aisc research program - UIUC Newmark Structural Engineering ...

MUST-SIM 

AISC RESEARCH PROGRAM 

BEHAVIOR OF BOLTED STEEL SLIP 

CRITICAL CONNECTIONS WITH 

FILLERS 

Jerome F. Hajjar Mark Denavit 

Professor and Narbey Khachaturian Faculty Scholar Graduate Research 

Chair, Structures Faculty Assistant 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Urbana, Illinois 


December 5, 2007

Background: ASD 1989 on SC Connections with Fillers 

• ASD 1989 Section J3.8 on Slip Critical Connections 

� R n = F v A b N s 

� F v is from RCSC Specification for oversized: 29 ksi for 

A490 Class B surface 

• ASD 1989 Section J6 on Fillers 

� Exception on developing fillers for slip critical 

connections, but fills are developed for bearing 

connections 

MUST-SIM 


December 5, 2007

Background: AISC 2005 on SC Connections with Fillers 

• AISC 2005 Section J3.8 on Slip Critical Connections 

� R n = µD uh scT bN s 

� Connections with standard holes or slots transverse 

to the direction of the load shall be designed for slip 

as a serviceability limit state, Ω = 1.50 

� Connections 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 Fillers 

� For fillers with t ≥ ¼” or greater, one of the following 

shall apply: 

1. For fillers with t ≤ ¾”, R n for bolt shear should be reduced 

by [1-0.4(t-0.25)]. 

2. Connection shall be extended and the filler developed 

3. Joint shall be extended to equivalent of #2 

4. Joint shall be designed to prevent slip at required strength 

MUST-SIM 


December 5, 2007

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) 

• W14x159 

� Full (4 rows), half (2 rows), and no development 

(0 rows, with duplicate) 

� Two ply filler, no development (duplicate) 

� TC bolts, half and no development 

� Welded filler, full and half development 

MUST-SIM 


December 5, 2007

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 

• W14x159 

� Actual number of rows needed to develop the filler: 

o 4.56 rows (fully developed) – we used 4 rows 

o 2.28 rows (half developed) – we used 2 rows 

• W14x455 

� Actual number of rows needed to develop the filler: 

o 2.01 rows (fully developed) – we used 2 rows 

o 1.00 rows (half developed) – we used 1 row 

MUST-SIM 


December 5, 2007

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” level 

� Lower 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 level 

� Eliminate required reductions for bolt shear strength (noting 

that we are not using standard holes) 

MUST-SIM 


December 5, 2007

Scenarios 

• If expected slip value cannot be reached consistently for 

all connections, that may indicate: 

� The Ω of 1.76 is appropriate for oversized holes 

� The 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 

MUST-SIM 


December 5, 2007

AISC Test Specimen 159n-2ply1 

“Required Strength” = slip critical strength of 24 bolts in splice plate 

Comparison of ASD Codes (using design values) 

slip 

shear 

Specimen 11 

159n-2ply1 

MUST-SIM 

Pn 

(kips) 

AISC 2005 ASD 1989 

rank 

Pn/Ω 

(kips) 

rank 

Pallow 

(kips) 

between splice and filler 922 1 524 1 692 1 

between filler and top 

column 

between splice and bot. 

column 


December 5, 2007 

rank 

922 1 524 1 692 1 

2,459 5 1,397 1,845 

between splice and filler 1,789 3 895 3 954 3 


column 


column 

between splice and filler 

(overstrength) 


column (overstrength) 


column (overstrength) 

1,789 3 895 3 954 3 

4,771 2,386 2,545 

2,460 6 1,230 5 1,312 5 

2,460 6 1,230 5 1,312 5 

6,561 3,280 3,499 

splice plate 7,449 3,725 3,221 

bearing w shape 4,432 2,216 1,916

AISC Test Specimen 159n-2ply1 


MUST-SIM 

Comparison of Limit States 

(using measured values) 

