Research Article Cyclic and Explosive Evaluation of New …downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ace/2016/4975097.pdf · 2019-07-30 · Research Article Cyclic and Explosive Evaluation of

Research ArticleCyclic and Explosive Evaluation of New Proposed Steel Joint

Iman Faridmehr1 Yusof Ahmad2 Mahmood Md Tahir1 and Mohd Hanim Osman1

1UTM Construction Research Centre (CRC) Institute of Smart Infrastructures and Innovative ConstructionUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) 81300 Skudai Johor Bahru Malaysia2Faculty of Civil Engineering Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 81310 Johor Malaysia

Correspondence should be addressed to Mahmood Md Tahir mahmoodtahirutmmy

Received 2 August 2015 Revised 23 October 2015 Accepted 1 November 2015

Academic Editor John Mander

Copyright copy 2016 Iman Faridmehr et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

The behaviour of a novel steel beam-to-column connection the saddlebag subjected to cyclic and progressive collapse wasevaluated in this paper The cyclic behaviour considered the interstory drift angle and flexural strength in accordance with 2010AISC Seismic Provisions while progressive collapse assessment was evaluated through the plastic hinge rotation angle based onacceptance criteria provided in the UFC 4-023-03 guideline From the cyclic test one complete cycle of an interstory drift angleof 006 rad was satisfied for the saddlebag connection which is an indication of the effectiveness in accordance with 2010 AISCSeismic Provisions Besides the new proposed connection developed adequate catenary action which is a fundamental criterionto resist against progressive collapse The resulting fuller hysteretic loops with large energy dissipation capacity in the proposedsaddlebag connection guarantee its ability to address the inelastic deformation demands in earthquake conditions

1 Introduction

After the 1994 Northridge California earthquake giventhe damage to steel moment frame connections there wasgreat concern among engineers regarding the authentic-ity of the established construction and design proceduresDamage occurred in beam-to-column joints experiencingrotation levels way below the yield capacity of the framingmembers This unexpected brittle fracture was contrary tothe projected design philosophy and performance of theseframes which was the dissipation of energy through theformation of ductile plastic hinges in steel beams Afterthe earthquake a great deal of research was conducted toinvestigate the behaviour of fully restrained connections[1ndash5] It was generally concluded that adequate inelasticrotational capacity of sufficient reliability cannot be providedusing the pre-Northridge connections where fracture ledto failure of all connections at or close to the beam flangegroove welds Figure 1(a) illustrates a sample detail of a testedconnection and Figure 1(b) shows its experimental responsehaving plotted the bending moment at the column faceagainst plastic rotation Similar tomany other pre-Northridgespecimens no plastic moment of the beam was developed

by this connection and a premature failure with mainly noductility was exhibited by this connection as well

Meanwhile since the 1968 Ronan Point apartment towerdisaster which led to the partial collapse of the building thesignificance of structural resistance to progressive collapsehad become more evident Furthermore this acceleratedtrend of investigation was redoubled after the September11 attacks After the occurrence of high profile structuralfailures due to progressive collapse the previous research onthis subject continued at a faster rate [6ndash10] This researchrevealed that by the time an interior column is removedfrom the structure by an explosion or a terrorist attack forinstance an alternative load path will be developed by theadjacent structural assemblage including beams columnsand joints Besides it was found that the extent of catenaryaction was controlled by the rotational capacity of beam-to-column joints Figure 2 shows how following the eliminationof a structural support high catenary forces resulting fromsubsequent large deformations will be produced in thesystem Accordingly both the beam-to-column connectionand the beam cross section must resist the huge axial forcesthat are created while undergoing large deformations

Hindawi Publishing CorporationAdvances in Civil EngineeringVolume 2016 Article ID 4975097 11 pageshttpdxdoiorg10115520164975097

2 Advances in Civil Engineering

TYP

(both sides)

W14 times 257(A572 Gr 50)

1030∘

Bolts 10ndash22mm A325-SCHoles 24mm

88

1008

8 75

W36 times 150 (A36)

T amp B flangesE70T-4Backing bar and weld tabsto remain in placeCJPmdash3 sides

times 150PL 12times 127 times 760PL 16

T amp B of PL

T amp B of PL

(a) Connection detail for test specimen

Brittle fracture at bottomflange weld

Mp

Mp

minus5000

minus4000

minus3000

minus2000

minus1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Bend

ing

mom

ent (

kNmiddotm

)

0 001 002 003minus002 minus001minus003

Plastic rotation (rad)

(b) Response of test specimen

Figure 1 Example of experimental response of pre-Northridge connections

(a) (b)

Figure 2 Postblast images of a standard moment connection (a) and a side-plate reinforced blast resistant connection (b) [7]

Advances in Civil Engineering 3

Connection plate

Column

Continuous beams

Figure 3 The proposed saddlebag connection

Nowadays structural engineering communities are con-sidering the following two major strategies to addressextreme loading requirements for steel beam-to-columnconnections

(i) Strengthening strategy such elements as cover plateshaunches side plate and vertical ribs are utilized toupgrade or enhance the load carrying capacity of theconnection

(ii) Weakening strategy the most preeminent exampleof this strategy is Reduced Beam Section or RBSconnection where a beam element (usually flange) isintentionally weakened in bending (by reducing thewidth of the flanges) to create a ldquofuserdquo for ductile yieldmechanism without connection failure

