5/29/2013

1
BehaviorandDesignof
ConcreteFilledComposite
Columns
RobertoT.Leon
VirginiaTech,Blacksburg,VA
JeromeF.Hajjar
NortheasternUniversity,Boston,MA
LarryGriffis
WalterP.Moore,Austin,TX
Scope
Briefintroductiontocompositecolumns(LG)
Researchmotivationandexperimentalresults(RL)
Analyticalmodelingandsystemstudies(JH)
Conclusionsanddesignrecommendations(LG)
Workisbasedonthedissertationsof:
TizianoPerea,UAM,MexicoCity(MX) GeorgiaTech
MarkDenavit,SDL,Atlanta(GA) UIUC
InKind:
5/29/2013
2
Compositeorhybridsystem(concrete&steel)
Systemwhichcombinestheadvantagesofconcreteandstructuralsteel
Concrete
*Rigid *Economic
*Fireresistant *Durable
Structuralsteel
*Highstrength *Ductile
*Easytoassembly *Fasttoerect
Frames with CFT columns
Steel tube confines concrete
Concreterestricts thebucklingofthesteeltube
Increase instrength&deformationoftheconcrete
Delay inthebuckling ofthesteeltube
Frames with SRC columns
Steel elementsupportstheconstructionloads
Theconcrete givesfinalstiffness andfireresistant
ShearconnectionsbecomeFR onceconcreteiscast
Systemfasttoerect&build(redundancy)
UsesforCompositeColumns
Extracapacityinconcretecolumnfornoincreasein
dimension
Largeunbracedlengthsintallopenspaces
Lowerstoryinhighrisebuildings
Airportterminals,conventioncenters
Corrosion,fireproofprotectioninsteelbuildings
Compositeframe highriseconstruction
Transitioncolumnbetweensteel,concretesystems
Toughness,redundancyasforblast,impact
5/29/2013
3
CompositeSystems
Perimetermomentframesfor
stiffnessinhurricanezones.
Extensiontoseismicbasedon
Japaneseexperience.
Distributedsystemsvs.
supercolumns

BuildingswithSRCColumns (MartinezRomero,1999&2003)
5/29/2013
4
Composite Braced Frame
Bank of China
Hong Kong
Composite Column
Bank of China
Hong Kong
5/29/2013
5
Composite Moment Frame
Tube Design
3 Houston Center
Houston, Texas
CompositeColumnForming
5/29/2013
6
Tree Columns
Composite Columns
3 Houston Center
Houston, Texas
CompositeErectionColumns
5/29/2013
7
Composite Columns
Reinforcement Cage
CompositeShearWalls
5/29/2013
8
Composite Braced Frame
2 Union Square
Seattle, Washington
Composite Frame Construction
Dallas, Texas
5/29/2013
9
CompositeFrameConstruction
Possibleconfigurationsincompositecolumns
a) SRC b) Circular and Rectangular CFT
c) Combinations between SRC and CFT
5/29/2013
10
Flexibility
SizesandShapes
FilledCompositeColumn
(CoveredinthisWebinar)
Round HSS
Square or Rectangular HSS
5/29/2013
11
EncasedCompositeColumn
MotivationforResearch
Lackofdesigninformationforthestiffnessof
columnstobeusedforbucklingandlateral
rigiditycalculations
Lackofknowledgeontheinteractionbetween
axialloadandbendingatultimate(2Dand3D)
Lackofknowledgeonsystemfactors(force
reductionanddeflectionamplificationforseismic
design)
Gapsindataforslendercolumns(localand
overallbuckling)
5/29/2013
12
(1)Flexuralrigidityforlateralforces
Advancedcomputationalanalysis:
eff s s s c c c
EI EI EI | | = +
HSS
Section
t
D
Fiberelement
analysis
Finiteelement
analysis
Semiempirical :
Concreteonly or Steelonly
forcalculating
column
capacity,not
forlateral
analysis
SelectedSystems R O
o
C
d
SSMF (SteelSpecialMomentFrames): 8.0 3.0 5.5
CSMF (CompositeSpecialMomentFrames): 8.0 3.0 5.5
SIMF (SteelIntermediateMomentFrames;SDCB,C,D): 4.5 3.0 4.0
CIMF (CompositeIntermediateMomentFrames;SDCB,C): 5.0 3.0 4.5
SOMF (SteelOrdinaryMomentFrames;SDCB,C,D): 3.5 3.0 3.0
COMF (CompositeOrdinaryMomentFrames;SDCB!!): 3.0 3.0 2.5
SCBF (SteelConcentricallyBracedFrames): 6.0 2.0 5.0
CSBF (CompositeSpecialBracedFrames): 5.0 2.0 4.5
OCBF (CompositeOrdinaryConc.BracedFrames;SDCBF): 3.25 2.0 3.25
COBF (CompositeOrdinaryBracedFrames;SDCB,C!!): 3.0 2.0 3.0
(2)Behaviorfactorsforseismicdesign?
ASCE/SEI710,Table1221
5/29/2013
13
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Pexp/Po
Pn/Po
AISC

P
/
P
o
CCFTcolumnsdatabase
(3)LackofSlenderExperimentalTests
DatabasescompiledbyLenetal.,2005andGoodeetal.,2007
1375CircularCFT
912columns
463beamcolumns
798RectangularCFT
524columns
274beamcolumns
267EncasedSRC
119columns
148beamcolumn
(4)InteractionEquations
Howdowegetasimplifiedexpression
thatisclosetothedesignstrength?
5/29/2013
14
(5)BiaxialInteractionSurface
Analyticalvs.ExperimentalData
(6)LocalBuckling
Theoreticaldifferenceof
1.73betweentwocases
notreflectedincode
provisions
5/29/2013
15
ProjectObjectives
Obtainandevaluateexperimentalresponse:
Criticalload(P
cr
)
PM interactiondiagram(uniaxialandbiaxialbending)
Cycliclateralforce(uniaxialandbiaxialbending)
Torsion(torsionalstrengthandrigidity)
Wetconcretepressureduetothepouring
Flexuralrigidity(EI
eff
)
Steellocalbucklingandconcreteconfinement
Developnewcomputationalformulationsfor
completeframeanalysisofcompositesystems
Providerecommendations onconstruction,analysis,
anddesignofCFTs.
NEES UMNMASTLab
MASTcapabilities:
6DOFs
P
z
=1320kip
P
x
,P
y
=880kips
U
x
=U
y
=+/16
14<L<28
Databasesgaps:
L=18ft.and26ft.
0.9 < ,<2.7
D/ts 86(CCFT)
B/ts 67(RCFT)
f
c
=5ksi and12ksi
5/29/2013
16
Specimen L Steel section Fy f
c
D/t
name (ft) HSS D x t (ksi) (ksi)
1-C5-18-5 18 HSS5.563x0.134 42 5 45
2-C12-18-5 18 HSS12.75X0.25 42 5 55
3-C20-18-5 18 HSS20x0.25 42 5 86
4-Rw-18-5 18 HSS20x12x0.25 46 5 67
5-Rs-18-5 18 HSS20x12x0.25 46 5 67
6-C12-18-12 18 HSS12.75X0.25 42 12 55
7-C20-18-12 18 HSS20x0.25 42 12 86
8-Rw-18-12 18 HSS20x12x0.25 46 12 67
9-Rs-18-12 18 HSS20x12x0.25 46 12 67
CFTTestMatrix(18specimens)
Similarforspecimens1018butat26ft.
CCFT
103
52(S)
RCFT
56
34(S)
SetupandInstrumentation
VideoandStillImages
Fourtowersforimagesofwhole
specimenaswellasbase
KryptonCoordinate
MeasurementMachine
StringPots
Distributedalongheight
LVDTs
Setsofthreeforbiaxialcurvature
measurement
StrainGages
Uniaxialandrosettesdistributed
alongheight
Measurementsduringconcrete
pouringandtesting
5/29/2013
17
HydrostaticPressuresonSlenderRCFT
FEAnalysis:
c
max
0.125
o
max
36.1ksi
o
max
in
2
Stiffenerstoreduceexpansioninthe
RCFTsduringtheconcretepouring
SurveyedInitialImperfections
Length (ft) Length (ft)
Initial imperfection Initial imperfection
CCFTs, L=26ft RCFTs, L=26ft
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
10
11
14 15
18
A
o
=
L
/
5
0
0
=
0
.
6
3
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
12 13
16
17
A
o
=
L
/
5
0
0
=
0
.
6
3
5/29/2013
18
LC1
Loadprotocol
P
cr
0
,

P
A
M
E
,P
E
M
B
,0
M
B
,P
C
M
D
,

P
C
/
2
0,P
A
P
A
A,P
A
LC1
StabilityEffects
_
LC1 Axialloadonly
Loadprotocol
0
,

P
A
M
E
,P
E
M
B
,0
M
B
,P
C
M
D
,

P
C
/
2
0,P
A
P
A
A,P
A
LC1
M
LC2a
,2P
A
/3
LC2a
unidirectional
M
LC2b
,P
A
/3 LC2b
unidirectional
F
max
oP
LC2
StabilityEffects
_
LC2 AxialloadpluslateraldisplacementalongX
attwodifferentaxialloadlevels
5/29/2013
19
LC3
y
x
Loadprotocol
0
,

P
A
M
E
,P
E
M
B
,0
M
B
,P
C
M
D
,

P
C
/
2
0,P
A
P
A
A,P
A
LC1
M
LC2a
,2P
A
/3
LC2a
unidirectional
M
LC2b
,P
A
/3 LC2b
unidirectional
LC3a
bidirectional
LC3b
bidirectional
LC3c
bidirectional
F
max
oP StabilityEffects
_
LC3A Axialloadatthreelevelspluslateraldisplacement
alongbothXandyinadiamondspikeconfiguration
LC3
Loadprotocol
0
,

P
A
M
E
,P
E
M
B
,0
M
B
,P
C
M
D
,

P
C
/
2
0,P
A
P
A
A,P
A
LC1
M
LC2a
,2P
A
/3
LC2a
unidirectional
M
LC2b
,P
A
/3 LC2b
unidirectional
LC3a
bidirectional
LC3b
bidirectional
LC3c
bidirectional
F
max
oP
-10 -5 0 5 10
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Lateral Displacement (in)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
i
p
)
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Lateral Drift (%)
Cracking ofconcrete
Steelyielding incompression
Steelyielding intension
Crushing of concrete
Steellocal buckling
y
x
LC3B Axialloadatthreelevelspluslateraldisplacement
alongbothXandyinafigureeightconfiguration
5/29/2013
20
Loadprotocol
LC4
T
u
P
cr
0
,

P
A
M
E
,P
E
M
B
,0
M
B
,P
C
M
D
,

P
C
/
2
0,P
A
P
A
A,P
A
LC1
M
LC2a
,2P
A
/3
LC2a
unidirectional
M
LC2b
,P
A
/3 LC2b
unidirectional
LC3a
bidirectional
LC3b
bidirectional
LC3c
bidirectional
T
-10 -5 0 5 10
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Lateral Displacement (in)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
i
p
)
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Lateral Drift (%)
Cracking ofconcrete
Steelyielding incompression
Steelyielding intension
Crushing of concrete
Steellocal buckling
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
-10 -5 0 5 10
P=0
P=0.2Po
Angleoftwist(deg)
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l

M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
i
p

f
t
)
CCFT20x0.2518ft5ksi
LC4 Torsionattwolevelsofaxialload
5/29/2013
21
Loadprotocol:LC1 Purecompression
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000


Cross-section
Beam-column
Experimental
P(kip)
M(kipft)
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Specimen17Rs2612
P
M
Loadprotocol:LC2 Uniaxialbending
Specimen3C20185
5/29/2013
22
Probe
-500
0
500
-500
0
500
0
500
1000
1500

Y Moment (k-ft)
X Moment (k-ft)

Z

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
)
AISC Beam Column Strength (K=2)
All Load Cases
Experimental Interaction Points
Loadprotocol:LC3 Biaxialbending
CCFT Specimen
20x0.25
F
y
= 42 ksi
f
c
= 5 ksi
L = 18 feet
KL = 36 feet
CorrectedColumnStrengths(LC1)
MASTcapacityreached:3,5,7,9
Largeimperfection:1,8,11,17
5/29/2013
23
LocalBuckling 2010
Composite Members Subject to Axial Compression
Descriptionof
Element
Width-
Thickness
Ratio

p
Compact/
Noncompact

r
Noncompact/
Slender
Max.
Permitted
Sides of rectangular
box and hollow
structural sections
of uniform thickness
b/t 2.26 3.00 5.00
Round filled sections
D/t 0.15 E/F
y
0.19 E/F
y
0.35 E/F
y
y
F
E
y
F
E
y
F
E
5/29/2013
24
ExtractionofEI fromtheexperimentalM| curves
M (kip-ft)
| (10
-4
/in)
Specimen 4-Rw-18-5
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
EI
eff
=21081046 ki p-i n
2
EI
expL
=21865004 ki p-i n
2
EI
expL
/EI
eff
=1.0372
EI
expU
=21868261 ki p-i n
2
EI
expU
/EI
eff
=1.0373
Specimen13Rs265,LC2
M(kipft)
| (1/in)
Loadprotocol:LC4Torsion
P
T
Specimen3C20185
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
-10 -5 0 5 10
P=0
P=0.2Po
T

(
k
i
p
-
f
t
)
u
z
(deg)
5/29/2013
25
-10 -5 0 5 10
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-10 -5 0 5 10
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
GJ
exp
=17430909 ki p-i n
2
G
s
J
s
=11003678 ki p-i n
2
G
c
J
c
=31370173 ki p-i n
2
|
T
=0.2049
RCFTs,P=0to0.2P
o
4Rw185,P=0kip
T(kipft)
T(kipft)
uz (deg)
uz (deg)
eff s s T c c
GJ G J G J | = +
Loadprotocol:LC4Torsion
Summaryof
ExperimentalResults
Acomprehensiveanduniquedatafor:
SlenderCCFTsandRCFTs
Axialstrengthandbeamcolumn
strengthforCFTs
Complexcyclicloadings
Initialimperfections
Constructionstresses/deformations
Localbuckling
Ductility
CurrentAISCequationspredict
strengthwellforthesespecimens
5/29/2013
26
Analysis of Composite Fiames:
Nixeu BeamColumn Element
Mixedbeamfiniteelement
formulationwasdevelopedusing
bothdisplacementandforceshape
functions
Distributedplasticityfiber
formulation:stressandstrain
modeledexplicitlyateachfiberof
crosssection
Perfectcompositeactionassumed
(i.e.,slipneglected)
TotalLagrangian corotational
formulation
ImplementedintheOpenSees
framework
0 L
0
1
Shape Functions
T
r
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
0 L
0
1
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
Constitutive Relations
Constitutiveformulations,calibration,andvalidationdevelopedforfive
separatesteelandsteelconcretecompositecrosssectionsplus
connections
CCFT,RCFT,andSRCbeamcolumns
WFbeams
WFandRect.HSSbraces
Momentframeandbracedframeconnections
ProposedforBehaviorconstitutivemodel
Aimstocapturethebehaviorasaccuratelyaspossible
ProposedforDesignconstitutivemodel
Followstypicalassumptionscommoninthedevelopmentofdesign
recommendations(e.g.,nosteelstrainhardening,noconcretetension)
Calibratedandvalidatedagainstdetailedresultsofover100
monotonically andcyclicallyloadedexperimentsofcompositebeam
columns,connections,andframes
5/29/2013
27
0niaxial Cyclic Conciete Constitutive
Relations foi CFTs anu SRCs
ProposedforBehaviorconstitutiverelation:
BasedontherulebasedmodelofChangandMander(1994)
BackbonestressstraincurvefortheconcreteisbasedonTsaisEquation,whichis
definedby:
InitialstiffnessE
c
Peakcoordinate(c
cc
,f
cc
)
r,whichactsasashapefactorforTsaisequationandenablescalibrationfor
confinementinCFTs,betweentheflangesinSRCs,etc.
ProposedforDesignconstitutiverelation:simplifiedversionofPB
-10000 -9000 -8000 -7000 -6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Strain (strain)
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
s
i
)
-10000 -9000 -8000 -7000 -6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Strain (strain)
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
s
i
)
0niaxial Cyclic Steel Constitutive
Relations foi CFTs, SRCs, WFs, Rebai
FortheProposedfor
Behaviormodel,basedonthe
boundingsurfaceplasticity
modelofShen etal.(1995).
Modificationsfortheanalysis
ofcompositemembers
Localbuckling
Residualstressdefinedwith
initialplasticstrain
FortheProposedforDesign
model,eitherelasticperfectly
plastic(SRCWFs;rebar)or
basedonthemodelofAbdel
Rahman &Sivakumaran 1997
(CFTs)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Normalized Strain (c/c
y,flat
)
N
o
r
m
a
liz
e
d

S
t
r
e
s
s

(o
/
F
y
,fla
t )
E
t1
= E
s
/2
E
t2
= E
s
/10
E
t3
= E
s
/200
E
t1
E
t2
E
t3
Flat
Corner
Elastic Unloading
E
s
F
p
= 0.75 F
y
F
ym
= 0.875 F
y
E
t3
E
t1
E
t2
F
p
F
ym
F
y
5/29/2013
28
SRC BeamColumn valiuation
Ricles anu Paboojian 1994
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
Lateral Displacement (mm)
Test #4: 4 (Ricles and Paboojian 1994)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)


Expt.
PfB
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
Lateral Displacement (mm)
Test #8: 8 (Ricles and Paboojian 1994)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)


Expt.
PfB
H =406mm;B= 406mm
W8x40
F
y
=372MPa
4#9;F
yr
=448MPa
f
c
=31MPa
P/P
no
=0.19
L/H =4.8
H =406mm;B= 406mm
W8x40
F
y
=372MPa
12#7;F
yr
=434MPa
f
c
=63MPa
P/P
no
=0.11
L/H =4.8
RCFT BeamColumn valiuation
vaima 2uuu
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
Lateral Displacement (mm)
Test #5: CBC-32-46-10 (Varma 2000)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)


Expt.
PfB
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
Lateral Displacement (mm)
Test #8: CBC-48-46-20 (Varma 2000)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)


Expt.
PfB
H/t=B/t =35
F
y
=269MPa
f
c
=110MPa
P/P
no
=0.11
L/H =4.9
H/t=B/t =53
F
y
=471MPa
f
c
=110MPa
P/P
no
=0.18
L/H =4.9
5/29/2013
29
CCFT BeamColumn valiuation
Specimen 11 Loau Case Sa
L=7.9m;D=508mm.;t=5.9mm.;D/t=85.8;F
y
=305MPa;f
c
=55.9MPa
Benchmaik Fiame Stuuies foi
Composite Fiames: Schematic
L =
oe1g
t
EI
gross
P
no,gross
k
u,top
=
6 EI
gross
G
g,top
L
k
u,bot
=
6 EI
gross
G
g,bot
L
P P P
H
|M
M
EI
elastic
EI
elastic
x
EI
gross
= E
s
I
s
+ E
s
I
sr
+ E
c
I
c
P
no,gross
= A
s
F
y
+ A
sr
F
ysr
+ A
c
f
c
Initial Imperfections:
Out-of-plumbness A
o
= L/500
Out-of-straightness o
o
= L/1000 (sinusoidal)
5/29/2013
30
Selecteu Sections
Index D t
s
A 7 0.500 24.82%
B 10 0.500 17.70%
C 12.75 0.375 10.65%
D 16 0.250 5.72%
E 24 0.125 1.93%
Index H B t
s
A 6 6 1/2 27.63%
B 9 9 1/2 19.06%
C 8 8 1/4 11.13%
D 9 9 1/8 5.05%
E 14 14 1/8 3.27%
CCFT RCFT
Index Steel Shape
s
A W14x311 11.66%
B W14x233 8.74%
C W12x120 4.49%
D W8x31 1.16%
Index Rebar
sr
A 20#11 3.98%
B 12 #10 1.94%
C 4 #8 0.40%
SRC
GrossdimensionsofallSRCsections=28 x28
F
y
=50ksi;F
yr
=60ksi;;f
c
=4,8,16ksi
F
y
=42ksi;f
c
=4,8,16ksi F
y
=46ksi;f
c
=4,8,16ksi
Elastic Flexuial Rigiuity in
Composite BeamColumns
EI
eff
usedtodeterminetheaxialcompressivestrength
ofcolumnsinAISC36010
EI
elastic
usedina1
st
or2
nd
orderstatic,dynamic,or
eigenvalueanalysis
inconjunctionwithDirectAnalysesstiffnessreductionsto
performstrengthchecks
tocomputestorydriftsusedininterstory driftchecks
tocomputefundamentalperiodsandmodeshapes
(includingforresponsespectrumanalysis)
astheelasticcomponentofaconcentratedplasticity
beamcolumnelement
EI
DA
usedintheDirectAnalysismethod
ForStructuralSteel:EI
eff
=EI
elastic
=E
s
I
s
5/29/2013
31
AISC S6u1u Section I2: Calculation
of Axial Compiessive Stiength: EI
eff
1
0.5 (SRC)
eff s s s sr c c
EI E I E I C E I = + +
1
0.1 2 0.3
s
c s
A
C
A A
| |
= + s
|
+
\ .
3
(CFT)
eff s s s sr c c
EI E I E I C E I = + +
3
0.6 2 0.9
s
c s
A
C
A A
| |
= + s
|
+
\ .
P
c
= n
2
EI
c

KI
2
P
n
= (P
u
Pc)
Composite Axial Compiessive Stiength
fiom Benchmaik Stuuy
CCFT RCFT
SRC
(strongaxis)
SRC
(weakaxis)
5/29/2013
32
Pioposeu Foimula foi Axial
Compiessive Stiength of SRCs
, 1,
(SRC)
eff proposed s s s sr proposed c c
EI E I E I C E I = + +
1,
2
0.60 0.75
s
proposed
g
A
C
A
= + s
SRC
(strongaxis)
SRC
(weakaxis)
Axial Compiessive Stiength of SRC
Columns: Expeiimental valiuation
, 1,
(SRC)
eff proposed s s s sr proposed c c
EI E I E I C E I = + +
1,
2
0.60 0.75
s
proposed
g
A
C
A
= + s
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
0.5
1
1.5

oe,proposed
P
e
x
p
/
P
n
o
,
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d


