2011 AISC T.R.

Higgins Lecture:
SCBF Gusset Plate Connection
Design
Ch l W
Charles W. R
Roeder
d
With major input by
Dawn E Lehman, Eric Lumpkin, Po-Po-Chien Hsiao,
and Keith Palmer
University of Washington
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Seattle, WA 98195

SEAW Meeting, Seattle, Washington, January 23, 2011

1
This work is part of a broad research
program involving extensive experiments
and anlyses at 4 different institutions.
The research addresses the broad seismic
performance of braced frames, but this
presentation will place greater focus on
the
h effect
ff off the
h gusset plate
l connections
i
and an improved gusset plate design
procedure.
procedure

2
More the 35 single-story single-bay Two two-story two-bay test with
Tests at University of Washington Slab at University of Minnesota

Six 2- or 3-
story plane
Four 2-story
frame tests
plane fframe
ame
with slab at
tests at
National
University of
Center for
California
Research in
Berkeley
Earthquake
Engineering
in Taipei

3
Cooperative Study Involving
Several Groups and Institutions
„ Charles Roeder and Dawn Lehman,
University of Washington
„ Steve Mahin, at University of California,
Berkeley
„ Taichiro Okazaki (now Hokkaido University) and
Carol Shield Universityy of Minnesota
„ K. C. Tsai, National Center for Research in
Earthquake Engineering (NCREE), Taiwan
„ Advisory Group of Engineers

4
Acknowledgements
„ National Science „ CANRON Western
Foundation Constructors Ltd
„ Nucor Yamato Steel „ Rutherford and
„ Ch
Chaparrall SSteell Chekene
„ Columbia Structural „ Dasse Design Inc -
Tubingg Walter P. Moore
„ American Institute of „ Coughlin Porter and
Steel Construction Lundeen
„ Magnusson Klemencic „ Many
Man others
Associates

5
Acknowledgement of those
who actually did the work for
this presentation.
„ Shawn Johnson „ Jacob Powell
„ Adam Christopulos „ Eric Lumpkin
„ Jung--Han Yoo
Jung „ Keith Palmer
„ David Herman „ Po--Chien Hsiao
Po
„ Brandon Kutolka
„ Kelly Clark

6
Overview of Presentation

„ Introduction to Seismic Design and

Performance
„ Experiments
p on Braced frame Gusset Plate
Connections
„ Proposed Balanced Design Procedure
„ Other Braced Frame Issues – Nonlinear
Analysis of Seismic Response of Braced
Frames

7
I
Introduction
d i to S Seismic
i i
Design and Performance

8
 US Seismic Design
„ Basically Life Safety, Collapse Prevention design with
increasing interest in performance based design
„ Primarily simple elastic analysis methods
„ Seismic design forces reduced by response
modification factors, R, selected to achieve target
inelastic performance and deformation capacit
– Small seismic designg forces assure serviceabilityy duringg
small, frequent earthquakes
– Large inelastic deformations during large earthquakes with
ductile detailing to prevent collapse
– R varies between 3 and 7 depending upon detailing

9
SCBFs are Conceptually Truss
Structures
„ Diagonal
g brace economicallyy
provides large strength and
stiffness
– Good for serviceability LS
„ Engineers initially evaluate as
a truss with pin joints
– Real connections are not pins
„ SCBF are conceptionally
SCBFs i ll
very easy to design, but many
engineers do not understand
their seismic performance

10
Overview of Seismic
Performance of SCBFs

11
This work focuses on SCBFs, but general
conclusions apply to OCBFs and other
CBF alternatives including pre-
pre-1988 CBF
systems.
y Gusset plate
p connections play
p ya
predominant role in braced frame
performance because they must develop
the
h required
i d resistance
i off the
h bbrace and
d
the frame while accommodating any
required movement or deformation.
deformation

12
 Brief Overview of Current Seismic
Design Method
1. Size brace based on factored
seismic loads
2. Establish plastic capacity of
brace in tension and
compression
Pu = Ry Ag Fy (tension)
Pu = 1.1 Ry Ag Fcr (comp)
These forces are much
larger than factored loads
This practice sometimes leads to
misconception that the stiffer and
stronger the gusset the better.
better.

13
 Brief Overview of Current Seismic
Design Method
3. Size brace-
brace-ggusset welds or
bolts for plastic brace
capacity
φRn > Pu (tension)
4. Reinforce Net section of
brace?
φRn = 0.75 U An Fu > Pu
(tension)
( i )
Reinforcement usually required due
to large value of Pu and the
reduction due to φ and UU.
Exception allows some relief
through the expected tensile stress.

14
 Brief Overview of Current Seismic
Design Method (2)
5. Establish Whitmore width
P j ti a 30o angle
Projecting l from
f start
t t to
t
the end of joint.
6. Establish buckling end
rotation clearance requirement
q
- typically 2 tp
With rectangular gussets and flat or
steep brace angles this results in
quite
i large
l gussets.
6. Check gusset for buckling and
tensile yield
Uses area within Whitmore width.
Various methods for K and Le.

15
 Brief Overview of Current Seismic
Design Method
7. Determine equilibrium
q
forces on gusset-
gusset-beam and
gusset--column interfaces
gusset
based upon expected
t il force
tensile f
Size welds with appropriate
resistance factors.
8. D i b
Design beam-column
beam- l
connection
Great variation bolted or
welded with attached or free
flanges.

16
Current Designs May Fall Short of
E
Expectations
t ti

Gussets often very thick and large. Performance often less than
than expected.

17
Experiments on Braced
Frames and Gusset Plate
Connections

18
Gusset Plate Buckling - Past
Experimental Results
Edge Buckling Model Modified Thornton Buckling

19
 Corner Gusset Plate
Connections
„ Occur in wide range g of
bracing systems including This is 2tp
diagonal, X-
X-, and V-
V- or connection
chevron bracing commonly
used today
„ Provide good restraint to
gusset with support on
two edges from beam and
column
Proposed
„ Potentially difficult to elliptical
achieve end rotation of clearance
brace due inelastic ppost-
post- model
buckling deformation from this
research

20
Midspan Gusset Plate
Connections
„ Occur in multi-
multi-storyy X
and V-
V- or chevron bracing
„ Provide less restraint to
gusset with support on
one edge from beam
„ Susceptible to twist or
lateral torsional stability of
the
h bbeam
„ Easier to achieve end
rotation of brace due
inelastic post-
post-buckling
deformation

21
Experimental Research on
Corner Gusset Plate
C
Connections
ti
Uses andd bu
builds
ds upo
upon eextensive
e s ve
past research on connections and
CBF systems

22
Prototype Structure

23
UW Experimental Program on
gusset plate connections
„ Tested 27 SCBFs with wide range of gusset connection
configurations
nfi r ti ns ssubjected
bj t d tto cyclic
li in
inelastic
l sti ddeformation
f rm ti n
Channel
Assembly

Out-of-Plane
Restraint

Load Beam Axial Force

System

Strong Floor

24
Brace Buckling
g Important
p to
CBF Behavior

B1 B2 B3

25
Brace Fracture

Local Pinching Initial Tearing

Tearing Through Brace Fracture

Brace Wall

26
Widely Distributed Yielding
„ Yieldingg in gusset
g plate
p
„ Plastic hinging and local
buckling in beam and
column adjacent to gusset
„ Ductile weld tearing -
welds are all designed as
demand critical
„ But large deformation
capacity from system if
connection properly
designed

27
Specimen HSS-
HSS-01: Reference Specimen
(AISC D
Design)
i ) w/2t
/2 Li
Linear Cl
Clearance

„ Inelastic action included

– Brace yielding and buckling
„ Overall failure mode
– Fracture of the
gusset plate
plate--to-
to-frame welds
„ Drift Capacities:
-1.3% to 1.6% (2.9%)

28
More Compact Gusset Achieved
with Elliptical Clearance Proposal
„ Improved Constructability
„ Equal or Improved Drift Capacity

„ Based upon analytical and experimental observations

Current: Linear 2t Offset Proposed: Elliptical Clearance

29
Evaluation of Elliptical
Clearance: HSS-
HSS-5
„ More compact
p ggusset p
plate
– 3/8 in. Plate
– 6t Elliptical Clearance
„ Inelastic action included
– Brace yielding and buckling
– Increased gusset plate yielding
– Increased yielding of frame
elements
– Weld cracking
„ Overall failure mode
– Brace fracture
„ Drift Capacities:
-3.1% to 1.7% (4.8%)

30
Current design methods imply bigger
((stronger)
g ) is better – but this is wrong
g
3/8 “ Plate
„ One connections with veryy
conservative design and other
with a balance design
„ Failure Mode: Brace Fracture
„ Drift Capacities:
3/8” = 3.1% to 1.7% (4.8%) 7/8 “ Plate w/ Large Beam
7/8”
7/8 = -1.5%
1 5% to 1.0%
1 0% (2.5%)
(2 5%)
„ Significant Reduction in drift
capacity for brace in
compression
i

31
Effect of Plate Taper
p

„ Specimens Exhibited Similar 3/8 “ Plate

S
Sequence off Performance
P f
„ Failure Mode: Brace Fracture
„ Drift Capacities:
p
3/8” = 3.1% to 1.7% (4.8%)
1/2” Tapered Plate
= -2.5%
2 5% to 1.9%
1 9% (4.5%)
(4 5%) 1/2 “ Plate 15o Taper

„ Similar Performance with

Thicker Plate
„ T
Taperedd gussets sustain
i greater
yield damage to the gusset

32
 Connections with Unwelded
Beam Flanges
„ Commonly used in practice
„ Tests resulted in
– Reduced deformation
capacity
– More rapid failure of
brace
– Unwelded flange provides
l restraint
less i to gusset andd
greater damage in both
gusset and brace
We encourage welded
flange connections,
but….

33
 Bolted End Plate Connections
(HSS--21)
(HSS
„ Behaved well but below
the best welded
connections
„ Ultimate fracture of brace
„ Drift range between
1.64% and -1.95% (3.60%
total))
„ Bolt fracture at center
most bolts
„ Prying of column flanges
noted at outer most bolts

34
 Brace Cross Section Influences
Performance
• SCBFs with wide flange
braces provide greater
inelastic deformation
capacity than SCBFs with
HSS bbraces

• Ultimate failure of system due to

fracture of gusset adjacent to
frame welds and shear failure of
bolts shear tab connection
• Drift range between 2.36% and
-3.23% (5.59% total)

35
Braced Frame Performance Also
Depends
d upon Brace Configuration

36
Braced Frame Performance Depends
upon Brace Configuration
„ Single story X-
X-braced
frames sustain greater
damage at smaller
d f
deformations
i than
h
diagonal bracing or
multi--storyy X-
multi X-brace
configurations
„ Damage concentrated
in one quadrant
q adrant

37
Midspan Gusset Plate
Connection Research
Midspan Gussets are fundamentally
different and they occur in chevron
(V-- or inverted
(V i dVV--),
) multi-
multi
l i-story X-
X-
braced and similar systems.
Typically require a multi
multi--story test
specimen.

38
 Full-Scale 33--Story Frames also
Full-
tests at NCREE
„ Two and 3-storyy SCBF frames
with slabs considering and
focusing on variations of
midspan gussets
1 HSS tubular
b l andd wide
id
flange braces
2 Rectangular and tapered
gussets
3 In-
In-plane and out
out--of
of--plane
buckling
„ Multi--story X-
Multi X-brace
configuration

39
NCREE Tests Show that 8tp Horizontal
Cl
Clearance M
Method
h dPProvides
id B Best
Performance for Midspan Gusset

40
Major Research Results
„ The gusset plate will yield and deform. Welds or
bolts joining the gusset plate to the beam and
column should be designed to achieve the yield
capacity of the gusset plate. Not the brace!
brace!
„ Th 8t elliptical
The lli ti l clearance
l model
d l provides
id smaller,
ll
thinner gusset plates, increases the inelastic
deformation capacity of the brace, and reduces
yield
i ld ddamage to the
h bbeam andd column
l
„ The gusset plate must be stiff and strong enough
to develop the capacity of the brace, but additional
capacity reduces seismic performance

41
Major Research Results
„ Brace should be designed with a effective length
coefficient
ffi i off 1.0
1 0 andd the
h true length
l h off the
h brace
b
„ Tapered plates may improve constructability and
achieve similar p performance to elliptical
p model but
require thicker plates and place greater demands on
bolts or welds.
„ G
Gusset t plate
pl t yielding
i ldi gussett isi encouragedd since
i it
significantly increases the inelastic deformation
capacity.
„ Welded--web welded-
Welded welded-flange beam-
beam-column
connections at the gusset are strongly encouraged.

42
Major Research Results
„ Cracking in the gusset near the welds must be
expected, but is controlled with demand critical
welds. Caused by brace end rotation and gusset
deformation. Initiates at about 2% drift.
„ Significant yielding of the beam and column
adjacent to the gusset must be expected. This yield
damageg is reduced with thinner gussets
g resultingg
from elliptical model.
„ The edge buckling equations are not appropriate
for SCBF gusset design.
design

43
A Balanced Design Procedure Was
Developed to Incorporate these
Recommendations

44
P
Proposed
d Balanced
B l dDDesign
i
Procedure
There are clear advantages in using
b l
balanced
dddesign
i ffor gusset plate
l
connections. How do we achieve
it?

45
 Proposed Design Method
1) Design beams, columns and braces for
f
factored
dd design
i lloads
d as current approach h
2) Establish expected plastic capacity of brace in
tension ((RyAgFy) and compression
p
(1.1RyAgFcr) as currently.
• Effective length of brace is true brace length
3) For connection design,
design propose a balance
procedure to assure good seismic
performance rather than current forced based
method.
method

46
 Proposed Design Method (2)
Expected Brace Capacity < βyyield,1, RyRyyield,1
...... < βyield,iRyRyield,i

And

Expected
p Brace Capacity
p y < βfail,1Rfail,1
< βfail,2Rfail,2 …
and βyield < βfail

47
Balance Equations are Balancing
Yield
d Mechanisms andd Failure Modes
d

48
 Proposed Design Method (3)
4) Size weld joining the tube for the expected
tensile force as with current method
5) Compare the expected tensile yield force of
the brace and the tensile fracture capacity of
the brace net section with β of 0.95.
6) Based upon the weld length and tube
diameter check block shear of the gusset plate
with β of .85

49
 Proposed Design Method (4)
7) Establish the Whitmore width by the 30o
projected angle method as currently used.
8) Establish the dimensions of corner GPs with
the 8tp elliptical clearance model
• This can be done graphically or by an
approximate equation developed in research
9) Establish the dimensions of midspan GPs
with 6tp linear (horizontal) clearance

50
Recommend Elliptical
Clearance for Corner GP
 8tp elliptical clearance
● Can be solved
graphically or –

51
Recommended 6tp Horizontal
Clearance Band for Midspan GP

52
 Proposed Design Method (5)
10) Use Whitmore width to check GP for buckling,
tensile yyield and tensile net section fracture.
• Use average length and K of 0.65 for corner
gussets but K of 1.4 for midspan gussets
• For tensile yield compare expected tensile yield of
GP to the expected tensile capacity of the brace
with a β of 1.0
• For tensile fracture compare the nominal ultimate
tensile capacity of the plate to the expected yield
capacity of the brace with a β of 0.85.
0.85. (Bolts in
GP?)
• Ignore edge buckling

53
 Proposed Design Method (6)
11) Size the welds joining GP to the beam and
column to develop the full plastic capacity of
GP
• CJP welds (or fillet welds on both sides slightly
larger than tp ) of matching metal
12) CJP welds to join the beam flanges to the
column at beam-
beam-column connection
13) Resulting GP must be stiff and strong enough
to support full loads but should have no extra
stiffness or resistance

54
Justifications

Whitmore
Brace Net Yield
Section

Block Shear Gusset Buckling

55
56
Precedents for Change

„ While β values are increased above current

resistance factors the actual design forces
used in the evaluation are much,, much
larger than factored loads
„ The proposed changes may appear large, the
actual changes are quite modest and there is
substantial precedent for such changes in
the
h AISC SSeismic
i i P Provisions
ii

57
What are the Benefits of
Proposed Design Approach
„ Obtain 46% greater inelastic deformation
capacity prior to braced fracture
„ Result in less yielding and local damage to
the beams and columns
„ Result in thinner,, smaller and more
economical gusset plates

58
Other Braced Frame Issues
-
N li
Nonlinear A
Analysis
l i off
Seismic Response of Braced
Frames
Frames

59
Gusset plate design can significantly improve
SCBF performance, but CBFs experience
dramatic changes due to yielding and
buckling.
g Concentration of inelastic
deformation into a single story often occur.
The overall deformation demands on the
structure may be within acceptable limits,
limits but
individual story drifts may greatly exceed
their capacity. Nonlinear analysis will address
this.
hi

60
Two types on nonlinear
analysis were performed.
Both types were evaluated by
comparison of computed
res lts with
results ith experimental
e perimental
results.

61
Detailed ANSYS Models were developed for all test
specimens. The models are Accurate but Costly
andd C
Complex
l ffor P
Practice
i - Model
M d lCConfiguration,
fi i
Elements and Boundary Conditions

62
Predicted and Measured Force-
Force-
Displacement Response (HSS-
(HSS-5)

63
Predicted Response:
Brace

64
Predicted Response:
Gusset Plate

65
Brace Out
Out--of
of--Plane Displacement

0
-4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0

-4

8
-8

-12

-16

Test-HSS 5
FEM-HSS 5
-20
Lateral Displacement (in)

Result of comparisons to the test results leads us to have

considerable confidence in the analytical predictions.

66
OpenSees models are much simpler
and economical and were also
developed for all specimens
„ Accuracyy require
q careful modelingg of both gusset
g
plate and beam-
beam-column connections
– Including bolt deformation and hole elongation
„ Composite slabs and lateral restraint must also be
accurately simulated

„ Four models shown

67
 Accuracy of OpenSees strongly
dependent upon models
„ Four analysis
y from 4
models shown
a) Pinned braces severely
underestimate resistance.
b) Ri id b
Rigid brace connections
ti
overestimate resistance
and stiffness
c) Rigid links for gusset with
pinned
i d braces
b stiff
iff
significantly underestimate
resistance
d) Rigid links with spring
stiffness
iff provide
id best
b
estimate

68
Connection Springs are Key

„ Out
O
Out-
t-of-
off-plane
l
rotation of gusset
plate

WW t 2
Mp = σy
6

„ Rigid
g offsets:
brace, beam &
column

69
With right model good local and global
predictions achieved
achie ed

500

TEST 400

OpenSees 300

200

100

0
6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
18

16 TEST
-100
14
OpenSees
12 -200
10

8 300
6

HSS5 - thin gusset

2

0
6 -4 -2
2
0 2 4 6 70

70
Results in good, economical
predictions
d of multi-
multi-story behavior
Composite fiber sections

Rigid
elements

Spring-type
model of
gussets

Increased
strength Simple
element connection

10 beam-column
elements with initial
imperfection 71
through entire
length

71
TCBF 2-1
(8t, HSS)

TCBF 2-2
(8t, WF)

72
Findings from Single and
Multi--Story Simulations
Multi
„ Proposed model captures the full response at both
global and local level
„ Pin--ended brace model overestimates contribution
Pin
off first
fi story for
f multi
l i story models
d l andd consistently
i l
underestimates resistance of structure
„ Fully--restrained brace model consistently
Fully
overestimates resistance of structure. It provides
good estimate of global response for multi-
multi-story
structures but not a ggood distribution between
stories.

73
Modeling Brace Fracture

„ Fracture results from low

low--cycle fatigue at
middle of brace
„ Equivalent plastic strain limit used for
continuum analyses; not available from
OpenSees analysis results
„ Cyclic ending action results in fracture ~
used local measure of maximum strain.

74
Basis of Model

(ε range ) max . = ε t ,max + ε c ,max

ε c ,max

ε t ,max

75
 Brace Fracture Model Calibrated
From 44 Past Brace Fracture Tests
from 16 Different Research Programs
Max. εrange
0.08
3~6 7~8
0.07
9 10
(ε range ) max . = ε t ,max + ε c ,max
0.06 11 12

0.05 13 14
εrang
Cal.εrange

15 16
0.04
Cal.

x
C
C

0.03
0.4
⎛ w⎞
−0.4
⎛ KL ⎞
−0.3
⎛ E ⎞
0.02
(ε )
range max . ,cal = 0.1435 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ Fy ⎟
0.01 ⎝t ⎠ ⎝ r ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
εrange

76
Model Implementation
Model
Result
esu t
Predicted

Constitutive Relation
with
ihFFracture
Measured

0.4
⎛ w⎞
−0.4
⎛ KL ⎞
−0.3
⎛ E ⎞
(ε )
range max . ,cal = 0.1435 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ Fy ⎟
⎝t ⎠ ⎝ r ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

77
Model Evaluation

Mean St
Std. Dev.
Strain-range model 0.98 0.14
x Fatigue Model 0.78 0.18
Axial deformation 0.78 0.14

78
Analysis
y of Building
g Response
p
„ 3 and 9 story buildings; redesigned SAC buildings.
„ 40 Seattle ground
gro nd motions appropriately
appropriatel scaled.
scaled
„ 2% and 10% in 50 yr. events
„ Evaluate RR--factors, building height and pre
pre--1988 design
concepts

79
Connection Model

P di d damage
Predicted d
depends on upon
connection model
particularly for
small seismic
events

80
Effect of R Value and Building Height
with
ith G
Gusset
sset Design Improvement
Imp o ement
100 100 100 100
100 9F (R=8)
2/50

_
9F (R=7)
9F (R=6)
9F (R=3)

Percentage (%)
50
30 30
20
15
5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Brace Buckled Possible Brace Fracture Potential
Replacement Collapse

9-story SCBF
3-story SCBF 100 100 100 100 20F (R=8)
100
2/50 20F ((R=6))
20F (R=4)
P ercen tag e (% )

20F (R=3)

50

20
15
10 10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
0
Brace Buckled Possible Brace Fracture Potential
Replacement Collapse

20-story SCBF

81
Effect of R Value and Building Height with
Gusset Design Improvement
100
100 9F (R=8)
85 10/50 9F (R=7)

_
9F (R=6)
9F (R=3)
(R 3)

Percentage (% )
50
50

15
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
B
Brace B
Buckled
kl d P ibl
Possible B
Brace Fracture
F PPotential
il
Replacement Collapse

3-story SCBF 100

100 100 100
95 20F (R=8)
9-story SCBF
10/50 20F (R=6)
20F ((R=4))
Percentage (%))

20F (R=3)

50

5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Brace Buckled Possible Brace Fracture Potential
Replacement Collapse

20-story SCBF

82
 FEMA P695 Methodology
gy with IDA Process

Scaling Methods M1 [ST(To)] M2 [Sa(To)]

Buildings 3-Story 20-Story 3-Story 20-Story
R Factors 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3
SMT (g) 1.76 1.76 0.65 0.65 1.76 1.76 0.65 0.65
Ŝ? CT (g) 1.88 2.8 0.55 0.82 2.5 3.35 0.65 0.93
CMR 1 07
1.07 1 60
1.60 0 85
0.85 1 26
1.26 1 42
1.42 1 91
1.91 1 00
1.00 1 43
1.43
SSF 1.4 1.4 1.65 1.65 1.4 1.4 1.65 1.65
ACMR 1.39 2.07 1.10 1.64 1.85 2.48 1.30 1.86
Accep. ACMR20% 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73
Pass/Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass

3-story: R=3 3-story: R=6

20-story: R<3 20-story: R=3

83
Older CBFs designed with no
ductile detailing
„ Prior to 1988 UBC
CBFs were designed
on west coast with
virtually
i ll no
connection detailing
„ Analyses shows that
these frames have
higher risk of damage
and collapse

84
Final Observations

„ Braced frames have problems in seismic design

but they can be designed to achieve good seismic
performance.
„ Gusset plate connection design that balances
yielding in the brace and gusset significantly
increases inelastic deformation capacity
„ System evaluation requires accurate simulate of the
framing and connections if the inelastic
performance
f is
i to be
b accurately
l predicted.
di d

85
 Thank you

Charles W. Roeder
croeder@u.washington.edu
Ph
Phone 206-543-6199
206 543 6199

86