The main strategy considered in the proposed saddlebagconnection was to improve the catenary action as a majorfactor to resist progressive collapse Two parallel beamspositioned on both sides of a column are responsible for theprovision of adequate catenary action (Figure 3) Provision ofa clearer and simpler load transfer regime by means of thisconnection reduces the complexity of the stress distributionand also simplifies the complicated calculations of the peakstress Besides in the case of a terrorist attack the continuityof beams and columns will provide a superior ability forthe connection assembly to tolerate unexpected downsidecolumn losses hence the frame will be protected againstprogressive collapse The connection of the column to thebeams is provided through the application of a connectionplate that will be welded to the column flanges There is noneed to consider the lateral resistant system in a directionwith continuous beams as it is believed that the proposedconnection can address the seismic requirements Howeverin the orthogonal direction the lateral resistant system shouldbe provided The unique configuration of the saddlebagconnection was considered to ensure that all major energydissipations are created outside the columnrsquos shear panel zone

This research involves two individual specimens whichare evaluated by numerical simulation of the process ofcyclic and push-down loading For seismic assessment theinterstory drift angle and flexural strength in accordance with

2010 AISC Seismic Provisions [12] were taken into accountwhile to evaluate the progressive collapse behaviour of theconnection rotational capacities in conformity with 2010UFC 4-023-03 [13] guideline were considered

2 Design Procedures of Saddlebag Connection

The lateral loading was considered to design saddlebagconnection plate Figure 4 shows the yieldingmechanism andload transfer to connection plate in case of lateral loadingThe vertical load of one of the beams resulting from thecombination of gravity and lateral loads exerted on theright side connection plate is determined from the followingformula

119865 =

1198721199011198871 +1198721199011198872

1198891

+ 1198811198921 (1)

where 1198721199011198871 and 1198721199011198872 are the expected flexural strengths ofthe beams at the left and right side of connection respectively1198811198921 is the shear force from one of the beams at right sideof connection due to gravity load 1198891 is horizontal distancebetween two connection plates

According to Figure 5 the minimum length to providethe sufficient contact between the connection plate and beamflange 1198711 is 119887119891119887 + 05mm where 119887119891119887 is defined as the beamflange width The minimum length to provide the sufficientspace for welding between the connection plate and columnflange 1198712 is 119887119891119888 + 3mm where 119887119891119888 is defined as the columnflange width Since fabrication of the connection plate is donein the shop the length of 1198713 is taken as the beam depth119889119887 Furthermore the minimum length of 1198714 to transmitthe vertical force 119865 from the fillet weld to the column isdetermined from the following formula

1198714 =119865

1198771015840119908

(2)

where 1198771015840119908is the weld strength per unit length during extreme

loading [14]The philosophy behind considering the haunch for the

saddlebag connection plate is to provide high moment trans-fer from the connection plate to the column during a seismiceventThe haunch will reduce the connection plate thicknesswhich is calculated in accordance with plate buckling theoryAccordingly it is recommended that the minimum lengthsof 1198715 and 1198716 be taken as 151198711 and 041198715 To design theconnection plate thickness plate and shell buckling theorywas employed in accordance with Timoshenko et al [11] asfollows

120590cr =1198961205872119864

12 (1 minus V2) (119887119905)2 (3)

where 119896 is the plate buckling coefficient The bucklingcoefficient 119896 is a function of the support condition alongthe longitudinal edges and the type of loading To ensure thatconnection plate fails by yielding rather than buckling thecorresponding critical buckling stress should be greater thanthe yield stress Equating the expression given in (3) to the


(a)

2Vg2

2Mpb2

2Vg1

2Mpb1

F1F2

F1F2

d1

(b)

Figure 4 Load transfer path of saddlebag connection (a) yielding mechanism and (b) vertical load transfer to the connection plates

L1 L2 L1

L6

L5

L4L3

dc

Figure 5 Connection plate dimensions

yield stress the limiting value of the width-thickness ratio toensure yielding before plate buckling can be obtained as [14]

119887

119905le

1198961205872119864

12 (1 minus V2) (119891119910)

12

(4)

The 119896 values for various common support conditions andloading cases are illustrated in Figure 6 Notice that valuesgiven are based on plates having loaded edges simply sup-ported

The connection plate weld to the beam top and bottomflanges to avoid any movement during extreme loadingevents Accordingly the connection plate subjected to thebending stress as well as compression stress is shown inFigure 7

The amount of applied loads is determined from thefollowing formula

1198651 = 1198652 =2119872

119889119888

1198653 = 1198654 =119872

119889119887

(5)

where 119872 is the expected flexural strengths of the beams atthe left and right side of connection 119889119888 is horizontal distancebetween two connection plates 119889119887 is horizontal distancebetween two flanges of beam

120590

120590

A A

bt

t

t

t

t

k

Section A-A

400

542

697

0425

1277

Case

(1) (1)

(2) (2)

(3) (3)

(4) (4)

(5) (5)

Description of edge support

Both edges simply supported

One edge simply supportedthe other fixed

Both edges fixed

One edge simply supportedthe other free

One edge fixed the other free

Segment of long plate havingthickness t width b andvarious edge conditions

as tabulated below

Figure 6 Local plate buckling coefficient 119896 of (3) for plates incompression with varied boundary conditions Timoshenko et al[11]

M

dc

db M

F2 F1

F2 F1

F3

F4

Figure 7 Applied load to the connection plate subjected to cyclicloading

In the case of combination of compression plus bendingstress the plate can be subjected to in-plane stresses wherebuckling coefficient 119896 is dependent on the edge-supportconditions and the ratio of bending stress to uniform com-pression stress Accordingly the edges condition and appliedload of saddlebag connection are not in good agreement withthose of Figure 6 to use proposed buckling coefficient 119896 The


