See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270577016

Comparative seismic designs of scbf using AISC

341-05 and AISC 341-10

Conference Paper · July 2014

DOI: 10.4231/D3610VS7C

CITATIONS READS

0 593

7 authors, including:

Rou Wen Bulent Akbas

Illinois Institute of Technology Gebze Technical University
18 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS 91 PUBLICATIONS 198 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bilge Doran Eren Uçkan

Yildiz Technical University Bogazici University
44 PUBLICATIONS 163 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 107 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performance-Based Assessment of Historical Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bulent Akbas on 22 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

COMPARATIVE SEISMIC DESIGNS OF

SCBF USING AISC 341-05 AND AISC 341-10
Rou Wen 1, Bulent Akbas2, Bilge Doran3, Eren Uckan4, Onur Seker5,
Pinar Seker5, and Jay Shen6

ABSTRACT

Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) are among the most common steel structures for
resisting earthquake loads in high seismic regions. Concentrically Braced Frames (CBFs) are
elastically designed as one vertical truss system to resist lateral loads through axial brace
members when they are introduced. The explicit capacity-design approach has been fully
incorporated into the newest seismic provisions for structural steel buildings (AISC 341-10,
2010). One new analysis section is added into AISC 341-10 to address the inelastic responses of
SCBFs. Two separate structural analyses are required for SCBFs in AISC 341-10. Analysis one
assumes that braces have their expected strength without considering cyclic strength degrading.
Analysis two explicitly considers the expected post-buckling strength for compression braces.
The beams/columns could be significantly increased by these analyses from the elastically
designed sections. One additional analysis is such that the compression braces are removed under
amplified seismic loads to alleviate the high strength demands for columns in high-rise buildings.
These analysis requirements significantly increase design efforts in typical design offices, and a
comprehensive study to demonstrate how such an explicit inelastic design procedure would (or
would not) significantly improve seismic performance of SCBFs appears to be justified. This
paper summarizes the seismic design of two SCBFs with different heights, 4-story and 10-story,
at different sites. Two bracing configurations, chevron and X-bracing over two stories, are
considered for each braced frames. Step by step design procedures on typical SCBFs are
completed under AISC 341-05 and AISC 341-10. The design results of all studied frames are
compared to discover the general trends for low- and medium-rise CBFs between the two design
provisions.

1
Research Engineer, Sharma & Associates, Inc., Countryside, IL 60525
2
Dept. of Earthquake and Structural Engineering, Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli, Turkey
3
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
4
Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and EQ Research Inst., Bosphorus University, Istanbul
5
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
50011
6
Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

Rou Wen, Bulent Akbas, Bilge Doran, Eren Uckan, Onur Seker, Pinar Seker and Jay Shen. COMPARATIVE
SEISMIC DESIGNS OF SCBF USING AISC 341-05 AND AISC 341-10. Proceedings of the 10th National
Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014
COMPARATIVE SEISMIC DESIGNS OF SCBF USING AISC 341-05
AND AISC 341-10

Rou Wen 1, Bulent Akbas2, Bilge Doran2, Eren Uckan2, Onur Seker3,
Pinar Seker3, and Jay Shen4

ABSTRACT

Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) are among the most common steel structures for
resisting earthquake loads in high seismic regions. Concentrically Braced Frames (CBFs) are
elastically designed as one vertical truss system to resist lateral loads through axial brace members
when they are introduced. The explicit capacity-design approach has been fully incorporated into
the newest seismic provisions for structural steel buildings (AISC 341-10, 2010). One new
analysis section is added into AISC 341-10 to address the inelastic responses of SCBFs. Two
separate structural analyses are required for SCBFs in AISC 341-10. Analysis one assumes that
braces have their expected strength without considering cyclic strength degrading. Analysis two
explicitly considers the expected post-buckling strength for compression braces. The
beams/columns could be significantly increased by these analyses from the elastically designed
sections. One additional analysis is such that the compression braces are removed under amplified
seismic loads to alleviate the high strength demands for columns in high-rise buildings. These
analysis requirements significantly increase design efforts in typical design offices, and a
comprehensive study to demonstrate how such an explicit inelastic design procedure would (or
would not) significantly improve seismic performance of SCBFs appears to be justified. This
paper summarizes the seismic design of two SCBFs with different heights, 4-story and 10-story, at
different sites. Two bracing configurations, chevron and X-bracing over two stories, are
considered for each braced frames. Step by step design procedures on typical SCBFs are
completed under AISC 341-05 and AISC 341-10. The design results of all studied frames were
compared to discover the general trends for low- and medium-rise CBFs between the two design
provisions.

Introduction

Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF) is one of the most popular steel structures for
resisting earthquake loads in high seismic regions. The center lines of all members (brace, girder

1
Research Engineer, Sharma & Associates, Inc., Countryside, IL 60525
2
Dept. of Earthquake and Structural Engineering, Gebze Institute of Technology., Turkey
3
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
50011
4
Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

Rou Wen, Bulent Akbas, Bilge Doran, Eren Uckan, Onur Seker, Pinar Seker and Jay Shen. COMPARATIVE
SEISMIC DESIGNS OF SCBF USING AISC 341-05 AND AISC 341-10. Proceedings of the 10th National
Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014
and column) meet at one point at their joints in a concentrically braced frame (CBF) so that
elastic deformation of CBF consists of axial deformation (in compression or tension), which is
the main reason that CBF has large initial stiffness resisting lateral loads. The middle open
spaces within braced bays also give attractions to architects and owners.
Two types bracing configurations, chevron and X-bracing over two stories, are the common
choices for CBF designs. Chevron braced frame is the one in which braces are connected to mid-
span point of girder at inverted-V shape. The X-bracing over two stories frame is configured so
that the V and inverted-V shapes are alternatively assigned to braces in a consecutive manner.
Figure 1 plots the bracing configurations for both frames.
In the framework of capacity design methodologies, special systems (also known as ductile
systems) are expected to withstand significant inelastic deformations under strong ground
motions. In a SCBF, braces are designed to sustain larger inelastic cyclic deformations (tension
yielding and compression buckling) without brittle fractures around plastic hinges due to local
buckling. Other structural members, such as girders, columns and connections, are required to
pose adequate strength to resist any post-buckling mechanisms at large deformation state.
In United States, the explicit capacity-design approach has been fully incorporated into the
newest seismic provisions for structural steel buildings (AISC 341-10, 2010). One new analysis
section is added into AISC 341-10 to address the inelastic behavior of SCBFs. Two separate
structural analyses are required for SCBFs in AISC 341-10. Analysis one assumes that braces in
tension or compression have their expected strength without considering cyclic strength
degrading. Analysis two considers the expected post-buckling strength for compression braces.
There is one additional analysis in that the compression braces are removed under amplified
seismic loads. These analysis requirements significantly increase design efforts in typical design
offices, and a comprehensive study to demonstrate how such explicit inelastic design procedure
would (or would not) significantly improve seismic performance of SCBFs appears to be
justified.
In this paper, the design methodologies in AISC 341-05 and AISC 341-10 are first explained .
Then, two buildings, one 4-story and one 10-story, are designed as special CBFs using three
seismic sites. For each design case, two bracing configurations (chevron and X-bracing over two
stories) are considered. In the last section, the design results are compared and the general
observations are made from this comparative design study.

a. Chevron b. X-Bracing over Two-Stories

Figure 1. Configurations of Studied SCBFs

 Design Procedures of SCBFs using AISC 341-10 and AISC 341-05

In this section, the design procedures of SCBFs are briefly summarized. In practice, there are two
design phases for CBF designs; Phase I and Phase II. Phase I is elastic analysis on braces under
design earthquake loads, whereas Phase II considers the impacts from inelastic behavior of
braces (tension yielding, compression buckling and post buckling) on the girders and columns.
In Phase I, braces need to satisfy the strength and seismic compactness requirements. Inclined
braces have compression forces from vertical loads and tension/compression forces from lateral
loads. Strength designs have to consider these load combinations in both AISC 341-05 and AISC
341-10. The seismic compactness requirement guarantees that there is no premature fracture
around plastic hinge zone on braces due to local buckling under cyclic loads. In AISC 341-05,
Table I-8-1 lists the limiting width-thickness ratios, λps. For the round HSS in axial compression,
diameter to wall thickness D/t is 0.044E/Fy = 0.044×29000/42 = 30.4. In AISC 341-10, Table
D1.1 lists the limiting width-thickness ratios for moderately ductile and highly ductile members.
For the round HSS in axial compression, D/t for moderately ductile members is 0.044E/Fy = 30.4
and D/t for highly ductile members is 0.038E/Fy = 26.2.
In Phase II, the inelastic responses of braces have to be considered in the structural analysis. In
AISC 341-05, Section 13.4a, for SCBFs having V-Type and Inverted-V-Type bracing
configurations, the intercepted girders shall be designed for expected yielding tension forces,
RyFyAg, and post-buckling compression forces, 0.3Pn. There is no explicit design assumption for
the columns in braced bays. In AISC 341-10, there are three analysis cases stipulated in analysis
section F2.3. Analysis 1 requires that all braces are assumed to resist forces corresponding to
their expected strength in compression or in tension. Analysis 2 requires that all braces in tension
are assumed to resist forces corresponding to their expected strength and all braces in
compression are assumed to resist their expected post-buckling strength. Analysis 3 is permitted
to limit the strength demands on columns from Analysis 1 and Analysis 2. Analysis 3 uses a
building frame model in which all compression braces have been removed to resist the amplified
seismic loads. Girder sections are determined by the larger combined axial forces and bending
moment from Analysis 1 and Analysis 2. Column sections are determined by the larger axial
forces from Analysis 1 and Analysis 2, whereas this value shouldn’t reach the limit values
calculated from Analysis 3.

Design Examples of SCBFs using AISC 341-10 and AISC 341-05

Two buildings with different heights, 4- and 10-story, are designed using AISC 341-10 and
AISC 341-05 seismic design provisions. Chevron and X-bracing over two stories bracing
configurations are considered for each building. The designs are classified into three groups
based on the location varied from low, moderate to high seismic regions. The buildings in Group
I has SD1 = 0.375g and SDS = 0.750g; in Group II has SD1 = 0.500g and SDS = 1.000g; and in
Group III has SD1 = 0.750 and SDS = 1.500g. The total number of design cases is reached to
24(two different heights × two bracing configurations × three design levels × two design
provisions). Seismic design category is selected as Category D and equivalent lateral force
analysis procedures are used for the design.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 show plans and elevations of studied steel buildings. The 3-1/2 inch thick
concrete on the metal deck is used as composite floor, which is considered to provide a “rigid”
 diaphragm for the purpose of transferring lateral forces to lateral load resisting frames in each
orthogonal (E-W, N-S) direction. The columns along other lines are connected to girders with
shear beam-to-column connections, forming “gravity-only frames” to carry the gravity loads.
The contribution from the gravity-only frames to resist lateral forces is neglected. Dead and live
loads of 80psf and 50 psf, respectively, are used in the design.

1 2 3 4 5
30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft

30ft
B

4@13ft
30ft
C
30ft
Braced
D
Frame

Moment Frame
a. Plan View b. Elevation View at Lines 1 and 5

Figure 2. Plan and Elevation of the 4-story frame

1 2 3 4 5 6

30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft

A
30 ft

30 ft

10 @ 13 ft
C
30 ft
Braced
D
frame
30 ft
E
30 ft
F

Moment b. Elevation View at Lines 1 and 6

a. Plan View
Frame

Fig. 3. Plan and Elevation of the 10-story

Tables 1-to-4 include all the seismic design results for the 24 cases. For the design cases using
AISC 341-05, only, brace, girder and column sections are listed. For the design cases using
AISC 341-10, the controlling analysis cases for girders and columns are also included in the
Tables.
The comparisons based on the design of each structural components, braces, girders, and
columns, are briefly summarized as:
a. For braces, there are no differences for the strength check between the two seismic design
provisions. The only difference is that the stringer seismic compactness limitations in
AISC 341-10 limit the available brace sections.
b. For girders, Analysis 2 always controls the designs in AISC 341-10. The girder sections
in AISC 341-05 are, generally, lighter than the girder sections used in AISC 341-10.
c. For columns, Analysis 3 controls the most design cases in AISC 341-10. AISC 341-10
increase the strength demands on columns significantly in high seismic regions.

Conclusions

In this paper, the seismic design procedures for SCBFs in AISC 341-05 and AISC 341-10 for
SCBFs are compared. For this purpose, twenty four building frames were designed and their
differences were analyzed. Several observations from the analyses are included here:
1) The stringer local buckling requirements in AISC 341-10 limit the available brace sections;
2.) In AISC 341-10, Analysis 2 controls the girder designs and lighter sections are used than the
ones in AISC 341-05.
3.) For columns, Analysis 3 controls the most design cases in AISC 341-10. The requirements in
AISC 341-10 increase the strength demands on columns significantly for design cases in high
seismic regions.

References

1. Brandonisio G., Toreno M., Grande E., Mele E., De Luca A.. Seismic design of concentric braced frames.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2012; Vol. 78: 22-37.
2. AISC 341-05 (2005), Seismic Provisions for Steel Structural Buildings. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Inc., Chicago 2005.
3. AISC 341-10 (2010), Seismic Provisions for Steel Structural Buildings. American Institute of Steel
Construction, Inc., Chicago 2010.
4. ASCE 7 (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Virginia 2010.
5. Ibrahim F.K., Stephen A.M. and Karl, S.P., Seismic Behavior of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames, Rep. No.
UCB/EERC 88-01, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley 1988
6. Tremblay R., Robert N.. Seismic design of low- and medium-rise chevron braced steel frames. Journal of
Canadian Civil Engineering 2000; Vol 27: 1192-1206.
7. Redwood R.G., Channagiri V. S.. Earthquake resistant design of concentrically braced steel frames. Journal of
Canadian Civil Engineering 1991; Vol 18(8): 839-850.
 Table 1. Design Summaries for Chevron Four-Story SCBFs
AISC 341-05 AISC 341-10

Group Level Girder Column

Brace Girder Column Brace Controlling Controlling
Section Sections
Analysis Analysis
4 HSS7.000×0.250 W21×166 W10×45 HSS6.625×0.312 W21×182 2 W10×45 3
3 HSS7.625×0.328 W24×192 W10×45 HSS7.625×0.328 W24×192 2 W10×45 3
I
2 HSSS8.625×0.322 W27×178 W10×68 HSS7.500×0.500 W27×235 2 W10×77 3
1 HSS7.500×0.500 W27×235 W10×68 HSS7.500×0.500 W27×235 2 W10×77 3
4 HSS7.000×0.312 W24×192 W10×45 HSS6.625×0.375 W24×192 2 W10×45 3
3 HSS7.500×0.500 W27×281 W10×45 HSS7.500×0.500 W27×235 2 W10×45 3
II
2 HSSS9.625×0.375 W30×235 W10×68 HSSS8.625×0.500 W30×235 2 W10×88 3
1 HSSS9.625×0.375 W30×235 W10×68 HSSS8.625×0.500 W30×235 2 W10×88 3
4 HSS7.625×0.375 W27×217 W10×45 HSS7.625×0.375 W27×178 2 W10×68 2
3 HSSS8.625×0.500 W27×307 W10×45 HSSS8.625×0.500 W27×258 2 W10×68 2
III
2 HSSS9.625×0.500 W30×326 W10×77 HSSS9.625×0.500 W30×261 2 W12×120 1
1 HSS10.750×0.500 W33×318 W10×77 HSS10.750×0.500 W33×263 2 W12×120 1

Table 2. Design Summaries for Four-Story SCBFs having ×-bracing over Two Story
AISC 341-05 AISC 341-10

Group Level Girder Column

Brace Girder Column Brace
Controlling Controlling
Section Sections
Analysis Analysis
4 HSSS6.875×0.250 W16×40 W10×45 HSSS6.000×0.375 W16×40 2 W10×45 3
3 HSS7.625×0.375 W18×119 W10×45 HSS7.000×0.500 W18×119 2 W10×45 3
I
2 HSSS8.625×0.375 W18×50 W10×68 HSSS8.625×0.375 W18×60 2 W10×77 3
1 HSSS9.625×0.375 W18×60 W10×68 HSSS8.625×0.500 W18×106 2 W10×77 3
4 HSSS6.875×0.312 W16×40 W10×45 HSS7.000×0.312 W16×40 2 W10×45 3
3 HSS7.500×0.500 W18×158 W10×45 HSSS8.625×0.375 W18×97 2 W10×45 3
II
2 HSSS8.625×0.500 W18×50 W10×68 HSSS8.625×0.500 W18×65 2 W10×100 3
1 HSSS8.625×0.625 W18×119 W10×68 HSSS8.625×0.625 W18×106 2 W10×100 3
4 HSS7.625×0.375 W16×50 W10×45 HSS7.625×0.375 W16×50 2 W10×68 3
3 HSSS8.625×0.625 W24×176 W10×45 HSSS8.625×0.625 W24×162 2 W10×68 2
III
2 HSS10.750×0.500 W16×57 W10×68 HSS10.750×0.500 W16×77 2 W12×120 3
1 HSS10.000×0.625 W18×97 W10×68 HSS10.000×0.625 W18×97 2 W12×120 3
 Table 3. Design Summaries for Chevron Ten-Story SCBFs
AISC 341-05 AISC 341-10
Girder Column
Group Level
Brace Girder Column Brace
Controlling Controlling
Section Sections
Analysis Analysis
10 HSS6.625×0.250 W27×129 W14×48 HSS5.500×0.500 W27×178 2 W14×48 3
9 HSSS6.875×0.375 W27×178 W14×48 HSSS6.875×0.375 W27×178 2 W14×48 3
8 HSS7.000×0.500 W27×217 W14×68 HSS7.000×0.500 W27×217 2 W14×82 3
7 HSSS8.625×0.375 W27×217 W14×68 HSSS8.625×0.375 W27×217 2 W14×82 3
6 HSSS9.625×0.375 W27×235 W14×132 HSSS8.625×0.500 W27×258 2 W14×132 3
I
5 HSSS8.625×0.500 W27×258 W14×132 HSSS8.625×0.500 W27×258 2 W14×132 3
4 HSSS8.625×0.500 W27×258 W14×132 HSSS8.625×0.500 W27×258 2 W14×176 3
3 HSSS8.625×0.625 W27×258 W14×132 HSSS9.625×0.500 W27×281 2 W14×176 3
2 HSSS8.625×0.625 W27×258 W14×159 HSSS9.625×0.500 W27×281 2 W14×233 3
1 HSSS8.625×0.625 W27×258 W14×159 HSSS9.625×0.500 W27×281 2 W14×233 3
10 HSS6.875×0.312 W30×148 W14×48 HSS6.625×0.312 W30×132 2 W14×48 3
9 HSS7.500×0.375 W30×173 W14×48 HSS7.500×0.375 W30×173 2 W14×48 3
8 HSS9.625×0.375 W30×211 W14×68 HSS8.625×0.500 W30×235 2 W14×132 3
7 HSS10.000×0.375 W30×211 W14×68 HSS8.625×0.500 W30×235 2 W14×132 3
6 HSS8.625×0.625 W33×263 W14×132 HSS8.625×0.625 W33×263 2 W14×145 3
II
5 HSS10.000×0.500 W33×263 W14×132 HSS10.000×0.500 W33×241 2 W14×145 3
4 HSS10.750×0.500 W33×263 W14×145 HSS10.750×0.500 W33×263 2 W14×233 3
3 HSS10.750×0.500 W33×263 W14×145 HSS10.750×0.500 W33×263 2 W14×233 3
2 HSS10.750×0.500 W33×263 W14×193 HSS10.750×0.500 W33×263 2 W14×311 3
1 HSS10.000×0.625 W33×318 W14×193 HSS10.000×0.625 W33×291 2 W14×311 3
10 HSS7.000×0.375 W30×173 W14×48 HSS7.000×0.375 W30×173 2 W14×68 2
9 HSS9.625×0.375 W33×201 W14×48 HSS8.625×0.500 W33×221 2 W14×68 2
8 HSS8.625×0.625 W33×263 W14×68 HSS8.625×0.625 W33×263 2 W14×132 3
7 HSS10.750×0.500 W33×263 W14×68 HSS10.75×0.500 W33×263 2 W14×132 3
6 HSS10.000×0.625 W33×318 W14×132 HSS10.000×0.625 W33×291 2 W14×211 3
III
5 HSS12.750×0.500 W33×318 W14×132 HSS14.000×0.625 W33×387 2 W14×211 3
4 HSS14.000×0.500 W33×354 W14×193 HSS10.75×0.500 W33×263 2 W14×283 3
3 HSS14.000×0.500 W33×354 W14×193 HSS10.75×0.500 W33×263 2 W14×283 3
2 HSS14.000×0.500 W33×354 W14×257 HSS10.75×0.500 W33×263 2 W14×370 3
1 HSS14.000×0.500 W33×354 W14×257 HSS10.75×0.500 W33×263 2 W14×370 3
 Table 4. Design Summaries for Ten-Story SCBFs having ×-bracing over Two Story
AISC 341-05 AISC 341-10
Girder Column
Group Level
Brace Girder Column Brace
Controlling Controlling
Section Sections
Analysis Analysis