Specimen 11 

159n-2ply1 

AISC 2005 

Pn 

(kips) 

rank 

Pn/Ω 

(kips) 

slip between splice and filler 1,173 1 666 1 

between filler and top column 1,173 1 666 1 

between splice and bot. column 3,128 1,777 

shear between splice and filler 2,429 3 1,214 3 

between filler and top column 2,429 3 1,214 3 

between splice and bot. column 6,476 3,238 

splice in compression 3,752 2,247 

W shape in compression 2,615 6 1,566 6 

fracture splice plate 4,551 2,276 

w shape 2,473 5 1,237 5 

bearing splice plate 9,397 4,699 

w shape 4,978 2,489 

rank 


December 5, 2007

AISC Test Specimen 730-over 


Comparison of ASD Codes (using design values) 

slip 

shear 

bearing 

MUST-SIM 

Specimen 02 

730-over 

Pn 

(kips) 

AISC 2005 ASD 1989 

rank 

Pn/Ω 

(kips) 

rank 

Pallow 

(kips) 



rank 

between splice 

and top column 

922 1 524 1 692 1 


and bot. column 

2,459 3 1,397 4 1,845 4 



1,789 2 895 2 954 2 




4,771 5 2,386 5 2,545 5 




2,460 4 1,230 3 1,312 3 



6,561 6 3,280 6 3,499 

splice plate 7,449 3,725 3,221 6 

w shape 18,287 9,144 7,907

AISC Test Specimen 730-over 


MUST-SIM 

Comparison of Limit States 

(using measured values) 

Specimen 02 

730-over 

Pn 

(kips) 

AISC 2005 

rank 

Pn/Ω 

(kips) 



rank 

slip 

between splice and top 

column 


1,173 1 666 1 

column 

between splice and top 

3,128 3 1,777 3 

shear 

column 


2,429 2 1,214 2 

column 6,476 6 3,238 6 

splice in compression 3,752 4 2,247 4 

W shape in compression 13,330 7,982 

splice plate 4,551 5 2,276 5 

fracture w shape 13,335 6,668 

splice plate 9,397 4,699 

bearing w shape 23,633 11,816

59n-2ply1 

olts 

Measured Material Properties 

Material 

Top Column 

(W14x159) 

Bottom Column 

(W14x730) 

Filler Plates 

(3½″ thick) 

Filler Plates 

(¼″ thick) 

Splice Plates 

(2″ thick) 

730-over 

MUST-SIM 

Bolts 

Yield Stress 

F y (ksi) 

50 

Nominal Measured 

Ultimate Stress 

F u (ksi) 

65 

Yield Stress 

F y (ksi) 

62 

Ultimate Stress 

F u (ksi) 

50 65 56 73 

50 65 50 71 

50 65 53 75 

50 65 56 82 


Material Yield Stress Ultimate Stress Yield Stress Ultimate Stress 

Top Column 

(W14x730) 

Fy (ksi) 

50 

Fu (ksi) 

65 

Fy (ksi) 

62 

Fu (ksi) 

84 

Bottom Column 

(W14x730) 

50 65 62 84 

Splice Plates 

(2″ thick) 

50 65 56 82 


Length Pretension Shear Strength Pretension Shear Strength 

9″ 

(all bolts) 

Tb (kips) 

80 

Fv (ksi) 

75 

Tb (kips) 

115 

Fv (ksi) 

102 



84 

159n-2ply1

AISC Test Specimen 01 

MUST-SIM 

Load (kips) 

Design Strength 

(Nominal Values) 

Design Strength 

(Measured Values) 

Observed Strength 

Slip Shear 

1,085 

kips 

1,380 

kips 

1,697 

kips 

Load vs. Splice/Column Relative Displacement 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

01t2s-1w 

01t2s-2w 

0 

-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 

Splice/Column Relative Displacement (in) 



1,789 

kips 

2,429 

kips 

2,542 

kips

AISC Test Specimen 01 

Load (kips) 

