aisc research program - UIUC Newmark Structural Engineering ...

nsel.cee.illinois.edu

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

between filler and top

column

between splice and bot.

column

between splice and filler

(overstrength)

between filler and top

column (overstrength)

between splice and bot.

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

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

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007


AISC Test Specimen 730-over

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

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)

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007

rank

between splice

and top column

922 1 524 1 692 1

between splice

and bot. column

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

between splice

and top column

1,789 2 895 2 954 2

between splice

and bot. column

between splice

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

and top column

(overstrength)

between splice

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

and bot. column

(overstrength)

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

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

MUST-SIM

Comparison of Limit States

(using measured values)

Specimen 02

730-over

Pn

(kips)

AISC 2005

rank

Pn/Ω

(kips)

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007

rank

slip

between splice and top

column

between splice and bot.

1,173 1 666 1

column

between splice and top

3,128 3 1,777 3

shear

column

between splice and bot.

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

Nominal Measured

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

Nominal Measured

Length Pretension Shear Strength Pretension Shear Strength

9″

(all bolts)

Tb (kips)

80

Fv (ksi)

75

Tb (kips)

115

Fv (ksi)

102

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007

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)

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007

• 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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

December 5, 2007

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

13 November 2007

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

13 November 2007

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

Vs(test)/Vs(predicted)

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

Proposal: φ, 0.9 ·C v

AISC Stud Strength (Steel Only)

Steel Failure in Test

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

13 November 2007

Vs(test)/Vs(predicted)

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

Proposal: φ, 0.8 ·C v

AISC Stud Strength (Steel Only)

Steel Failure in Test

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines