Cambios Propuestos en El Capitulo I Del AISC 2016 Prof Roberto Leon

6/23/2013
1
CAMBIOS EN EL DISEO DE
ESTRUCTURAS COMPUESTAS
(CAPITULO I) PARA LOS CDIGOS
AISC 2016
Roberto T. Leon
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (USA)
Capitulo I: Elementos Horizontales
6/23/2013
2
Steel channels Hollow Core Plank
Concrete Topping
Steel plate
Concrete Reinforced Studs
Elementos Mixtos para Edificios de Parqueos
Leon
/Diversakore /
Beers Cons.
Las normativas AISC no pretenden cubrir todos los elementos
compuestos posibles; solo dar pautas para su diseo
Capitulo I: Elementos Verticales
Secciones SRC (embebidas o ahogadas)
6/23/2013
3
a) SRC
Columnas compuestas
c) Combinaciones entre SRC y CFT
b) Encajonadas o rellenas (rectangulares y circulares)
Temas a tratar
Uso de materiales de alta resistencia en vigas
Valores de fluencia y ruptura para diseo ssmico
Clculo de deformaciones para vigas
Clculo de derivas por viento y sismos
Diseo de columnas embebidas
Diseo de columnas esbeltas
Colectores y diafragmas
Diseo ssmico de conexiones
6/23/2013
4
Materiales de alta resistencia (acero)
A913 Gr. 65/ 450; t
f
= 0.88 [22.5 mm]
F
y
=68.5 ksi [473 MPa]
F
u
=86.4 ksi [596 MPa]
A
200
=22.0%, (A
5d
=25.9%)
Strain (%)
Tratamientos
termo-mecnicos
6/23/2013
5
Materiales de alta resistencia (acero)
Cambios en las curvas de esfuerzo-deformacin
C
o
e
l
h
o
,

,
S
i
m
e
s

d
a

S
i
l
v
a
,

&
.

B
i
j
l
a
a
r
d
Vigas con materiales de alta resistencia
BS-HSS HA-BS30
f
y
= 690 393 MPa
f
c
= 50 25 MPa
L= 5755 11600 mm
b
eff
= 750 2130 mm
t
s
= 100 178 mm
h
c
= 260 265 mm
b
f
= 155 170 mm
t = 5 13 mm
n
c
= 25 32 studs
U
y
&

