determined by this Group III is more stringent than that for Groups I and II, Table
Rw was used as the value to be amplified by 3. Thus (3Rw / 4 and Table 8.
8)E. The story drift limitations of ASCE 7-93 and NEHRP
provisions are applied to an amplified story drift that esti-
Drift Limits mates the story drift that would occur during a large earth-
Model Codes and resource documents such as NEHRP con- quake. For determining the story drift the deflection deter-
Buildings with four stories or less with interior 0.025hsx 0.020hsx 0.015hsx
walls, partitions, ceilings, and exterior wall
system that have been designed to
accommodate the story drifts.
mined using the earthquake forces E is amplified by a deflec- 2. If fully restrained with a connection design strength
tion amplification factor, Cd (51⁄2 for a SMF of steel) which is meeting the requirements of Load Combinations 3-1
dependent on the type of building system. through 3-8
The 1991 Uniform Building Code7 drift provisions are 3. If either FR or PR connections meeting all the following:
numerically specific and require that story drift shall be
calculated including the translational and torsional deflection a. The design strengths of the members and connections
resulting from the application of unfactored lateral forces. shall have a design strength to resist Load Combina-
There are no drift limits on single-story steel-framed struc- tions 3-1 through 3-6.
tures with low occupancies. b. The connections have been demonstrated by cyclic
The AISC Seismic Provisions do not specify specific drift tests to have adequate rotation capacity at a story drift
limits but defer to the governing design code, stating that the calculated at a horizontal load of 0.4R × E.
story drift shall be calculated using the appropriate load c. The additional drift due to PR connections shall be
effects consistent with the structural system and method of considered in design.
analysis. The provision requiring a demonstration of rotation capac-
ity is included to permit the use of connections not permitted
Ordinary Moment Frames under the provisions for SMF, such as top and bottom angle
Ordinary moment frames (OMF) of structural steel are moment joints, in areas where the additional drift is acceptable.
frames which do not meet the requirements for special design
and detailing required of the Special Moment Frame. OMF of Column Strength
structural steel exist in all areas of seismic activity throughout As the result of the reduction in the actual lateral forces for
the country, and experience has shown that this type of building use in a code elastic analysis of the structure, overturning
has responded without significant structural damage. forces are underestimated and are amplified by unaccounted-
The 1992 AISC Seismic Provisions for OMF have beam- for concurrent vertical accelerations. These two load combi-
to-column joint requirements that allow the use of either fully nations account for these effects:
restrained (FR) or partially restrained (PR) connections, con-
trary to the Uniform Building Code. But the beam-to-column Axial compression loads:
connection must meet one of three criteria depending on
whether it is a fully restrained (FR) or partially restrained (PR) 1.2PD + 0.5PL + 0.2PS + 0.4R × PE ≤ φcPn (6-1)
connection:
where the term 0.4R is greater or equal to 1.0.
1. If fully restrained then the connection may conform to
Axial tension loads:
the requirements for SMF except that the required
flexural strength of a column-to-beam joint is not re- 0.9PD − 0.4R × PE ≤ φtPn (6-2)
quired to exceed the nominal plastic flexural strength of
the connection where the term 0.4R is greater or equal to 1.0.
A lthough there are seven metric base units in the SI system, Multiply by: to obtain:
only four are currently used by AISC in structural steel design.
inch (in.) 25.4 millimeters (mm)
These base units are listed in the following table. foot (ft) 305 millimeters (mm)
pound-mass (lb) 0.454 kilogram (kg)
pound-force (lbf) 4.448 newton (N)
Quantity Unit Symbol ksi 6.895 N / mm2
ft-lbf 1.356 joule (J)
length meter m
mass kilogram kg
time second s
temperature celcius °C Note that fractions resulting from metric conversion should
be rounded to whole millimeters. Following are common
fractions of inches and their metric equivalent.
Similarly, of the numerous decimal prefixes included in the
SI system, only three are used in steel design.
Fraction, in. Exact conversion, mm Rounded to: (mm)
1⁄ 1.5875 2
16
Order of 1⁄ 3.175 3
8
Prefix Symbol Magnitude Expression 3⁄ 4.7625 5
16
1⁄ 6.35 6
4
mega M 106 1,000,000 (one million) 5⁄
16 7.9375 8
kilo k 103 1,000 (one thousand) 3⁄ 9.525 10
milli m 10−3 0.001 (one thousandth) 7⁄
8
16 11.1125 11
1⁄ 12.7 13
2
5⁄ 15.875 16
8
In addition, three derived units are applicable to the present 3⁄ 19.05 19
4
7⁄
conversion. 8 22.225 22
1 25.4 25
Figure 2 Figure 3
EXAMPLES
1. Capitol Square Office Building—Columbus, Ohio
(Figure 9)
Figure 13c
sented later in this paper, questions have arisen regarding the the experimental specimens, as well as a review of the AISC
application 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
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 3⁄16-in. The
ses are reported by Gonzalez and Easterling.9 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.
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 41⁄4-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-
Angle Specimens
All but two of the angle specimens exhibited a tearing
failure, with the tearing initiating at the welded toe. The
welds sheared in Tests 15 and 19. The outstanding legs of
the specimens generally exhibited more signs of yielding
at the critical section, evident by whitewash flaking, than
the area of the angles directly connected to the gusset
Fig. 9. Analytical vs. experimental stresses for Test 3. Fig. 11. Analytical vs. experimental stresses for Test 8.
_
Fig. 12. Definition of x for various members. Fig. 14. Definition of l for welded members.
(a) Top and seat angle with double web-angle connection (b) Top and seat angle without double web-angle connection
Fig. 3. Top and seat angle with/without double web-angle connections.
θ
m= (16)
(1 + θn) ⁄n
1
III Top- and seat-angle connection 1.398 log10 θ0 + 4.631 … log10 θ0 > −2.721
(with double web angle) 0.827 ≤ −2.721
IV Top- and seat-angle connection 2.003 log10 θ0 + 6.070 … log10 θ0 > −2.880
(with double web angle) 0.302 ≤ −2.880
the ultimate moment capacity Mu. The principal merit of the Figure 13 shows comparisons of the distributions of n
present model is a significant saving of computing time in a values of the empirical equation with the experimental test
non-linear structural analysis program, since the connection data installed in the program SCDB (Kishi and Chen, 1989).
moment M can be represented as a function of relative rota- From these numerical considerations, we conclude that
tion θr. Furthermore, the tangent connection stiffness Rk can within the current practice of the range of the connection
be directly obtained without iteration. variables, the three-parameter power model with the shape
As for the shape parameter n, we use the following proce- parameter n obtained from the empirical equation can be
dure for its determination (Kishi and Chen et al. 1991): applied in practical design (Kishi and Chen et al. 1991). In
this study, we set the shape parameter n to be constant for the
1. The shape parameter n for each experimental test data is
region of θ0 less than the smallest one obtained from experi-
numerically determined first by the least mean square
mental test data. The equation refined for each connection
technique of the test data with Equation 16.
type is listed in Table 1.
2. The shape parameter is assumed to be a linear function
of log10θ0. Using a statistical technique for n values
obtained from the above procedure, empirical equation
for n for each connection type are determined. 5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE OF STRUCTURAL
ANALYSIS OF FLEXIBLY JOINTED FRAME
In this study, a four-bay, two-story frame used by Lindsey
(1987) is taken as the frame of basic skeleton for the present
numerical analysis (Figure 14).
W8×24 and W8×31 sections are used as the external and
internal columns respectively and the frames are placed 25 ft
center to center. The loads are: floor dead load: 65 psf, roof
dead load: 20 psf, reduced floor live load: 40 psf, and roof
live load: 12 psf. Wind loads are assumed to be 15 psf with a
shape factor of 1.3. Two types of load combination are con-
sidered referring to AISC-LRFD specification (1986). One is
the unfactored loads (D+L+W) to check the drift under service
load. Another is the factored loads (1.2D + 0.5L + 1.3W) to
check the frame stability. Load intensities are WR = 0.80 k/ft,
WF = 2.70 k/ft, PR = 2.925 kip, PF = 6.581 kip for the unfactored
loads and WR = 0.75 k/ft, WF = 2.54 k/ft, PR = 3.803 kip, PF =
8.556 kip for the factored loads.
In the present study, we adopt the top and seat angle with
double web-angle connections as a part of the beam-to-col-
umn connection. The combinations of beam, column, and
connection angle for several cases are listed in Table 2 in
Fig. 9. Coefficient Dw for Rkiw / EI0t of top and seat angle which the size of the columns is constant for each case. Beams
with double web-angle connections. used in Cases 1 and 2 are stronger than those in Cases 3 and 4.
Case 1, 2 Case 3, 4
Size l g l g
Web Angles L3×21⁄2×1⁄4 8.5 in. for floor 1.75 in. 8.5 in. for floor 1.75 in.
5.5 in. for roof 5.5 in. for roof
Heavy hex structural bolts with 1-in. nominal size are used as almost two to three times than that of the result of rigid
fasteners for all cases. connections, respectively.
Distributions of the non-dimensional roof drift (∆ / H) for
6. NUMERICAL RESULTS each case are shown in Figure 17 taking lt or gt as abscissa in
which ∆ and H are roof drift and height of frame respectively.
θr Curve of Connections
6.1 Characteristics of M-θ From this figure, we can select some dimensions for top and
seat angles for a given drift. For example, if the maximum
The M-θr curves of connections used are shown in Figure 15
drift is set to be ∆ / H = 1⁄300, we can choose three types of
in which the dimensions of beams and angles are specified in
angles to meet this requirement as
Case 1 and the length of top and seat angles is six inches.
For Cases 1 and 2:
6.2 Drift of Frame in Case Surcharging Unfactored Loads
tt = 1⁄2-in. gt = 2.75 in. lt = 6 in.
The general configurations of deformation of flexibly jointed
frame under the service loads are shown in Figure 16 com- and
paring with the results of rigid connections, in which the tt = 1⁄2-in. gt = 2.50 in. lt = 5 in.
sections of members are taken as lt = 6 in. and tt = 1⁄4-in. and/or
1⁄ -in. as in Cases 2 and 4. Though R and M in the case of For Cases 3 and 4:
2 ki u
tt = 1⁄2-in. may be twice than that of tt = 1⁄4-in. as we can see in
tt = 1⁄2-in. gt = 2.50 in. lt = 6 in.
Figure 15, the drift of roof in the case of tt = 1⁄4-in. is less than
twice that of tt = 1⁄2-in. The drifts for tt = 1⁄2-in. and 1⁄4-in. are 6.3 Frame Stability in Case Surcharging Factored Loads
Bending moment diagrams of the frame in Cases 2 and 4 with
lt = 6 in. and tt = 1⁄4-in. and/or 1⁄2-in. under the factored loads
are shown in Figure 18 together with the results of rigid
connections. The bending moments on floor beams show a
large difference between the semi-rigid and rigid connections.
On the other hand, the differences on other members are
smaller than those of the floor beams.
The non-dimensional end moments of columns of Cases 1
to 4 are tabulated in Table 3 together with the results of rigid
connections and the B1, B2 method as given in AISC-LRFD
specification (Chen and Lui, 1987). The reference values in
each case are obtained from a first order elastic analysis with
rigid connections. In these tables, all values at the fixed points
Fig. 12. M-θr curves for the three-parameter power model. of flexibly jointed frame in all cases are greater than the
B1, B2 Method
Reference
Value
(2) (3)
Elment Node (1) Equation Equation
No. No. tt = 1⁄4-in. tt = 5⁄16-in. tt = 3⁄8-in. tt = 1⁄2-in. Exact H1-5 H1-6
(kip-in.)
B1, B2 Method
Reference
Value
(2) (3)
Elment Node (1) Equation Equation
No. No. lt = 4.0 in. lt = 4.5 in. lt = 5.0 in. lt = 5.5 in. lt = 6.0 in. lt = 6.5 in. Exact (kip-in.)
H1-5 H1-6
1 1 2.73 2.65 2.58 2.51 2.44 2.38 1.16 1.22 1.33 −85.28
2 −1.07 −0.99 −0.90 −0.81 −0.73 −0.64 0.48 0.46 0.21 −32.46
2 4 1.33 1.31 1.29 1.28 1.26 1.25 1.06 1.08 1.12 −282.48
5 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 1.06 1.07 1.11 297.07
3 7 1.46 1.44 1.43 1.41 1.39 1.38 1.07 1.07 1.12 −254.32
8 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.82 1.07 1.07 1.12 242.04
4 10 1.61 1.58 1.56 1.55 1.53 1.51 1.07 1.07 1.12 −230.75
11 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.10 1.07 1.13 195.40
5 13 1.18 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.05 1.03 1.06 −290.13
14 0.68 0.70 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 1.03 1.02 1.04 379.62
6 2 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.73 0.75 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 301.11
3 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 −252.37
7 5 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 1.01 1.01 1.01 −146.61
6 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 1.02 1.01 1.01 125.05
8 8 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.33 0.32 0.30 1.01 1.02 1.01 −63.59
9 1.64 1.66 1.67 1.68 1.68 1.69 1.02 1.02 1.02 66.26
9 11 −2.74 −2.48 −2.24 −2.04 −1.87 −1.73 0.90 0.88 0.88 9.81
12 8.75 8.79 8.80 8.80 8.77 8.72 1.10 1.09 1.10 12.30
10 14 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.73 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 −367.51
15 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 329.61
B1, B2 Method
Reference
Value
(2) (3)
Elment Node (1) Equation Equation
No. No. tt = 1⁄4-in. tt = 5⁄16-in. tt = 3⁄8-in. tt = 1⁄2-in. Exact H1-5 H1-6
(kip-in.)
B1, B2 Method
Reference
Value
(2) (3)
Elment Node (1) Equation Equation
No. No. lt = 4.0 in. lt = 4.5 in. lt = 5.0 in. lt = 5.5 in. lt = 6.0 in. lt = 6.5 in. Exact (kip-in.)
H1-5 H1-6
1 1 3.15 3.06 2.96 2.88 2.79 2.71 1.18 1.25 1.37 −78.31
2 −0.47 −0.42 −0.36 −0.30 −0.25 −0.19 0.64 0.63 0.45 −48.26
2 4 1.39 1.37 1.34 1.33 1.31 1.29 1.06 1.08 1.13 −284.67
5 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 1.06 1.07 1.11 299.00
3 7 1.53 1.51 1.49 1.47 1.45 1.43 1.07 1.07 1.12 −255.26
8 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.79 1.07 1.07 1.12 241.40
4 10 1.69 1.66 1.64 1.62 1.59 1.57 1.07 1.07 1.12 −230.72
11 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.10 1.07 1.14 192.74
5 13 1.20 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.05 1.03 1.06 −297.85
14 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 1.03 1.02 1.04 392.94
6 2 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.65 0.68 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 330.36
3 0.55 0.57 0.60 0.62 0.65 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 −291.10
7 5 0.35 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.25 1.02 1.01 1.01 −151.84
6 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85 1.02 1.01 1.00 121.47
8 8 0.77 0.71 0.66 0.61 0.56 0.52 1.02 1.02 1.02 −66.24
9 1.37 1.41 1.45 1.48 1.51 1.53 1.03 1.02 1.02 64.67
9 11 −5.24 −4.80 −4.38 −4.00 −3.66 −3.35 0.92 0.88 0.90 9.54
12 7.22 7.42 7.58 7.72 7.83 7.91 1.08 1.08 1.07 12.11
10 14 0.64 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 −398.34
15 0.77 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 363.95
Steel tubes of relatively thin wall thickness filled with high- overstressing the steel tube. In addition, the deformation
strength concrete have been used in building construction in of the steel tube will increase connection rotation, de-
the U.S. and Far East Asian countries. This structural system creasing its stiffness.
allows the designer to maintain manageable column sizes 2. Welding of the thin steel tube results in large residual
while obtaining increased stiffness and ductility for wind and stresses because of the restraint provided by other con-
seismic loads. Column shapes can take the form of tubes or nection elements.
pipes as required by architectural restrictions. Additionally, 3. The steel tube is designed primarily to provide lateral
shop fabrication of steel shapes helps insure quality control. confinement for the concrete which could be compromised
In this type of construction, in general, at each floor level by the additional stress due to the welded connection.
heavy steel beam is framed to these composite columns.
Often, these connections are required to develop shear yield POSSIBLE CONNECTION DETAIL
and plastic moment capacity of the beam simultaneously. With these considerations in mind, attempts should be made
This paper summarizes results and recommendations from to prevent direct transfer of beam forces to the steel tube. Two
a pilot study conducted to develop a moment-resisting steel general types of connection details were envisioned, types A
connection detail for connecting steel beams to composite and B.
columns of the type described above. The focus of this pilot
study was on composite columns having a square or rectan- Type A Connection Detail
gular cross section.
Figure 1 shows one alternative in which forces are transmitted
CURRENT PRACTICE to the core concrete via anchor bolts connecting the steel
Beam-column connections in concrete-filled steel tubes are elements to the steel tube. In this alternative, all elements
usually constructed by directly welding the steel beam to the could be pre-connected to the steel tube in the shop. The nut
tube when connections are required to develop plastic mo- inside the steel tube is designed to accomplish this task. The
ment capacity of the beam. Current design practices for these capacity of this type of connection would be limited with the
connections rely heavily on the judgment and experience of pull-out capacity of the anchor bolts and local capacity of the
individual designers, with little research and testing informa- tube.
tion available. Another variation of the same idea is shown in Figure 2,
When beams are welded or attached to steel tubes through where connecting elements would be embedded in the core
connection elements, complicated stiffener assemblies are concrete via slots cut in the steel tube. In this variation slots
required in the joint area within the column. However, weld- must be welded to connection elements after beam assembly
ing of the steel beam or connecting element directly to the for concrete confinement. The ultimate capacity of this detail
steel tube of composite columns should be avoided for the also would be limited to the pull-out capacity of the connec-
following reasons: tion elements and the concrete in the tube.
1. Transfer of tensile forces to the steel tube can result in Type B Connection Detail
separation of the tube from the concrete core, thereby
Another option is to pass the beam completely through the
column (see Figure 3). This type of connection is believed to
be the most suitable. In this type of detail a certain height of
Atorod Azizinamini is an assistant professor, Department of Civil column tube, together with a short beam stub passing through
Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE. the column and welded to the tube, could be shop fabricated
Bangalore Prakash, structural engineer with Nabih Youssef to form a “tree column.” The beam portion of the “tree
and Associates, Los Angeles, California, formerly a graduate column” could then be bolted to girders in the field. A com-
student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ne- bination of analytical and experimental investigations was
braska, Lincoln, NE.
undertaken to comprehend and identify the force transfer
Fig. 1. Type A connection detail using anchor bolt. Fig. 2. Type A connection detail using embedded elements.
Fig. 7. Location and orientation of gages Fig. 8. Strain data from gages attached to
attached to beam web within the column. beam web within the column.
A a
31ad
c + As(adc − 2d1dc + 2d12) +
1⁄ η′b a2 d − a
ξfy1
= Vb
2 f c 3 αl2(dc − a)
(15)
where
d1 = distance between steel rod and steel tube
fy1 = yield strength of steel tube
In Equation 15 ξ fy1 is the stress level the steel tube is
allowed to approach at ultimate condition. ξ fy1 could also be
viewed as the portion of the steel tube strength utilized to
resist the forces transferred by the connection. Based on the
limited experimental data obtained from this investigation it
is suggested that a value of 0.35 be used for ξ.
Equations 14 and 15 relate the externally applied force,
Vb, directly and the externally applied forces Vc and Mc indi-
Fig. 9. Assumed forces on an interior joint Fig. 10. FBD of the upper column and beam
in a frame subjected to lateral loads. web within the joint area.
Vu = φR√
fc′ Ae (18)
where
φ = 0.85
R = 20, 15, and 12 for interior, exterior, and corner joints,
respectively
fc′ = concrete compressive strength
Substitute As = 1.03 in.2 in Equation 15 and calculate Vb. If For the interior joint the shear capacity is
the result is approximately equal to 79 kips the assumed value Vu = φ(20)fc′(2bf)(dc)
of a is o.k. Equation 15 yields:
Vu = 0.85(20)100×[(2×5.5)(24)]/1,000 = 449k >
VB = [5.5 × 8.5 × 24 + 1.03(8.5 × 24 − 2 × 3.5 × 24 + 77.8k o.k.
2 × 3.52) + 1⁄2(0.23)(5.5)(8.5)2(24 −
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
0.35 × 36
8.5 / 3)] The use of composite columns of the type described in this
0.85 × 32(24 − 8.5)
paper is proven to be economical. This paper has summarized
Vb = 64.3 kips ≠ 79 kips a suggested connection detail (a through-beam connection
detail) for connecting steel beams to these columns as well as
Assume a = 9 inches. This will yield As = 3.04 in.2, Vb = tentative design guidelines. The information presented in this
77 ≈ 79k o.k.
k
paper is based on a pilot study and, therefore, it is suggested
Therefore, a = 9 inches and As = 3.04 in.2 that this information be viewed as a general guideline until
Use two #11 Grade 60 deformed reinforcing bars. As = further research is carried out. It should also be noted that the
3.12 in.2 effect of axial load in the column on performance of the
Step 4: Check stresses in different connection elements connection was not considered. The intent of the paper is to
against their limit values. First calculate tensile strain in the suggest an economical connection detail and outline a proce-
steel tube. dure to comprehend its behavior through the behavioral
model presented.
ε1 = ξ fy1 / Es = 0.35 × 36/29,000 = 0.000434 in./in.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Using Equations 1 and 4 calculate fc.
The authors greatly appreciate the support provided by the
fc = 1.74 ksi < fc′ = 14 ksi o.k. American Institute of Steel Construction which provided
partial funding of a graduate student. Valmont Industries of
Using Equations 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 calculate stresses in
Omaha, Nebraska is greatly appreciated for constructing the
other connection elements. This yields:
test specimen. Special thanks are also due the Center for
fsc = 4.61 ksi < φcFy = 0.85 × 60 = 51 ksi o.k. Infrastructure Research at the University of Nebraska-
f1c = 7.55 ksi < φcFy = 0.85 × 36 = 30.6 ksi o.k. Lincoln for supporting this research. The authors thank Dr. J.
fst = 9.65 ksi < φtFy = 0.9 × 60 = 54 ksi o.k. P. Colaco of CBM Engineers, Inc., Houston, Texas for his
flt = 12.6 ksi < φtFy = 0.9 × 36 = 32.4 ksi o.k. helpful suggestions and great encouragement while pursuing
this research.
Step 5: Using Equation 17 calculate shear force in the beam
web: REFERENCES
Vw = 0.6 × 36 × 0.25 × 24 = 129.6 kips 1. Shipp, G. John and Haninger, R. Edward, “Design of
Headed Anchor Bolts,” AISC Engineering Journal, Sec-
Step 6: Using Equation 16 calculate compressive force in ond Quarter, 1983, Vol. 20, No. 2 pp. 58–69.
concrete compression strut. 2. Prakash, A. Bangalore, “Development of Connection De-
tail for Connecting Steel Beams to Composite Columns,”
θ = arctan 14.5/24 = 31.1°
M.S. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, University of
Cc = 1⁄2η′ξbf (a2 / dc − a) fy1 Nebraska-Lincoln, 1992.
Cc = 1⁄2(0.23)(0.35)(5.5)(92 / 24 − 9) × 36 = 43 kips 3. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for De-
Vw + Cstcos(θ) + βCc − (2Mb / db) = 0 sign of Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced
129.6 + Cstcos(31.1) + 0.5(43) − (2 × 1,660) / 14.5 = 0 Concrete Structures,” ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 82,
Cst = 90.9 kips No. 3, May–June 1985, pp. 266–283.
D. E. Allen is senior research officer, Institute for Research in VIBRATION LIMIT STATE—
Construction, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, On- ACCELERATION LIMITS
tario, Canada.
International Standards Association (ISO, 1989; ISO, 1992)
T. M. Murray is Montague-Betts Professor of Structural Steel recommends vibration limits below which the probability of
Design, The Charles E. Via Department of Civil Engineering,
adverse reaction is low. Limits for different occupancies are
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
VA.
given in terms of rms acceleration as a multiple of the baseline
curve shown in Figure 1. For offices, ISO recommends a
Fig. 1. Recommended acceleration limits Fig. 2. Center support reaction produced by walking along a
for walking vibration (vertical). footbridge on three supports (Rainer, et al, 1988).
RESPONSE
Walking across a footbridge or floor causes a complex dy- PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
namic response, involving different natural modes of vibra-
Equation 2 predicts peak acceleration due to harmonic reso-
tion, as well as motion due to time variation of static deflec-
nance, RαiP / βW, which can be compared to the acceleration
tion. The problem can be simplified by considering a person
limit, ao / g shown in Figure 1. It is useful to express this in
stepping up and down at mid-span of a simply supported
terms of a minimum value of damping ratio times equivalent
beam which has only one mode of vibration—the fundamen-
mass weight (βW):
tal mode. Maximum dynamic response will occur when the
natural frequency corresponds to one of the harmonic forcing RαiP
frequencies. The steady-state acceleration, a, due to harmonic βW ≥ (3)
ao / g
resonance is given by (Rainer, et al, 1988),
Table 2 contains specific minimum values of βW for the
a αiP R RαiP values of dynamic loading (αiP) from Table 1, acceleration
= × × cos 2πift = × cos 2πift (2)
g 0.5W 2β βW limit (ao / g) from Figure 1 and reduction factor (R) recom-
mended above.
where W is the weight of the beam, β is the damping ratio, g As shown in Figure 4 the results of Table 2 can be approxi-
is the acceleration due to gravity, and R is a reduction factor mated by the following criterion for walking vibrations:
discussed later. The factor 1 / (2β) is the familiar dynamic
amplification factor for steady-state resonance and 0.5W / g βW ≥ K exp (−0.35fo) (4a)
is the mass of an SDOF oscillator which is dynamically
where fo is the fundamental natural frequency (Hz) and K is
equivalent to the simply supported beam of weight W vibrat-
a constant given in Table 3 which depends on the acceleration
ing in its fundamental mode. The other harmonics will also
limit for the occupancy. Equation 4a can be inverted to
produce steady-state vibrations at their forcing frequencies,
express the criterion for walking vibrations in terms of mini-
but the level of vibration is generally much smaller. For floor
mum fundamental natural frequency:
structures, an exception occurs when there is resonance of two
fo ≥ 2.86 ln
modes of vibration at two multiples of the step frequency; K
(4b)
floor experience indicates, however, that only one resonant
βW
mode whose frequency is near to the fundamental frequency
need be considered for design. The following section provides guidance for estimating the
The reduction factor R is introduced into Equation 2 to take required floor properties for application of Equations 4.
into account (a) that full steady-state resonance is not
achieved when someone steps along the beam instead of up DAMPING RATIO β
and down at mid-span and (b) that the walker and the person The damping ratio depends primarily on non-structural com-
annoyed are not simultaneously at the location of maximum ponents and furnishings. The Canadian steel structures speci-
modal displacement. Figure 3 shows test results for a person fication (CSA, 1989) recommends damping ratios of 0.03 for
walking across two simply supported footbridges which ver- a bare floor; 0.06 for a finished floor with ceiling, ducts,
ify the harmonic resonance response model, Equation 2. The flooring, and furniture; and 0.12 for a finished floor with
value R = 0.56 in Figure 3a was determined by dynamic partitions. Murray (1991) recommends damping ratios of
analysis of a person walking across the footbridge (Rainer, et 0.01 to 0.03 for a bare floor, 0.01 to 0.03 for ceilings, 0.01 to
al, 1988). It is recommended that for design R be taken as 0.7 0.10 for mechanical ducts, and 0.10 to 0.20 for partitions.
for footbridges and 0.5 for floor structures having two-way These damping ratios, however, are based on vibration decay
modal configurations. resulting from heel impact and include a component for
Fig. 3. Peak response of two footbridge spans to a person walking across at different step frequencies (Rainer, et al, 1988).
Bg = 1.6 (Dj / Dg ) ⁄4 Lg
1
(11) Beam Mode Properties
where Dg is the flexural rigidity per unit width in the girder With an effective concrete slab width of 120 in. < 0.4 Lj =
direction and Dj the flexural rigidity per unit width in the joist 0.4 × 35 × 12 = 168 in., and considering only the concrete
direction. Equation 11 is the same as Equation 7 except that above the steel form deck, the transformed moment of inertia
the factor 2 is reduced to 1.6 to take into account discontinuity Ij = 2,105 in.4 For each beam
of joist systems over supports; if the joists consist of rolled wj = 10(11 + 42 + 4 + 40 / 10) = 610 plf
beams shear connected to girder webs the factor 1.6 can be
increased to 1.8. Bg determined by Equation 11 should be which includes 11 psf live load and 4 psf for mechanical/ceil-
assumed to have a lower limit equal to the tributary panel ing, and
width supported by the girder and an upper limit of two-thirds 5wjL4j 5 × 610 × 354 × 1,728
of the total floor width perpendicular to the girders. ∆j = = = 0.337 in.
384EIj 384 × 29 × 106 × 2,105
Where the girders are continuous over their supports, and
an adjacent span is 0.7Lg or greater, the mass weight, Wg, can The beam mode natural frequency from Equation 5 is:
be increased by 50 percent. This is due to participation of
√
adjacent floor panels, as discussed above for the joist panel
386
mode. fj = 0.18 = 6.09 Hz
0.337
COMBINED MODE
Using an average concrete thickness, 4.25 in., the transformed
Combined flexibilities of the joists and girders reduces the moment of inertia per unit width in the slab direction is
natural frequency and makes the floor more susceptible to
noticeable walking vibration. For design purposes this can be Ds = 12 × 4.253 / 12 × 9.3 = 8.25 in.4/ft
taken into account by a “combined” mode whose properties
The transformed moment of inertia per unit width in the beam
may be estimated using the following interaction equations:
direction is (beam spacing is 10 ft)
(i) The fundamental natural frequency can be approxi-
mated by the Dunkerly relationship: Dj = 2,105 / 10 = 210.5 in.4/ft
fo = 0.18 √
g / (∆j + ∆g) (12) The effective beam panel width from Equation 7 is:
Since this is a typical interior bay, the actual floor width is at and from Equation 13
least 3 × 30 = 90 ft, and 2⁄3 × 90 = 60 ft > 31.3 ft. Therefore,
0.337 0.334
the effective beam panel width is 31.3 ft. W= (100) + (104) = 102 kips
0.337 + 0.334 0.337 + 0.334
The mass weight of the beam panel is from Equation 6,
adjusted by a factor of 1.5 to account for continuity: For office occupancy without full-height partitions, β = 0.03
from Table 3, thus
Wj = 1.5(610/10)(31.3 × 35) = 100,238 lbs = 100 kips
βW = 0.03 × 102 = 3.06 kips
Girder Mode Properties
Evaluation
With an effective slab width of 0.4 × 30 × 12 = 144 in. and
considering the concrete in the form of deck ribs, the trans- Application of Equations 4 for offices (see Table 3) results in
formed moment of inertia Ig = 3,279 in.4 For each girder βW = 3.06 kips > 13 exp (−0.35 × 4.32) = 2.87 kips
wg = 2.5 (610 × 35) / 30 + 50 = 1,829 plf, or
5 × 1,829 × 304 × 1,728 fo = 4.32 Hz ≥ 2.86 ln (13 / 3.06) = 4.14 Hz
∆g = = 0.350 in.
384 × 29 × 106 × 3,279
The floor is therefore judged satisfactory.
and
EDGE PANEL MODE
Unsupported edges of floors can cause a special problem
fg = 0.18
√ 386
0.350
= 5.98 Hz because of low-mass weight and sometimes decreased damp-
ing. Normally this is not a problem for exterior floor edges,
because of stiffening by exterior cladding or because walk-
With Dj = 210.5 in.4/ft and Dg = 3,279 / 35 = 93.7 in.4/ft, ways are not located near exterior walls. Problems have
Equation 11 gives occurred, however, at interior floor edges adjacent to atria.
Bg = 1.8 (210.5 / 93.7) ⁄4 (30) = 66.1 ft
1 These edge members should often be made stiffer than current
practice suggests by use of the following assumptions in the
which is less than 2⁄3 (3 × 35) = 70 ft. From Equation 10 proposal criterion.
Where an interior edge is supported by a joist, the equiva-
Wg = (1829 / 35)(66.1 × 30) = 103,626 lb = 104 kip lent mass weight of the joist panel can be estimated using
Equation 6 by replacing the coefficient 2 with 1 in Equation
Combined Mode Properties 7. Where an interior edge is supported by a girder, the equiva-
In this case the girder span (30 ft) is less than the beam panel lent mass weight of the girder panel should be estimated on
width (31.3 ft) and the girder deflection, ∆g, is therefore the basis of the tributary weight supported by the girder. These
reduced according to 0.350 × 30 / 31.3 = 0.334 in. From edge panels are then combined with their orthogonal panels
Equation 12, as recommended above.
1 Allen and Rainer (1976), #13 4.0 22.2 9.7 0.03 19.3 14.3 S
2 #9 4.5 21.6 11.9 0.03 26.9 12.0 S
3 #24 4.6 16.5 11.2 0.03 16.6 11.6 S
4 #5 5.3 18.3 8.8 0.015 6.0 9.1 U
5 #10 5.3 18.6 7.8 0.015 5.4 9.1 U
6 #2 5.5 14.6 8.6 0.03 9.4 8.5 S
7 #1 6.0 10.7 8.3 0.03 6.6 7.1 U
8 #18 6.0 17.1 9.8 0.015 7.5 7.1 B
9 #22 8.0 10.7 7.1 0.03 5.5 3.5 S
10 #19 8.5 8.9 8.2 0.015 3.3 3.0 B
11 #17 8.8 8.7 7.6 0.015 2.5 2.7 U
12 Quebec City 4.5 (7.6, 7.6)3 (9.1, 11.9)3 0.03 6.2 12.0 Very U
13 Quebec City 5.4 (7.6, 7.6) (9.1, 8.6) 0.03 5.4 8.8 U
14 Quebec City 7.2 (7.6, 7.6) (7.4, 10.7) 0.03 5.2 4.7 S
15 Matthews, et al (1982) 6.2 (9, 12.5) (9.7, 11.3) 0.03 9.5 6.6 S
16 Pernica and Allen (1982) 5.2 (7.6, 12.2) (8.1, 15.0) 0.02 11.8 3.2 S
Notes:
1
K = 58 for all cases except #16 and #19, where K = 20 applies
2
U = unsatisfactory, S = satisfactory, B = borderline
3
The first entry inside the brackets refers to the joist panel, the second refers to the girder panel
unsatisfactory performance of this floor are low damping broad frequency range, 3 to 8 Hz, but is more conservative
(criterion just met for β = 0.015) and vibration transmission beyond 8 Hz.
due to girder continuity. Floors 7 and 10 are predicted to be For footbridges the proposed criterion is apparently a little
marginal. more conservative than the OHBDC (1983) criterion, but this
The proposed criterion can also be compared to existing is offset by the difference in recommended values of β (0.01
criteria. Table 6 makes this comparison on the basis of mini- vs. 0.005 to 0.008 in the OHBDC). Third and fourth harmonic
mum values of βWj for one-way beam or joist systems. The resonance is not adequately considered by the OHBDC but
basis for the values shown in Table 6 is given in Appendix III. this is not serious in practice because footbridges with these
For office floors, Table 6 shows that all criteria are similar for frequencies generally have sufficient mass to satisfy the pro-
resonance with the third harmonic of the step frequency (5 to posed criterion, Equation 4a.
7 Hz). This is not surprising because existing design criteria Information on shopping centers is scarce. Application of
are based to a large extent on experience with floors in the Equation 4a for shopping centers to the floor data in Cases 16
frequency range 5 to 8 Hz. and 19 of Table 4, however, indicates agreement with user
The criteria, however, differ at other floor frequencies. The reaction.
CSA criterion is insufficient for frequencies less than 5 Hz Tables 4–6, as well as Figure 3, therefore confirm the
and conservative for frequencies beyond 7 Hz. The Murray applicability of the proposed criterion for walking vibration
criterion has tendencies similar to the CSA criterion, but the to a wide variety of structures and occupancies.
discrepancy with the proposed criterion is less severe. The
Wyatt criterion is close to the proposed criterion within a
Notes:
1
All open web joist on girder systems except #3 and #10 (beams shear connected to girders)
2
Members continuous over supports (Wj or Wg increased by 1.5)
3
Joist systems supported on stiff girders, frequency fo estimated from fj
NATURAL FREQUENCIES GREATER THAN 9 HZ reflects impulse discomfort except that the right-hand side has
When the natural frequency is greater than 9 Hz, harmonic not been correctly determined. If, however, Equation 4a with
resonance does not occur, but walking vibration can still be a K = 58 for office floors is extended beyond 9 Hz, it decreases
problem. Because the natural frequencies are high compared rapidly until approximately 18 Hz when the stiffness criterion
to the main loading frequencies, the floor response is gov- of 1 kN/mm (5.7 k/in.) starts to control the design of the floor.
erned primarily by stiffness relative to a concentrated load. Application of Equation 4a to the examples in Ohlsson (1988)
Experience indicates a minimum stiffness of approximately also indicates that it gives a reasonable evaluation for floors
1 kN per mm (5.7 kips per in.) deflection for office and between 9 and 18 Hz.
residential occupancies. To ensure satisfactory performance of office and residen-
For light floors with natural frequencies in the range 9 to tial floors with frequencies greater than 9 Hz it is recom-
18 Hz there may also be adverse reaction to floor motion mended that Equations 4 be used in conjunction with the
caused by step-impulse forces. Experience indicates that ad- stiffness criterion of 1 kN/mm (5.7 k/in.).
verse reaction to step impulses depends primarily on mass
CONCLUSION
(initial floor velocity equals impulse divided by mass) and
vibration decay time, the shorter the decay time the better. Walking forces produce motions which are related to reso-
The decay time decreases in proportion to clamping ratio nance, impulse response, and static stiffness. Resonance con-
times floor frequency. Wyatt (1989) recommends an impulse trols the design of floors and footbridges with natural frequen-
criterion beyond 7 Hz floor frequency, but beyond approxi- cies less than approximately 9 Hz, static stiffness controls the
mately 9 Hz the criterion becomes overly conservative be- design of floors with frequencies greater than approximately
cause it ignores the benefits of decreased decay time. Ohlsson 18 Hz, and impulse response controls the design of floors with
(1988) recommends an impulse criterion which takes decay frequencies in between.
time into account, but the criterion is complex for design. The A simple criterion for resonance vibration of floor and
resonance criterion, Equation 4a, is in a form that correctly footbridge structures, Equations 4, is proposed for design,
along with a recommended procedure for determining the
Minimum Value of Damping Ratio Times Effective Mass Weight, βWj (kN)
Natural
Frequency Offices, Residences Footbridges
fo (Hz) 1 1
Equation 4a CSA (1989) Murray (1981) Wyatt (1989) Equation 4a OHBDC (1983)
2 28.8 NA NA NA 4.0 3
4 14.3 4 5.8–7.6 17.5 2.0 1.8
6 7.1 6 5.8–7.6 8.8 1.0 —
1
8 3.5 7 5.8–7.6 3.01 0.5 —
1
10 1.75 8 5.8–7.6 3.01 0.24 —
Note:
1
Results are given for a standard case of finished floor without full-height partitions (β = 0.03)
required floor properties. The proposed criterion, based on 8. Lenzen, K. H., “Vibration of Steel Joists,” Engineering
acceptable vibration for human reaction, compares well with Journal 3(3), 1966, pp. 133–136.
existing criteria and is confirmed by experience with tested 9. Matthews, C. M., Montgomery, C. J., and Murray, D. W.,
floors. Recommended values of the criterion parameters, “Designing Floor Systems for Dynamic Response,”
however, are expected to be improved by further experience Structural Engineering Report No. 106, Department of
and research. Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Al-
Floors of offices and residential occupancies with frequen- berta, 1982.
cies greater than 9 Hz should also be checked both for a 10. Murray, T. M., “Acceptability Criterion for Occupant-In-
minimum static stress under concentrated load of 1 kN/mm duced Floor Vibrations,” Engineering Journal, 18(2),
(5.7 kips/in.) and for impulse response by means of Equa- 1981, 62–70.
tions 4. 11. Murray, T. M., “Building Floor Vibrations,” Engineering
Journal, Third Quarter, 1991, 102–109.
APPENDIX I: REFERENCES 12. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, Ontario Ministry
of Transportation and Communication, Toronto, 1983.
1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Specification 13. Ohlsson, S. V., “Ten Years of Floor Vibration Research—
for Structural Steel Buildings—Allowable Stress Design A Review of Aspects and Some Results,” Proceedings of
and Plastic Design, AISC, Chicago, 1989. the Symposium/Workshop on Serviceability of Buildings.
2. Allen, D. E. and Rainer, J. H., “Vibration Criteria for Vol. I, Ottawa, 1988, pp. 435–450.
Long-Span Floors,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineer- 14. Pernica, G., and Allen, D. E., “Floor Vibration Measure-
ing, 3(2), June, 1976, pp. 165–171. ments in a Shopping Centre,” Canadian Journal of Civil
3. Bachmann H., “Case Studies of Structures with Engineering, 9(2), 1982, pp. 149–155.
Man-Induced Vibrations,” Journal of Structural Engi- 15. Rainer, J. H., Pernica, G., and Allen, D. E., “Dynamic
neering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 3, 1992, 631–647. Loading and Response of Footbridges,” Canadian Jour-
4. British Standard BS5400, Part 2: Steel, Concrete and nal of Civil Engineering, 15(1), 1988, pp. 66–71.
Composite Bridges: Specification for Loads, Appendix C, 16. Tredgold, T., Elementary Principles of Carpentry, 2nd
British Standards Institution, 1978. Ed., Publisher unknown, 1828.
5. Canadian Standard CAN3-S16. 1-M89: Steel Structures 17. Wyatt, T. A., “Design Guide on the Vibration of Floors,”
for Buildings—Limit States Design, Appendix G: Guide Steel Construction Institute Publication 076, London,
for Floor Vibrations, Canadian Standards Association, 1989.
Rexdale, Ontario, 1989.
6. International Standard ISO 2631-2, Evaluation of Human
Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration—Part 2: Human Ex- APPENDIX II: NOTATION
posure to Continuous and Shock-Induced Vibrations in The following symbols are used in this paper:
Buildings (1 to 80 Hz), International Standards Organiza- a = acceleration
tion, 1989. ao = acceleration limit
7. International Standards ISO 10137, Basis for the Design B = effective width of a panel
of Structures—Serviceability of Buildings Against Vibra- D = flexural rigidity or transformed moment of inertia
tion, International Standards Organization, 1992. per unit width of a panel
√
π gDj
fo = (A1)
2 wL4j
Fig. 7. Murray criterion, Equation (A4), compared where S is the member spacing. Equation A14 may be ex-
to floor data (Murray 1981). pressed in terms of βWj if it is multiplied by βBj / S. Based on
c
ABSTRACT
M
A practical LRFD-based analysis method for the design of
dM
= Kt = Ki 1 −
Mu
(1)
semi-rigid frames is proposed. The proposed method uses dθr
first-order elastic analysis with a notional lateral load for the
where
second-order effects. In the proposed method, a simplified
three-parameter model describing the tangent rotational stiff- Kt = tangent stiffness
ness of semi-rigid connections is used. Ki = initial connection stiffness
Mu = ultimate bending moment capacity
1. INTRODUCTION
M = connection moment
Although partially restrained (PR) construction is permitted
C = shape factor account for decay rate of Kt, C > 0
by the AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings—
Load and Resistance Factor Design, no specific analysis or The moment-rotation (M − θr) behavior of bolted extended
design guidance is given in the current LRFD and ASD end-plate beam-to-column connections tested by Yee and
specifications for these partially restrained frames. Melchers2 is compared with the proposed model in Figure 1
Recently, a simplified procedure for the analysis and de- and a good agreement is observed with C = 1.6. In Figure 1,
sign of semi-rigid frames was proposed by Barakat and the initial stiffness, Ki = 546,666 in-kip/rad, is the tangent to
Chen,1 using the B1 and B2 amplification factors together with the starting point of the curve. The ultimate moment capacity,
the beam-line concept. However, the beam-line method can Mu = 3,539 in-kip, is determined by test. The value C is used
not adequately predict the drift of unbraced frames and the to control the shape of a convex curve. If C is equal to 1, Kt
calculation of effective length factor is cumbersome and decreases linearly. When C is less than 1, Kt decreases more
time-consuming. rapidly. If C is greater than 1, Kt decreases much slower. This
A simplified procedure to improve these drawbacks is is illustrated in Figure 1 with C = 1.0, 1.6, and 2.2 respectively.
introduced in this paper. Here, as in the Barakat method, the In the following, the proposed tangent stiffness connection
proposed method is based on first-order linear elastic analy- model will be applied to several types of connections, includ-
sis, but the second-order effect will be included with the use ing the extended end-plate, top and seat angle with double
of notional lateral loads. web angles, framing angles, and single-plate connections.
served with C = 0.555. rotation curve of the proposed model compares well with one
of the tests as illustrated in Figure 5 with Ki = 51,000 in.-
(b) Bolted Top and Bottom Angles with Web Angles
kip/rad, Mu = 137 in.-kip, and C = 0.22.
Azizinamini, Bradburn, and Radziminski4 reported test re-
sults on bolted semi-rigid steel beam-to-column connections.
These connections are comprised of top and bottom angles 2.2 Initial Stiffness
connected to the flanges along with web angles. ASTM A36 For simplicity, researchers7,8,9 have been using the initial
steel was used for the members and the connection elements. connection stiffness, Ki, for their semi-rigid frames analysis.
Eighteen specimens were tested. The beam tested was a The use of initial stiffness throughout the flexible frame
W14×38, the bolt diameter is 22.2 mm, and the web angles analysis results in a frame behavior that is generally too stiff
are 2L4×31⁄2×1⁄4. The thickness of flange angles is 15.9 mm, when the frame is subjected to a normal loading condition.
and the length of the test beam is 203.2 mm. The test number Extensive studies of frames by Ackroyd10 with nonlinear
14S8 with Ki = 677,025 in.-kip/rad and Mu = 1,707 in.-kip connections indicate that the secant stiffness of beam-to-col-
compares well with that of the proposed model in Figure 3 umn connections near ultimate frame capacity was typically
with C = 0.34. 20 percent of the initial stiffness, Ki, at leeward ends of girders
(c) Bolted Framing Angles and 80 percent of Ki at the windward ends of girders, when
the frame is subjected to combined gravity and wind loading.
Bolted double-web angles were tested by Lewitt, Chesson,
It seems, therefore, reasonable to use an average connection
and Munse at the University of Illinois. In 1987, Richard, et
stiffness of 0.5Ki when computing the design moments. This
al5 proposed a four-parameter formula to describe these full-
is adopted in the present analysis.
scale tests. Figure 4 compares the results of the proposed
model with one of these tests using a five-bolt design with
rivets in the angle-to-beam web connection with Ki = 206,667 3. DESIGN FORMULA IN AISC-LRFD
in.-kip/rad and Mu = 761 in.-kip. The equation for the maximum strength of beam-columns is
given by AISC-LRFD as
AE −AE
0 0 0 0
L L
(Kii + 2Kij + Kjj) P (Kii + Kji) − (Kii + 2Kij + Kjj) P (Kij + Kjj)
0 + 0 −
L2 L L L2 L L
r1 d1
(Kii + Kij) − (Kii + Kij)
0 Kii 0 Kij
r2 L L d2
r3 d3
r = −AE AE d (11)
4 0 0 0 0 4
r5 L L d5
r6 d6
− (Kii + 2Kij + Kjj) P − (Kii + Kji) (Kii + 2Kij + Kjj) P − (Kij + Kjj)
0 − 0 +
L2 L L L2 L L
(Kji + Kjj) − (Kji + Kjj)
0 Kji 0 Kjj
L L
AE −AE
0 0 0 0
L L
(Kii′ + 2Kij′ + Kjj′) P (Kii′ + Kji′) − (Kii′ + 2Kij′ + Kjj′) P (Kij′ + Kjj′)
0 + 0 −
L2 L L L2 L L
r1 d1
(Kii′ + Kij′) − (Kii′ + Kij′)
0 Kii′ 0 Kij′
r2 L L d2
r3 d3
r = −AE AE d (12)
4 0 0 0 0 4
r5 L L d5
r6 d6
− (Kii′ + 2Kij′ + Kjj′) P − (Kii′ + Kji′) (Kii′ + 2Kij′ + Kjj′) P − (Kij′ + Kjj′)
0 − 0 +
L2 L L L2 L L
(Kji′ + Kjj′) − (Kji′ + Kjj′)
0 Kji′ 0 Kjj′
L L
Sii′Sjj′ Sij′Sij′ 1 ∆o
Kii′ = Sii′ + − ∆= = B2∆o
Rj R∗
(13) (22)
Rj ΣPu ∆o
1 −
Sii′Sjj′ Sij′Sij′ 1 ΣHL
Kjj′ = Sjj′ + −
Ri R∗
(14)
Ri The ∆ is the second-order lateral deflection due to P-∆
effect, and the notional lateral load is defined as
Sij′
Kij′ = Kji′ = (15)
R∗ ΣH′ = ΣH + ΣPu ∆ / L (23)
The coefficients Ri and Rj in Equations 13 and 14 are the 3. Use ΣH′ and original gravity loads to perform first-order
instantaneous tangent stiffness coefficients of the connections elastic rigid frame analysis. The results of this step
at ends i and j of the member respectively. These coefficients include the second-order effect.
are obtained from Equation 1 when the connection is in the 4. Calculate B1 factor with the effective length factor K =
state of loading, and are set equal to Ki when the connection 1.0 for each column and multiply the corresponding end
is in the state of unloading. Also, the parameter R* is given moments.
by 5. Check the AISC-LRFD bilinear interaction equations.
The two-story one-bay frame as shown in Figure 6 is analyzed Element First-Order Second-Order
with both rigid and semi-rigid connections. Two lateral loads, No. (Exact) (Exact) Proposed (3) / (2)
H, and four constant concentrated gravity loads, P, of 100 kips
1 1449 1649 1839 1.12
are applied at the beam-column joints of the frame. The
flexible connections used are shown in Figure 2 where Mu is 2 712 794 894 1.13
less than the plastic moment Mp of beams and columns. The
3 1443 1670 1847 1.11
0.5Ki of Jenkins connection is 393,366 in-kip/rad. The sec-
ond-order lateral displacement at Joint 5 is 4 1437 1664 1839 1.11
ΣH5′ = ΣH5 + ΣPu ∆5′/L = 10 + 2 × 100 × 1.69/144 = 12.35 kips ∆o3 1.01
∆3′ = = = 1.17 in.
ΣPu ∆o3 4 × 100 × 1.01
The second-order lateral displacement at Joint 3 is 1 − 1 − 2 × 10 × 144
ΣHL
The notional lateral load at Joint 3 is
Fig. 7(a). Two-story one-bay frame with Fig. 7(b). Two-story one-bay frame with
uniformly distributed loads. uniformly distributed loads.
Column 5 is 0.97. It can be seen that the Barakat method is Table 4(c).
less conservative in this case. Lateral Displacements at Windward
Beam-Column Joints (in.)
(Two-story one-bay frame, Figure 7b)
6.4 Four-Story Two-Bay Frame with Uniformly
Rigid Frame Semi-Rigid Frame
Distributed Loads
A four-story two-bay frame as shown in Figure 10 is investi- (1) (2) (3) (4)
gated here for the maximum column moments in both rigid Linear Second-
and semi-rigid frames. The semi-rigid connection of Jenkins Node
Elastic Order
No.
is utilized. The average value of Column 3 in Table 6 is 1.06, (Exact) (Exact) Proposed (3) / (2)
while the average value of Column 6 in Table 6 is 1.01. The
3 0.14 0.25 0.24 0.96
2 845 879 1.04 836 0.99 1 534 632 1.18 843 799 0.95
3 152 123 0.81 115 0.75 2 958 1066 1.12 1170 1182 1.01
4 618 669 1.08 659 1.07 3 1202 1296 1.08 1397 1398 1.00
5 349 356 1.02 367 1.05 4 455 421 0.93 291 322 1.11
6 659 663 1.01 651 0.99 5 656 729 1.11 596 698 1.17
7 1181 1075 0.91 1076 0.91 6 1101 1142 1.04 1044 1061 1.02
8 1212 1386 1.14 1322 1.09 7 615 603 0.98 559 558 0.99
9 1082 1023 0.95 1025 0.95 8 473 525 1.11 542 562 1.04
10 1082 1148 1.06 1101 1.02 9 1029 1061 1.03 996 1012 1.02
11 722 714 0.99 715 0.99 10 702 703 1.00 705 672 0.95
12 722 714 0.99 715 0.99 11 200 221 1.11 313 269 0.86
Fig. 5. Internal forces at connection under symmetrical load. Fig. 6. Stress distribution at failure.
Fig. 10. 4-way connection test specimen. Fig. 11. Load-deflection curve for 4-way test specimen.
Example 1
Column size: 200×200×16 mm
Beam size: 305×165×40 kg/m
Grade 43 steel is assumed for column, beam, and stiffeners.
1. Choose a T- or I-section with a web thickness of at least
half the beam-flange thickness.
Try T-section 102×102×12 kg/m
2. For θ = 20°, stiffener length l = (200 − 165) / (2 × tan
20°) = 50 mm (2 in.)
3. Check minimum stiffener length based on strength criteria.
Fig. 12. Moment-rotation curve for four-way test specimen. Plastic moment capacity of the beam,
The author has provided useful suggestions for this particular The author’s Equations 1 and 2 may be interpreted such
design problem based on yield-line analysis. The purpose of that the former applies to “small” plates (R / D near 1.0)
this discussion is to clarify some aspects of these solutions whereas the latter covers the “larger” plates (smaller R / D).
and to re-organize them in concise decision form for ease of Use of Equation 3, in my opinion, is optional in conjunction
calculations. with Equation 1 for lightly loaded conditions. The recom-
While the AISC Manuals have only exclusively addressed mended practical limit of R / D ≥ 0.5 gives an actual design
base plates for wide-flange column shapes, the AISC Design range of 0.5 ≤ R / D ≤ 1.0. One may easily compute that the
Guide No. 1 Column Base Plates (Ref. 3) does briefly cover intersection of Equations 1 and 2 occurs at about R / D = 0.7,
tubular and pipe columns. It suggests that the usual cantilever hence, the following general design criteria can be formulated
plate model employed under wide-flange columns can be to minimize calculations:
extended to such closed sections: the critical overhang dimen-
If 0.5 ≤ R / D ≤ 0.7, (large base plate case) use Equation 2.
sion (m or n) for determining plate thickness becomes 0.95 .
times the outside column dimension for rectangular tubes and If 0.7 < R / D ≤ 1.0, (small base plate case) use the lesser
0.80 times the outside dimension for round pipes. of Equations 1 and 3, or, conservatively, Equation 1.
Also, similar to base plates with wide-flange columns, an
In the original example, R / D = 0.61 < 0.7, and Equation
important consideration is the limiting case when the column
2 governs, as expected.
approaches the size of its base plate. For this so-called “small”
As alluded to previously, the cantilever bending model
plate condition, the cantilever overhang distance m can become
could also be utilized for the large base-plate case. Because
rather short and almost zero, thereby rendering this simple model
its solution is slightly more conservative than given by Equa-
useless for design. The proposed yield-line Equation 2 possesses
tion 2, the R / D = 0.7 limit should be increased to 0.8 for its
this same characteristic since for R / D = 1, the required thickness
range of applicability. Applying this procedure to the author’s
reduces to zero. Fortunately, Equation 1 does provide a rational
example problem results in:
design answer for R / D = 1.
While Equations 1 and 2 in combination offer valid and R / D = 0.61 < 0.8 o.k.
complementary design solutions, the presented application of
lightly loaded Equation 3 in this context is confusing. The m = D − 0.8R = 3.5 − 0.8 (2.13) = 1.796 in.
paper states that Equation 3 is a special case of Equation 1. P 12
The required plate thickness is limited to no more than given fp = = = 0.245 ksi
4D2 4(3.5)2
by Equation 1 and, finally, the greater of Equations 1 or 3 and
2. Based on this rationale, it is never necessary to check
√
√
Equation 3. In order to parallel the logic of the revised AISC fp .245
t = 2m = 2(1.796) = 0.296 in.
small-column base-plate procedure for wide-flange shapes, it Fy 36
appears that the real intent should be for the required thick-
ness to be the greater of: This solution requires an extra one-sixteenth base-plate thick-
ness compared to the yield-line based Equation 2. However,
a. the lesser of Equations 1 and 3 or, conservatively, it can also serve to demonstrate the reasonableness of both
Equation 1 methods.
b. Equation 2 Easy conversions can be made for LRFD design equivalent
to the proposed ASD Equations 1, 2, and 3:
1. replace M by φMp = 0.9t2Fy / 4
2. replace P by Pu (factored loads) in fp
Nestor R. Iwankiw is Director of Research & Codes, AISC,
3. solve appropriate work balance expressions for required
Chicago, IL.
thickness
√
3
0.74Pu R R
t= 2 − 3 + (2) ERRATA
πFy D D 1. π should be included as multiplier in the final external
work expression above Equation 2.
2. Equation 3 and We equation above it: change exponent
Rc = √
R2o − Pu / πF
p (3) in last term on Rc from 2 to 3.
3. Example
t by Equation 2, last term should be changed from
(2.13)2 / 3.15 to (2.13)3 / 3.5
√
3
Fp Rc Rc 4. Page 42, upper left, external work expression should
t=R 1 − 3 + 2
2.7Fy R R read
πD2 R R πR2 R
In summary, this paper contributes new and useful design = fp πD2 − − π (D2 − R2) − πR2 +
criteria for column base plates under gravity loads which, 3 D D 3 D
with additional reflection, can be further simplified and gen-
2D2 − RD + R3
= π fp
3D
eralized for applications.
3
The following are corrected tables for pages C-11 and C-12 of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction Volume II—Connections.
SUBJECT INDEX
Allen, D. E. and Thomas M. Murray Kishi, N., W. F. Chen, Y. Goto, and K. G. Matsuoka
Design Criterion for Vibrations due to Walking . . . . . 117 Design Aid of Semi-Rigid Connections for Frame
American Institute of Steel Construction Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
SI Units for Structural Steel Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Lee, Seng-Lip
Azizinamini, Atorod and Bangalore Prakash See Ting, Lai-Choon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
A Tentative Design Guideline for a New Steel Beam Leon, Roberto T.
Connection Detail to Composite Tube Columns. . . 108 Composite Semi-Rigid Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Burgett, Lewis B. Lue, Tony and Duane S. Ellifritt
Correction—Fast Check for Block Shear . . . . . . . . . . . 39 The Warping Contstant for the W-Section with a
Carter, Charles J. and Louis F. Geschwindner Channel Cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Economic Impact of Overspecifying Simple Marsh, James W.
Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Earthquakes: Steel Structures Performance and Design
Carter, Charles J. and Nestor R. Iwankiw Code Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Correction—ASD/LRFD Volume II—Connections Matsuoka, K. G.
(Shear Tab Design Tables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 See Kishi, N.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Chen, W. F. Moore, William E. II
See Kishi, N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Discussion—Simple Equations for Effective Length
Dumonteil, Pierre Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Correction—Simple Equations for Effective Length Murray, Thomas M.
Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 See Easterling, W. Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Easterling, W. Samuel and Lisa Gonzalez Giroux Murray, Thomas M.
Shear Lag Effects in Steel Tension Members . . . . . . . . 77 See Allen, D.E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Easterling, W. Samuel, David R. Gibbings, and Thomas M.
Prakash, Bangalore
Murray
See Azizinamini, Atorod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Strength of Shear Studs in Steel Deck on Composite
Beams and Joists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Shanmugam, Nandivaram E.
See Ting, Lai-Choon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Ellifritt, Duane
See Lue, Tony. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Sputo, Thomas
Design of Pipe Column Base Plates Under Gravity
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
See Carter, Charles J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Sputo, Thomas
Gibbings, David R.
Discussion—Design of Pipe Column Base Plates Under
See Easterling, W. Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Gravity Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Giroux, Lisa Gonzalez
See Easterling, W. Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Ting, Lai-Choon, Nandivaram E. Shanmugam and
Seng-Lip Lee
Goto, Y Design of I-Beam to Box-Column Connections Stiffened
See Kishi, N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Externally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Griffis, Lawrence G. Wexler, Neil
Serviceability Limit States Under Wind Load . . . . . . . . 1 Composite Girders with Partial Restraints: A New
Iwankiw, Nestor R. Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
See Sputo, Thomas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Zureick, A.
Iwankiw, Nestor R. Design Strength of Concentrically Loaded Single-Angle
See Carter, Charles J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Struts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17