10 HSS6.625×0.250 W14×38 W14×48 HSS6.000×0.280 W14×38 2 W14×48 3

9 HSS7.625×0.328 W21×93 W14×48 HSS7.625×0.328 W21×83 2 W14×48 3
8 HSS7.500×0.500 W14×53 W14×68 HSS7.500×0.500 W14×61 2 W14×82 3
7 HSS10.000×0.375 W14×30 W14×68 HSSS8.625×0.500 W21×57 2 W14×82 3
6 HSSS8.625×0.625 W14×61 W14×132 HSSS8.625×0.625 W14×68 2 W14×132 3
I
5 HSS10.000×0.500 W14×22 W14×132 HSS10.000×0.500 W18×50 1 W14×132 3
4 HSS10.750×0.500 W14×61 W14×132 HSS10.750×0.500 W14×68 2 W14×176 3
3 HSS10.000×0.625 W21×93 W14×132 HSS10.000×0.625 W21×83 2 W14×176 3
2 HSS10.000×0.625 W14×68 W14×159 HSS10.000×0.625 W14×82 2 W14×233 3
1 HSSS12.750×0.500 W14×43 W14×159 HSS14.000×0.625 W24×146 2 W14×233 3
10 HSSS6.875×0.250 W14×43 W14×48 HSS6.000×0.375 W14×43 2 W14×48 3
9 HSSS8.625×0.322 W24×94 W14×48 HSS7.500×0.500 W24×104 2 W14×48 3
8 HSSS9.625×0.375 W14×61 W14×68 HSS8.625×0.500 W14×61 2 W14×132 3
7 HSSS8.625×0.625 W24×131 W14×68 HSS8.625×0.625 W21×101 2 W14×132 3
6 HSS10.750×0.500 W14×61 W14×132 HSS10.750×0.500 W16×67 2 W14×176 3
II
5 HSS10.000×0.625 W21×93 W14×132 HSS10.000×0.625 W21×83 2 W14×176 3
4 HSS10.000×0.500 W14×61 W14×145 HSS10.750×0.500 W14×74 2 W14×193 3
3 HSS10.750×0.500 W18×60 W14×145 HSS10.750×0.500 W14×30 2 W14×193 3
2 HSS10.000×0.625 W14×68 W14×193 HSS10.000×0.625 W14×74 2 W14×257 3
1 HSSS12.750×0.500 W14×43 W14×193 HSS14.000×0.625 W24×146 2 W14×257 3
10 HSSS6.875×0.375 W14×48 W14×48 HSSS6.875×0.375 W14×43 2 W14×68 3
9 HSSS9.625×0.375 W24×94 W14×48 HSS8.625×0.500 W24×117 2 W14×68 2
8 HSS10.000×0.500 W14×61 W14×68 HSS10.000×0.500 W14×68 2 W14×132 3
7 HSS10.000×0.625 W21×111 W14×68 HSS10.000×0.625 W21×101 2 W14×132 3
6 HSSS12.750×0.500 W16×67 W14×132 HSS14.000×0.625 W16×89 2 W14×211 3
III
5 HSS14.000×0.500 W21×73 W14×132 HSS14.000×0.625 W14×30 2 W14×211 3
4 HSS14.000×0.625 W16×89 W14×193 HSS14.000×0.625 W16×89 2 W14×342 3
3 HSS14.000×0.625 W14×38 W14×193 HSS14.000×0.625 W14×30 2 W14×342 3
2 HSS14.000×0.500 W16×77 W14×257 HSS14.000×0.625 W16×89 2 W14×370 3
1 HSS14.000×0.500 W14×38 W14×257 HSS14.000×0.625 W14×30 2 W14×370 3

View publication stats