STRUCTURAL STEEL EDUCATIONAL COUNCIL

TECHNICAL INFORMATION& PRODUCT SERVICE

AUGUST 1997

Dynamic Tension Tests of

Simulated Moment Resisting

Frame Weld Joints

by
E.J. Kaufmann

ATLSS Engineering Research Center

Lehigh University
 TABLEOFCONTENTS

Page
I° INTRODUCTION 1

II. TEST SPECIMENS 2

III. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES 4

IV. TEST PROCEDURE

V. TEST RESULTS 7

VI. SUMMARY 8

VII. REFERENCES 9

APPENDIX A - Test Results

APPENDIX B - Weld Cost Comparisons

Index of Steel Tips Publications

The following is a list of available Steel Tips. Copies will be sent upon request. Some are in
very limited quantity.
· Seismic Design of Special Concentrically Braced Frames
· Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment Resisting Frames
· Structural Details to Increase Ductility of Connections
· Slotted Bolted Connection Energy Dissipaters
· Use of Steel in the Seismic Retrofit of Historic Oakland City Hall
· Heavy Structural Shapes in Tension
· Economical Use of Cambered Steel Beams
· Value Engineering & Steel Economy
· What Design Engineers Can Do to Reduce Fabrication Costs
· Charts for Strong Column Weak Girder Design of Steel Frames
· Seismic Strengthening with Steel Slotted Bolt Connections
· Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames
· Dynamic Tension Tests of Simulated Resisting Frame Weld Joints
I. INTRODUCTION

Under the SAC Phase I program a pilot project was conducted to develop and evaluate a
relatively simple and inexpensive test specimen for studying moment frame weld joint
performance (Ref. 1). A specimen was designed to simulate the behavior of a single beam
flange-to-column flange weld joint which could be tested in a large capacity universal test
machine in tension under dynamic loading rates similar to earthquake loadings. The test
specimen concept is illustrated in Figure 1.

The results of the pilot test program showed that weld joints fabricated using electrodes with
higher notch toughness than the E70T-4 electrode in common use prior to the Northridge
earthquake, such as E7018, E70TG-K2, and E71T-8, performed satisfactorily in the test. This
was also in conjunction with improved detailing including removal of weld backing and weld
tabs and adherence to D I.I welding code procedural requirements. The results indicated that
brittle fractures initiating in the weld metal, as occurred in ETOT-4 welded connections, could be
avoided when weld metal with a minimum CVN impact toughness requirement of 20 ft-lbs @-
20F was used. Although only axial tension loads were applied in the test the results closely
paralleled the performance of similarly fabricated weld joints in full-size connection tests (Ref.
2) and appeared to provide a viable means of assessing weld metal toughness requirements for
moment frame applications.

To expand the test database to include other currently available flux-cored electrodes the
Structural Steel Educational Council of the California Field Ironworkers Administration Trust
sponsored additional testing, reported herein, to evaluate the performance of weld joints welded
with other electrode types as well as duplicate tests performed in the pilot study. Eight test
specimens were fabricated by a commercial fabricator in California using three currently available
flux-cored electrodes (E70T-6, E70T-7, and E71T-8) and one shielded metal arc electrode
(E7018). The fabricated specimens were then shipped to the ATLSS Engineering Research
Center at Lehigh University for testing.

Figure 1 Simulated Beam-Column Tension Specimen

II. TEST SPECIMENS

A sketch of the simulated beam flange-to-column flange weld joint test specimen is shown
in Figure 2. The column element consists of an 8 in. length of a W14x176 wide flange shape
(A572 Gr. 50) with one flange removed. A l"x 6" plate (A36) is groove welded to the column
flange face to simulate the beam flange-to-column flange connection. A slotted pull plate is
welded to the column web to permit the the assemblage to be gripped in a universal test machine
and loaded in tension at static or dynamic loading rates. A simulated coped beam web plate is
tack welded to the beam plate to introduce welding restrictions similar to welding the bottom
flange of a moment connection. The web plate was removed after welding to facilitate
installation of test instrumentation.

Duplicate specimens were prepared using each of four electrode types. Table 1 gives a summary of
the welding procedure parameters. In all eight specimens the weld tabs and backing were removed
after welding and a reinforcing fillet weld was applied to the weld root. All simulated beam flange
to column joints were fabricated to a 3/8" root and a 30° included angle.

40"
Both
Sides 5/8....

•'""--'->-<Tack

5/8 '•Cf/
12" •_ 16"
I • • N • 8 , , ix<CJP

< I

W 1 4 x 176 • 6"x1"
A572 Gr. 50 (A36/
(one flange removed)

Figure 2 Simulated Be Flange-to-Column Flange Test Specimen Design.

 p..

,_ • '- co o

E• z o_ o_ z
•'•-' IJJ W IJJ UJ

UQ.

•.E[
-
E
o o < o I o
I < o o < o o <

- E

II.

<

<
I

m
i
cg • < co < to < o eg <

,•_ • ,_ '- d• Z co co

B-Z
c•
-- I c
t
m
c
u u ,- ,- ,- Z • Z ,- ,- ,.• cj c• o
r
- C
•'• .,- C
•
© o
I o
I -o
I c
o.
0 E
c'") • -i. ..• cO u'• cO u'•
*"=' esi c'• ("q
o • c
• •
i
o • e• 4 e• e• c5 •6 8
t-q (,4 04 e- e'• • Oq •--
'13
(D
Z
0
0-
O• o
= _.•_ tO u• 0 0 to
I.• to
(•q e
0g o
C
'0
Q.I c

II II

o P
o
G •-
o
P
--• w w w w
w

3
IH. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

The mechanical properties of the beam flange plate and column shape were determined after
testing. Unyielded material located at the end of the grip length of the beam plate was used to
fabricate standard 0.505 in. dia. tensile specimens. Standard 0.505 in. dia. specimens were also
fabricated from the W14 x 176 column flange at the ASTM A673 test location. Table 2 gives
a summary of the base material properties. The stress-strain behavior of the two materials is
shown in Figure 3.

Table 3 gives AWS required and typical mechanical properties for the filler metals used.
Mechanical properties of E70T-4 filler metal is also included for comparison. E70T-6, E71T-8
and E7018 filler metals have a required Charpy V-notch (CVN) impact toughness requirement
of 20 ft-lbs @ -20F. E70T-4 filler metal does not have a notch toughness requirement and
typically provides 5-15 ft~lbs @ +70F. E70T-7 filler metal, like E70T-4, also has no AWS
minimum toughness requirement. Procedure qualification tests using E70T-7 weld metal has
indicated a notch toughness intermediate to E70T-4 and the higher toughness filler metals. These
tests provided an average toughness of 8 ft-lbs @ OF. CVN test data for the various filler metals
is shown in Figure 4.

TABLE 2 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Y.S. T.S. Elong.(2") R.A.

(ksi) (ksi) (%) (%)

W14 x 176 (Column) 56.6m 75.2m 38.6¢) 77.1¢)

ASTM A572 Gr. 50

Beam Flange Plate 42.9 73.5 28.4 59.3

ASTM A36
I) Standard I-lange location
IINI-

,'• ...............................................................
,•--A572 •.•-(Go•}-,

'2
m 5li-
t.

21
ti i i i i i i i i i l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i,1 ............................... :!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:: : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(,, , . ,
0 Il. 1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Strain

Figure 3 Material Stress-Strain Behavior.