Column Curve
Anslijn & Janss 1974
Chen, Astaneh-Asl, & Moehle 1992
Han & Kim 1995
Han, Kim, & Kim 1992
Roderick & Loke 1975
5/29/2013
33
Benchmaik Stuuy Results:
Secant values of EI
elastic
foi Elastic Analysis
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Normalized Bending Moment (M/M
n
)
Section 13: RCFT-E-4, Frame 37: UA-67-g1
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

A
x
i
a
l

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

(
P
/
P
n
o
)


0.4
0.6
0.8
1
elastic
s s c c
EI
E I E I +
Serviceability Level
Strength/1.6
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Normalized Bending Moment (M/M
n
)
Section 4: RCFT-B-4, Frame 37: UA-67-g1
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

A
x
i
a
l

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

(
P
/
P
n
o
)


0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
First-Order
Applied Load
Interaction
elastic
s s c c
EI
E I E I +
EI
elastic
value pioviues compaiable ueflection to fully nonlineai
analysis foi foices shown
CalculationofRequiredStrengths
AnalysisRequirements
SecondOrderElasticAnalysis
ConsiderationofInitialImperfections
AdjustmentstoStiffness
CalculationofAvailableStrengths
ChaptersDthoughKwithoutfurther
considerationofoverallstructurestability
0.8
0.8
DA b elastic
DA elastic
EI EI
EA EA
t =
=
0.002
i i
N Y =
AISC S6u1u Biiect Analysis Nethou
Chaptei C
1 K =
M
r
P
r
|
c
P
n,K=1
|
c
P
n,K=K
EffectiveLength
FactorMethod
DirectAnalysis
Method
Distributed
Plasticity
Analysis
5/29/2013
34
Biiect Analysis
Fromapracticalstandpointitisbestto
maintainastiffnessreductionof0.8t
b
Thus,differencesbetweencompositeand
steelmaybeembodiedinproposedEI
elastic
:
0.8
DA b elastic
EI EI t =
( )( )
1.0 for 0.5
4 1 for 0.5
r no
b
r no r no r no
P P
P P P P P P
t
s
=

>

1
0.75 (SRC)
elastic s s s sr c c
EI E I E I C E I = + +
3
0.75 (CFT)
elastic s s c c
EI E I C E I = +
Composite Inteiaction Stiength
P
M
(P
A
,0)
(_P
A
,0)
(P
C
,M
C
)
(_P
C
,M
C
)
(0,M
B
)
Nominal
Section
Strength
Nominal
Beam-Column
Strength
_ = P
n
/P
no
(P
A
,0)
(_P
A
,0)
(P
C
,M
C
)
(o
C
_P
A
,0.9o
B
M
B
)
(0, o
B
M
B
) (0,M
B
)
Nominal
Beam-Column
Strength
P
M
_ = P
n
/P
no
Nominal
Section
Strength
( ) ( )
for 0.5
0.2 0.5 for 0.5 1.5
0.2 for 1.5
C A oe
C C A C A oe oe
oe
P P
P P P P

= < s

>

( )
1 for 1
1 0.2 1 for1 2
0.8 for 2
oe
B oe oe
oe

= < s

>

AISC2010
Proposed
5/29/2013
35
vaiiation of the Composite Inteiaction
Biagiam with Slenueiness
0
1
2
3
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
NormalizedBendingMoment(M/M
n
)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

