A Tension-Controlled Open Web Steel Joist

DISCLAIMER:
No joist will withstand sudden and catastrophic
impact forces that exceed system capability.
Flex-Joist design offers probability of high
ductility and time delay under static gravity
overload conditions.

Purpose:

Improved Ductility and

Reliability under Static
Gravity Overload

Flex-Joist Engineered Limit States

Intentionally imbalanced member strength ratios

Weaker components serve as ductile fuse
Initial limit state of ductile yielding in primary tension members
Other limit states inhibited until advanced state of collapse

What is so great about ductility?

Reduced Probability of Collapse

Improved Structural Reliability
Reduced Variance in Strength
Reserve Inelastic Capacity
Load Sharing with Adjacent Joists

What is so great about ductility?

Increased Probability of Safe Evacuation

Slower Collapse Mechanism

Sensory Warning via Large Inelastic Deflections

What is so great about ductility?

Improved Structural Reliability: Reduced Variance in Strength

Influence of Variance on Reliability

Which population has the greatest probability of a value below 1.0?

What is so great about ductility?

Improved Structural Reliability: Load Sharing

Idealized parallel system sketch

Load shared equally between
components

What is so great about ductility?

Improved Structural Reliability: Load Sharing

Sudden Strength Loss (lack of

ductile behavior)
Load dumps to remaining
components (progressive
collapse)
System strength limited by
weakest component
System variance equals
variance of individual
components population

What is so great about ductility?

Improved Structural Reliability: Load Sharing

Idealized parallel system sketch

Load shared equally between
components
Elasto-Ductile system

What is so great about ductility?

Improved Structural Reliability: Load Sharing

Ductile behavior
Weakest member continues to
support plastic capacity after
exceeding elastic limit
System strength a function of
average component strength
System Variance:

What is so great about ductility?

Slower Collapse Mechanism with Sensory Warning

Compressive Buckling

Ultimate Strength

Design Strength

Compression
Element Buckling

What is so great about ductility?

Slower Collapse Mechanism with Sensory Warning

Ductile Tensile Yielding

Ultimate Strength

Tension Element Yield

Compression
Element Buckling
Design Strength

When Loads Exceed Capacity of a Flex-Joist

Flex-Joist Load/Deflection Data Plot

Flex-Joist Design Reliability Study

Ratio of Plastic Strength /
Experimental Design Load
From Villanova Data

Plastic Strength Ratio

Average 1.033
Std Dev 0.030
All
COV
0.029
Qty
18

Series

K-Series

LH-Series

Rod-WebSeries

Sample
J1-1
J1-2
J1-3
J1-4
J1-5
J1-6
J2-1
J2-2
J2-3
J2-4
J2-5
J2-6
J3-1
J3-2
J3-3
J3-4
J3-5
J3-6

LRFD Fy ExperiDesign
mental
Load (plf)
(ksi)

418

60.3

1303

60.6

420

61.5

Adjusted
Plastic
Design
Strength
Critical
(plf)
Load (plf)
568
574
567
560
589
592
582
1878
1882
1886
1755
1852
1868
1855
582
589
567
574
568
572
566

Ratio
Plastic /
Adj Crit
Load
1.01
1.02
1.01
1.05
1.06
1.04
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.01
1.03
0.99
0.99
1.00
0.99

Flex-Joist Design Reliability Study

Steel Dynamics Roanoke Bar
Division A529-50 merchant bar
May 2008 to October 2012
11546 samples / 4337 batches

Stat's

Yield
Stress
(psi)

Ratio
Yield
Stress /
50 ksi min

Average
Minimum
Maximum
Std Dev
COV

56764
50000
76570
3415.6
0.0602

1.1353
1.0000
1.5314
0.0683
0.0602

Flex-Joist Design Reliability Study

Structural Reliability Analysis:
= 0.90
Live / Dead Load Ratio = 3

ln

2 + 2 + 2 + 2

= 3.2

Summary of Flex-Joist Design Characteristics

Joist Performance Comparison

Criteria
Joist Strength Reliability
System Strength Reliability
Average ASD Test Strength Ratio
Average Test Ductility Ratio
Tension Limit State Probability
Electronic Monitoring Suitable
Average Relative Weight

Std Joist Flex-Joist % Diff

2.6
2.6
1.8
1.4
Low
Okay
100%

3.2
22%
3.4
31%
2.3
29%
3.2
129%
High
Excellent
107%

System based on N = 4 statistically unlinked joists working in parallel

Summary of Flex-Joist Design Characteristics

Approximately 30% higher Reliability Index ().

