View source for Table of Experimental Studies on CFT Frame Tests

== General Information ==

{| style="color:black; background-color:white;" width="100%" cellpadding=1 cellspacing="0" border="1" style="font-size: 90%;"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 10%;background-color:#efefef;" | Reference 
! scope="col" style="width: 15%;background-color:#efefef;" | Experiment Synopsis
! scope="col" style="width: 15%;background-color:#efefef;" | Number of Tests
! scope="col" style="width: 15%;background-color:#efefef;" | Loading Method
! scope="col" style="width: 15%;background-color:#efefef;" | Results Reported
! scope="col" style="width: 15%;background-color:#efefef;" | Main Parameters
! scope="col" style="width: 15%;background-color:#efefef;" | Comments
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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. &Delta; 
*H<sub>max</sub>,H<sub>u</sub>,M<sub>pc</sub>
| 
*Type of connection, D/t
*Cyclic vs. monotonic loading
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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. &epsilon;
*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
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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. &epsilon;<sub>d</sub>
| Failure mode, axial load ratio (P/P<sub>o</sub>)
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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
| 
*Roof 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
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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
| Constant axial load and a cyclically increasing lateral load
| 
*Cyclic Load vs. Lateral Deformation
*Lateral Load vs. Displacement
| 
*Level of axial load
*k
| 
|}

== Specimen Information ==

{| style="color:black; background-color:white;" width="100%" cellpadding=1 cellspacing="0" border="1" style="font-size: 90%;"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 10%;background-color:#efefef;" | Reference 
! scope="col" style="width: 20%;background-color:#efefef;" | Beam Information
! scope="col" style="width: 25%;background-color:#efefef;" | Column Information
! scope="col" style="width: 20%;background-color:#efefef;" | Connection Information
! scope="col" style="width: 25%;background-color:#efefef;" | End Conditions
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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)
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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<sup>st</sup> floor)
*External diaphragm (2<sup>nd</sup> floor)
*Bolted end plate (3<sup>rd</sup> floor)
| Concrete footing
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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
|}

== Cross Section Information ==

{| style="color:black; background-color:white;" width="100%" cellpadding=1 cellspacing="0" border="1" style="font-size: 90%;"
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 10%;background-color:#efefef;" | Reference 
! scope="col" style="width: 25%;background-color:#efefef;" | Tube Dimensions
! scope="col" style="width: 25%;background-color:#efefef;" | Steel Properties (girder)
! scope="col" style="width: 20%;background-color:#efefef;" | Steel Properties (column)
! scope="col" style="width: 20%;background-color:#efefef;" | Concrete Properties
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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<sub>yb</sub>= 38.7, 51.8 ksi
| Mild, cold formed channel sections
F<sub>y</sub>= 59.8, 41.7, 41.8 ksi
| f'<sub>c</sub>= 5.2-5.8
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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.
| STKR400 steel (Jap.)
F<sub>y</sub>= 57.3 ksi
| f'<sub>c</sub>= 2.8-3.0
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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<sub>yb</sub>= 49.68 ksi
| STKR400
F<sub>y</sub>= 58.50 ksi
| f'<sub>c</sub>= 2.7
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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<sub>yb</sub>= 54-70 ksi
| F<sub>y</sub>= 78.7 (circular), 54.2 (square) ksi
| f'<sub>c</sub>= 5.1
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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<sub>yb</sub>= 50 ksi
| A500 Grade 80
| f'<sub>c</sub>= 9.8
|-
! scope="row" style="background-color:#efefef;"| [[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<sub>y</sub>= 44, 52 ksi
| F<sub>y</sub>= 52, 58 ksi
| f'<sub>c</sub>= 7.63
|}