Table 1 Beam and column properties used in the saddlebag connection

Element Size (mm) Cross section Plastic moment (kNsdotmm)

Beam sectionHeightWeb thicknessFlange widthFlange thickness

Column sectionHeightWeb thicknessFlange widthFlange thickness

402302

704704

Flangewidth (w)

Web

Hei

ght (

h)

Web thickness (b)

Flange

Flange thickness (t)

941

7255

Compression stress = 2Mdc

Bending stress = Mdb

AA Fixed edgeFree edge

Fixed edge

Free edge

Case 1 k = 01

Case 2 k = 02

Case 3 k = 0425

Figure 8 Edge conditions of connection plate and proposedbuckling coefficients 119896

connection plate possesses two fixed supported edges wherethe other two edges are free With these particular supportconditions it is not applicable to use buckling coefficient119896 provided in Figure 6 Accordingly in this study threedifferent buckling coefficients 119896 were considered to addressthe specific support conditions of saddlebag connection plateFigure 8 shows the edges condition of saddlebag connectionand proposed buckling coefficients

3 Numerical Reliability Analysis

31 Case Studies In this section the reliability analysiswas considered to investigate the suggested formulas andproposed buckling coefficients for connection plate dimen-sion and thickness For this purpose the connection platewas designed analytically with suggested formula and thennumerically evaluated with ABAQUS software The detailsof the new proposed connection for seismic and progressivecollapse assessments are shown in Figure 9 and Table 1 All

1000mm

1000mm

500mm500

mm

500

mm

Figure 9 Case studies for seismic and progressive collapse assess-ment

beams and connections were constructed with built-up Isection that have same material properties with connectionplate

The axial load imposed from one of the beams to theconnection plate is calculated using (1) as follows

119865 =

1198721199011198871 +1198721199011198872

1198891

997888rarr

119865 =941 + 941

70= 269 kN

(6)

Weld strength per unit length ldquo1198771015840119908rdquo with groove weld length

of 31mm for gasmetal arc welding as considered in this studywas calculated as follows

1198771015840

119908= 119865allowable times 119863119890 times 997888rarr

1198771015840

119908= 90 times (0707 times 31) times 075 = 148Nmm

(7)

119865allowable is considered as ultimate shear strength of the weldmetal (90MPa for gas metal arc welding ldquoGMAWrdquo subjectedto shear)


The minimum length of 1198714 to transmit the vertical force119865 from the groove weld to the column is determined asfollows using (2)

1198714 =119865

1198771015840119908

997888rarr

1198714 =269 times 1000

148= 180mm

(8)

Considering beam dimension and demanded axial loadthe connection plate dimensions based on Figure 5 aresummarised as follows

1198711 = Beam flange wide = 30mm

1198712 = Column depth + 3mm = 80mm

1198713 = Beam depth = 40mm

1198715 = 15 times 1198711 = 45mm

1198716 = 04 times 1198715 = 18mm

(9)

To define the connection plate thickness the proposedbuckling coefficients 119896 were considered as follows

Case 1 (119896 = 01) Consider

30

119905le

01 times 1205872times (2 times 10

5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 651 997888rarr

119905 cong 46mm

(10)


30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 921 997888rarr

119905 cong 33mm

(11)

Case 3 (119896 = 0425) Consider

30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 1343 997888rarr

119905 cong 23mm

(12)

where 119887 is equal to 1198711

32 Material Properties The most commonly acceptedmethod in evaluation of the mechanical properties of metalswould be the tension test Investigation of the engineering

Engineering stress-strainTrue stress-strain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 005Strain (mmmm)

01 015 02

Stre

ss (N

mm

2)

Figure 10Material properties for true stress-strain and engineeringstress-strain

minus006minus004minus002

0002004006

Inte

rsto

ry d

rift an

gle

10 20 30 40 50 60 700Loading cycles

Figure 11 The loading protocol used for seismic assessment [12]Continue loading at increments of 120579 = 001 radians with two cyclesof loading at each step

and true stress-strain relationships of three specimens in con-formance with ASTM E8-04 [15] was done in this researchThe true and engineering stress-strain curves are presentedin Figure 10 After tensile testing the yield stress and ultimatetensile strength were 320MPa and 510MPa respectively

Determination of true stress-strain for a FEA representa-tion is achieved using the following formulas

119890 =Δ119897

119897

119878 =119875

1198600

120590 = 119904 (1 + 119890)

120576 = ln (1 + 119890)

(13)

where 120590 and 120576 are the true stress and strain values and 119890 and119878 are engineering strain and stress values respectively (theuniaxial tensile test)

33 Loading Protocol and Acceptance Criteria The2010AISCseismic provision [12] loading protocol was considered forseismic evaluationwhere the protocol specifies a series of loadsteps and the number of cycles for each as shown in Figure 11Each load step corresponds to a total interstory drift angleThe load steps were executed and data points recorded atregular intervals


120579

Lbeam

Interstory drift angle 120579 = ΔLbeam

Δ

(a)L L

P

u120579 = (uL)

(b)

Figure 12 Definition of interstory drift angle (a) and connection rotation capacity (b)

Table 2 Acceptance criteria for fully restrained moment connec-tions [13]

Connectiontype Plastic rotation angle (120579) radians

Side plate Primary element Secondary element0089ndash19minus5119889 0169ndash39minus6119889

Reduced BeamSection (RBS) 005ndash118minus5119889 007ndash118minus5119889

119889 depth of beam mm

The following requirements must be satisfied for beam-to-column connections applied for seismic evaluation