A
x
i
a
l

L
o
a
d

(
P
/
P
n
o
)
CFTBondProvisionsinAISC36010
ForCCFT:
R
n
=0.25D
2
C
in
F
in
ForRCFT:
R
n
=B
2
C
in
F
in
where,
R
n
=nominalbondstrength,kips
C
in
=2iftheCFTextendstoonesideofthepointofforcetransfer
=4iftheCFTextendstobothsidesofthepointofforcetransfer
F
in
=nominalbondstress=60psi
B =overallwidthofrectangularsteelsectionalongfacetransferringload,in.
D =outsidediameteroftheroundsteelsection,in.
| =0.45
O =3.33
5/29/2013
36
ExperimentalSetupsfor
AssessingBondStrength
(a) Push-off test
(b) Push-out test
without shear tabs
(c) Push-out test
with shear tabs
(d) Typical CFT
connection
Air Gap
Air Gap
ProposedDesignProvisions
ForCCFT:
R
n
=DL
bond
F
in
L
bond
=C
in
D
F
in
=30.9(t/D
2
)0.2
ForRCFT:
R
n
=2(B+H)L
bond
F
in
L
bond
=C
in
H
F
in
=12.8(t/H
2
) 0.1
where,
R
n
=nominalbondstrength,kips
F
in
= nominalbondstress,ksi
t =designwallthicknessofsteelsection,in.
B =overallwidthofrectangularsteelsection(B H),in.
H =overallheightofrectangularsteelsection(H B),in.
D =outsidediameterofroundsteelsection,in.
L
bond
=lengthofthebondregion(thebondregionofadjacentconnectionsshallnotoverlap),in.
C
in
= 4ifloadisappliedtothesteeltubeandtheCFTextendstobothsidesofthepointofforcetransfer
=2otherwise
ForRCFT:BothL
bond
andF
in
arebased
onthelargerlateraldimensionofthe
tube(HB)
| =0.50,O =3.00
5/29/2013
37
Seismic Peifoimance Factois:
FENA P69S Aichetype Fiame Stuuy:
Selection anu Besign of Aichetype Fiames
= Location of Braced Frame
= Fully Restrained Connections
= Shear Connections
MomentFrames BracedFrames
Selecteu Composite Aichetype Fiames
Design
Gravity
Load
Bay
Width
Design
Seismic
Load
Conc.
Strength
(f
c
)
Index
MomentFrames BracedFrames
RCFT RCFT SRC RCFTCd CCFT CCFT
3Stories 9Stories 3Stories 3Stories 3Stories 9Stories
High 20 D
max
4 ksi 1
High 20 D
max
12ksi 2
High 20 D
min
4 ksi 3
High 20 D
min
12ksi 4
High 30 D
max
4 ksi 5
High 30 D
max
12ksi 6
High 30 D
min
4 ksi 7
High 30 D
min
12ksi 8
Low 20 D
max
4 ksi 9
Low 20 D
max
12ksi 10
Low 20 D
min
4 ksi 11
Low 20 D
min
12ksi 12
Low 30 D
max
4 ksi 13
Low 30 D
max
12ksi 14
Low 30 D
min
4 ksi 15
Low 30 D
min
12ksi 16
5/29/2013
38
Typical Composite Connection Region Noueling:
valiuateu Against Tests
Rigid Links
Zero Length Spring
Representing the
Panel Zone Shear
Behavior
Nonlinear
Column
Element
Nonlinear
Beam
Element
Elastic
Beam
Element
Nonlinearstressresultantspacemultisurface
kinematichardeningmodelusedforrotational
springformulation(afterMuhummud 2003)
Rigid
Links
Nonlinear
Column
Element
Nonlinear
Beam
Element
Nonlinear
Brace
Element
Moment
Release
Modelingassumptionsestablished
byHsiaoetal.(2012)
Evaluation of
Seismic Peifoimance Factois
Archetypeframesarecategorizedintoperformance
groupsbasedonbasicstructuralcharacteristics
Group
Number
Design
GravityLoad
Level
Design
SeismicLoad
Level
Period
Domain
Numberof
CSMFs
Number of
CSCBFs
PG1 High D
max
Short 6 4
PG2 High D
max
Long 2 2
PG3 High D
min
Short 6 4
PG4 High D
min
Long 2 2
PG5 Low D
max
Short 6 4
PG6 Low D
max
Long 2 2
PG7 Low D
min
Short 6 4
PG8 Low D
min
Long 2 2
5/29/2013
39
Typical Static Pushovei Analysis
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Roof Displacement (in)
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
k
i
p
s
)
V
max
= 879.3 kips
V
80
= 703.4 kips
V = 153.9 kips
o
u

=

5
0
.
8

i
n
SFRS: C-SMF, Frame: RCFT-3-1
System 0veistiength Factoi,
o
BytheFEMAP695methodology,
o
shouldbetakenasthelargest
averagevalueof fromany
performancegroup
Roundedtonearest0.5
Upperlimitsof1.5R and3.0
HighoverstrengthforCSMFs
Displacementcontrolleddesign
Currentvalue(
o
=3.0)isupperlimit
andisacceptable
OverstrengthforCSCBFsnear
currentvalue(
o
=2.0)
HigherforPG3andPG4(Highgravity
load,SDCD
min
)
Group
Number
Average
CSMF CSCBF
PG1 5.9 2.1
PG2 5.3 1.9
PG3 7.6 2.8
PG4 9.9 2.7
PG5 6.2 1.8
PG6 5.5 1.7
PG7 7.5 2.3
PG8 6.5 2.2
5/29/2013
40
Typical Bynamic Time Bistoiy Analyses:
Inciemental Bynamic Analysis
0% 5% 10% 15%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Maximum Story Drif t
S
T

=

S
M
T
S
F
2

(
g
)
[
e`+
U

l
_
ee+
U.