S
l
o
a
n
e
K
w
o
n

e
t

a
l
.
Comportamiento
frgil vs. dctil
HA-BS30
f
y
= 393 MPa
f
c
= 25 MPa
L= 11600 mm
b
eff
= 2130 mm
t
s
= 178 mm
h
c
= 265 mm
b
f
= 17 mm
t = 13 mm
n
c
= 32 studs
6/23/2013
6
Diseo Plstico
Distribucin de Esfuerzos
Ban & Bradford
100%
50%
235
235 460
460
460
690
690 960
960
MPa M/M
p
235 1
460 0.97
690 0.94
960 0.88
6/23/2013
7
Materiales de alta resistencia (concreto)
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
h
i
v
e
s
.
n
j
i
t
.
e
d
u
.
.
.
.
.
n
j
i
t
-
e
t
d
2
0
0
2
-
0
4
9
.
p
d
f
0.85f
c
|
d
a
Materiales de alta resistencia (concreto)
para concretos con fibras
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
h
i
v
e
s
.
n
j
i
t
.
e
d
u
.
.
.
.
.
n
j
i
t
-
e
t
d
2
0
0
2
-
0
4
9
.
p
d
f
6/23/2013
8
Temas a tratar
Valores de fluencia y ruptura para diseo
ssmico
Factores R
y
y R
t
Perfiles laminados y barras:
ASTM A36 1.5 1.2
ASTM A992; ASTM A913 1.1 1.1
Perfiles Tubulares HSS:
ASTM A500 Gr B or Gr C; ASTM A501 1.4 1.3
Tubos:
ASTM A53 1.6 1.2
Placas:
ASTM A36 1.3 1.2
ASTM A572 Gr50; ASTM A588 1.1 1.2
Barras:
ASTM A615 Grade 60 1.2 (?) 1.2(?)
Concreto:
ASTM C33 1.4(?)
Aplicacin
R
y
R
t
6/23/2013
9
Factores R
y
y R
t
Se utilizan para determinar valores mximos de la
capacidad de elementos claves para asegurar la formacin
de un cierto mecanismo plstico.
Se basan en estudios estadsticos de la produccin
reportada al AISC; no necesariamente refleja el producto
en le mercado.
Tericamente solo se aplica a construcciones recientes.
El valor del concreto cambia con el tiempo y con el tipo de
falla (flexin, cortante, tensin,)
La variabilidad puede ser importante para elementos que
utilizan barras y secciones de acero y concreto.
El variabilidad del concreto por si mismo no afecto mucho
los clculos pues cambia de manera mnima la distancia
entre los centros de las fuerzas.
Temas a tratar
Otros conectores para cortante
6/23/2013
10
Deformacin de vigas
Pisos con sistemas compuestos pueden ser muy esbeltos
pues la resistencia generalmente no controla el diseo.
Deformaciones verticales y vibracin son los estados
limites que controlan el diseo.
Los cdigos no dicen como calcular ni dan limites de
deformacin; esto queda a criterio del ingeniero.
El Comentario del AISC da varias alternativas de como
calcular deformaciones y en las ultimas ediciones se ha
vuelto muy confuso (por lo menos tres mtodos son
dados); no se hacho mucha investigacin en este campo
en los ltimos 25 aos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAXVa__XWZ8
Base de datos
112 vigas compuestas, parte de 25 proyectos de
investigacin.
41 pruebas con tablero metlico y 71 con lozas
solidas
No. of tests for each load configuration
Load Configuration No. of groups
Four Point Load 28
Two Point Load 44
Point Load at midspan 29
Uniformly Distributed Load 11
6/23/2013
11
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
n
f'
c
(ksi)
Concieto (f
c
') vs. giauo ue inteiaccion (n)
Ensayo tpico
A572 W18x35; 9.75m x 2.44m, loza de 140mm sobre deck de 75mm
(Alsamsam & Leon, 1992)
6/23/2013
12
Resultados Tpicos
A572 W18x35; 9.75m x 2.44m, loza de 140mm sobre deck de 75mm
(Alsamsam & Leon, 1992)
Mtodos de clculo
AISC I
LB
(limite mnimo)
Momento de inercia efectivo (I
eff
)
Mtodo de Newmark
Mtodo de Cosenza-Mazzolani
Mtodo del Eurocdigo
( )
n
eff s tr s
f
Q
I I I I
C
= +
6/23/2013
13
Mtodo de Newmark:
k =rigidez del conector; s =distancia entre conectores
reas
Cosenza-Mazzolani Method
the moment of inertia is depend on the value of :
Where
abs c c a a
EI E I E I = +
2
full abs
EI EI EA d
-
= +
abs c c a a
EI E I E I = +
( )( )
a a c c
a a c c
E A E A
EA
E A E A
-
=
+
2 full
abs
EI
K
EA EI
o
-
=
1 l o s eff abs
EI EI =
For
For 1 10 l o < <
2
2
[10 ( ) ]
10 ( )
abs full
eff
full abs
l EI EI
EI
EI l EI
o
o
+
=
+
10 l o >
eff full
EI EI =
For
6/23/2013
14
Eurocode method
For propped construction:
For unpropped construction:
1 0.5(1 )( 1)
a
c f c
N
N
o o
o o
= +
I
1 0.5(1 )( 1)
I
c c
f a
I N
I N
= +
1 0.3(1 )( 1)
a
c f c
N
N
o o
o o
= +
I
1 0.3(1 )( 1)
I
c c
f a
I N
I N
= +
a
o
is the deflection of the steel beam acting along under the same loads.
c
o
is the deflection of the composite beam with full shear interaction.
f
N
N
is the degree of shear connection at the ultimate state (N/N
f
u.4)
Grant,FisherySlutter
Viga 1A2,W16x40,deck,L=7300mm
EjemplodeClculo
6/23/2013
15
Comparaciones Analticas (Viga 1A2)
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.5 1.0 1.5
Midspan Deflection, inches
T
o
t
a
l

A
p
p
l
i
e
d

L
o
a
d
,

k
i
p
s
EXP
LB
EFF
NEWMARK
MAZZOLANI
EUROPE
Load deflectionplots for test 1A2
Calculation method Slope (kip/in.) r
Lower BoundMoment of Inertia 21.68 1.11
EffectiveMoment of Inertia 23.69 1.01
Newmarkmethod 24.12 1.00
Cosenza-Mazzolani Method 25.46 0.94
EurocodeMethod 23.14 1.04
Actual Slope 24.04 1
Compaiacion Analitica
6/23/2013
16
Compaiaciones Analiticas
(112 vigas)
Calculationmethod Mean
Standard
deviation
LowerBoundMomentofInertia 1.09 0.19
EffectiveMomentofInertia 1.00 0.16
NewmarkMethod 0.99 0.16
CosenzaMazzolaniMethod 0.93 0.15
Eurocode Method 1.04 0.17
Lavariabilidadesalta
No. of tests for each load configuration
Load Configuration No. of groups
Four Point Load 28
Two Point Load 44
Point Load at midspan 29
Uniformly Distributed Load 11
Compaiaciones poi Tipo ue Caiga
LoadConfiguration Mean
Standard
Derivation
Four Point Load 1.1 0.14
Two Point Load 0.99 0.14
Point Load at Midspan 0.89 0.14
Uniformly Distributed Load 1.07 0.15
Compaiaciones paia I
eff
6/23/2013
17
Conclusiones
Las deformaciones dadas por el mtodo de Newmark y el
mtodo de I
eff
dan los mejores resultados para la base de
datos en su total.
El mtodo de AISC I
LB
es conservador, mientras que el
mtodo de CosenzaMazzolani Method no es conservador .
Todos los mtodos dan resultados pobres para el caso de
carga solo a la mitad de la viga
El descorrimiento en la interface tiene que ser tomado en
cuenta para obtener una buena prediccin.
Se sigue trabajando para obtener mejores correlaciones con
formulas simples.
Nuestras estructuras raramente llegan a la carga de diseo.
Vigas Exteriores
Se deben considerar las deformaciones torsionales durante
la construccin o disear la viga como si no fuera compuesta
para efectos de deformaciones
Brosnan and Uang, AISC Engrg. Journal
(2nd Quarter , 1995)
6/23/2013
18
Vigas Exteriores - Detalles
J acobs & Easterling, 2012NASCC
Vigas Exteriores - Detalles
6/23/2013
19
Temas a tratar
AISC - Ejemplo de Diseo
Control de deriva
6/23/2013
20
Lmite =H/400
5 toneladas adicionales
6/23/2013
21
Definitions of Effective Width
With transverse beamwith some torsional restraint
Without transverse beam
Without transverse beambut with special reinforcement
AISC Comentario Seccin I3.2
6/23/2013
22
AISC Comentario Seccin I3.2
2
acero eff
deriva
I I
I
+
=
deriva
acero
eff
donde:
I = Rigidez promedio para calculo de deriva
I =Rigidez de la seccin en acero
I =Rigidez efectiva por Ecuacin AISC-I3-4
I
acero
of W21x50 = 984in
4
I
eff
of W21x50 = 2,440in
4
% de accin compuesta = 38.3%
6/23/2013
23
Drift Control
4 4
4
984in. 2,440in.
1,715in.
2
deriva
I
+
= =
74% mas que la seccin de acero
Equivalente aproximadamente a
W24x68
Leon y Forcier (1992)
Aproximadamente 20% menos que el mtodo
previo, pero 44% mas que solo acero.
Esta formula es para cargas de gravedad.
6/23/2013
24
AISC - Ejemplo -Resultados Finales
Se pueden incrementar los momentos de
inercia en el orden del 30% si se utiliza el
efecto de la loza en zonas de momento
positivo.
Dependiendo de la configuracin de el edificio,
esto puede reducir las derivas entre el 10% y
30%.
Esto no requiere ningn cambio en le diseo
solo se tiene que utilizar lo que ya esta ah.
El uso de un momento de inercia promedio es
un mtodo simple y fcil de implementar en el
diseo.
Conclusiones
6/23/2013
25
Temas a tratar
Diafragmas y Colectores
6/23/2013
26
w(plf)
V=wL/2
V=wL/2
Diafragma
Diafragma
6/23/2013
27
Diafragmas y Colectores
Colectores
6/23/2013
28
Colectores
Colectores
6/23/2013
29
Colectores
Diafragmas:
Otras
Consideraciones
ICC
6/23/2013
30
W16x40, L=22-6, M
u
=225 kip-ft , P
u
= 150 kips
6 NW Slab (3, 20Ga. Deck + 3 concrete)
spanning 10-0 w/ 1 stud/ft
Colectores
Major (Strong) Axis Buckling KL = Full Length
of Beam Between Supports
AISC Spec. Chapter E
For this slender member (slender
web) it is Most Expedient to Use
Tables in Part 6 of Steel Manual
,
3
22.5ft
5.33ft Enter Table
4.22
2.26 10 Table 6-1, LRFD
1
442kips

y
x EQUIV
x y
c nx
c nx u
KL
KL
r r
p
P
p
P P
= = =
=
| = =
| > o.k.
Axial Capacity
6/23/2013
31
Axial Capacity
Minor (Weak) Axis Buckling Conservative to
Assume Full Unbraced Length for Weak Axis
Buckling
Generally Bare Deck Is Adequate to
Provide Lateral Brace (Particularly
with Ribs Perpendicular to the Beam)
Composite Slab Will Definitely Act as
a Brace
3
22.5ft Enter Table
11.05 10 Table 6-1, LRFD
1
90.0kips

y
c n y
c ny u
KL
p
P
p
P P
=
=
| = =
| < n.g.
Torsional Buckling
Generally Does Not Control
Over Weak Axis Buckling for
Standard Rolled Shapes
Specification Section E4
Torsional Buckling Strength = 256 kips
Axial Capacity
6/23/2013
32
Constrained Axis Flexural Torsional Buckling
Not Currently Covered in Steel
Construction Manual
Discussed in Torsional Bracing
of Columns by Helwig and
Yura, Journal of Structural
Engineering, May 1999
AND in the New 2
nd
Edition
Seismic Design Manual
Axial Capacity
Flexural Buckling About Major Axis = 442 kips
Flexural Buckling About Minor Axis = 90.0 kips
Torsional Buckling = 256 kips
Constrained Axis Flexural Torsional Buckling = 164 kips
Axial Capacity
6/23/2013
33
Distorsional Buckling
Temas a tratar
Uso de fibras en lozas
6/23/2013
34
Secondary Reinforcement
Welded wire fabric
Steel Fibers
Synthetic Fibers
J acobs & Easterling
Composite Slab Flexural Strength
Strength based on simple span composite
slabs no negative moment reinforcement
over the supports
When loaded you should expect to see
flexural cracks
Construction loading (material staging) on
composite slab will often induce cracks over
beams or girders
6/23/2013
35
Concentrated Load Test Setup
Welded Wire Fabric
Shrinkage and temperature crack control not
flexural reinforcement
Quantities required based on steel deck
participating
Generally placed on the deck, although often called
out to be supported near the top of the slab (at
what depth does ACI require secondary
reinforcement to be placed in elevated slabs?)
Can be cumbersome during construction
6/23/2013
36
Steel Fibers
Recognized as a suitable alternative for
WWF by the Steel Deck Institute - Shrinkage
and temperature crack control not flexural
reinforcement
Based in part on Strength and Performance
of Fiber Reinforced Composite Slabs by
Roberts-Wollmann, Guirola and Easterling,
ASCE J. of Str. Engr., March 2004
Steel Deck Institute
C-2011 Standard for Composite Steel Floor Deck-Slabs
2.4.B.13 Reinforcement for Temperature and Shrinkage
a.2. Concrete specified in accordance with ASTM C116,
Type I, containing steel fibers meeting the criteria of ASTM
A820, Type I, Type II, or Type V, at a dosage rate
determined by the fiber manufacturer for the application,
but not less than 25 lb/cu yd (14.8 kg/cu meter.)
6/23/2013
37
Advantages and Disadvantages of Fibers vs WWF
Advantages
Ease of placing the concrete containing fibers
Distributed reinforcement thus better crack control
Disadvantages
Questions about Surface finishing
Questions about performance
Temas a tratar
Resistencia al fuego
6/23/2013
38
Fire Resistance
Fire Rating
6/23/2013
39
Cardington, Hangar
BRE (UK)
Experimental area:
48m x 65m x 250m
157 ft. x 213 ft. x 820 ft.
Cardington
Fire Tests
Frantisek, Moore et al.
6/23/2013
40
Erected 1993
Eight floors
Plan area - 945 m
2
Steel braced frame
Connections:
beam-column connections:
flexible end plates
beam-beam connections:
fin plates
Steel composite structure
Typical composite structure Frantisek, Moore et al.
6/23/2013
41
Timber cribs 50 x 50 mm -fire load 40 kg/m
2
Fire Load
Test 2 Column shortening
6/23/2013
42
0
1
2
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
6
7
9
12
15
0.00
2.25
4.50
6.75
9.00
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
Slab deflection after test
Date: 23th J anuary2003
-10.0-0.0
-20.0--10.0
-30.0--20.0
-40.0--30.0
-50.0--40.0
-60.0--50.0
-70.0--60.0
-80.0--70.0
-90.0--80.0
-100.0--90.0
Concrete slab
deformation
Residual deformation
max 925 mm
Temas a tratar
Uso de fibras en lozas
6/23/2013
43
BehaviorandDesignof
ConcreteFilledComposite
Columns
RobertoT.Leon
VirginiaTech,Blacksburg,VA
JeromeF.Hajjar
NortheasternUniversity,Boston,MA
LarryGriffis
WalterP.Moore,Austin,TX
http://nees.org/education/for
professionals/researchtopracticeseries
#concretefilled
CompositeSystems
Perimetermomentframesfor
stiffnessinhurricanezones.
Extensiontoseismicbasedon
Japaneseexperience.
Distributedsystemsvs.
supercolumns
6/23/2013
44

