Night School 33 Session 1

SpeedCore and Seismic Braced Frames
AISC Night School Session 1: SpeedCore -- Concept Development,

October 10, 2023 Testing, and Research
Night School 33:

SpeedCore and
Seismic Braced
Frames
Thank you for joining our live

webinar. We will begin shortly.
Please standby.

Session 1: SpeedCore -- Concept Development, Testing, and
Research
October 10, 2023 | Amit Varma, PhD
Today’s live webinar will begin shortly. Please stand by.
© Copyright 2023 1
American Institute of Steel Construction
Today’s live webinar will begin shortly. Please stand by.
Today’s audio will be broadcast through the internet. Please be sure to turn
up the volume on your speakers.
Please type any questions or comments in the Q&A window.

Session 1: SpeedCore -- Concept Development, Testing,
and Research
October 10, 2023 | Amit Varma, PhD
© Copyright 2023 2
Night School 33: A tale of two lateral systems

- Speed Core and Seismic Braced Frames
Session 1: SpeedCore: Concept Development, Testing, and Research
October 10, 2023
Amit H. Varma, PhD

Karl H. Kettelhut Professor,
Lyles School of Civil Engineering
Director, Bowen Laboratory of Large-Scale CE Research
Purdue University
SpeedCore
• Session I: Concept, Development, and Research
• Session II: System Proportioning
• Session III: Element Design
• Session IV: Connection and Erection
Joshua M. Mouras, P.E., S.E.
Senior Associate
Magnusson Klemencic Associates
jmouras@mka.com
© Copyright 2023 3
Overview & Learning Objectives

• This session introduces the SpeedCore system elements, and
reviews the development, testing and research of SpeedCore.
• The session reviews material and geometric parameters and
detailing requirements
• Examines coupled vs. uncoupled SpeedCore systems -- reviewing
the differences and potential uses in buildings.
• Next, expected seismic performance will be discussed including a
summary of physical testing performed.
• The session will also discuss fire resistance design approaches
3
Acknowledgements
• American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
• Charles Pankow Foundation (CPF)
• Fabricators and Material Donors from Industry
• Ron Klemencic, MKA, Industry Champion
• Michel Bruneau, co-PI, collaborator, partner-in-arms
• Soheil Shafaei, colleague and collaborator
• Graduates of Purdue University – Mubashshir Ahmad, Morgan
Broberg, Ataollah Anvari, Muhannad Alasiri
• Graduates of Univ. at Buffalo – Emre Kizilarslan, Hadi Kenarangi
4
© Copyright 2023 4
Introduction: SpeedCore Elements

• Composite Plate Shear Walls – Concrete Filled (C-PSW/CF)
• Steel plates
• Concrete infill
• Tie bars
• Shear studs
• No rebars or formwork
• Shear Walls and / or
• Elevator Core Walls
NON-PROPRIETARY SYSTEM 5
Rainier Square Project Team

CLIENT:
ARCHITECT:
STRUCTURAL
& CIVIL:
GC/CM:
STEEL
FABRICATOR:
STEEL
ERECTOR:
6
© Copyright 2023 5
Project Overview
• 1.4 million square feet
• 850-feet tall
• 58-story office + residential
• 7 levels below-grade parking
• 722,000 sf office space
• 200 apartment units
• 12-story boutique hotel
• 1000 parking stalls
Lateral Force-Resisting System
© Copyright 2023 6
200 Park Ave., San Jose, CA

High Seismic Region. Coupled C-PSW/CF Lateral Force Resisting System
Codes, Standards, and Design Guides

• Over the past two decades, significant research including
testing, numerical analysis, design studies, and code
development efforts have been undertaken for C-PSW/CF
• Uncoupled walls
• Coupled wall systems
• Non-seismic and seismic application
• Fire resistance and design
10
© Copyright 2023 7

• AISC 360-22  Non-seismic applications
– Detailing and design requirements – Chapter I
– Fire resistance design – Appendix 4
• AISC 341-22  Seismic applications, coupled & uncoupled
wall system
– Coupled wall systems – Section H8
– Uncoupled wall systems – Section H7
• ASCE 7-22  Seismic design factors
– Coupled systems – new in 2022
– Uncoupled systems
11
Codes, Standards, & Design Guides
12
© Copyright 2023 8
13

• Besides commercial buildings, there is a variation of this
system referred as steel-plate composite (SC) construction
• In safety-related nuclear construction for non-containment

applications
• AISC N690-18, Appendix N9  SC construction
• Design Guide 32
14
© Copyright 2023 9
15
Fundamentals of Behavior
Follows the principles of structural and solid mechanics
• Plane sections remain plane and perpendicular to neutral axis
before and after bending
• Strain compatibility between steel plates and concrete infill
provided by tie systems and / or shear connectors if any
• Tension reinforcement provided by steel plate, which is a 2D
element as opposed to rebar, which is a 1D element
• Compression reinforcement provided by steel plate and
concrete infill if needed
16
© Copyright 2023 10
Fundamentals of Behavior
• In some ways, behavior of SC members is similar to the structural
behavior of reinforced concrete members
• In some ways, the behavior of SC members is similar to the
behavior of steel members
• Some aspects of SC behavior are unique to themselves with
specific limit states
– Stability of empty modules
– Local buckling of steel plates
– Composite interaction and concrete contribution to in-plane shear strength
17
Requirements for Steel Plates

• Reinforcement ratio limits
 Minimum = 1% Maximum = 10%
• Two steel plates must be connected to each other using ties
Ties can consist of bars, steel shapes, or built-up shapes
• Steel plates must be anchored to concrete infill using
stud anchors or ties or combination of ties and studs
• Steel yield strength – from 50 – 65 ksi
18
Tie Bar Requirements

• Tie bars serve multiple purposes.
• Provide stiffness and stability to empty steel modules for
construction loads before concrete placement
• Provide resistance to hydrostatic pressure from concrete
placement
• Serve as anchor points for the steel plates after concrete
hardens
• Provide structural integrity by connecting the two steel plates
• If needed, provide out-of-plane shear strength to walls
19
Tie Bar Requirements

• Research focusing on the stiffness and stability of empty steel
modules conducted
• Stiffness of empty modules during transportation and

handling
• Stability design of empty steel modules for construction loads
20
Tie Bar Size, Spacing, and Stability of Empty Modules

• Empty steel module flexibility governed by effective shear
stiffness (GA)eff associated with Vierendeel truss / frame action
5  wL4 wL2 Like a wide flange with

 total  
384  EI total 8  GAeff
dominates hollow or no web 21

• Stability of empty modules during erection, construction and
concrete placement  important consideration for design
22

• Stability is governed by shear buckling, and Pcr is approx. equal
to the same effective shear stiffness (GA)eff
irrespective of length and end conditions
23

• Confirmed by tests, analysis, and mechanics-based models
24

• Minimum (GA)eff of empty module for transportation, erection,
and stability during construction, concrete casting
• Refined calculations can be made using theory. However, the
tie spacing cannot exceed wall thickness (Tsc)
• Recommendations for tie bar size
a is the ratio of plate flexural stiffness
to tie flexural stiffness
a governs the value of (GA)eff, and thus the tie

spacing S/tp requirement
Still need to meet plate slenderness req.

25
Tie Bar / Shear Stud Requirements
• After concrete hardens, stability of the steel plates subjected

to compressive stresses due to loading
• Local buckling of steel plates  should not occur before

yielding in compression in plastic hinge regions
• Axial compressive strength of composite walls
26
Local buckling, Plate Slenderness, Axial Compression
Normalized local buckling strain
=
27
Local Buckling, Plate Slenderness, Axial Compression
b E
Wind: £ 1.2 (I1-4)
tp Fy
Seismic: b Es
£ 1.05
tp Ry Fy
AISC 341-22
(H8-1)
≥
= + 0.85 (I2-15)
28

• For example, 24 in. thick wall with ½ in. thick steel plates, and
tie diameter of 1 in.
– Value of a = 4.9
– S/tp < 52 and required tie spacing < 25 in., but max. spacing = 24 in.
• Plate slenderness requirement = 1.2 ⁄
– Max. slenderness = 29, required spacing < 14.5 in.
• Potential designs with tie diameter of 1 in. & spacing of 14 in.
• Or, with tie spacing of 24 in. and stud spacing of 12 in.
29
Concrete Requirements
• Self consolidating concrete with compressive strength of
10 ksi is commonly used
• No additional requirements for the concrete
• Concrete hydrostatic pressure resisted by steel plates and

tie bars
30
Recommendations for Analysis and Design
• Need recommendations for stiffness
• Conduct analysis to calculate design demands
• Need recommendations for calculating strength

- In-plane flexural strength
- In-plane shear strength
31
Recommendations for Stiffness

• In-Plane Flexural Stiffness - account for concrete cracking
corresponding to the required strength level
• Section moment-curvature response  secant stiffness
corresponding to 60% of moment capacity
• Extent of concrete cracking, if drift governs or walls are
overdesigned
In-plane flexure
Axial
In-plane shear 32
Recommendations for Strength

• Plastic stress distribution over composite cross-section
 Steel in compression & tension  fy
 Compression concrete  0.85f’c
 Equilibrium to calc. plastic neutral

axis location, c
 Plastic moment Mp
AISC Design Guide 38 33
In-Plane Flexural Strength

Point A
Point C
Point D
Point B
34
Experimental Verification: Lateral Load-Displacement

Axial Loading
setup
Axial
Ram
Lateral
Actuators
Bracing
frame
Wall
35
Experimental Verification: Lateral Load-Displacement
36
Photographs of Local Buckling During 2y Cycles – Point B
37
Photographs of Local Buckling During 3y Cycles – Point C
38
Local Buckling & Fracture During 4y Cycles – Point D
39
Fracture Failure During 6y Cycles – Point E
40
Base Moment – Plastic Hinge Moment-Curvature Behavior

Rotation Behavior Over Plastic Hinge
41
Moment – Curvature of Composite Section

Experiment vs. Section Fiber Analysis Section Fiber Analysis and Strains
42
Section Flexural Stiffness

EIg
EIeff
Curvature Curvature
43
Rotation Capacity of Plastic Hinge
44
Stiffness, Strength, Rot. Capacity

• AISC recommended plastic stress distribution and fiber
analysis methods can conservatively estimate the flexural
capacity of wall specimens.
• Increasing the axial load level resulted in increasing the
flexural capacity of the planar wall specimens.
• The flexural stiffness of the wall specimens (in the elastic
range) can be estimated reasonably using EIeff equations
45
Stiffness, Strength, Rot. Capacity

• The plastic rotation capacity of the planar wall specimens
(including those subjected to high axial loading) was in the
range of 0.015 – 0.02 radians
• The moment-curvature responses for the specimens
calculated using fiber-based models were comparable to the
envelops of the experimentally measured experimental
responses.
• The peak points (Mmax) on the moment-curvature responses
occurred after the compression strain in the steel plates
exceeded 2 times the yield strain, which corresponds to
concrete compressive strain of about 0.004
46
In-Plane Shear Strength

• Major topic for design of squat shear walls typically used for
nuclear construction. But, also needed for commercial
buildings
• Extensive research done in Japan, S. Korea, China, and US
• Numerical models, mechanics-based models, experimental
results  comprehensive design provisions
47
48

• Mechanics-based theory –
orthotropic composite
49

Experimental validation
50

• Tests conducted in US, Japan, S.Korea, China, Europe used to
confirm theory and design equations
51
SpeedCore Systems – Coupled & Uncoupled
52
Uncoupled and Coupled Systems

• Both can be used for non-seismic (wind governed) designs
and for seismic applications
• Non-seismic designs only need to meet the requirements of
the Spec. AISC 360-22
• Seismic designs requiring the high R-factor of 8 need to meet
the additional requirements of the Prov. AISC 341-22
53
54
Coupled SpeedCore System

• Composite coupling beams –concrete-filled steel tubes
Section B-B
A A Coupling Beam
Section B-B
B
B
tf
Coupled SpeedCore Steel Modules Composite Wall

Section A-A 55
Requirements for Composite Coupling Beams

• Compactness requirement for flanges and webs
• Flexure-critical – not shear critical
56
Seismic Design - Factors

EQel
• R – Response modification factor is

Vcap=Wo VELF
used to reduce the seismic design
forces from elastic level to account
for inelastic behavior and ductility of EQel/R
the structure = VELF
de din = Cd de
• Wo – Overstrength factor is used to estimate the inherent overstrength

in the base shear capacity of system due to redundancies, material., etc.
• Cd – Displacement amplification factor is used to calculate the inelastic
story drift from the calculated elastic story drift level
57
Seismic Design of SpeedCore Systems