_
SFRS: C-SMF, Frame: RCFT-3-1

5.72
CT
S g =
1.50
MT
S g =
Response Nouification Factoi, R
ACMR
10%
=AcceptablevalueoftheAdjusted
CollapseMarginRatiofor10%collapse
probability
ACMR
10%
=1.96forbothCSMFandCSCBF
andarelessthantheACMRshownforeach
performancegroupinthetable
SimilarlypositiveresultsforACMR
20%
per
frame
ACMR valuesshowcorrelationwiththe
overstrength
CSMFs
Currentvalue(R =8.0)isacceptable
CSCBFs
Currentvalue(R =5.0)isacceptable
Group
Number
ACMR
CSMF CSCBF
PG1 4.8 3.3
PG2 3.7 2.3
PG3 7.5 5.1
PG4 8.5 5.4
PG5 4.9 2.6
PG6 3.9 2.9
PG7 7.1 3.8
PG8 6.9 3.7
5/29/2013
41
Beflection Amplification Factoi, C
d
BytheFEMAP695methodology,C
d
=R forthese
systems
WouldrepresentaminorchangeforCSCBF
Currentvalues:C
d
=4.5,R =5.0
Typicallystrengthcontrolleddesign
WouldrepresentasignificantchangeforCSMF
Currentvalues:C
d
=5.5,R =8.0
Typicallyalreadydisplacementcontrolleddesign
FourCSMFarchetypeframesdesignedwiththe
currentC
d
value
LoweroverstrengthwithcurrentC
d
(average4.9vs.6.4
withC
d
=R)
AcceptableperformancewithcurrentC
d
KeyConclusionsfromtheResearch
ExperimentalResearch
Acomprehensiveanduniquedatasetforaxialstrengthandbeamcolumn
strengthhasbeengeneratedforslenderCCFTsandRCFTs.
CFTsdemonstratedgreattoughnessundercomplexcyclicloadings.
Localbucklingdidnotleadtosubstantialstrengthorstiffnesslosses.
ComputationalResearch
Newmixedelementanalysisformulationdevelopedforcompositebeam
columns
Compositebeamcolumnsexhibitrobustperformanceunderseverecyclic
loading
Analysisformulationenablesbenchmarkstudiesofstabilityandstrength
ofcompositeframes(nonseismicandseismic)
5/29/2013
42
ProposalsforAISC36016(2016)
SpecificationforStructuralSteelBuildings
Newcommentaryonaddressingwetweightofconcreteduringconcrete
pourforCFTs
NewEI
eff
valueforcalculatingcolumnstrengthofSRCstobetterreflect
computationaldata
NewrecommendationsforEI
elastic
valuetouseforcalculatingelastic
stiffnessofCFTsandSRCsforuseinelasticanalysisanduseinDirect
Analysis
Newinteractionequationthataddressespossibleunconservative errors
forveryslendercompositemembers
NewCFTbondprovisionsthatmoreaccuratelyreflectthechangeinbond
strengthwithCFTdiameterandthatclarifyhowtocomputebondstrength
inloadtransferregions
ValidationofcurrentseismicperformancefactorsinASCE710and
recommendationtoconsiderincreasingthedeflectioncriteriaforCSMFs
ifC
d
=R
FutureWork
FinalizerecommendationsforAISC36016
Prequalifiedcompositeconnections
Incorporatecreepandshrinkageeffectsintodesignof
compositesystems
Effectsofelevatedtemperatureincompositesystems,and
effectsofinternalreinforcement
Innovativecompositeframingsystems:
Prefabricatedcompositeconstructionsystems
Integrationofnewmaterials,includinghigherstrength
materials
Etc.
5/29/2013
43
ThankYou
NEESProjectWarehouse:https://nees.org/warehouse/project/440
440 SystemBehaviorFactorsforCompositeandMixedStructuralSystem
RobertoT.Leon,JeromeF.Hajjar,Nakin Suksawang
ReferencesandalistofpapersandpublicationsforthisworkareavailableattheNEES
siteforthiswebinar:https://nees.org/events/details/190
TheworkdescribedhereispartofaNEESRprojectsupportedbytheNational
ScienceFoundationunderGrantNo.CMMI0619047,theAmericanInstituteofSteel
Construction,theGeorgiaInstituteofTechnology,andtheUniversityofIllinoisat
UrbanaChampaign.TheseexperimentswereconductedattheMultiaxial
Subassemablage TestingSystem(MAST)attheUniversityofMinnesota.
InKind: