Steel Interchange: Tension-Only OCBF

If you’ve ever asked yourself “Why?
” about something related to

structural steel design or construction, Modern Steel Construction’s
monthly Steel Interchange column is for you! Send your
steel
questions or comments to solutions@aisc.org. interchange
Tension-Only OCBF
I am designing a tension-only OCBF using cables for The AISC Specification (a free download from www.aisc.
braces. The 2005 and 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions org/2010spec) intentionally neglects the strength differences
require braces to comply with specific width-to-thickness between the larger and smaller diameter A325 bolts. The
limits in Sections 14.2 and Section F1.5a, respectively. Commentary to Section J3.6 states:
How is b/t for a cable calculated? I also noticed that the “For ASTM A325 or A325M bolts, no distinction is made
user note discussing tension-only OCBFs in 2005 AISC between small and large diameters, even though the minimum
Seismic Provisions is absent from the 2010 version of this tensile strength, Fu, is lower for bolts with diameters in excess
document. Does this mean that tension-only OCBFs are of 1 in. (25 mm). Such a refinement is not justified, particu-
no longer allowed? larly in view of the conservative resistance factor, φ, and safety
factor, Ω, the increasing ratio of tensile area to gross area and
Tension-only systems are a special application of OCBFs. other compensating factors.”
Even though they are not specifically addressed in the main The origin of this difference goes back to the early days when
body of AISC 341, they are allowed to be used under both the hardening practice was less advanced and A325 bolts in larger
2005 and 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions. diameters were case hardened. As other standards came in—like
The width-thickness limits are for “compression” elements. A490, A325M, A490M, F1852 and F2280—hardening practices
By design, there are not any compression elements in had improved so that the larger diameters were through hard-
a tension-only system, so they do not apply. Technically, ened just like the smaller diameters. Thanks to tendencies for
the braces may see some compression, but they will be so things to live on in standards once they are written, ASTM A325
slender that they buckle elastically. So even if their very small still shows the early history, even though hardening practices
compression capacity were accounted for, the width-thickness haven’t needed the reduction for several decades.
limits would make little difference in the performance of the Testing of thousands of A325 bolts has also not shown
system. any significant difference in strength between the larger and
Heath Mitchell, S.E., P.E. smaller diameter bolts, despite the allowance for a lower
strength in the larger diameter bolts by ASTM. Committees
of AISC, the Research Council on Structural Connections
Single-Sided Fillet Welds (RCSC) and the American Society for Testing and Materi-
Can the web and flange of a built-up girder be joined als (ASTM) have been discussing how to accomplish revising
using a single-sided fillet weld or is a double-sided fillet ASTM A325 to be consistent with practice.
weld required? Larry S. Muir, P.E.
It is relatively common for built-up girders to have the web Significant Load Reversal
welded to the flange with a single-sided fillet weld, especially RCSC Specification Section 4.2 Item (2) states that a
in the metal building industry. This is generally acceptable pretensioned joint is required when the joint is subject
because the weld transfers only shear. to significant load reversal. Is wind loading considered a
There are some instances for which the single-sided weld is significant load reversal?
not appropriate, including the transfer of certain concentrated
loads and some cases related to seismic lateral force resisting Neither AISC nor RCSC define the degree of load reversal in
systems. Some examples are provided in Section F3 of the terms of either magnitude or frequency, so some engineering
AISC Seismic Provisions and Section 2.3 of AISC 358 (both judgment must be exercised. I would argue that wind loading
documents are free downloads from www.aisc.org/epubs). on the main wind force resisting system in typical buildings
Larry S. Muir, P.E. does not produce significant load reversal. Significant load
reversal implies the full design load (or close to it) in both
A325 Bolt Strength directions. With the mean recurrence interval for wind loads
I noticed a conflict between AISC Specification Table J3.2 in ASCE 7 being 50 years, a brace may see its full design wind
and AISC Manual Table 2-6. Specification Table J3.2 gives loading in one direction, but it is unlikely that it will also
the nominal tensile strength of ASTM A325 bolts as a undergo the full design loading in the other direction next in
constant value for all bolt diameters. However, Manual the loading sequence.
Table 2-6 shows that there is a reduction in the tensile Charles J. Carter, S.E., P.E., Ph.D.
strength of A325 bolts over 1 in. in diameter. Why does
the AISC Specification not reflect this strength reduction?
june 2013 MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION

steel interchange
Shear Stud Strength In many cases, the steel is fire protected and removal
In AISC Manual Table 3-21, for the case of no-deck, or treatment of shop-applied piece marks is typically not
normal-weight concrete and f ′c=4 ksi, the values in the required. In the case of exposed or painted structures, aes-
14th Edition Manual have changed in comparison to the thetics usually govern the handling of piece marks. Assuming
13th Edition Manual. Why have these values changed? painted steel, the options are to simply paint over piece marks
as a part of the paint touch-up process or, in some rare cases, it
The change is a result of a reduction in the Rp factor in 2010 may be determined that piece marks must be removed because
AISC Specification Section I8.2a. The Commentary provides they pose a bleed-through risk or are not compatible with the
the following discussion relative to this change: paint chosen as a finish coat.
“The reduction factor, Rp, for headed stud anchors used in Where a consideration like architectural exposure means
composite beams with no decking has been reduced from 1.0 special treatment is required, the required treatment should be
to 0.75 in the 2010 Specification. The methodology used for specified in the contract documents.
headed stud anchors that incorporates Rg and Rp was imple- Keith Landwehr
mented in the 2005 Specification. The research (Roddenberry
et al., 2002a) in which the factors (Rg and Rp) were devel- Single-Angle Connection
oped focused almost exclusively on cases involving the use of Can eccentricity be ignored when checking the limit state
headed stud anchors welded through steel deck. The research of bolt bearing on the support (girder web) for a single-
pointed to the likelihood that the solid slab case should use Rp angle beam-to-girder connection?
= 0.75; however, the body of test data had not been established
to support the change. More recent research has shown that No. As shown in Figure 10-14 of the 14th Edition AISC Manual,
the 0.75 factor is appropriate (Pallares and Hajjar, 2010a).” eccentricity is always considered for the bolts on the support side.
Heath Mitchell, S.E., P.E. Consideration of the eccentricity on the bolts at least implies
that some consideration of eccentricity should be made relative
SCBF Brace Slenderness to bearing. In this instance it is very unlikely that the portion of
The SCBF brace design example in the 1st Edition AISC the check governed by edge distance (the tear-out portion) of the
Seismic Design Manual used a maximum slenderness for bearing check will govern, so the bearing strength can be calcu-
the brace of 4√(E/Fy) = 115. In the 2nd Edition this ratio late as the bearing strength of a single bolt (it should be the same
has been increased to 200 with a specific calculation. Is for all the bolts) multiplied by the C-value.
the 2nd Edition slenderness limit correct? Generally, bearing is not critical, though it can be when
attaching to a thin-webbed girder with connections to both
The 2005 Seismic Provisions Section 13.2a had a maximum slen- sides using common bolts. For some reason this is a check that
derness limit of 4√(E/Fy). However, there was an exception that is commonly overlooked. I am not sure why this occurs. Table
allowed this limit to increase to 200 if the columns were designed 10-11 defines “φrn = design strength of one bolt in shear or
for the loads resulting from the braces reaching their expected bearing, kips/bolt” and “rn/Ω = allowable strength of one bolt
strength. The 1st Edition Seismic Manual used the 4√(E/Fy) limit. in shear or bearing, kips/bolt.”
The 2010 Seismic Provisions Section F2.3 requires that Larry S. Muir, P.E.
load effects on the lateral system due to braces reaching their
expected strength must be directly analyzed as part of the
determination of required strengths. Due to this change, the The complete collection of Steel Interchange questions and answers is available online.
2005 exception will be satisfied on all designs and the lower Find questions and answers related to just about any topic by using our full-text search
capability. Visit Steel Interchange online at www.modernsteel.com.
slenderness limit equal to 4√(E/Fy) was removed. The maxi-
mum of 200 is now the only limit specified for SCBF.
Heath Mitchell, S.E., P.E. Heath Mitchell is director of technical assistance and Charlie Carter is vice president and
chief structural engineer at AISC. Keith Landwehr and Larry Muir are consultants to AISC.
Piece Mark Appearance

Steel Interchange is a forum to exchange useful and practical professional ideas and
Is there an AISC requirement for field priming of struc- information on all phases of steel building and bridge construction. Opinions and
tural steel piece marks, or are piece marks left unpainted? suggestions are welcome on any subject covered in this magazine.
The opinions expressed in Steel Interchange do not necessarily represent an official position of
the American Institute of Steel Construction and have not been reviewed. It is recognized that the
The appearance of piece marks in a finished structure varies
design of structures is within the scope and expertise of a competent licensed structural engineer,
widely. It is a contractual item and is dependent on the expo- architect or other licensed professional for the application of principles to a particular structure.
sure of the steel once the structure is completed. There is not If you have a question or problem that your fellow readers might help you solve, please
an AISC standard procedure that governs removal, painting or forward it to us. At the same time, feel free to respond to any of the questions that you
have read here. Contact Steel Interchange via AISC’s Steel Solutions Center:
other treatment of piece marks, except that Section 7.17 in the
1 E Wacker Dr., Ste. 700, Chicago, IL 60601
AISC Code of Standard Practice relieves the fabricator and erec- tel: 866.ASK.AISC • fax: 312.803.4709
tor of any field painting responsibilities. solutions@aisc.org
MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION june 2013

Steel Interchange: Tension-Only OCBF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel Interchange: Tension-Only OCBF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel Interchange: Tension-Only OCBF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

If you’ve ever asked yourself “Why?

” about something related to

june 2013 MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION

Piece Mark Appearance

MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION june 2013

You might also like

Steel Interchange: Tension-Only OCBF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel Interchange: Tension-Only OCBF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel Interchange: Tension-Only OCBF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

If you’ve ever asked yourself “Why?

” about something related to

 june 2013 MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION

Piece Mark Appearance

MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION june 2013

You might also like

june 2013 MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION