THE INTERACTION OF DUCTILITY, STRENGTH, AND STIFFNESS

IN
SIMPLE SHEAR CONNECTIONS
WITH SHEAR AND AXIAL LOAD
W. A. Thornton1
Abstract
Simple Shear Connections must often be designed to accommodate some axial forces
in addition to shear. Shear force will normally result in a connection which allows simple
beam end rotation to occur with little restraint. Axial forces, which can be code required
tying or robustness forces, stability forces, or actual calculated forces, tend to make shear
connections less flexible to simple beam end rotation. This paper develops formulas which
can be used to determine if this reduced flexibility will lead to progressive fracture of the
connection, provides a design method which provides adequate strength with maximum
flexibility, and provides a method to estimate connection axial stiffness as required for
stability calculations.
INTRODUCTION
As its name implies, a simple shear connection is intended to transfer shear load out
of a beam while allowing the beam end to rotate without significant restraint. The most
common simple shear connections are the double clip, Fig. 1, the shear end plate, Fig. 2,
and the tee, Fig. 3. This paper will deal with the ductility, strength, and stiffness
requirements for these connections.
GENERAL

Under shear load, these connections are flexible regarding simple beam end rotation
because there is an element of the connection which while remaining stiff in shear has little
restraint to motion perpendicular to its plane. This is an angle leg for the double clips, a
plate for the shear end plate, and the tee flange for the tee connection. These are shown in
~
Figs. 1-3 where the thickness t and the leg width b are the fundamental variables. When
these connections are subjected to axial loads, either calculated or from code required
"robustness", considerations, the important limit states are angle leg bending and prying
~
action. These tend to require the thickness t to increase or the leg width b decrease, or
both, and these requirements compromise the connection's ability to remain flexible to
simple beam end rotation. This lack of connection flexibility causes a tensile load on the
upper bolts (field bolts for the double clips and shear end plate, shop bolts for the tee) or
the upper part of the welds. This tensile load could lead to fracture of the bolts or welds
and to a progressive failure of the connection and the resulting collapse of the beam. To
the authors' knowledge, there has never been a reported failure of this type, but it is
perceived to be possible.
1

Chief Engineer, Cives Steel Co., Roswell GA

A shorter version of this paper without the sections on stiffness was presented at the AISC National Steel Construction
Conference, Chicago, IL, May 7-10, 1997.
Copyright2001 by Cives Engineering Corporation

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 1

DUCTILITY
As the beam end rotates under gravity loads a moment will be induced by the stiffness of
the angle leg, end plate, or tee flange. Based on yield line theory, a formula for the
maximum possible moment that can be induced by the connection has been given by
Thornton (1996) as
~

1
L2 t 2 b 2
M = Fy ~ 2 + 2
2

b L

where Fy is the material yield strength and the remaining parameters are defined in Figs. 1 3. Data to test the efficacy of this formula are available from Lewitt, Chesson, and Munse
(1969) for double angles and from Astaneh and Nader (1988, 1989) for tees. Table 1
compares the moment calculated from Eq. 1 with the experimental moments obtained by
Lewitt, et al, at a simple beam end rotation of 0.03 radian. This rotation is chosen as the
maximum a beam end connection need be subjected to because it exceeds the beam end
rotation for most beams when a plastic hinge forms at the center of the beam. Table 1
shows that Eq. 1 provides an excellent estimate for the beam end moment induced by the
connection. Eq. 1 provides a fairly tight upper bound to the experimental results, and so
provides a safe estimate of the maximum connection induced moment. Table 2 compares
the moment of Eq. 1 with the experimental moments for tee connections obtained by
Astaneh and Nader. Here, the experimental moments are given for rotations of 0.03 radian
and 0.07 radian (except test No. 4, which is given at 0.06 radian). Except for test No. 1,
Eq. 1 is seen to overestimate the induced moment at 0.03 radian. Eq. 1 also generally overestimates the moment at the very large rotation of 0.07 radian. Thus it can be said that Eq.
1 is a loose upper bound to the experimental data, and therefore will yield very safe
estimates for the maximum connection induced couple.
Using Eq. 1, the following requirements can be derived (Thornton, 1996) for the minimum
weld and bolt sizes to resist progressive failure by fracture:
For the bolts subjected to tension due to connection rigidity
5 p Fy
2 + 2
d min
t
2
~
2 Fu t
b
and for the welds
w min

5 3 Fy t 2 2
~ ( + 2)
8 F exx b

In the above expressions

dmin = min. bolt diameter
Fy = material yield strength
Fut = bolt tensile strength adjusted to gross area

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 2

Fexx = weld tensile strength

~
= b /L

p = bolt pitch
L = length of connection (see Figs. 1 -3 )
~
b = bending length (see Figs. 1-3)

wmin = min. fillet weld leg size

t = thickness of angle leg, tee flange, or end plate.
Note that Eqs. 2 and 3 are valid in all unit systems and for both allowable stress design
(ASD) and ultimate strength or limit states design (LRFD).
IMPLICATIONS OF THE DUCTILITY FORMULAS
In US customary units, Eqs. 2 and 3 become, for ASTM A36 connection material,
A325 bolts, E70 electrodes, and p = 3 inches:
2 + 2
d

min

0.978t

~
b

t2
wmin 0.557 ~ ( 2 + 2 )
b

4
5

Double Angles
Eq. 4 can be used to develop a table (see Table 3) of angle thicknesses and gages for
various bolt diameters which can be used as a guide for the design of double angle
connections subjected to shear and axial tension. Note that Table 3 validates AISCs longstanding (since 1970) recommendation (AISC 1970, 1994) of1 a maximum
5/8 inch angle
1
to
6
inches.
Thus, for a
thickness for the usual gages. The
usual
gages
would
be
4
2
2
1
inch,
GOL
will
range
from
2
inches
to
3
inches.
carried beam web thickness
of
say
2
Table 3 gives a GOL of 212 inches for 34 inch bolts (the most critical as well as the most
common bolt size). Note also that Table 3 assumes a significant simple beam end rotation
of 0.03 radian, which is approximately the end rotation that occurs when a plastic hinge
forms at the center of the beam. For short beams, beams loaded near their ends, beams
with bracing gussets at their end connections, and beams with light shear loads, the beam
end rotation will be small and Table 3 does not apply.
Table 3 shows that the "usual gages and bolt sizes" would be 2-1/2 (GOL) inches with
3/4 inch A325 bolts. Larger bolts and thicker angles can also be used as shown in Table 3.
For instance, clip angles 1 inch thick could be used with 1 inch diameter bolts at a clip
gage (GOL) of about 3-1/2 inches.
Table 3 rationalizes AISC's 5/8 inch maximum angle leg thickness by showing that it
is not a "hard and fast" requirement but rather a worst case "rule of thumb."
Shear End Plate Connections

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 3

Shear end plates (Fig. 2) involve both ductility equations, Eq. 4 for the bolts and Eq. 5
for the weld between the end plate and the beam web.
The AISC Manuals (AISC 1989 for instance) have stipulated that end plate
thicknesses should be in the thickness range of 1/4" to 3/8" inclusive with a gage of 3-1/2
inch to 5-1/2 inch. These are very restrictive requirements which can be replaced by the
rational approach of using Eqs. 4 and 5. For example, suppose a W18x35 beam of A36
steel has to carry, in addition to a shear load, an axial load which requires a 3/4 inch end
plate. Let the gage be 5-1/2 inches, and the end plate length L for a 5 row connection at 3
inch pitch be 14-1/2~inches. Estimate the fillet weld between the beam and end plate to
be w= 5/16. Then b =(5.5 - 0.300 - 2x.3125)/2=2.29, =2.29/14.5=0.158, and Eq. 4 gives
dmin 0.978x.75

0158
. 2 +2
=.69" , so the minimum bolt size would be 3/4 inch diameter.
2.29

For the weld size, Eq. 5 gives

0.75 2
wmin 0.557
(0.1582+2) = 0.28"
2.29

Thus, a 5/16" minimum fillet is indicated. It can be seen that with the rational and
conservative formulas given by Eqns. 4 and 5, shear end plate connections can be applied
to a much wider range of problems than if the old AISC "suggested" plate thicknesses and
gages are used. It is worth noting again that Eqns. 4 and 5 are based on a very large simple
beam end rotation of 0.03 radian. This is why the term "conservative" is used above.
Another consideration regarding weld size for shear end plate connections is that the
maximum weld size is limited by the beam web thickness and strength. For A36 material,
fillet welds 75% of the beam web thickness in size will fully develop the beam web in
tension. For Fy = 50 ksi material, the maximum effective fillet size is 100% of beam web
thickness. Therefore, the required weld size for ductility is
wmin = min {Eq. 5, 0.75tw (Fy=36) or 1.0tw(Fy=50)}

Thus, from Eq. 6,

wmin = min {0.28, 0.75x0.300} = 0.225,
which indicates that sufficient ductility will be provided by 1/4" fillet welds, rather than the
previously calculated 5/16" fillet welds, in this case.
Tee Connections
These are of two types, as shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 4 applies to the shop bolted case, and
Eq. 5 applies to the shop welded case.
As with the shear end plate, Eq. 5 can be generalized to
wmin = min {Eq.5, 0.75ts}

where ts is the Tee stem thickness, and it is assumed that the Tee is A36 steel.

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 4

For the shop bolted case, Thornton (1996) has shown that dmin of Eq. 4 need not
exceed 0.69 t s (A36 steel assumed for the Tee), so Eq. 4 can be generalized to
dmin = min {Eq. 4, 0.69 t s }

Equations 7 and 8 are applied to Tee shear connections in the same way that Eqs. 4
and 6 were applied to the shear end plate connection.
STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS
The design requirements for shear alone, and for shear and axial load combined, are
well defined in various AISC publications. For instance, the design of double angle
connections subjected to shear and axial tension can be accomplished as shown in the
following AISC publications.
1.

AISC (1989) Manual (ASD 9th Ed.), p.4-94, Ex. 34, where the beam web plays
the same role as the gusset of this example.

2.

AISC (1992) Manual (ASD 9th Ed./LRFD 1st Ed.) Vol. II, pp. 7-123 and 124,
pp. 7-125 and 126, pp. 7-167 through 170.

3.

AISC (1994) Manual (LRFD 2nd Ed.), Vol. II, pp. 11-38 through 42.

While the design is being completed in the usual way as shown in these publications, Table
1, or Eq. 4, can be consulted to guide the design and maintain ductility, if appropriate.
Shear end plate and Tee shear connections can be designed and checked for ductility in
essentially the same way as the double clips are checked.
Since these are all considered to be "simple" connections, the design routine for shear
allows a very flexible connection to be obtained because shear strength, while affected by t,
~
is not dependent on b .
~

However, as discussed under the GENERAL section, axial force affects both t and b
and tends to compromise the "flexible" nature of these connections.
Axial strength design routines

The axial strength design routine presented in the AISC (1989) ASD Manual and the
AISC (1994) LRFD Manual are originally due to Struik (1969) and were presented in the
books by Fisher and Struik (1974) and Kulak, Fisher and Struik (1987). The versions
presented in the AISC ASD and LRFD Manuals are optimal formulations developed by
Astaneh (1985) and Thornton (1985) which for a given thickness t provide the absolute
maximum allowable load (ASD) or design strength (LRFD). This is accomplished by
choosing a value of = ' , where ' is the ratio of the moment at the bolt line to that at
the stem line, that gives a solution on the boundary of the acceptable and unacceptable
design spaces see Thornton (1985).

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 5

In ASD format, the axial force design routine is, following AISC (1989), page 4-90:
t c 2
1
Calculate ' =
1
(1 + ) t

If ' > 1; Tallow

t
= B (1 + )
tc
2

If 0 ' 1; Tallow

t
= B (1 + ')
tc

If ' < 0; Tallow = B

In the above, the notation follows AISC (1989) and
tc=

8Bb'
, inches
pFy

B = allowable bolt tension, kips, adjusted as required for shear interaction

b' b d/2
b = GOL - t for double clips
b=
b=

gage t w
for shear end plates
2
gage t s
for Tee shear connections
2

p = bolt pitch, inches

= 1-d'/p
d' = hole diameter, inches
Tallow = allowable connection tension, per bolt, kips
In LRFD format, the axial force design routine is, following AISC (1994), page 1110:
t =
c

4.44rnb'
pF
y

Calculate ' =

t c 2
1
1
(1 + ) t

t
If ' > 1; r = r
ut
nt
c

(1 + )

t
If 0 ' 1; r ut = r n
tc

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

(1 + ')

Page 6

If ' < 0; r ut = r n
From the above, it can be seen that the ASD and LRFD formulations are the same
except for notation and the strength level at which the calculations are performed.
In the LRFD formulation, all the terms have the same physical meaning as in the ASD
formulation. The LRFD notations, following AISC (1994) are
rn= Bolt design strength in tension, kips, adjusted as required for shear
interaction, and =0.75
rut = Design tensile strength of the connection, per bolt, kips
The meaning of all the other terms are the same in ASD and LRFD formulations.
Modified Axial Strength Design Routines
All of the examples for simple connections under shear and axial forces presently
presented in the AISC publications noted above use the formulations of the previous
section. Research on Tee hanger connections by Kato and McGuire (1973) caused them to
suggest that a much better correlation to failure data is achieved in these connections,
which are essentially the same as Tee shear connections with respect to axial load, if the
yield stress Fy is replaced by the ultimate tensile strength Fu in their proposed strength
model. Thornton (1992) has applied this idea to the Struik (1969) model as presented by
Thornton (1985) in optimal form. Using the data of Kato and McGuire (1973), and
running it through the Struik/Thornton model, excellent correlation with ultimate failure
strength was achieved, as shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, it is proposed in the design of simple
connections under shear and axial forces, to use Fu in place of Fy in the ASD and LRFD
formulations given above. All of the equations in both cases remain the same except the
equation for tc, where Fu replaces Fy. By doing this, connections with maximum rotational
capability will be achieved when axial forces are present. An example for double clips
worked out in detail is given in Tamboli (1997).
Interaction of Ductility Forces and Design Loads
The tensile load in the upper bolts or welds due to the beam end rotation is not added
to the direct tension due to axial load, nor is it necessary to consider its effect on the shear
capacity of the bolts. The reason for this is as follows: The ductility tensile load on the
upper bolts and welds is an upper bound on the loads that could actually occur. The
ductility loads are intentionally based on a very large simple beam end rotation of from
0.03 radian to 0.07 radian. At rotations this large, the beam will have to be very long and
slender and will not be able to carry any significant shear load. If the beam is actually a
strut carrying no shear load, then the ductility tensile load will be zero because there is no
simple beam end rotation in this case. Table 4 demonstrates the relationship between end
rotation and shear capacity for a uniformly loaded W18x35. This table shows that for short

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 7

spans, where the shear load can be high, the end rotation will be very small, i.e., 0.0056
radian at nominal strength at a span of 10 feet. Since the rotation of 0.0056 radian is only
about 1/5 of the assumed rotation of 0.03 radians, the induced ductility forces on the upper
bolts and welds will be similarly small. When the span is fairly long, say 40 feet, the shear
capacity is reduced to about 1/4 of the capacity at 10 feet while the end rotation and
associated ductility forces are now becoming significant. Hence, when the ductility forces
are large, the applied loads are small. It can be seen from these examples that interaction
of the applied and ductility forces will be small and can be neglected.
STIFFNESS
In order for a strut to enforce a node, i.e., a point of lateral support at which there is no
lateral displacement, in a member which is known to have a stability limit state (such as a
column), a certain magnitude of axial stiffness (as well as axial strength) is required. An
estimate of this stiffness can be determined as follows. A strut with its connections can be
considered to be a set of linear springs arranged in series as shown in Fig. 5, where k1 and
k3 are the connection stiffnesses and k2 is the strut stiffness. If the stiffness of any one of
these springs is denoted ki, then the stiffness K of the series of these springs representing
the connections and the body of the strut is
K=

1
3

i =1 k

The above formula assumes that the end of the strut not attached to the member requiring
lateral support is attached to a rigid support. If the end connections are double angles of
leg thickness t and length L, the stiffness of the angles can be written as
t
k a = 2 EL
b

where E = Young's Modulus = 29000 ksi and b = GOL - t/2. The above formula assumes
that the angle leg length b is in double curvature. If single curvature is assumed, ka =
t
EL
b

The true curvature state of the angle leg will lie between the limits of single and double
curvature and a lower bound stiffness estimate would be obtained by using the single
curvature formula.
Whether the angle leg bends in single curvature, double curvature, or something in
between, depends on the relative stiffness of the angles and the bolts. If the angles are very
flexible and the bolts are stiff, double curvature is likely. If the angles are very stiff, and
the bolts are flexible, single curvature is probable. An estimate of which is more likely can
be obtained from the prying action formulation given in the AISC Manuals, by using the
parameter

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 8

 t c 2
1
'=
1
(1 + ) t

where the notation has been defined earlier and in ASD format
8Bb'
pFy

tc =

If 1, use =1, the angle is bent in double curvature

If 0, use =0, the angle is bent in single curvature
If 0< <1, use calculated value of , the angle is bent in a curvature state between single
and double.
t
Using the parameter , the angle stiffness can be generalized to ka= (1 + ')EL
b

If the strut has cross-sectional area A and length l, its stiffness is

AE
l

ks =

As an example, consider a W14x48 strut 20'-0 long with end clips of 4x4x1/2 angles with
GOL = 212" and L=9". The bolts are A325N of 3/4 inch diameter, with B=19.4 kips (the
strut carries a small shear load so there is no reduction in tensile strength due to sheartension interaction).
Then b' = 2.5 - .5 - 0.75/2 = 1.625
a' = 1.5 + 0.75/2= 1.875
= 1.625/1.875 = 0.87
= 1-0.8125/3 = 0.73
8x19.4x1.625
.
= 153
3x36
2
153

1
.
=
.
1 = 613

0.73x187
. 0.5

tc =

since = >1, use = 1, and

3

0.5
k1=k3=ka=2x29,000x9
= 5730k / in.
2.25
14.1x 29000
= 1700 k/in.
k2=ks=
240

Then, the overall axial stiffness of the strut and its end connections is
K=

1
=1070 k/in.
1
1
1
+
+
5730 1700 5730

The value of K = 1070k/in. would be used in the stability analysis to determine if the strut
is stiff enough to enforce a node.