4
 TABLE 3
WELD METAL PROPERTIES

AWS Required Typical

Y.S. U.T.S. Elong. CVN Y.S. U.T.S. Elong. CVN

ksi ksi % fi-lbs ksi ksi % fi-lbs

E70T-4 60 min. 72 min. '22 min. .m 60-70 80-95 15-25 5-15

@+70F

E70TG-K2 58 m i n . 70-90 22 min. -(• 70-75 85-90 25-30 20-40

@-20F

E71T-8 60 min. 72 min. 22 min. 20 min. 65-75 70-90 25-30 20-70

@-20F @-20F

E70T-6 60 min. 72 min. 22 min. 20 min. 65-75 70-90 25-30 25-75

@-20F @-20F

E70T-7 60 min. 72 min. 22 min. -¢) 60-65 80-90 22-26 5-10

@ OF

E7018 58 min. 70 min. 22 min. 20 min. 65-75 75-85 25-30 90-120

@-20F @-20F

1. No Requirement
2. No Requirement, will meet 20 ft-lbs @-20F
3. From manufacturer or laboratory tests

TEMPERATURE, °C
-95 -55 -15 25 65 105
200
I I I I I
O9
[] E70T-4 240
Q•
m 160 -- •, E70TG-K2 · ::3
0
200
>•
O E71T-8 ·
>.•
(.5
120 -- E7018 (.5
X 160
U.I E7OT-7 ILl
Z z
U.I ILl
120
LLI 80 -- ILl

O
O 80 O
O O
O3 (/3
o o 4•.
40 -- O O Z•
· 8 o • 40

0
· [ i a Ig BI I 0
-' 40 -80 -20 40 100 160 220
TEMPERATURE, °F
95.D047

Figure 4 CVN test data for various filler metals.

5
IV. TEST PROCEDURE

Specimens were tested in a PC-controlled 600 kip capacity universal test machine modified to
permit dynamic load rates to be applied to the test specimen. With modification, a maximum
crosshead displacement rate of 0.15 inches/sec could be achieved. Dynamic tests were conducted
in displacement control at the maximum crosshead displacement rate. In addition to recording
crosshead displacements, a 2 in. displacement range linear variable differential transformer
(LVDT) was also installed to measure weld joint displacements over the ungripped length of the
beam flange (approx. 8 inches) relative to the column flange face. Figure 5 shows an
instrumented test specimen installed in the test machine. Load, crosshead displacement, and
LVDT displacement data were recorded with a PC data acquisition system.

Test specimens were loaded to failure in a single tension load cycle applied in two ramp rate
segments. Initially specimens were loaded at a crosshead displacement rate of 0.05 inches/sec
to a load of 60 kips (-10 ksi in beam flange plate) to seat the grips after which the displacement
rate was increased to 0.15 inches/sec to failure. A typical LVDT displacement-time plot for a
dynamic test is shown in Figure 6. Over the 8 in. gauge length the displacement rate in the
vicinity of the weld joint corresponds to a strain rate of -0.02 sec't. This strain rate corresponded
to about 1 sec. loading through the elastic range. In comparison, strain rates for static loading
are typically of the order of 0.001-0.0001 sec't. After testing the specimens were examined
visually for evidence of cracking or to determine the fracture origin, mode of fracture, and crack
path.

Figure 5 Test specimen installed in 600 kip test machine.

6
 "'-7'. 2

·,.•,. 1.8
F I t I i 1
(-. 1.6
Q ) i i
1.4 _

CD 1.2 i i I i i
O
/ I I ' !
F t f 1 i
GO
ch o6 · ! ,¢' • I ,
I I • t I i i
0.4

0.2 I i , • i
i I I ! i
• 1 o
0 5 10 15 20 25 3O

Time (sec)
Figure 6 Typical LVDT displacement vs. time plot.

V. TEST RESULTS

A summary of the results of the eight tests is given in Appendix B. With the exception of the
specimens welded with E70T-7 filler metal, all other test specimens behaved similarly. Duplicate
specimens welded with E7018, E71T-8, and E70T-6 filler metals failed by ductile tensile failure
of the beam flange plate. No visual evidence of weld joint cracking was detected in any of these
test specimens. Absence of whitewash flaking on the weld metal surface and column flange face
area also indicated that little or no inelastic deformations developed in these areas.

The two specimens welded with ETOT-7 filler metal showed mixed performance. Test Specimen
No. 5 failed brittlely in the beam flange plate after significant yielding occurred in the plate.
Examination of the fracture indicated that localized ductile tearing developed at the weld toe of
the beam flange plate prior to initiation of brittle fracture (see Test No. 5 photographs in
Appendix B). The tearing appeared to follow the weld fusion line although it was not clear
whether the tear propagated in weld metal or in the heat-affected-zone (HAZ). The duplicate test
specimen (Test No. 6) failed by ductile tearing of the beam flange plate, however, evidence of
sub-critical tearing at the same weld toe location and also in the adjacent base material was also
observed (see Test No. 6 photographs in Appendix B).

The cause of the weld toe tearing is not entirely clear, however, examination of the fracture in
cross-section in Test No. 5 also revealed significant weld toe undercut and a steep transition of
the top reinforcement weld bead which was not observed in the other test specimens. The
undercut in Test No. 5 was measured to be 0.08" in depth which just exceeds the 1/16" maximum
permitted by Di.1. No undercut was measured in Test No. 6 although a similar steep transition
of the weld reinforcement also existed. The weld toe undercut observed in Test Specimen No.

7
5 may have influenced tearing initiation at the weld toe. It is also noteworthy that the E70T-7
specimens were welded with a higher heat input than any of the other specimens (88 Kj/in vs.
28-56 Kj/in) which may have resulted in a softer HAZ than in the other specimens. Ductile
tearing at the weld toe at beam flange tips has also been observed in cyclically loaded full-scale
connection tests after extensive plastic deformation of the beam flange has occurred (Ref. 2).

The test results support the current SAC recommendation for weld metal used in critical joints
having a minimum CVN impact toughness of 20 ft-lbs @ OF (Ref. 3). All test specimens welded
with filler metals which exceeded this requirement (ie. 20 ft-lbs @ -20F) performed well under
intermediate strain rate loading. Although the ETOT-7 specimens did not satisfy the 20 ft-lb @
OF recommendation (Avg. 8 ft-lbs @ OF) and also exhibited brittle behavior in one test, there was
no clear indication that weld metal fracture was causal to the failure. Additional test data on the
fracture toughness and weld joint performance of this weld metal would be helpful in defining
minimum weld metal toughness requirements.

VI. SUMMARY

1. Eight simulated beam flange-to-column flange weld joint test specimens were
fabricated using three currently available flux-cored electrodes (E70T-6, E70T-7, E71T-8)
and one shielded metal arc electrode (E7018). Duplicate specimens welded with filler
metals having a minimum CVN impact toughness requirement of 20 ft-lbs @ -20F (E70T-
6, E71T-8, and E7018) performed satisfactorily under dynamic loading conditions.
Duplicate specimens fabricated using an E70T-7 electrode with lower notch toughness (8
ft-lbs @ OF) also performed satisfactorily although premature brittle fracture developed
in one test presumably due to excessive weld toe undercut. The test results provide
additional confu'mation that brittle fracture in moment frame weld joints can be
suppressed through adequate levels of weld metal toughness in conjunction with improved
weld joint detailing (ie. removing weld tabs and weld backing).

2. The test results support the current SAC recommendation for weld metal used in
critical joints having a minimum CVN impact toughness of 20 ft-lbs @ OF.

8
 REFERENCES

1. Kaufmann, E.J., Fisher, J.W., "A Study of the Effects of Material and Welding Factors on
Moment Frame Weld Joint Performance Using a Small-Scale Tension Specimen", SAC
Technical Report 95-08, 1995.

2. Xue, Ming, Kaufmann, E.J., Lu, Lc-Wu, Fisher, J.W., "Fracture and Ductility of Moment
Connections Under Dynamic Loading", Proceedings ASCE Structures Congress, Portland,
Oregon, 1997.

3. Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Welded Steel Moment
Frame Structures, FEMA 267, 1995.

9
APPENDIX A - Test Results

l0
Test No.: !
Test Date: 8/27/96
Weld Electrode: E7018

Test Description: Specimen welded

with 1/8"¢ E7018. Weld tabs and
backing removed. Weld root re-
inforcing fillet added. UT
acceptable.

Test Result: No weld joint cracking.

Specimen failed by ductile tensile
failure of the beam flange plate.

Test #1
500

450

400
F I i i
,"" N
350

·• 300

"'•'250

G• 200
0
..J 15o " ' I

100

50

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Crosshead Displacement (in)

11
Test No.: 2
Test Date: 8/28/96
Weld Electrode: E7018

Test Description: Duplicate of

Test gl. Specimen welded
with 1/8"q• E7018. Weld tabs and
backing removed. Weld root re-
inforcing fillet added. UT ....
acceptable.

Test Result: No weld joint cracking.

Specimen failed by ductile tensile
failure of the beam flange plate.

Test # 2

50O
I ! i
45O
4OO
•350
h
· 300 / ¢ .,
"-" 250 , , ,

"0
Cd 200
0
__J 150
100 t
50
0
/ .. l
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Crosshead Displacement (in.)

12
Test No.: 3
Test Date: 8/29/96
Weld Electrode: E71T-8

Test Description: Specimen welded

with 0.072"¢ E71T-8. Weld tabs and
backing removed. Weld root re-
inforcing fillet added. UT
acceptable.

Test Result: No weld joint cracking.

Specimen failed by ductile tensile
failure of the beam flange plate.

Test #3
50O " ; "' Li
450 iii

4OO
• ' 350
jr
300 J
v 2 5 0
"0
200
0
-..1 150
lO0
/
50
-.

i
0
J
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Crosshead Displacement (in.)

13
Test No.: 4
Test Date: 8/29/96
Weld Electrode: E71T-8

Test Description: Duplicate of

Test #3. Specimen welded
with 0.072"• E71T-8. Weld tabs and
backing removed. Weld root re-
inforcing fillet added. UT
acceptable.

Test Result: No weld joint cracking.

Specimen failed by ductile tensile
failure of the beam flange plate.

Test #4

500
450
.,.•m m''''-'•
[ b..
400
•' 350
Q. S
-• 300 - f
"• 250
'ID ! ,

('d 200
0
.._1 150
i
P

lO0
50 - J I
I t
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Crosshead Displacement (in.)

14
Test No.: 5
Test Date: 8/29/96
Weld Electrode: E70T-7

Test Description: Specimen welded

with 7/64"¢ E70T-7. Weld tabs and
backing removed. Weld root re-
inforcing fillet added. UT
acceptable.

Test Result: Specimen failed by

brittle fracture of the beam flange
plate. Fracture initiated at the edge
of the beam flange plate from a localized
ductile tear at the weld toe from
undercut. Fracture occurred at a load nero
the ultimate tensile strength of the beam
plate. 0.93" LVDT displacement at
fracture. No weld metal or column flange
fracture detected.

Test #5

500

450

400 f

J
'•' 35O

-300
/'
250
%3
(13 2 0 0
o
...J 15o

100

50

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

LVDT Displacement (in)

15
Test No.: 5
Test Date: 8/29/96
Weld Electrode: E70T-7

Top) Beam flange plate fracture surface Bottom) Enlarged view of

weld toe ductile tear

16
Test No.: 5
Test Date: 8/29/96
Weld Electrode: E70T-7

Top) Re-assembled cross-section of the fracture Bottom) Enlarged view

of the weld toe crack initiation location. Note the weld toe undercut.

17
Test No.: 6
Test Date: 8/29/96
Weld Electrode: E70T-7

Test Description: Duplicate of

Test #5. Specimen welded
with 7/64"q• E70T-7. Weld tabs and
backing removed. Weld root re-
inforcing fillet added. UT
acceptable.

Test Result: Specimen failed by

ductile tensile failure of the
beam flange plate. Sub-critical
tears developed at the edge of
the beam flange plate at the weld
toe (same location as Test #5)
and in the base material adjacent
to the weld toe. No weld metal or
column flange cracking detected.

Test #6

5OO
450
400
'G'350
•L
-• 300
'-O• ' 250
03 2O0
0
.._1 150
100
50
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Crosshead Displacement (in.)

18
Test No.: 6
Test Date: 8/29/96
Weld Electrode: E70T-7

Top) Sub-critical tearing of the beam plate at the weld toe and
in adjacent base material. Bottom) Enlarged view of tears.

19
Test No.: 7
Test Date: 8/30/96
Weld Electrode: E70T-6

Test Description: Specimen welded

with 3/32"¢ E70T-6. Weld tabs and
backing removed. Weld root re-
inforcing fillet added.

Test Result: No weld joint cracking.

Specimen failed by ductile tensile
failure of the beam flange plate.

Test #7

5OO
45O
] I --L__
4O0
'•' 350
Q.
.• 300
,//•
•"
'rJ 250
[
Cd 200
O
--.I 150
100
50
0
/ , II
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Crosshead Displacement (in.)

20
Test No.: 8
Test Date: 8/30/96
Weld Electrode: E70T-6

Test Description: Duplicate of

Test #7. Specimen welded
with 3/32"4 E70T-6. Weld tabs and
backing removed. Weld root re-
inforcing fdlet added.

Test Result: No weld joint cracking.

Specimen failed by ductile tensile
failure of the beam flange plate.

Test #8

5OO
450
400
•'350
·• 300
250
'0
(13 200
O
150
100
50

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Crosshead Displacement (in.)

21
APPENDIX B - Weld Cost Comparisons

22
 COSTCOMPARISON
In order to provide the reader with a more complete picture, the Structural Steel Education Council
(SSEC) has complied a cost comparison of the electrodes utilized in the Lehigh University tests. E 70T-4
electrode which was used in earlier studies was requested by SAC. The 70T-4 electrode in the 0.120
diameter was included because most estimating programs utilized that electrode as a basis for calculating
complete penetration costs in the fiat or horizontal position.

The cost comparison factors were determined by reviewing the cost data supplied by 3 of the erector
members from the council and reviewed by the remaining members. They took the following factors into
consideration when calculating those costs:

1. Cost of the Electrode

2. Labor to install the weld

3. Cost of equipment required to weld

It should be noted that the inefficiency costs of using additional welders in order to maintain a reason-
able schedule was not included in the cost data, nor were the additional training costs associated with the
use off those electrodes not normally used for this application.

Cost Comparison Lehigh University Test Specimens

Manufacturer Process Manufacturer AWS AWS Notch Diameter Cost Factor
Designation Specifications Classifications Tough

Lincoln FCAW NR232 5.20 E71T8 Yes 0.072 3.1

Lincoln FCAW NR305 5.20 E7OT6 Yes 3/32 2.0
Lincoln FCAW NR311 ni 5.29 E70TG-K2 Yes 7/64 2.4
Lincoln SMAW LH70 5.1 E7018 Yes 5/32 7.3
Lincoln FCAW NS3M 5.20 E7OT4 No 0.120 1.0
Lincoln FCAW NR311 5.20 E7OT7 No 7/64 1.4

COST FACTOR ASSUMPTION:

1. Mid- 1997 California Labor and Electrode prices.
2. Costs are based on field deposition of weld metal utilizing the AWS D1.1 parameters for volts,
amps; electrodes stick out and travel speed shown on the attached procedure qualification
records for each of the electrodes shown.
3. Cost of inspection not included.
4. Based on welding under normal field conditions in the flat position.

23
 STRUCTURAL STEEL EDUCATIONALCOUNCIL
470 Fernwood Drive
Moraga, CA 94556
(51 O) 631-9570

Q
SPONSORS

Adams & Smith Hogan Mfg., Inc. Reno Iron Works

Allied Steel Co., Inc. Junior Steel Co. H.H. Robertson Co.

Bannister Steel, Inc. Lee & Daniel Southland Iron Works

Baresel Corp. McLean Steel, Inc. Stockton Steel

Bethlehem Steel Corporation Martin Iron Works, Inc. Verco Manufacturing, Inc.

C.A. Buchen Corporation MidWest Steel Erection Vulcraft Sales Corp.

G.M. Iron Works Co. Nelson Stud Welding Co. Walker Systems, Inc.

The Herrick Corporation Oregon Steel Mills

Hoertig Iron Works PDM Strocal, Inc.

The local structural steel industry (above sponsors) stands ready to assist you in determining the most
economical solution for your products. Our assistance can range from budget prices and estimated tonnage
to cost comparisons, fabrication details and delivery schedules.

Funding for this publication provided by the California Iron Workers Administrative Trust.