• ASCE 7 provides these seismic design factors for most steel,
concrete, and composite systems
• For uncoupled C-PSW/CF system (with only shear walls),
ASCE 7 include values of R=6.5, Wo = 2.5, and Cd=5.5
• For the coupled C-PSW/CF system (R=8, Wo = 2.5, and Cd=5.5)
ASCE 7-16 did not include these values
• In ASCE 7, the largest value of R for any system is 8. So, this
was the target for coupled SpeedCore system.
• Needed a comprehensive design method to maximize system
level ductility … Capacity design?
58
Capacity Design of Coupled SpeedCore System
59
Capacity Design of Coupled SpeedCore Systems

• Two potential sources of inelastic deformations
1. Flexural plastic hinges at ends of coupling beams
2. Flexural yielding at base of walls
• Preferred inelastic mechanism – form flexural plastic hinges
at both ends of coupling beams and at the base of walls
• Strong wall – beam coupling beam design approach followed
for sizing of composite members
• Develops extensive plastic hinging in most coupling beams
before significant yielding of walls
• Coupling beams can fracture, while walls continue to provide
inelastic behavior 60
Capacity Design of Coupled SpeedCore Systems
Wo=g1 g2
g2
g1
Ve
• Coupling beams
Walls sized toform plastic
develop hinges
coupling beam and
enddistributed
plastic hinges
along height
plasticity along structure entire wall height
61
Coupled SpeedCore: Capacity Design
2000
C
Base Shear (kips)
1600
1200 B
800 A
400
5 10 15 20 25 30
Roof Displacement (in.)
62
Coupled SpeedCore: Response to Design Basis EQ

Design Basis EQ
8 Story DBE
20
15
10
Roof Displacement (in)
-5
-10
Coupling Beams Yield
-15
Wall Yields
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
X Coupling beams yield + Walls yield
63
Coupled SpeedCore: Response to Max. Cons. EQ
Max. Considered EQ
8 Story MCE
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20 Wall Yields
Propagation of Yielding
-25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
Propagation of yielding
64
Coupled SpeedCore: Response to Failure Level EQ
Failure Level EQ
8 Story Failure
70
50
30
10
-10
-30 Wall Yields
Propagation of Yielding
-50 Fraction Initiation of Coupling Beams and Wall
Total Fracture of Coupling Beams
-70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
Fracture initiation Total fracture

65
PLAY TIME HISTORY VIDEO
66
Seismic Design Factors for Coupled SpeedCore

• FEMA P695 studies were conducted
• Using the capacity-design method, archetype structural
systems were designed
• Modeled using three different independent approaches by
teams at Purdue and Univ. at Buffalo
• Hundreds of thousands of nonlinear time history analyses
were conducted for 44 scaled ground motions with
increasing intensity
• Statistical analysis of results using FEMA P695 processes
67
Composite Coupling Beam-to-Wall Connections

• Seismic design factors of R=8, Cd=5.5, Wo = 2.5 are given in
ASCE 7-22 based on the research studies
• Seismic design and detailing requirements are provided in
AISC 341-22 Section H8
• Performance requirements for coupling beam-to-wall
connections based on assumptions made in the system level
analyses and results from the NLTH analyses
• Required coupling beam rotation capacity of 0.03 rad.
68
Composite Coupling Beam-to-Wall Connections
M • Several composite coupling

beam-to-wall connections have
0.8Mp been designed, detailed, and
tested to show adequate
performance
0.03 q
• Typically, the coupling beam
flange plates penetrated into
the walls are are CJP welded to
the wall steel faceplates
69
Example of Coupling Beam-to-Wall Connections

Connection Type 1B Connection Type 3
Coupling beam flange plates penetrate into walls Coupling beam flange plates penetrate into walls
Coupling beam web plates lapped and welded to walls Wall web plates continuous with beam web plates
70
CONNECTION DETAILS Connection Type 3
(a) Flange welding details

Connection Type 1B Connection Type 2
(interrupted wall flange plate) (continuous wall flange plate) beam

beam web hidden web hidden (b) Connection details
71
Verification of Coupling Beam-to-Wall Connections
Actuators
Coupling PT to
Beam Strong floor
C-PSW/CF
72

Cyclic lateral force-displacement response Cyclic Moment-Chord Rotation Response
L
 q=/L 73

During 3 – 4 y : Chord rotation of 0.035 rad.
C: Local buckling of flange

C: Local buckling of flange
E: Fracture
E: Fracture
D: Local buckling of web D: Local buckling of web
74

Envelope of Moment-Chord Rotation Response Several Connection Type Specimens
75
Fire Resistance and Design of C-PSW/CF Walls

• Focus on unprotected composite walls
• Experimental Behavior - Thermal & Structural
• Uniform and non-uniform heating
• Numerical Models, Benchmarking, Parametric Studies
• Wall axial strength equation as function of temperature
• Fire resistance rating in hours
• Steam vent hole design

76
Report presenting
research results in detail
77
Experimental Investigations: Structural Test Setup
Cylindrical
Loading Beam
Bearing
78
Experimental Investigations: Heating Setup
Wall
79
Photograph of Test Setup
80
Heaters
81
Typical Experimental Results (Thermal)

9.0
Wall thickness (in.)
Temperature (oC)
4.5
82
Post-Fire Photographs
East Web
83
Numerical Investigations – Benchmarking & Parametric

• Detailed 3D finite element models were developed and benchmarked using
experimental results
• Benchmarked models were used to conduct parametric studies
 Wall slenderness (H/T = 5 – 20)
 Wall thickness (200 – 600 mm)
 Load ratio (20, 30% Ac f’c)
 Tie bar spacing (Stie/T = 0.5 – 1.0)
 Steel ratio (As/Ag = 1.33 – 5.33 %)
 Concrete strength (f’c = 40, 55 MPa)
 Boundary condition (Pinned, Fixed)
84
Results from Parametric Studies

• Wall slenderness ratio, wall thickness, load ratio and type of
boundary conditions significantly affect the failure time
• Walls with slenderness higher than 10 fail due to global
buckling
• The middle region of concrete infill takes longer to heat up
in thicker walls, resulting in higher fire resistance
• Limiting the steel plate slenderness ratio can marginally
improve the fire resistance of walls
85
Results from Parametric Studies

• Non-uniform (one-sided) heating results in thermal
bowing, second-order moments, and eccentric moments
in the walls
• Walls with height / thickness ratios greater than 20, and
subjected to one-sided heating, need fire protection on
the exposed surfaces
• Typical wall height / thickness ratios are within 5 – 10
• Typical SpeedCore wall designs do not need fire protection
86
Design Strength Equation in AISC 360-22, App. 4

Lower Bound 1.0
0.3 Wall
 æ Pno (T ) ö
ç ÷
 0.9
Column
Pn (T )  0.32è e ø  P (T )
P (T )
0.8
  no
  0.7
Pn (T) / Pno (T)

0.6
AISC 360-22, App. 4, Eq. A-4-11
0.5
2
 EI eff (T ) 0.4 æ Pno (T ) ö
0.3
Pe (T )  Pn (T )  0.39
ç
0.24 P (T ) ø
è e
÷
Pno (T )
( Lc ) 2 0.3
0.2 0.320.3
æ Pno (T ) ö
ç ÷
Pe (T ) ø
Pn (T )  0.32è Pno (T )
Pno (T )  As Fy (T )   0.85 Aci f c' (Ti ) 0.1
i  elements
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
EI eff (T )  Es (T ) I s  C3 
i  elements
Ec (Ti ) I ci Pno(T) / Pe(T)
87
Fire Resistance Rating Equation in AISC 360-22

Using results from parametric studies, and strength equation
æ H / tw ö
 ç 0.24 - ÷ 
 æ P ö è 230 ø
æ 1.9t w ö
R  -18.5 ç ÷u
 15 ç - 1÷
 Pn ø  è 200 ø
è
 
AISC 360-22, App. 4, Eq. A-4-34

R = Fire resistance rating in hours
Pu/Pn = utility ratio at ambient
H/tw = wall slenderness
tw = wall thickness in mm. 88
Summary of References
• Seo, J., Varma, A.H., Sener, K., and Ayhan, D. (2016). “Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls: In-Plane Shear Behavior, Database,
and Design.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier Science, Volume 119, Pages 202-215,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.12.013
• Varma, A.H., Shafaei, S., and Klemencic, R. (2019). “Steel Modules of Composite Plate Shear Walls: Behavior, Stability, and
Design.” Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 145, 106384, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.106384
• Zhang, K., Seo, J., and Varma, A.H. (2020). “Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls: Behavior and Design and Behavior for Axial
Compressive Loading.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Volume 146, Issue 4, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0002545
• Kizilarslan, E., Broberg, M., Shafaei, S., Varma, A.H., and Bruneau, M. (2021). “Seismic Design Coefficients and Factors for
Coupled Composite Plate Shear Walls / Concrete Filled.” Engineering Structures,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112766
• Shafaei, S., Varma, A.H., Seo, J., and Klemencic, R. (2021). “Cyclic Lateral Loading Behavior of Composite Plate Shear Walls /
Concrete Filled.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003091
• Shafaei, S., Varma, A.H., Seo, J., Huber, D., and Klemencic, R., (2022). “Wind Design of Coupled Composite Plate Shear Wall /
Concrete Filled (C-PSW/CF) Systems.” Engineering Journal, AISC, ISSN 0013-8029, Paper No. 2021-11
• Anvari, A.T., Bhardwaj, S.R., Sharma, S., and Varma, A.H. (2022). “Performance of Composite Plate Shear walls/Concrete filled
(C-PSW/CF) Under Fire Loading: A Numerical Investigation.” Engineering Structures,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114883
• Broberg, M., Agrawal, S., Varma, A., and Klemencic, R. (2023). “Seismic Design Parameters (R, Cd, Wo) for uncoupled
composite plate shear walls-concrete filled (C-PSW/CFs).” https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3917
89
Overview & Learning Objectives

• This session introduced the SpeedCore system elements, and
reviewed the development, testing and research of SpeedCore.
• The session reviewed material and geometric parameters and
detailing requirements
• Examined coupled vs. uncoupled SpeedCore systems -- reviewing
the differences and potential uses in buildings.
• Next, expected seismic performance was discussed including a
summary of physical testing performed.
• The session also discussed fire resistance design approaches
90

Night School 33 Session 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Night School 33 Session 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SpeedCore and Seismic Braced Frames

AISC Night School Session 1: SpeedCore -- Concept Development,

Night School 33:

Thank you for joining our live

SpeedCore and Seismic Braced Frames

Today’s live webinar will begin shortly. Please stand by.

Today’s live webinar will begin shortly. Please stand by.

Please type any questions or comments in the Q&A window.

SpeedCore and Seismic Braced Frames

Night School 33: A tale of two lateral systems

Amit H. Varma, PhD

Overview & Learning Objectives

Introduction: SpeedCore Elements

Rainier Square Project Team

Lateral Force-Resisting System

200 Park Ave., San Jose, CA

Codes, Standards, and Design Guides

Codes, Standards, and Design Guides

Codes, Standards, & Design Guides

Codes, Standards, and Design Guides

Codes, Standards, and Design Guides

• In safety-related nuclear construction for non-containment

• AISC N690-18, Appendix N9  SC construction

Codes, Standards, and Design Guides

Requirements for Steel Plates

Tie Bar Requirements

Tie Bar Requirements

• Stiffness of empty modules during transportation and

• Stability design of empty steel modules for construction loads

Tie Bar Size, Spacing, and Stability of Empty Modules

5  wL4 wL2 Like a wide flange with

Tie Bar Size, Spacing, and Stability of Empty Modules

Tie Bar Size, Spacing, and Stability of Empty Modules

Tie Bar Size, Spacing, and Stability of Empty Modules

Tie Bar Size, Spacing, and Stability of Empty Modules

a governs the value of (GA)eff, and thus the tie

Still need to meet plate slenderness req.

Tie Bar / Shear Stud Requirements

• After concrete hardens, stability of the steel plates subjected

• Local buckling of steel plates  should not occur before

• Axial compressive strength of composite walls

Local buckling, Plate Slenderness, Axial Compression

Normalized local buckling strain

Local Buckling, Plate Slenderness, Axial Compression

Tie Bar Size, Spacing, and Stability of Empty Modules

• No additional requirements for the concrete

• Concrete hydrostatic pressure resisted by steel plates and

Recommendations for Analysis and Design

• Need recommendations for stiffness

• Conduct analysis to calculate design demands

• Need recommendations for calculating strength

Recommendations for Stiffness

Recommendations for Strength

 Steel in compression & tension  fy

 Compression concrete  0.85f’c

 Equilibrium to calc. plastic neutral

AISC Design Guide 38 33

In-Plane Flexural Strength

Experimental Verification: Lateral Load-Displacement

Experimental Verification: Lateral Load-Displacement

Photographs of Local Buckling During 2y Cycles – Point B

Photographs of Local Buckling During 3y Cycles – Point C

Local Buckling & Fracture During 4y Cycles – Point D