BuildingswithSRCColumns (MartinezRomero,1999&2003)
InteractionEquations
Howdowegetasimplifiedexpression
thatisclosetothedesignstrength?
6/23/2013
45
y
x
LC3
y
x
LC1
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
F
max
oP
T
,LC2
-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
StabilityEffects
_
-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
6/23/2013
46
Summaryof
ExperimentalResults
Acomprehensiveanduniquedatafor:
SlenderCCFTsandRCFTs
Axialstrengthandbeamcolumn
strengthforCFTs
Complexcyclicloadings
Initialimperfections
Constructionstresses/deformations
Localbuckling
Ductility
CurrentAISCequationspredict
strengthwellforthesespecimens
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
Hajjar&Denavit
6/23/2013
47
0niaxial Cyclic Conciete Constitutive
Relations foi CFTs anu SRCs
ProposedforBehavior
constitutiverelationbased
ontherulebasedmodelof
ChangandMander(1994).
ProposedforDesign
constitutiverelation:
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
)
Hajjar&Denavit
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
Hajjar&Denavit
6/23/2013
48
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
Hajjar&Denavit
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 Paboojian1994)
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 andPaboojian1994)
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
Hajjar
&Denavit
6/23/2013
49
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)
Hajjar&Denavit
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
Hajjar&Denavit
6/23/2013
50
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
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)
Hajjar&Denavit
Composite Axial Compiessive Stiength
CCFT RCFT
SRC
(strongaxis)
SRC
(weakaxis)
Hajjar&Denavit
6/23/2013
51
Pioposeu Foimula foi Axial
Compiessive Stiength of SRCs
, 1,
(SRC)
eff proposed s s s sr proposed c c
1,
2
0.60 0.75
s
proposed
g
A
C
A
= + s
SRC
(strongaxis)
SRC
(weakaxis)
Hajjar&Denavit
Axial Compiessive Stiength of SRC
Columns: Expeiimental valiuation
, 1,
(SRC)
eff proposed s s s sr proposed c c
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 & J anss 1974
Chen, Astaneh-Asl, & Moehle 1992
Han & Kim1995
Han, Kim, & Kim1992
Roderick & Loke 1975
Hajjar&Denavit
6/23/2013
52
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
Hajjar&Denavit
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
3
0.75 (CFT)
elastic s s c c
EI E I C E I = +
Hajjar&Denavit
6/23/2013
53
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
Hajjar&Denavit
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
)
Hajjar&
Denavit
6/23/2013
54
Eccentiic Columns
.
Beam B1:
W840 x 299
Beam B2: W920 x 446
35M Dywidag bars to transfer
bearing forces (B1 and B2)
Reinforcing Cage 1:
8 45M and 6 30M bars
(all exterior bars are 45M)
Cage 3: 7 45M and 3 30M bars
Shear studs to web of B1
Cage 2:
14 45M
and 6
30M bars
W360 x 421
column
P2
P3
P1(FBP)
P5
P4 (FBP)
Shear studs to flange of B2
Is aplastic analysis ofthis section justified?
Eccentiic Columns
6/23/2013
55
Eccentiic Columns
WeldingofJumbos
j
e
a
n
-
c
l
a
u
d
e
.
g
e
r
a
r
d
y
@
a
r
c
e
l
o
r
.
c
o
m
SuperColumns
A. Plumier
6/23/2013
56
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
Hajjar&Denavit
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
Hajjar&Denavit
6/23/2013
57
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
Hajjar&Denavit
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
Hajjar&
Denavit
6/23/2013
58
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
Hajjar&Denavit
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
Hajjar&Denavit
6/23/2013
59
Typical Bynamic Time Bistoiy Analyses:
Inciemental Bynamic Analysis
0% 5% 10% 15%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
MaximumStory Drift
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 =
Hajjar&Denavit
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
Hajjar&Denavit
6/23/2013
60
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
Hajjar&Denavit
KeyConclusionsfromtheResearch
ExperimentalResearch
Acomprehensiveanduniquedatasetforaxialstrengthandbeamcolumn
strengthhasbeengeneratedforslenderCCFTsandRCFTs.
CFTsdemonstratedgreattoughnessundercomplexcyclicloadings.
Localbucklingdidnotleadtosubstantialstrengthorstiffnesslosses.
ComputationalResearch
Newmixedelementanalysisformulationdevelopedforcompositebeam
columns
Compositebeamcolumnsexhibitrobustperformanceunderseverecyclic
loading
Analysisformulationenablesbenchmarkstudiesofstabilityandstrength
ofcompositeframes(nonseismicandseismic)
Hajjar&Denavit
6/23/2013
61
Composite Perimeter Frame W.P. Moore & Assoc.
ConnectionstoCompositeColumns
ForceTransfer
Mechanism
6/23/2013
62
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

Cambios Propuestos en El Capitulo I Del AISC 2016 Prof Roberto Leon

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

Cambios Propuestos en El Capitulo I Del AISC 2016 Prof Roberto Leon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/23/2013

You might also like