aisc research program behavior of bolted steel slip critical
Post on 21-Dec-2016
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
AISC RESEARCH PROGRAM
Jerome F. Hajjar Mark DenavitProfessor and Narbey Khachaturian Faculty Scholar Graduate Research Chair, Structures Faculty Assistant
Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbana, Illinois
BEHAVIOR OF BOLTED STEEL SLIP CRITICAL CONNECTIONS WITH
FILLERS
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Background: ASD 1989 on SC Connections with Fillers
• ASD 1989 Section J3.8 on Slip Critical ConnectionsRn = FvAbNsFv is from RCSC Specification for oversized: 29 ksi for A490 Class B surface
• ASD 1989 Section J6 on FillersException on developing fillers for slip critical connections, but fills are developed for bearing connections
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Background: AISC 2005 on SC Connections with Fillers
• AISC 2005 Section J3.8 on Slip Critical ConnectionsRn = µDuhscTbNsConnections with standard holes or slots transverse to the direction of the load shall be designed for slip as a serviceability limit state, Ω = 1.50Connections with oversized holes or slots parallel to the direction of the load shall be designed to prevent slip at the required strength level, Ω = 1.76
• AISC 2005 Section J5 on FillersFor fillers with t ≥ ¼” or greater, one of the following shall apply:1. For fillers with t ≤ ¾”, Rn for bolt shear should be reduced
by [1-0.4(t-0.25)]. 2. Connection shall be extended and the filler developed3. Joint shall be extended to equivalent of #24. Joint shall be designed to prevent slip at required strength
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Fillers: Effect on Slip and Bolt Shear• W14x730
Standard holes and oversized holes• W14x455
Full (2 rows, with duplicate), half (1 row), and no development (0 rows)
• W14x159Full (4 rows), half (2 rows), and no development (0 rows, with duplicate)Two ply filler, no development (duplicate)TC bolts, half and no developmentWelded filler, full and half development
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Fillers: Effect on Slip and Bolt Shear
• To develop the filler to be fully developed, e.g., W14x159: 3.75”/(3.75”+1.19”)=76% of the slip critical strength of 24 splice plate bolts
• W14x159Actual number of rows needed to develop the filler:o 4.56 rows (fully developed) – we used 4 rowso 2.28 rows (half developed) – we used 2 rows
• W14x455Actual number of rows needed to develop the filler:o 2.01 rows (fully developed) – we used 2 rowso 1.00 rows (half developed) – we used 1 row
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Scenarios
• AISC 2005 strength with measured material properties and no φ or Ω factors should provide the best estimate of the test results
• If expected slip value can be reached consistently for all connections, we may be able to:
Verify ability to use different safety factors at “serviceability”and “required strength” levelLower the Ω of 1.76 (raise the φ of 0.85) for connections in which prevention of slip is at required strength level (i.e., oversized holes)Verify that the filler need not be developed if you design at the required strength level (noting that we are not using standard holes)
• If expected bolt shear value can be reached consistently for all connections, we may be able to:
Ensure that a new reduction formula is not needed for thick fillers even when designing at required strength levelEliminate required reductions for bolt shear strength (noting that we are not using standard holes)
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Scenarios
• If expected slip value cannot be reached consistently for all connections, that may indicate:
The Ω of 1.76 is appropriate for oversized holesThe filler needs to be developed (we can try to determine if it is a function of filler thickness)
• If expected bolt shear value cannot be reached consistently for all connections, that may indicate:
Recommend reductions for bolt shear strength for thick fillers or oversized holes to ensure safety
• If some test values meet the expected values and some do not, it will be necessary to reduce the data carefully
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
AISC Test Specimen 159n-2ply1
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007
“Required Strength” = slip critical strength of 24 bolts in splice plateComparison of ASD Codes (using design values)
AISC 2005 ASD 1989Specimen 11159n-2ply1
Pn
(kips) rank Pn/Ω(kips) rank Pallow
(kips) rank
between splice and filler 922 1 524 1 692 1
between filler and top column
922 1 524 1 692 1slip
between splice and bot. column
2,459 5 1,397 1,845
between splice and filler 1,789 3 895 3 954 3
between filler and top column
1,789 3 895 3 954 3
between splice and bot. column
4,771 2,386 2,545
between splice and filler (overstrength) 2,460 6 1,230 5 1,312 5
between filler and top column (overstrength) 2,460 6 1,230 5 1,312 5
shear
between splice and bot. column (overstrength) 6,561 3,280 3,499
splice plate 7,449 3,725 3,221bearing
w shape 4,432 2,216 1,916
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
AISC Test Specimen 159n-2ply1
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007
“Required Strength” = slip critical strength of 24 bolts in splice plate
Comparison of Limit States (using measured values)
AISC 2005Specimen 11159n-2ply1 Pn
(kips)rank Pn/Ω
(kips)rank
slip between splice and filler 1,173 1 666 1between filler and top column 1,173 1 666 1between splice and bot. column 3,128 1,777
shear between splice and filler 2,429 3 1,214 3between filler and top column 2,429 3 1,214 3between splice and bot. column 6,476 3,238
splice in compression 3,752 2,247W shape in compression 2,615 6 1,566 6fracture splice plate 4,551 2,276
w shape 2,473 5 1,237 5bearing splice plate 9,397 4,699
w shape 4,978 2,489
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
AISC Test Specimen 730-over“Required Strength” = slip critical strength of 24 bolts in splice plate
Comparison of ASD Codes (using design values)AISC 2005 ASD 1989Specimen 02
730-over Pn
(kips) rankPn/Ω(kips) rank
Pallow
(kips) rank
between splice and top column
922 1 524 1 692 1slip
between splice and bot. column 2,459 3 1,397 4 1,845 4
between splice and top column
1,789 2 895 2 954 2
between splice and bot. column
4,771 5 2,386 5 2,545 5
between splice and top column (overstrength)
2,460 4 1,230 3 1,312 3shear
between splice and bot. column (overstrength)
6,561 6 3,280 6 3,499
splice plate 7,449 3,725 3,221 6bearing
w shape 18,287 9,144 7,907
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
AISC Test Specimen 730-over“Required Strength” = slip critical strength of 24 bolts in splice plate
Comparison of Limit States (using measured values)
AISC 2005Specimen 02730-over Pn
(kips) rank Pn/Ω(kips) rank
between splice and top column 1,173 1 666 1
slipbetween splice and bot. column 3,128 3 1,777 3between splice and top column 2,429 2 1,214 2
shearbetween splice and bot. column 6,476 6 3,238 6
splice in compression 3,752 4 2,247 4
W shape in compression 13,330 7,982splice plate 4,551 5 2,276 5
fracturew shape 13,335 6,668splice plate 9,397 4,699
bearingw shape 23,633 11,816
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Measured Material Properties
Nominal MeasuredMaterial Yield Stress
Fy (ksi)Ultimate Stress
Fu (ksi)Yield Stress
Fy (ksi)Ultimate Stress
Fu (ksi)Top Column(W14x730) 50 65 62 84
Bottom Column(W14x730) 50 65 62 84
Splice Plates(2″ thick) 50 65 56 82
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007
84626550Bottom Column(W14x730)
MaterialNominal Measured
Yield StressFy (ksi)
Ultimate StressFu (ksi)
Yield StressFy (ksi)
Ultimate StressFu (ksi)
Top Column(W14x159) 50 65 56 73
Filler Plates(3½″ thick) 50 65 50 71
Filler Plates(¼″ thick) 50 65 53 75
Splice Plates(2″ thick) 50 65 56 82
LengthNominal Measured
PretensionTb (kips)
Shear StrengthFv (ksi)
PretensionTb (kips)
Shear StrengthFv (ksi)
9″(all bolts) 80 75 115 102
159n-2ply1Bolts
Bolts
159n-2ply1
730-over
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
AISC Test Specimen 01Slip Shear
1,085 kips
1,789 kips
Design Strength(Nominal Values)
1,380 kips
2,429 kips
Design Strength(Measured Values)
1,697kips
2,542 kips
Observed Strength
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.20
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000Load vs. Splice/Column Relative Displacement
Splice/Column Relative Displacement (in)
Load
(kip
s)
01t2s-1w01t2s-2w
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
AISC Test Specimen 01
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.50
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000Load vs. Top Column Displacement
Top Column Displacement (in)
Load
(kip
s)
01top-1e01top-1w
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000Load vs. Splice Plate (1 row bolts) Strain
Splice Plate (1 row bolts) Strain (µmm/mm)
Load
(kip
s)
01spl-5n01spl-6n01spl-5s01spl-6s
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000Load vs. Splice Plate (3 rows bolts) Strain
Splice Plate (3 rows bolts) Strain (µmm/mm)
Load
(kip
s)
01spl-3n01spl-4n01spl-3s01spl-4s
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000Load vs. Splice Plate (6 rows bolts) Strain
Splice Plate (6 rows bolts) Strain (µmm/mm)
Load
(kip
s)
01spl-1n01spl-2n01spl-1s01spl-2s
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
AISC Research ProgramKeeping Steel Competitive Through Research
Answer questions that arise in steel performanceo Simplify the specification while retaining safe and reliable designso Examples:
Allowing no continuity plates in high seismic zonesEnable steel to be the premier material for projects ranging from fast and simple construction to the most sophisticated building structures in the world o New building topologies demand new technologieso Steel is sustainableGenerate new ideas and new productso Examples:
New doubler plate details that lessen the amount of weldingBuckling restrained brace can rejuvenate steel braced frames in seismic zonesDirect analysis can lead the way internationally in stability design to enable diverse building configurations while simplifying calculationsComposite construction provisions are improving continuously
Stay current with evolving mill, fabrication, and construction practiceso Other materials are innovatingFacilitate adaptation to or drive innovation in new information technology
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
New Doubler Plate Details
45° beveleddoubler plate
Heavy filletwelds
Approx. 7/8" gap
Heavy filletwelds
Approximately2/3 width of girder
flange
Act as bothdoubler plate andcontinuity plate
Full penetration welds
Heavy CJPweld
Potential fracture regionCurrent practice:
Alternatives:
Fillet I Fillet II Box
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Typical Full-Scale Cruciform Test Specimen
144"
144"
85.5"
85.5"
171"
132"140"
72"
W14x176
W24x94W24x94
Two 77-kipactuators
Two 77-kipactuators
Pin
Pin
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Local Flange Bending and Local Web Yield Limit States
Local web yielding (LWY)
Girder Flange
Local flange bending (LFB)
Column web
Column flangePull hard
Pull hard
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
AISC Research Program• Innovation in Steel Is Best Spearheaded by
AISC-funded ResearchNSF and other federal agencies typically do not fund research needed to aid directly a design specification or manual (however, they may partner on such projects) AISC funds can be used to provide excellent leverage (order of magnitude or more) for funds from NSF, DOT, etc.o Typical NSF project: $300K-$750K for three years,
$1.6M for four years, $2M for five yearso Typical DOT project: $150K-$200K for two yearsAISC has strong influence over outcome and use of research
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
AISC Relations with Universities
• Future employees for steel and consulting industries are typically hired from structural engineering programs at research-oriented universities
These universities are driven by researchThe faculty are expected to obtain research funds and projects and publish resultsAISC is an outstanding and critical partner for faculty interested in steel structures nationwide
MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
University of Illinois Structures Program
• 52 Faculty, 15 in Structures• 60 MS and 60 PhD Full-Time Students• Graduate 40 MS and 10 PhD Students per year
Nathan M. Newmark, Head of CE, 1956-1976
MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
University of Illinois Structures Program
• Consistently Top Ranked CEE Department with many distinguished alumni who are contributing to the steel industry:– Jim Fisher– Stan Rolfe– Bruce Ellingwood– Shankar Nair– Jim HarrisEmeritus Faculty:– Bill Munse– Jim Stallmyer– Doug Foutch– Bill Hall– Nathan Newmark
MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
NEES@IllinoisNEES@Illinois: MUST: MUST--SIM: SIM: MultiaxialMultiaxial FullFull--Scale Scale SubstructuredSubstructured
Testing and Simulation FacilityTesting and Simulation Facility
http://http://nees.uiuc.edunees.uiuc.edu
MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation: Experimental Sites
Oregon State Universityhttp://nees.orst.edu/
University of California, Davishttp://nees.ucdavis.edu/
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institutehttp://nees.rpi.edu/
Brigham Young University/ University of California, Santa Barbara
http://nees.ucsb.edu/
University of Texas at Austinhttp://nees.utexas.edu/
University of California, Los Angeleshttp://nees.ucla.edu/
University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaignhttp://nees.uiuc.edu/
University of California, Berkeleyhttp://nees.berkeley.edu
Lehigh Universityhttp://www.nees.lehigh.edu/
University of Minnesotahttp://nees.umn.eduUniversity of Colorado, Boulder
http://nees.colorado.edu/
Embedded pipeline experiment
Low modular wall(13 segments total)
Ductile highway support system experiment
0.9m
seg
men
ts,
up to
7.2
m
1.8m
1.8m
1.2m
High modular walls (16 segments total)
1.2m 3m
3m
Low modular wall(13 segments total)
1.8m
1.8m
1.2m
High modular walls (16 segments total)
1.2m 3m
3m
Cornell Universityhttp://nees.cornell.edu/
University of California, San Diegohttp://nees.ucsd.edu/
University of Nevada, Renohttp://nees.unr.edu/
University at Buffalo, SUNYhttp://nees.buffalo.edu/
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Composite Columns
• Steel reinforced concrete (SRCs, Encased Composite Columns)
• Concrete-filled tubes (CFTs, Filled Composite Columns)
From R. Kanno, Nippon Steel Corporation
From R. T. Leon, Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
MAST Facility
From NEES@Minnesota
• The MAST facility permits the comprehensive testing of a wide range of composite beam-columns subjected to three dimensional loading at a realistic scale.
Degree of Freedom
Load Stroke/ Rotation
X-Translation ±880 kips ±16 in
X-Rotation ±8,910 kip-ft ±7°
Y-Translation ±880 kips ±16 in
Y-Rotation ±8,910 kip-ft ±7°
Z-Translation ±1,320 kips ±20 in
Z-Rotation ±13,200 kip-ft ±10°
Maximum non-concurrent capacities of MAST DOFs
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Database Development
• Work of previous researchers (Aho, Kim, Goode) combined to create a comprehensive worldwide database
• Database will be used to identify gaps in test data and calibrate computational model
P/Po
RCFT CCFT SRC
P/PoP/Po
λλ
M/MdM/Md
λ
M/Md
CCFT RCFT SRC
Columns 762 455 119Beam-
Columns395 189 120
Number of Tests
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDecember 5, 2007MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Preliminary Test Matrix
MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Controlled Rocking of Steel Frame Structures
• Corner of frame is allowed to uplift.
• Fuses absorb seismic energy
• Post-tensioning brings the structure back to center.
Result is a building where the structural damage is concentrated in replaceable fuses with little or no residual drift
MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
UIUC Half Scale Tests
Post-Tensiong
Strands
Fuse
Stiff Braced Frame
Bumpers
Loading and Boundary Condition Box (LBCB)
Strong Wall
MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
E-Defense Testbed Structure
Plan View
shaking direction
Section
E-Defense
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign13 November 2007
AISC TC 5: Composite ConstructionThinking of composite structural members (SRC beam-columns,
Composite Walls, Composite Base Conditions; note that CFTs coveredcommonly by AISC rarely have shear connectors)...
Beam-columns Infill Walls
Composite Base
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign13 November 2007
Shear Connector Provisions: MonotonicnFACV usVVs ⋅⋅⋅⋅=⋅ φφ
Steel Failure:-Tension:
-Shear: nFACN ustts ⋅⋅⋅⋅=⋅ φφ
n: number of studsAs: cross sectional area of studFu: ultimate strength of stud
φv Cv φt Ct
1.00* -
1.00
0.75
0.80
0.70
-
1.00
-
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.65
0.75
0.65
0.80 -
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
ACI 318-05ACI 318-08
φv ·Cv φt ·Ct
AISC 1.00 -
PCI 4th 0.75 0.90
PCI 6th 0.65 0.75Ductile steelelement 0.75 0.80
Brittle steelelement 0.65 0.70
EC-4 0.64 -
- * The reduction factor is grouped with the flexural phi factor, φb, which is 0.85 for plastic redistribution of stress or0.90 for an elastic stress distribution on the section- Canadian Standard and CEB are similar to ACI 318-05
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign13 November 2007
Shear Connector Provisions: Cyclic
ξ
AISC 341-05 0.75
ACI 318-05
ACI 318-08 0.30
Klingner et al. (1982) 0.50*,**
0.83*Hawkins and Mitchell (1984)
0.71**
Makino (1985) 0.50
NEHRP (2003) 0.75
0.75
Gattesco and Giuriani (1996) 0.90*
mc RR ⋅⋅=⋅ φξφ Rc : cyclic resistanceRm : monotonic resistance
-*: faliure of the stud-**: failure of the concrete
Reduction factor by cyclic loading (ξ):
0.60 *, **Civjan and Singh (2003)
AISC
EC-4 0.75*,**Zandoniniand Bursi (2002) 0.55*,**
Bursi and Gramola (1999) 0.68 *,**
ξ
-*: faliure of the stud-**: failure of the concrete
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign13 November 2007
Shear Connector Strength
Proposal: φ, 0.9 ·CvAISC
AISC Stud StrengthSteel Failure in Test
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
0 50 100 150Test Number
Vs(te
st)/V
s(pr
edic
ted)
AISC Stud Strength (Steel Only)Steel Failure in Test
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
0 50 100 150Test Number
Vs(te
st)/V
s(pr
edic
ted)
Proposal: φ, 0.8 ·Cv
AISC Stud Strength (Steel Only)Steel Failure in Test
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
0 50 100 150Test Number
Vs(te
st)/V
s(pr
edic
ted)
136 Shear Tests AISC (φ, Cv) AISC (φ, 0.9·Cv) AISC (φ, 0.8·Cv)
1.052
0.135
1.184
0.151
Average 1.009
Stand. Dev. 0.122
36
Mid-America Earthquake Center
Mid-America Earthquake Center: Consequence-Based Risk Management (CRM)
• The Component (Engineering) Solution– Addresses the vulnerability of a component– Judges its adequacy on its own merit
• The Network (Single System) Solution– Addresses the vulnerability of one system– Judges its adequacy on its own merit
• The CRM (Integrated) Solution– Addresses the vulnerability of all systems– Judges adequacy on their
integrated performance
__
_ _
__ _
_ _
__
__
_
Iowa
Kansas
IllinoisOhio
Nebraska
Missouri
Okl h
outh Dakota Wisconsin
Vir
Indiana
Michigan
Kentucky
Tennessee
Penns
North C
West VirginiaTopeka
Lincoln
LansingMadison
Columbus
Frankfort Charleston
Des Moines
Springfield Indianapolis
Jefferson City
Nashville-Davidson
37
Mid-America Earthquake Center
Memphis Test Bed: Scenario Event Prediction
MAEvizStudy Region:
Shelby County, TNDamage Assessment of Buildings
HAZARD MODEL (earthquake intensity contours are shown):
Deterministic
New Madrid Seismic Zone
Moment Magnitude 7.7
LEGEND FOR BUILDING TYPE
Red crosses: hospitals
Purple squares: schools
Orange squares: fire stations
Blue diamonds: police stations
White circles: bridges
Yellow triangle: airport
LEGEND FOR DAMAGE BARS
Red: % extensive damage
Yellow: % moderate damage
Blue: % light damage
Damage to critical facilities
Structural Integrity Modeling and Laser-Based Verification
Examples of Models:
Collapse modeling of an office structure (ASI)
Collapse modeling vs. the real demolition of a building (ASI)
Collapse modeling vs. the real demolition of a stadium (ASI)
Discrete Element Modeling of Severely Damaged Structures• Prediction of structural integrity
• New modeling approaches for extreme loadings
• Determine minimum requirements for steel structures
Laser-Based Verification of Severely Damaged Structures
• High-speed accurate lasers
• Capture dynamic collapse and verify against models
MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Modeling of Moulin Formation in Ice Shelves
MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Steel Construction within a Global Context
Google earth
French, Sritharan
et al. 2006
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000Time (seconds)
Mic
rost
rain
Cycle G4-3-A
Cycle G4-3-A
SBBSBG1-a
SBBSBG1-b
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000Time (seconds)
Mic
rost
rain
Cycle G4-3-A
Cycle G4-3-A
SBBSBG1-a
SBBSBG1-b
Collaborative Augmented Reality and
Analysis
www.iris.edu
MAE Center
MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
Acknowledgments: UIUC, NEES and MAEC Projects
MUST-SIM and MAEC Co-Investigators: Amr Elnashai, Bill Spencer, Dan Kuchma
Composite Column Co-Investigators (CC): Roberto Leon
Controlled Rocking Co-Investigators (CR): Gregory Deierlein, Sarah Billington, Helmut Krawinkler
Research Engineers: Hussam Mahmoud, Michael Bletzinger, Greg Banas, shop personnel
Graduate Students: Comp Col: Mark Denavit (UIUC), Tiziano Perea (GIT)Rocking: Matthew Eatherton (UIUC), Noel Vivar (UIUC)
Xiang Ma and Alex Pena (Stanford)Comp Conn: Luis Palleres (post-doctoral associate)
MAEC CRM: Josh SteelmanIntegrity: Sara Walsh, Lily Rong
Ice Shelves: Maribel Gonzalez
Undergraduate Students: Mark Bingham, Michael Kehoe, Matthew Parkolap, Brent Mattis, Lina Rong, Angelia Tanamal
Sponsors: National Science FoundationAmerican Institute of Steel Construction
University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGeorgia Institute of Technology (CC)
Stanford University (CR)
In-Kind Funding: W&W SteelUniversity of Cincinnati
LeJeune Steel Company (CC)Tefft Bridge & Iron (CR)
Infra-Metals (CR)
MUST-SIMMUST-SIM
THANK YOU
Chicago, Illinois
Urbana-Champaign,
Illinois
top related