Approximately 7% heavier, on average.
Clearly room for potentially reducing weight
while retaining superior reliability.
Subject to justification being provided to support a
higher y value and/or lower y value, in an ICC
Engineering Services Report submittal.
Limited applications until fire testing has been
performed

Tension-Controlled Joist Limiting Design Factors

Conditions preventing the Bottom Chord and End Web from developing their
tensile capacity:
Unusually high material Fy
High compression under net uplift loads, axial loads, or end moments
Unusually strict deflection criteria
Minimum material size criteria
Unnecessarily strict tension member slenderness criteria
Uniformly distributed loading on a 20K7 steel joist with a base length of 33

Lowest Stress

Highest Stress

Tension Slenderness Ratio

Current SJI maximum slenderness ratios are based on the 1946 &
1949 AISC specs, as follows:
For main compression members120
For bracing and other secondary members in compression200
For main tension members.240
For bracing and other secondary members in tension...300

Tension Slenderness Ratio

Remnants of the 1946 slenderness requirement carried over
as far as the 8th edition (1980) AISC:
The slenderness ratio, Kl/r, of compression members shall not
exceed 200.
The slenderness ratio, l/r, of tension members, other than
rods, preferably should not exceed:
For main members.......240
For lateral bracing members and other secondary members300

Tension Slenderness Ratio

Current (14th edition, 2010) AISC states in Section D1:
There is no slenderness limit for members in tension.
User Note: For members designed on the basis of
tension, the slenderness ratio L/r preferably should not
exceed 300. This suggestion does not apply to rods or
hangers in tension.

www.newmill.com/flex

When safe and reliable is not enough

Increased reliability
Increased probability of time for safe evacuation

Experimental Investigation of Open Web

Steel Joists Designed for TensionControlled Strength Limit State
Joseph Robert Yost, Ph.D., PE
Associate Professor, Structural Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Villanova University
1

Presentation Overview

1. Introduction and Methodology

2. Experimental Matrix
3. Load and Support Details
4. Test Results
5. Conclusions

Research Program

Experimental investigation of simply supported uniformly

loaded open web steel joists subjected to gravity loading.

Top chord in combined compression and bending.

Bottom chord and end webs in axial tension.

Interior webs alternating tension and compression.

Member Limit States and Experimental

Objective
Member strength limit states
Top chord compression buckling
Bottom chord and end webs tensile yield
Interior webs alternating tension and compression
Experimental Objective
Load
Compression buckling
Tension yielding

Design and test series of

OWSJ
for
tension
controlled failure limit
state.

Displacement
4

Methodology
Design individual members so that tension yield of BC or EW occurs
before compression buckling of TC or webs. Call tension-controlled
design methodology.

Over size compression members relative to strength demand.

Required Strength
Define member Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR) as: DCR =
Pr ovided Strength
Tension-Controlled Design Methodology
All compression members

DCR < 1.0

(reserve strength)

Critical tension member

DCR = 1.0

(at failure)

Other tension members

DCR 1.0

(close to failure)

Increase slenderness limit on tension members to 300

Tension-Controlled Design Term and

Member Selection
8'

4.5'

8'

8'

P
P relative strength
Introduce
term, r:

P n

(typ.)

(typ.)Relative

(typ.)

4.5'

DCRn
P

DCRmax-tension =1.0

Strength Ratios Used for Member Selection of Experimental Joists

Bottom C. and/or End Webs

r = 1.0 (failure)

Interior Tension Webs

r 0.95 (5% reserve strength)

Top Chord

r 0.90 (10% reserve strength)

Compression Webs

r 0.80 (20% reserve strength)

2P

2P

Presentation Overview

1. Introduction and Methodology

2. Experimental Matrix
3. Load and Support Details
4. Test Results
5. Conclusions

2 (typ.)

Sample Count

4 (typ.)