Load (kips) 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

01top-1e 

01top-1w 

0 

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 

MUST-SIM 

Load vs. Top Column Displacement 

Top Column Displacement (in) 

Load vs. Splice Plate (3 rows bolts) Strain 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

01spl-3n 

01spl-4n 

500 

01spl-3s 

01spl-4s 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 

Splice Plate (3 rows bolts) Strain (µmm/mm) 

Load (kips) 

Load (kips) 

2500 

2000 

1500 



Load vs. Splice Plate (1 row bolts) Strain 

3000 

1000 

01spl-5n 

01spl-6n 

500 

01spl-5s 

01spl-6s 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 

2500 

2000 

1500 

Splice Plate (1 row bolts) Strain (µmm/mm) 

Load vs. Splice Plate (6 rows bolts) Strain 

3000 

1000 

01spl-1n 

01spl-2n 

500 

01spl-1s 

01spl-2s 

0 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 

Splice Plate (6 rows bolts) Strain (µmm/mm)

AISC Research Program 

Keeping Steel Competitive Through Research 

� Answer questions that arise in steel performance 

o Simplify the specification while retaining safe and reliable designs 

o Examples: 

� Allowing no continuity plates in high seismic zones 

� Enable 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 technologies 

o Steel is sustainable 

� Generate new ideas and new products 

o Examples: 

� New doubler plate details that lessen the amount of welding 

� Buckling restrained brace can rejuvenate steel braced frames in seismic zones 

� Direct analysis can lead the way internationally in stability design to enable 

diverse building configurations while simplifying calculations 

� Composite construction provisions are improving continuously 

� Stay current with evolving mill, fabrication, and construction practices 

o Other materials are innovating 

� Facilitate adaptation to or drive innovation in new information 

technology 

MUST-SIM 


December 5, 2007

New Doubler Plate Details 

Alternatives: 

MUST-SIM 

45° beveled 

doubler plate 

Heavy fillet 

welds 

Current 

practice: 

Heavy CJP 

weld 

Approx. 7/8" gap 

Heavy fillet 

welds 



Potential fracture region 

Act as both 

doubler plate and 

continuity plate 

Approximately 

2/3 width of girder 

flange 

Full penetration welds 

Fillet I Fillet II Box

Typical Full-Scale Cruciform Test Specimen 

144" 

MUST-SIM 

144" 

W24x94 

Two 77-kip 

actuators 

72" 

85.5" 

85.5" 

Pin 

140" 

132" 

W24x94 

W14x176 

Pin 



Two 77-kip 

actuators 

171"

Local Flange Bending and Local Web Yield Limit States 

Column flange 

Local flange 

bending (LFB) 

Column web 

MUST-SIM 

Pull hard 

Pull hard 



Girder Flange 

Local web 

yielding (LWY)

AISC Research Program 

• Innovation in Steel Is Best Spearheaded by 

AISC-funded Research 

� NSF 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 years 

o Typical DOT project: $150K-$200K for two years 

� AISC has strong influence over outcome and use of 

research 

MUST-SIM 


December 5, 2007

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 research 

� The faculty are expected to obtain research funds 

and projects and publish results 

� AISC is an outstanding and critical partner for faculty 

interested in steel structures nationwide 

MUST-SIM 


December 5, 2007

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 

MUST-SIM 

Nathan M. Newmark, Head of CE, 1956-1976

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 Harris 

Emeritus Faculty: 

– Bill Munse 

– Jim Stallmyer 

– Doug Foutch 

– Bill Hall 

– Nathan Newmark 

MUST-SIM

MUST-SIM 

NEES@Illinois: NEES@Illinois: 

MUST-SIM: 

MUST SIM: 