(i) An interstory drift angle of at least 004 rad must besustained by the connection Figure 12(a)

(ii) The flexural resistance of the connection measuredat the column face will be equal to at least 080119872119901of the connected beam at an interstory drift angle of004 rad

For the purpose of progressive collapse assessment thevertical push-down analysis through gradually increasing thevertical displacement at the location of the removed columnwas conducted to determine the connection rotational capac-ity and resistance of the structure against such deformation(Figure 12(b)) The vertical push-down continued until largedeformation or collapse mechanism appears at the speci-mens Table 2 shows the acceptance criteria based on plasticrotation angle of two different connections in conformitywith UFC 4-023 [13] subjected to push-down analysis Forproposed connection the acceptance criteria based on side-plate moment connection were considered

34 Finite Element Modelling The ABAQUSSTANDARDprogram was the FE program incorporated in this analysisIt was crucial to consider both the bending behaviour and in-plane stresses alongwith curvaturemodelling of the deflected

shape using the fewest possible elements Accordingly thesolid C3D8R element was used in the model having mid-side nodes (eight-node hexahedral) possessing six degreesof freedom in each node (3 displacements and 3 rotations)To simulate the real experimental condition the couplingtechnique was considered where this particular techniqueprecludes support and localizes stress concentration In thistechnique one reference point was defined at the appliedloading protocol location and tied to the loading zone Basedon tensile test results the fracture strain was identifiedand this specific strain (016) was defined in the softwarerepresentative of fracture criteria

4 Results and Discussion

41 Progressive Collapse Assessment To evaluate the ade-quacy of proposed dimension and buckling coefficients ofsaddlebag connection plate subjected to push-down analysisthe numerical investigation was carried out in this section

In Case 1 the von Mises stress distribution clearlyindicated that saddlebag connection plate develops the fullcapacity 119872119901 of connected beam without any buckling orstress concentration The column shear panel zone alsoexperienced negligible stress at the final stage comparedto the connected beams Generally the proposed bucklingcoefficient resulted in conservative thickness for connectionplate as it experienced much lesser stress compared tobeam Figure 13(a) depicts the failure mode and behaviourof connection plate at the final stage of progressive collapseanalysis

The connection plate designed in accordance with buck-ling coefficient (Case 2) also showed adequate performance toresist progressive collapse where it develops the full capacityof connected beam without buckling or stress concentrationFigure 13(b) Besides von Mises stress distribution revealedthat connection plate experienced stress close to yield stressThis issue emphasises that proposed buckling coefficient of


+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

(b)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)

Figure 13 Saddlebag connection behaviour at the end of progressive collapse test

Case 2 addressed progressive collapse design requirements aswell as economic aspects

Using buckling coefficient of Case 3 to calculate theconnection plate thickness resulted in unconservative resultswhere connection plate experienced buckling before devel-oping the full capacity of connected beams This issue isagainst progressive collapse design philosophy that demandsadequate plastic hinge rotation angle of beam to columnconnection subjected to sudden column removal As shownin Figure 13(c) connection plate designed with bucklingcoefficient Case 3 failed to develop plastic hinges rotationangle

The numerical plots of vertical load (KN) versus theplastic hinge rotation angle (radians) for buckling coefficientof Case 3 are shown in Figure 14 According to this figureconnection plate designed with buckling coefficient of Case2 successfully developed the plastic hinges rotation anglearound 022 radians that only took place in connectedbeams

42 Seismic Assessment To evaluate the adequacy of pro-posed dimension and buckling coefficients of saddlebagconnection plate subjected to cyclic loading the numericalinvestigation was carried out in this section


Acceptance criteria

02468

101214161820

Vert

ical

load

(kN

)005 01 015 02 0250

Plastic hinge rotation angle (rad)

Figure 14 Vertical load versus plastic hinge rotation angle for progressive collapse tests

The result explicitly declares that by using bucklingcoefficients of Cases 1 and 2 connected beams experiencedplastic moment 119872119901 where connection plate remains inelastic form at the end of cyclic loading (006-radian inter-story drift angle) Besides the connection provides adequateenergy dissipation capacity which is considered as importantcharacteristic to resist cyclic loading However similar toprogressive collapse assessment the result revealed thatbuckling coefficients of Case 1 lead to conservative thicknesswhere it experienced much lesser stress compared to yieldstress as shown in Figure 15(a) Numerical results showed thatusing buckling coefficient of Case 2 lead to reasonable stressdistribution among connection plate and connected beamswhere connection plate experienced stress close to yieldstress However the failure mode at the final stage of cyclicloading revealed that connection plate did not experiencebuckling or stress concentration Figure 15(b)

Figure 15(c) shows that connection plate experiencedbuckling before developing the full capacity of connectedbeams by using buckling coefficient of Case 3 This issuemakes the proposed connection vulnerable to cyclic loadingAccordingly the proposed buckling coefficient of Case 3lead to unconservative results for connection plate whichcould not protect beam to column connection against seismicloading

The computed moment at the column face versus inter-story drift angle recognized as the global seismic responseof the saddlebag connection specimen is shown in Figure 16The saddlebag connection resists at least one cycle of 006-radian interstory drift angle before reaching the failurestrain criteria (016) Accordingly the saddlebag connectionaddressed the minimum requirement (004-radian interstorydrift angle) of 2010 AISC seismic provision

