1. NEESR-SG: Controlled Rocking of Steel- Framed Buildings with Replaceable Energy Dissipating Fuses Greg Deierlein, Paul Cordova, Eric Borchers, Xiang Ma, Alex Pena, Sarah Billington, & Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford University Jerome Hajjar, Kerry Hall, Matt Eatherton, University of Illinois Mitsumasa Midorikawa, Hokkaido University David Mar, Tipping & Mar Associates and Greg Luth, GPLA

2. Discussion issues Prototype Building Information Preliminary E-Defense Test Setup Testbed Details Dual versus Single Rocking Frame List of Other Issues Schedule and Logistics Industry Collaboration Opportunities

3. Prototype Structure

4. Summary of Parametric Study Results for Prototype Building Variables EQ Motion Intensity Base Shear kN (kips) Vertical Base Reaction kN (kips) Uplift Ratio α Roof Drift Ratio 50% in 50 Years3000 (674)5000 (1124)0.7%0.5% 10% in 50 Years4200 (944)6200 (1393)1.9%1.5% 2% in 50 Years5500 (1236)7000 (1573)3.4%2.5% Peak Response Values * Peak values are the mean values of peak response values from a set of scaled ground motions Hall, K. et al. 2006, Report No. ST-06-01, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, UIUC α

5. Preliminary Design of System Test at E-Defense (2009) Large (2/3 scale) frame assembly Validation of dynamic response and simulation Proof-of-Concept ­ construction details ­ re-centering behavior ­ fuse replacement Collaboration & Payload Projects

6. Similitude Model and Assumptions Proc. 1 Mass density ratio = 1 ­ Time distorted Proc. 2 Time and strain rate ratio = 1 ­ Mass ratio relatively large Proc. 3 Acceleration ratio = 1, mass ratio reasonably small, time not too distorted ­ Preferred option Proc. 1Proc. 2Proc. 3 Masslr3lr3 0.31lrlr 0.68lr2lr2 0.46 Accelerationl r -1 1.47lrlr 0.6811.00 Timelrlr 0.6811l r 1/2 0.82 Strain Ratel r -1 1.4711l r -1/2 1.21 Velocity11.00lrlr 0.68l r 1/2 0.82

7. Variables EQ Motion Intensity Base Shear kN (kip) Vertical Reaction kN (kip) Overturning Moment kN-m (kip-ft) 50% in 50 Years 2312 (520)3083 (693)18689 (13778) 10% in 50 Years 3237 (727)3823 (859)26164 (19290) 2% in 50 Years 4239 (953)4316 (970)34262 (25261) Inferred Force Demands for 4-story Specimen Testbed floor mass: 60 ~ 100 ton Inferred Demand Parameters for Specimen Prototype Specimen Proc. 1Proc. 2Proc. 3 221 (4 rocking units each direction)69.5150.3102.2 441 (2 rocking units each direction)138.7299.9203.9 Unit: metric ton. 1 ton = 9.8 kN = 2.2 kips Comparison of Floor Mass

8.  Dimension scale l r = 0.68  Member size determined by scaling from prototype  Shown in red circle are displacement range for each joints Basis Parameters of Specimen BeamsH200x150x6x9 Columns, bracesH250x250x14x14 Approximate Member Sizes Unit: mm. 1000 mm = 3.28 ft

9. Testbed Details New load cell configuration Horizontal cross-bracing between testbed frames Attachment to frame specimen ­ Roller detail ­ Pin detail with exterior columns

10. Change of Load Cell Configuration OldNew

11. Old versus New Load Cell Configuration Side Load Cells (old) Center Load Cells (new)

12. Horizontal Cross-bracing members Interfere with frame specimen

13. Horizontal Cross-bracing members Solution under consideration Cross beams to connect the two testbed frames Cables to tie together the white and blue beams

14. Frame Load Introduction Plan 1 – Roller Detail

15. Plan 2 - Pin with Exterior Columns Detail

16. Dual versus Single Frame

17. Single Frame with Central Load Cell

18. Single Frame – Fuse Details

20. Similar Deformation Mode ABAQUS Modeling of Fuse

21. Load-Deformation Curves of a Case 10~20% higher loads Test ABAQUS Analysis

22. Non-symmetric fuse loading under Single Frame Setup

23. List of Other issues Design anchoring specimens to the table ­ Use steel or concrete for base beam? ­ Resistance capacity of shake table Available instrumentation ­ number of channels ­ type and number of instruments Ground motion record ­ what record to use ­ how it would be scaled Construction of specimen ­ how to assemble frame specimen ­ Construction sequence (Testbed first and then specimen? or sequential installation of testbed 1, specimen, testbed 2)

24. Schedule and Logistics Schedule ­ Spring 2008, UIUC test ­ Summer 2008, finalization of E-Defense specimen design ­ Autumn 2008, finalization of instrumentation plan ­ Winter 2008, E-Defense specimen construction & instrumentation ­ Spring 2009, E-Defense test Logistics ­ Confirmation of student team members and establish contact. (Tokyo Tech: Hirotaka Ando? Kyoto Univ:? E- Defense: ?) ­ When to send students to E-Defense

25. Industry Collaboration Industry partners from Japan to participate in design, detailing, and construction (Nippon Steel Corp? Other consultants or fabricators?) In-kind funding for materials (shapes, plate, connectors), fabrication (specimens and load frame components [trough, loading beams, etc.]) Fuse fabrication (same fabricator as specimen?) Supplier of PT cables and anchorages, and contractor for installation (E-Defense staff?) Capabilities for E-Defense staff in steel erection (e.g., bolting of fuses, resolution of fit-up issues) Other issues?