Multiaxial Full-Scale Full Scale Substructured 

Testing and Simulation Facility 

http://nees.uiuc.edu 

http:// nees.uiuc.edu

Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation: Experimental Sites 

Oregon State University 

http://nees.orst.edu/ 

University of Nevada, Reno 

http://nees.unr.edu/ 

University of California, Davis 

http://nees.ucdavis.edu/ 

University of California, Berkeley 

http://nees.berkeley.edu 

MUST-SIM 

Brigham Young University/ 

University of California, Santa Barbara 

http://nees.ucsb.edu/ 

University of California, San Diego 

University of California, Los Angeles http://nees.ucsd.edu/ 

http://nees.ucla.edu/ 

University of Minnesota 

http://nees.umn.edu 

University of Colorado, Boulder 

http://nees.colorado.edu/ 

University of Texas at Austin 

http://nees.utexas.edu/ 

High modular walls 

(16 segments total) 

0.9m segments, 

up to 7.2m 

3m 

1.2m 3m 

Embedded pipeline 

experiment 

University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign 

http://nees.uiuc.edu/ 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

http://nees.rpi.edu/ 

Ductile highway support 

system experiment 

Low modular wall 

(13 segments total) 

1.2m 

1.8m 

1.8m 

Lehigh University 

http://www.nees.lehigh.edu/ 

University at Buffalo, SUNY 

http://nees.buffalo.edu/ 

Cornell University 

http://nees.cornell.edu/

Composite Columns 

• Steel reinforced concrete 

(SRCs, Encased 

Composite Columns) 

MUST-SIM 

From R. T. Leon, 

Georgia Institute of Technology 



• Concrete-filled tubes 

(CFTs, Filled Composite 

Columns) 

From R. Kanno, 

Nippon Steel Corporation

MAST Facility 

MUST-SIM 

From NEES@Minnesota 

• The MAST facility permits the 

comprehensive testing of a wide 

range of composite beamcolumns 

subjected to three 

dimensional loading at a realistic 

scale. 

Degree of 

Freedom 



Maximum non-concurrent 

capacities of MAST DOFs 

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°

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 

λ 

MUST-SIM 

M/M d 

RCFT CCFT SRC 

P/P o 

λ 

M/M d 

P/P o 



λ 

CCFT RCFT SRC 

Columns 762 455 119 

Beam- 

Columns 

Number of Tests 

395 189 120 

M/M d 

P/P o

Preliminary Test Matrix 

MUST-SIM 


December 5, 2007

Controlled Rocking of Steel Frame Structures 

MUST-SIM 

• 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-SIM 

Post- 

Tensiong 

Strands 

UIUC Half Scale Tests 

Loading and Boundary 

Condition Box (LBCB) 

Stiff Braced 

Frame 

Fuse 

Bumpers 

Strong Wall

MUST-SIM 

E-Defense Testbed Structure 

shaking 

direction 

Plan View 

Section 

E-Defense

AISC TC 5: Composite Construction 

�Thinking of composite structural members (SRC beam-columns, 

Composite Walls, Composite Base Conditions; note that CFTs covered 

commonly by AISC rarely have shear connectors)... 

Beam-columns Infill Walls 


13 November 2007 

Composite Base

Shear Connector Provisions: Monotonic 

Steel Failure: 

-Tension: 

-Shear: 

φ ⋅Vs = φV 

⋅CV 

⋅ As 

⋅ Fu 

⋅ n 

φ ⋅ N s = φt 

⋅Ct 

⋅ As 

⋅ Fu 

⋅n 



n: number of studs 

A s : cross sectional area of stud 

F u : ultimate strength of stud 

φv Cv φv ·Cv φt Ct AISC 1.00* 1.00 1.00 - - - 

PCI 4th 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.90 0.90 

PCI 6th 0.65 1.00 0.65 0.75 1.00 0.75 

ACI 318-05 

ACI 318-08 

Ductile steel 

φ t ·C t 

element 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.80 1.00 0.80 

Brittle steel 

element 0.65 1.00 0.65 0.70 1.00 0.70 

EC-4 0.80 0.80 0.64 - - - 

- * The reduction factor is grouped with the flexural phi factor, φ b , which is 0.85 for plastic redistribution of stress or 