In a structural system deforming beyond its elastic limitthe energy imparted to the structure is dissipated by dampingand yielding of the elements Most structures subjected tolarge earthquakemotionsmust be able to deformwell beyondthe yield deformation limitThe total energy dissipated by thespecimens was determined as the area enclosed by the loadversus displacement hysteresis loop for each cycle (Figure 17)The amount of energy dissipated by each specimen dependedon the applied lateral load as well as on the shape of theload versus displacement hysteresis loops Figure 18 shows

the loops of energy dissipated per each cycle for proposedsaddlebag connection As can be seen in this figure thefuller hysteretic loops have resulted in proposed saddlebagconnection subjected to cyclic loading The fuller hysteresisloops of saddlebag connection indicate its adequacy inseismic energy removal and ductility capacity which implybetter performance when comparing with other connectionwith similar strength Besides stable hysteretic loops withlarge energy dissipation capacity of saddlebag connectionare considered as a guarantee for a better deformationperformance to address inelastic deformation demands ofearthquake

5 Summary of Findings andConcluding Remarks

The seismic and progressive collapse performance of asaddlebag connection was investigated in this paper Theinterstory drift angle and flexural strength in conformancewith AISC Seismic Provisions (2010) along with plasticrotation angle based on UFC 4-023-03 (2010) guideline werethe major acceptance criteria for seismic and progressivecollapse evaluation respectively The following conclusionshave been made regarding the experimental and numericalresults

(i) The saddlebag connection was able to achieve ade-quate rotational capacity develop catenary actionand also develop the full inelastic capacity of theconnecting beam Therefore it could be a robust andeffective solution in case of a terrorist bomb blastincluding progressive collapse

(ii) Considering the seismic performance results onecomplete cycle of an interstory drift angle of 006 radwas satisfied by the saddlebag connection Hence thisconnection can be used in SMF according to 2010AISC Seismic Provisions

(iii) The comprehensive hysteretic loops have resultedin saddlebag connection subjected to cyclic loadingwhich indicate its adequacy to dissipate seismic load-ing


X

Y

Z

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(b)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)

Figure 15 Saddlebag connection behaviour at the end of cyclic test

Mom

ent a

t col

umn

face

eminus2

(kN

middotm)

08Mp

minus300

minus200

minus100

0

100

200

300

0040020 006 008minus004minus006 minus002minus008

Interstory drift angle (rad)

Figure 16 Moment at column face versus interstory drift angle


Load

Displacement

E

Figure 17 Energy dissipated per cycle definition

001

002 003004 006

005

+P

(kN

)

+Δ (mm)

30252015105

minus25

minus20

minus15

minus10 minus5

minus30

minusΔ (mm)

1

2

3

4

minus4

minus3

minus2

minus1

minusP

(kN

)

Figure 18 Calculation of energy dissipated by saddlebag connec-tion

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the esteemed technical staff of theUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for their cooperationand support in this study The financial support (ResearchGrant QJ130000242202G84) provided by the university forconducting the experimental work is also admirable

References

[1] S-J Chen C H Yeh and J M Chu ldquoDuctile steel beam-to-column connections for seismic resistancerdquo Journal of Struc-tural Engineering vol 122 no 11 pp 1292ndash1299 1996

[2] J Zhang and P Dong ldquoResidual stresses in welded momentframes and implications for structural performancerdquo Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 126 no 3 pp 306ndash315 2000

[3] C-M Uang Q-S Yu Kent S Noel and J Gross ldquoCyclic testingof steel moment connections rehabilitated with RBS or welded

haunchrdquo Journal of Structural Engineering vol 126 no 1 pp 57ndash68 2000

[4] M D Engelhardt and A S Husain ldquoCyclic-loading perfor-mance of welded flange-bolted web connectionsrdquo Journal ofStructural Engineering vol 119 no 12 pp 3537ndash3550 1993

[5] D L Houghton ldquoSteel moment resisting frame beam-to-column connectionsrdquo Google Patents 1997

[6] S Marjanishvili and E Agnew ldquoComparison of various proce-dures for progressive collapse analysisrdquo Journal of Performanceof Constructed Facilities vol 20 no 4 Article ID 010604QCFpp 365ndash374 2006

[7] J E Karns D L Houghton B E Hall J Kim and K Lee ldquoBlasttesting of steel frame assemblies to assess the implications ofconnection behavior on progressive collapserdquo in Proceedings ofthe ASCE Structures Congress St Louis Mo USA May 2006

[8] A S Usmani Y C Chung and J L Torero ldquoHow did theWTCtowers collapse a new theoryrdquo Fire Safety Journal vol 38 no 6pp 501ndash533 2003

[9] B Yang and K H Tan ldquoNumerical analyses of steel beamndashcolumn joints subjected to catenary actionrdquo Journal of Construc-tional Steel Research vol 70 pp 1ndash11 2012

[10] G Xu and B R Ellingwood ldquoDisproportionate collapse perfor-mance of partially restrained steel frames with bolted T-stubconnectionsrdquo Engineering Structures vol 33 no 1 pp 32ndash432011

[11] S P Timoshenko J M Gere and W Prager ldquoTheory of elasticstabilityrdquo Journal of Applied Mechanics vol 29 p 220 1962

[12] American Institute of Steel Construction Prequalified Con-nections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames forSeismic Applications AISCConnection Prequalification ReviewPanel 2010

[13] Department of Defense ldquoDesign of buildings to resist progres-sive collapserdquo UFC 4-023-03 Department of Defense 2010

[14] AISC Plastic Design Specifications for Structural Steel BuildingsAmerican Institute of Steel Construction Chicago Ill USA1989

[15] ASTM ldquoStandard test methods for tension testing of metallicmaterialsrdquo ASTM Standard E8-04 2004 Annual Book ofASTM Standards Volume 3