8 (typ.)

2P

33 ft.

2P

K-Series x 6 identical samples

LH-Series x 6 identical samples

K-Series Rod Web x 6 identical samples

8

Experimental Matrix

Series

K
LH
RW

6
6
6

Experimental Matrix
Maximum Relative Strength Ratio ()
Base SJI Experimental
Bottom Chord
Tension Compression
Designation
ID
Top Chord
& End Webs
Webs
Webs
20K7
28LH11
16K9

J1-1,2,3,4,5,6
J2-1,2,3,4,5,6
J3-1,2,3,4,5,6

1.00

0.90

0.95

0.80

All 18 samples
Designed for tension control strength limit state
Simply supported and subjected to uniform load
Monotonically tested to failure
Top chord laterally braced at 2 ft. intervals
9

Uniform Load Condition

4.5'

8'

8'

8'

4.5'

P/2 (typ.)
P/4 (typ.)

P
P/2 (typ.)
P/4 (typ.)

2P

2P

1 ft
(typ.)
Cylinder
#1

P/8 (typ.)

2P

4.5'

8'

8'

8'

4.5'

P/8 (typ.)

Cylinder
#2

Cylinder
#3

Cylinder
#4

2P

10

p.)

Load Distribution Unit Detail

p.)

p.)

2P

2P

1 ft Distribution Unit
Load
(typ.)
Cylinder
#1

Cylinder
#2

Cylinder
#3

Cylinder
#4

Hydraulic
Cylinder

Distribution
Beam
Distribution
Unit
11

Presentation Overview

1. Introduction and Methodology

2. Experimental Matrix
3. Load and Support Details
4. Test Results
5. Conclusions

12

700
Yield in BC
or End Web

600
500

LRFD Design Capacity = 418 lb/ft

Load (lb/ft)

400

K-Series Results

300

J1-1
J1-2

Unloading to
adjust test
apparatus.

200

J1-3
J1-4
J1-5

100

J1-6

DL = 43 lb/ft
0

Midspan Displacement (in)

10

11

12
13

2250

LH-Series Results

2000

Strain Hardening

Yield in
BC

1750

Load (lb/ft)

1500
1250

LRFD Design Capacity= 1303 lb/ft

1000
J2-1
J2-2
J2-3
J2-4
J2-5
J2-6

750
Unloading to adjust
test apparatus

500
250
0

DL = 77 lb/ft
0

Midspan Displacement (in)

10

11

12
14

800

Rod-Web Series Results

Apparent strain hardening

700
Yield of BC
and End Web

600

Load (lb/ft)

500
400

LRFD Design Capacity = 420 lb/ft

J3-1
J3-2
J3-3
J3-4
J3-5
J3-6

300
Unloaded to adjust
test apparatus

200
100
0

DL = 45 lb/ft
0

5
6
7
8
9
Midspan Displacement (in)

10

11

12

15

Strength Ratios

Y/D

1.7

P/D

Average Strength Ratio (-)

1.6

1.39

1.4
1.3

1.29

1.63

1.52

1.49

1.5

U/D

D = design strength

1.44
1.37
1.28

1.26

Y = yield strength
P = plastic strength

U = ult. strength

1.2
1.1
1.0

K (J1)

LH (J2)
Joist Series

Rod Web (J3)

16

Deflection Ratios (U/Y)

K-Series

4.5

LH-Series

3.5
3.0

3.15

3.79

Rod-Web-Series

2.83

Displacement Ratio U/ Y (-)

4.0

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0

4
Sample

Average
17

Presentation Overview

1. Introduction and Methodology

2. Experimental Matrix
3. Load and Support Details
4. Test Results
5. Conclusions

18

Conclusions

The tension-controlled yield limit state was successfully

achieved with all 18 test samples.
Relative strength factors of 0.80 for compression web, and
0.90 for top chord was sufficient to prevent primary limit
state compression failure.
Reserve strength relative to design capacity. Y-to-D
strength ratios = 1.30, P-to-D strength ratio = 1.40, and
U-to-D strength ratio = 1.50.
Significant ductility with average deflection ratios of U-to-Y
= 2.8, 3.8 and 3.2 for K-, LH-, and RW-Series.
19