0.90 for an elastic stress distribution on the section 

- Canadian Standard and CEB are similar to ACI 318-05

Shear Connector Provisions: Cyclic 

Reduction factor by cyclic loading (ξ): 

AISC 341-05 0.75 

ACI 318-05 

ACI 318-08 0.30 

NEHRP (2003) 0.75 

Klingner et al. (1982) 0.50*,** 

Hawkins and Mitchell (1984) 

ξ 

0.75 

0.83* 

0.71** 

Makino (1985) 0.50 

Gattesco and Giuriani (1996) 0.90* 

-*: faliure of the stud 

-**: failure of the concrete 

φ ⋅ R = ξ ⋅φ 

⋅ R 



c 

Civjan and Singh (2003) 

m 

R c : cyclic resistance 

R m : monotonic resistance 

Bursi and Gramola (1999) 0.68 *,** 

Zandonini 

EC-4 0.75*,** 

and Bursi (2002) AISC 0.55*,** 

-*: faliure of the stud 

-**: failure of the concrete 

ξ 

0.60 *, **

Vs(test)/Vs(predicted) 

Shear Connector Strength 

2.00 

1.50 

1.00 

0.50 

0.00 

AISC 

AISC Stud Strength 

Steel Failure in Test 

0 50 100 150 

Test Number 


2.00 

1.50 

1.00 

0.50 

0.00 

Proposal: φ, 0.9 ·C v 

AISC Stud Strength (Steel Only) 


0 50 100 150 

Test Number 

136 Shear Tests AISC (φ, Cv) AISC (φ, 0.9·Cv) AISC (φ, 0.8·Cv) 

Average 1.009 

Stand. Dev. 0.122 

1.052 

0.135 




2.00 

1.50 

1.00 

0.50 

0.00 

Proposal: φ, 0.8 ·C v 

AISC Stud Strength (Steel Only) 


0 50 100 150 

Test Number 

1.184 

0.151

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 

Mid-America Earthquake Center 

outh ^_ Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

Okl h 

^_ 

Lincoln 

^_ 

Topeka 

^_ 

Iowa 

^_ 

Des Moines 

Wisconsin 

Madison Michigan 

^_ Lansing 

^_ 

36 

Ohio 

^_ Columbus 

Illinois Indiana 

^_ 

^_ 

Springfield Indianapolis 

West Virginia 

Jefferson City 

Frankfort ^_ Charleston 

^_ 

^_ 

Missouri 

Vir 

Kentucky 

Nashville-Davidson 

^_ 

Tennessee 

Penns 

North C

Memphis Test Bed: Scenario Event Prediction 

Mid-America Earthquake Center 

Damage to critical facilities 

MAEviz 

Study Region: 

Shelby County, TN 

Damage 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 

37

Structural Integrity Modeling and Laser-Based Verification 

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-SIM 

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)

Modeling of Moulin Formation in Ice Shelves 

MUST-SIM

Steel Construction within a Global Context 

www.iris.edu 

Google 

earth 

MAE Center 

French, 

Sritharan 

et al. 

2006 

Microstrain 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

-2000 

SBBSBG1-a 

SBBSBG1-b 

Cycle G4-3-A 

Cycle G4-3-A 

-4000 

0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 

Time (seconds) 

Collaborative 

Augmented Reality and 

Analysis

Acknowledgments: UIUC, NEES and MAEC Projects 

MUST-SIM and MAEC Co-Investigators: Amr Elnashai, Bill Spencer, Dan Kuchma 

MUST-SIM 

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 Steelman 

Integrity: 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 Foundation 

American Institute of Steel Construction 


Georgia Institute of Technology (CC) 

Stanford University (CR) 

In-Kind Funding: W&W Steel 

University of Cincinnati 

LeJeune Steel Company (CC) 

Tefft Bridge & Iron (CR) 

Infra-Metals (CR)

MUST-SIM 

THANK YOU 

Chicago, Illinois 

Urbana- 

Champaign, 

Illinois

aisc research program - UIUC Newmark Structural Engineering ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?