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of



RotatingMachinery


Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration


Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in



Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics


Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of


Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation




Navigation and Observation



DistributedSensor Networks



TYP

(both sides)

W14 times 257(A572 Gr 50)

1030∘

Bolts 10ndash22mm A325-SCHoles 24mm

88

1008

8 75

W36 times 150 (A36)

T amp B flangesE70T-4Backing bar and weld tabsto remain in placeCJPmdash3 sides

times 150PL 12times 127 times 760PL 16

T amp B of PL

T amp B of PL

(a) Connection detail for test specimen

Brittle fracture at bottomflange weld

Mp

Mp

minus5000

minus4000

minus3000

minus2000

minus1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Bend

ing

mom

ent (

kNmiddotm

)

0 001 002 003minus002 minus001minus003

Plastic rotation (rad)

(b) Response of test specimen

Figure 1 Example of experimental response of pre-Northridge connections

(a) (b)

Figure 2 Postblast images of a standard moment connection (a) and a side-plate reinforced blast resistant connection (b) [7]


Connection plate

Column

Continuous beams










119865 =

1198721199011198871 +1198721199011198872

1198891

+ 1198811198921 (1)



1198714 =119865

1198771015840119908

(2)




120590cr =1198961205872119864

12 (1 minus V2) (119887119905)2 (3)



(a)

2Vg2

2Mpb2

2Vg1

2Mpb1

F1F2

F1F2

d1

(b)


L1 L2 L1

L6

L5

L4L3

dc



119887

119905le

1198961205872119864

12 (1 minus V2) (119891119910)

12

(4)




1198651 = 1198652 =2119872

119889119888

1198653 = 1198654 =119872

119889119887

(5)


120590

120590

A A

bt

t

t

t

t

k

Section A-A

400

542

697

0425

1277

Case

(1) (1)

(2) (2)

(3) (3)

(4) (4)

(5) (5)




Both edges fixed




as tabulated below


M

dc

db M

F2 F1

F2 F1

F3

F4








402302

704704

Flangewidth (w)

Web

Hei

ght (

h)

Web thickness (b)

Flange


941

7255




Fixed edge

Free edge

Case 1 k = 01

Case 2 k = 02

Case 3 k = 0425





1000mm

1000mm

500mm500

mm

500

mm




119865 =

1198721199011198871 +1198721199011198872

1198891

997888rarr

119865 =941 + 941

70= 269 kN

(6)



1198771015840


1198771015840


(7)




1198714 =119865

1198771015840119908

997888rarr

1198714 =269 times 1000

148= 180mm

(8)





1198715 = 15 times 1198711 = 45mm

1198716 = 04 times 1198715 = 18mm

(9)



30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 651 997888rarr

119905 cong 46mm

(10)


30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 921 997888rarr

119905 cong 33mm

(11)

Case 3 (119896 = 0425) Consider

30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 1343 997888rarr

119905 cong 23mm

(12)




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 005Strain (mmmm)

01 015 02

Stre

ss (N

mm

2)



0002004006

Inte

rsto

ry d

rift an

gle

10 20 30 40 50 60 700Loading cycles




119890 =Δ119897

119897

119878 =119875

1198600

120590 = 119904 (1 + 119890)

120576 = ln (1 + 119890)

(13)




120579

Lbeam


Δ

(a)L L

P

u120579 = (uL)

(b)


















+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

(b)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)







Acceptance criteria

02468

101214161820

Vert

ical

load

(kN

)005 01 015 02 0250














X

Y

Z

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(b)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)


Mom

ent a

t col

umn

face

eminus2

(kN

middotm)

08Mp

minus300

minus200

minus100

0

100

200

300





Load

Displacement

E


001

002 003004 006

005

+P

(kN

)

+Δ (mm)

30252015105

minus25

minus20

minus15

minus10 minus5

minus30

minusΔ (mm)

1

2

3

4

minus4

minus3

minus2

minus1

minusP

(kN

)




Acknowledgments


References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










Connection plate

Column

Continuous beams










119865 =

1198721199011198871 +1198721199011198872

1198891

+ 1198811198921 (1)



1198714 =119865

1198771015840119908

(2)




120590cr =1198961205872119864

12 (1 minus V2) (119887119905)2 (3)



(a)

2Vg2

2Mpb2

2Vg1

2Mpb1

F1F2

F1F2

d1

(b)


L1 L2 L1

L6

L5

L4L3

dc



119887

119905le

1198961205872119864

12 (1 minus V2) (119891119910)

12

(4)




1198651 = 1198652 =2119872

119889119888

1198653 = 1198654 =119872

119889119887

(5)


120590

120590

A A

bt

t

t

t

t

k

Section A-A

400

542

697

0425

1277

Case

(1) (1)

(2) (2)

(3) (3)

(4) (4)

(5) (5)




Both edges fixed




as tabulated below


M

dc

db M

F2 F1

F2 F1

F3

F4








402302

704704

Flangewidth (w)

Web

Hei

ght (

h)

Web thickness (b)

Flange


941

7255




Fixed edge

Free edge

Case 1 k = 01

Case 2 k = 02

Case 3 k = 0425





1000mm

1000mm

500mm500

mm

500

mm




119865 =

1198721199011198871 +1198721199011198872

1198891

997888rarr

119865 =941 + 941

70= 269 kN

(6)



1198771015840


1198771015840


(7)




1198714 =119865

1198771015840119908

997888rarr

1198714 =269 times 1000

148= 180mm

(8)





1198715 = 15 times 1198711 = 45mm

1198716 = 04 times 1198715 = 18mm

(9)



30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 651 997888rarr

119905 cong 46mm

(10)


30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 921 997888rarr

119905 cong 33mm

(11)

Case 3 (119896 = 0425) Consider

30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 1343 997888rarr

119905 cong 23mm

(12)




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 005Strain (mmmm)

01 015 02

Stre

ss (N

mm

2)



0002004006

Inte

rsto

ry d

rift an

gle

10 20 30 40 50 60 700Loading cycles




119890 =Δ119897

119897

119878 =119875

1198600

120590 = 119904 (1 + 119890)

120576 = ln (1 + 119890)

(13)




120579

Lbeam


Δ

(a)L L

P

u120579 = (uL)

(b)


















+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

(b)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)







Acceptance criteria

02468

101214161820

Vert

ical

load

(kN

)005 01 015 02 0250














X

Y

Z

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(b)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)


Mom

ent a

t col

umn

face

eminus2

(kN

middotm)

08Mp

minus300

minus200

minus100

0

100

200

300





Load

Displacement

E


001

002 003004 006

005

+P

(kN

)

+Δ (mm)

30252015105

minus25

minus20

minus15

minus10 minus5

minus30

minusΔ (mm)

1

2

3

4

minus4

minus3

minus2

minus1

minusP

(kN

)




Acknowledgments


References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










(a)

2Vg2

2Mpb2

2Vg1

2Mpb1

F1F2

F1F2

d1

(b)


L1 L2 L1

L6

L5

L4L3

dc



119887

119905le

1198961205872119864

12 (1 minus V2) (119891119910)

12

(4)




1198651 = 1198652 =2119872

119889119888

1198653 = 1198654 =119872

119889119887

(5)


120590

120590

A A

bt

t

t

t

t

k

Section A-A

400

542

697

0425

1277

Case

(1) (1)

(2) (2)

(3) (3)

(4) (4)

(5) (5)




Both edges fixed




as tabulated below


M

dc

db M

F2 F1

F2 F1

F3

F4








402302

704704

Flangewidth (w)

Web

Hei

ght (

h)

Web thickness (b)

Flange


941

7255




Fixed edge

Free edge

Case 1 k = 01

Case 2 k = 02

Case 3 k = 0425





1000mm

1000mm

500mm500

mm

500

mm




119865 =

1198721199011198871 +1198721199011198872

1198891

997888rarr

119865 =941 + 941

70= 269 kN

(6)



1198771015840


1198771015840


(7)




1198714 =119865

1198771015840119908

997888rarr

1198714 =269 times 1000

148= 180mm

(8)





1198715 = 15 times 1198711 = 45mm

1198716 = 04 times 1198715 = 18mm

(9)



30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 651 997888rarr

119905 cong 46mm

(10)


30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 921 997888rarr

119905 cong 33mm

(11)

Case 3 (119896 = 0425) Consider

30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 1343 997888rarr

119905 cong 23mm

(12)




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 005Strain (mmmm)

01 015 02

Stre

ss (N

mm

2)



0002004006

Inte

rsto

ry d

rift an

gle

10 20 30 40 50 60 700Loading cycles




119890 =Δ119897

119897

119878 =119875

1198600

120590 = 119904 (1 + 119890)

120576 = ln (1 + 119890)

(13)




120579

Lbeam


Δ

(a)L L

P

u120579 = (uL)

(b)


















+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

(b)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)







Acceptance criteria

02468

101214161820

Vert

ical

load

(kN

)005 01 015 02 0250














X

Y

Z

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(b)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)


Mom

ent a

t col

umn

face

eminus2

(kN

middotm)

08Mp

minus300

minus200

minus100

0

100

200

300





Load

Displacement

E


001

002 003004 006

005

+P

(kN

)

+Δ (mm)

30252015105

minus25

minus20

minus15

minus10 minus5

minus30

minusΔ (mm)

1

2

3

4

minus4

minus3

minus2

minus1

minusP

(kN

)




Acknowledgments


References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation














402302

704704

Flangewidth (w)

Web

Hei

ght (

h)

Web thickness (b)

Flange


941

7255




Fixed edge

Free edge

Case 1 k = 01

Case 2 k = 02

Case 3 k = 0425





1000mm

1000mm

500mm500

mm

500

mm




119865 =

1198721199011198871 +1198721199011198872

1198891

997888rarr

119865 =941 + 941

70= 269 kN

(6)



1198771015840


1198771015840


(7)




1198714 =119865

1198771015840119908

997888rarr

1198714 =269 times 1000

148= 180mm

(8)





1198715 = 15 times 1198711 = 45mm

1198716 = 04 times 1198715 = 18mm

(9)



30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 651 997888rarr

119905 cong 46mm

(10)


30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 921 997888rarr

119905 cong 33mm

(11)

Case 3 (119896 = 0425) Consider

30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 1343 997888rarr

119905 cong 23mm

(12)




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 005Strain (mmmm)

01 015 02

Stre

ss (N

mm

2)



0002004006

Inte

rsto

ry d

rift an

gle

10 20 30 40 50 60 700Loading cycles




119890 =Δ119897

119897

119878 =119875

1198600

120590 = 119904 (1 + 119890)

120576 = ln (1 + 119890)

(13)




120579

Lbeam


Δ

(a)L L

P

u120579 = (uL)

(b)


















+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

(b)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)







Acceptance criteria

02468

101214161820

Vert

ical

load

(kN

)005 01 015 02 0250














X

Y

Z

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(b)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)


Mom

ent a

t col

umn

face

eminus2

(kN

middotm)

08Mp

minus300

minus200

minus100

0

100

200

300





Load

Displacement

E


001

002 003004 006

005

+P

(kN

)

+Δ (mm)

30252015105

minus25

minus20

minus15

minus10 minus5

minus30

minusΔ (mm)

1

2

3

4

minus4

minus3

minus2

minus1

minusP

(kN

)




Acknowledgments


References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation











1198714 =119865

1198771015840119908

997888rarr

1198714 =269 times 1000

148= 180mm

(8)





1198715 = 15 times 1198711 = 45mm

1198716 = 04 times 1198715 = 18mm

(9)



30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 651 997888rarr

119905 cong 46mm

(10)


30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 921 997888rarr

119905 cong 33mm

(11)

Case 3 (119896 = 0425) Consider

30

119905le


5)

12 (1 minus 032) (320 times 133)

12

997888rarr

30

119905le 1343 997888rarr

119905 cong 23mm

(12)




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 005Strain (mmmm)

01 015 02

Stre

ss (N

mm

2)



0002004006

Inte

rsto

ry d

rift an

gle

10 20 30 40 50 60 700Loading cycles




119890 =Δ119897

119897

119878 =119875

1198600

120590 = 119904 (1 + 119890)

120576 = ln (1 + 119890)

(13)




120579

Lbeam


Δ

(a)L L

P

u120579 = (uL)

(b)


















+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

(b)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)







Acceptance criteria

02468

101214161820

Vert

ical

load

(kN

)005 01 015 02 0250














X

Y

Z

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(b)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)


Mom

ent a

t col

umn

face

eminus2

(kN

middotm)

08Mp

minus300

minus200

minus100

0

100

200

300





Load

Displacement

E


001

002 003004 006

005

+P

(kN

)

+Δ (mm)

30252015105

minus25

minus20

minus15

minus10 minus5

minus30

minusΔ (mm)

1

2

3

4

minus4

minus3

minus2

minus1

minusP

(kN

)




Acknowledgments


References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










120579

Lbeam


Δ

(a)L L

P

u120579 = (uL)

(b)


















+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

(b)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)







Acceptance criteria

02468

101214161820

Vert

ical

load

(kN

)005 01 015 02 0250














X

Y

Z

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(b)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)


Mom

ent a

t col

umn

face

eminus2

(kN

middotm)

08Mp

minus300

minus200

minus100

0

100

200

300





Load

Displacement

E


001

002 003004 006

005

+P

(kN

)

+Δ (mm)

30252015105

minus25

minus20

minus15

minus10 minus5

minus30

minusΔ (mm)

1

2

3

4

minus4

minus3

minus2

minus1

minusP

(kN

)




Acknowledgments


References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

(b)

+6310

eminus

02

+3639e+

01

+7271e

+01

+109

0e+

02

+1454e+

02

+181

7e+

02

+218

0e+

02

+2543e+

02

+2907

e+

02

+3270e

+02

+3633e+

02

+3996e+

02

+4360e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)







Acceptance criteria

02468

101214161820

Vert

ical

load

(kN

)005 01 015 02 0250














X

Y

Z

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(b)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)


Mom

ent a

t col

umn

face

eminus2

(kN

middotm)

08Mp

minus300

minus200

minus100

0

100

200

300





Load

Displacement

E


001

002 003004 006

005

+P

(kN

)

+Δ (mm)

30252015105

minus25

minus20

minus15

minus10 minus5

minus30

minusΔ (mm)

1

2

3

4

minus4

minus3

minus2

minus1

minusP

(kN

)




Acknowledgments


References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










Acceptance criteria

02468

101214161820

Vert

ical

load

(kN

)005 01 015 02 0250














X

Y

Z

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(b)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)


Mom

ent a

t col

umn

face

eminus2

(kN

middotm)

08Mp

minus300

minus200

minus100

0

100

200

300





Load

Displacement

E


001

002 003004 006

005

+P

(kN

)

+Δ (mm)

30252015105

minus25

minus20

minus15

minus10 minus5

minus30

minusΔ (mm)

1

2

3

4

minus4

minus3

minus2

minus1

minusP

(kN

)




Acknowledgments


References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










X

Y

Z

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

S Mises (avg 75)

(a)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(b)

+3982

e+

01

+7845e+

01

+117

7e+

00

+117

1e+

02

+1557e+

02

+1944e+

02

+2330e

+02

+2716

e+

02

+3103

e+

02

+3489

e+

02

+3876e+

02

+4262e

+02

+4648e

+02

X

Y

Z

S Mises (avg 75)

(c)


Mom

ent a

t col

umn

face

eminus2

(kN

middotm)

08Mp

minus300

minus200

minus100

0

100

200

300





Load

Displacement

E


001

002 003004 006

005

+P

(kN

)

+Δ (mm)

30252015105

minus25

minus20

minus15

minus10 minus5

minus30

minusΔ (mm)

1

2

3

4

minus4

minus3

minus2

minus1

minusP

(kN

)




Acknowledgments


References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










Load

Displacement

E


001

002 003004 006

005

+P

(kN

)

+Δ (mm)

30252015105

minus25

minus20

minus15

minus10 minus5

minus30

minusΔ (mm)

1

2

3

4

minus4

minus3

minus2

minus1

minusP

(kN

)




Acknowledgments


References



















RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation











RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation









Documents

Research Article Cyclic and Explosive Evaluation of New …downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ace/2016/4975097.pdf · 2019-07-30 · Research Article Cyclic and Explosive Evaluation of