Jerome F. Hajjar - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering - Northeastern University

Table of Experimental Studies on CFT Frame Tests

General Information

Reference	Experiment Synopsis	Number of Tests	Loading Method	Results Reported	Main Parameters	Comments
Han, Wang, and Zhao 2008	Behavior of the composite frame with concrete-filled square hollow section (SHS) columns to steel beam	6 concrete filled SHS columns to steel composite frame specimens	6 concrete filled SHS columns to steel composite frame specimens	Cyclic Load vs. Lateral Deformation Lateral Load vs. Displacement	Level of axial load k
Herrera, Ricles, and Sause 2008	Hybrid pseudo-dynamic test of a three-fifths scale MRF	1 CFT frame 2 bay, 4 story	Ground motions from the 1979 Imperial Valley and 1994 Northridge earthquakes scaled to different intensities factors, four motions total	Floor disp vs. time Story drift and shear vs. story		Analytically modeled leaner column to represent interior gravity frame
Kawaguchi et al. 2002	Cyclic loading of portal frames made up of CFT columns	4 CFT frames	Constant axial load on both columns and cyclic lateral load applied to the base-beam of the columns	H vs. R H vs. ε_d	Failure mode, axial load ratio (P/P_o)
Matsui 1985, 1986	Monotonic and cyclic loading of portal frames having CFT and HT columns	2 HT frames, 10 CFT frames	Constant axial load on both columns and monotonic or cyclic lateral load at one beam-to-column connection	H vs. Δ H_max,H_u,M_pc	Type of connection, D/t Cyclic vs. monotonic loading
Morino et al. 1993	Non-proportional cyclic loading of 3D CFT/steel cruciform subassemblies	10 subassemblies 6 w/ sym out-of-plane loads, 4 asym) 5--connection failure 5--column failure	Constant axial load on col. Sym or asym. const loads on 2 out-of-plane bms. Anty-symmetric cyclic loading on 2 in-plane bms	V vs. ε V vs. R V vs. lat'l displ. of connection	Conn. design, out-of-plane loading Biaxial bending Failure: typ. instability due to lat'l displ. of connection
Tsai et al. 2008	Pseudo-dynamic test of a full scale CFT/BRB frame	1 CFT/BRB frame 3 bay, 3 story	Ground motions from the 1999 ChiChi and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes scaled to different intensities,eight motions total	oof displacement vs. time Base shear vs. time Story shear vs. story drift BRB force Energy dissipation		Three different types of BRBs, beams had concrete floor slab

Specimen Information

Reference	Beam Information	Column Information	Connection Information	End Conditions
Han, Wang, and Zhao 2008	6.3x3.15x0.14x0.14 5.51x2.76x0.14x0.14 7.09x3.15x0.17x0.17 Length: 98.42 in	4.72x0.14 5.51x0.16 Length: 57.09 in	Welded	Col: Fixed base Beam to col: Rigid
Herrera, Ricles, and Sause 2008	W18x46 W16x40 W16x31 W12x22 Length: 216 in	Length (L): 90, 108 in Length/Diameter (L/D): 7.5, 9	Split tee	Pinned bases with basement level
Kawaguchi et al. 2002	BH125 x 150 x 16 x 25 Length: 59.1 in	Length (L): 39.4 in Length/Diameter (L/D): 8	Through stiffener	Col: Fixed base Beam to col: Rigid
Matsui 1985, 1986	BH200 x 200 x 6 x 6 Length: 59.1 in	Length (L): 39.4 in Length/Diameter (L/D): 6.67	Outside stiffener, through stiffener	Col: Fixed base Beam to col: Rigid
Morino et al. 1993	H250 x 250 x 6 x 9 Length: in-plane: 70.87, out-of-plane 49.21 in	Length (L): 39.67 in Length/Diameter (L/D): 8.1	Through stiffener	Fixed base, pinned top (roller)
Tsai et al. 2008	H456 x 201 x 10 x 17 H450 x 200 x 9 x 14 H400 x 200 x 8 13 Length: 275.6 in	Length (L): 157.5 in Length/Diameter (L/D): 10	Through beam (1^st floor) External diaphragm (2^nd floor) Bolted end plate (3^rd floor)	Concrete footing

Cross Section Information

Reference	Tube Dimensions	Steel Properties	Concrete Properties
Han, Wang, and Zhao 2008	◌: (D) □: (D) x (B): 4.72 x 4.72, 5.51 x 5.51 (square) Wall Thickness (t)(in): 0.14, 0.16 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 33.7, 34.4	F_y= 44, 52 ksi	f'_c= 7.63
Herrera, Ricles, and Sause 2008	◌: (D) □: (D) x (B): 12 x 12 (square) Wall Thickness (t)(in): 0.393 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 30.5	A992 F_yb= 50 ksi	f'_c= 9.8
Kawaguchi et al. 2002	◌: (D) □: (D) x (B): 4.92x 4.92 (square) Wall Thickness (t)(in): 0.236 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 20.83	SS400 F_yb= 49.68 ksi	'_c= 2.7
Matsui 1985, 1986	◌: (D) □: (D) x (B): 5.91 x 5.91 (square) Wall Thickness (t)(in): 0.177, 0.126, 0.091 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 33, 47, 68	F_yb= 38.7, 51.8 ksi	f'_c= 5.2-5.8
Morino et al. 1993	◌: (D) □: (D) x (B): 4.92 x 4.92 (square) Wall Thickness (t)(in): 0.23 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 22.0	N.A.	f'_c= 2.8-3.0
Tsai et al. 2008	◌: (D) □: (D) x (B): 15.75 (circular) 15.75 x 15.75 (square) Wall Thickness (t)(in): 0.354 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 44.5	F_yb= 54-70 ksi	f'_c= 5.1