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 9

The above analysis is for the critical case of a tensile strut load. If the strut load is
compressive, the stiffness of the double angle end connection is essentially infinite, and K
= ks=1700k/in.
The above discussion has emphasized the use of the stiffness K as required to enforce a
note in a stability analysis. The stiffness K would also be the proper value to use in a
structural analysis computer program to compute member forces and joint displacements.
DISCUSSION
Effect of connection rotational rigidity on the support.
The question is sometimes asked when does a simple flexible connection become a
rigid connection? The question can be answered using the equations developed in this
paper. As long as the ductility equations are satisfied, i.e., Eq. 4 for double angles, Eqs. 4
and 6 to shear end plates, and Eqs. 7 and 8 for Tee connections, the connections are
flexible. Nevertheless, when subjected to shear and axial load, these connections are
capable of inducing a significant moment in the supporting member. Will this moment
have to be considered in the design of this supporting member? There are several
situations to be considered. If the supporting member is a wide flange beam or column
web, with connections to one side only, the rigidity of the connections will not be
mobilized because of the flexibility of the support. If connections are made to both sides,
the connections will tend to work against each other with little or no effect on the
supporting member. If the connections are to the flanges on both sides of a column, the
previous sentence applies. Perhaps the critical case is a connection to one side of a column
and to the column flange. In this case, the connection will induce a moment in the column.
Will this moment have a destabilizing effect on the column? The answer is generally no.
Most columns which have beams with simple shear connections framing to them will be
designed for a K factor of 1, i.e., the simple shear connections provide no resistance to
rotation of the column at the "simple shear" connection support points. Likewise, the
"simple shear" connection will induce no moment in the column. If the simple shear
connection is in fact quite rigid, it will induce a moment in the column which tends to
induce an initial imperfection in the column. However, once the column tries to deform
beyond the deformed shape induced by the connection, the rigidity of the connection acts
to resist further deformation. Thus, the K factor is now less than 1. The moment between
the beam and the column reverses direction and now tends to stabilize the column i.e., the
system is self-stabilizing. This is explained in the AISC (1994) LRFD Manual, 2nd Ed.,
Vol. II, pp. 9-192 through 9-194, in the context of connections eccentric to column weak
axes, but similar arguments apply to non-eccentric connections to column strong axes.
Codified Connection Flexibility Requirements
Other than the suggestion that the angle leg thickness not exceed 5/8 inch at the
usual gages, and that shear end plates should be in the thickness range of 1/4 inch to 3/8
inch, AISC has no other explicit recommendations on this subject. At least one code does
have an explicit recommendation. For railroad bridges, AREA recommends (AREA,
1992) that

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 10

GOL lt / 8
where l is the span of the beam and t is the angle thickness, both in units of inches. For
highway bridges, AASHTO has no specific recommendation, but Fisher (1977)
recommends
GOL lt / 12
These bridge requirements reflect fatigue requirements and are not generally required for
buildings. Also, the above bridge code requirements or recommendations apply to the top
one-third of the connection. The lower two thirds of the connection can have a much
tighter gage and can be used to carry axial load, but the above GOL requirements based on
t will usually require excessive gages with angle thicknesses t great enough to be
effective in carrying axial load. This indicates that, for bridges, it is better practice to let
beams be flexure members, and use separate struts as axial members.
CONCLUSIONS
Formulas have been presented which can be used to determine if a simple shear
connection is sufficiently flexible to preclude overloading the less ductile elements of the
connections, i.e., the field bolts of Figs. 1 and 2, and the shop bolts or shop welds of Fig. 3.
It was noted above that these formulas are valid for all design methods. It should also be
recognized that these formulas provide a test criterion against which a connection can be
checked for ductility. They do not provide a design of a connection for specific applied
loads. Connection design would be performed in the usual manner, except for replacing
Fy with Fu as has been proposed for specified shears and axial forces.
In order to maximize the flexibility of these connections under shear and axial load, it
is pointed out that the axial force analysis can use the connection tensile strength Fu in
place of the yield strength Fy.
The effect of the rigidity of these connections on the supporting members is discussed
and it is concluded that there need be no concern over this matter.
Three types of simple shear connections have been treated here, i.e., double angles,
~
tees, and shear end plates. These all have a common bending property, b , which is the
primary provider of ductility. A fourth type of simple shear connection, the single plate
shear connection or shear tab, is not considered here because it does not possess this
bending property.
Axial stiffness formulas have been given for double clips. Similar expressions can be used
for shear end plates and tee connections.

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Part of this paper was developed for the "Design Office Problems" project of the
ASCE Committee on Metal Building Structures. L. Griffis is the Chairman of the subcommittee dealing with simple shear connections under shear and axial loads, and the subcommittee members are R. Disque, T. Murray, D. Ricker, and K. Wiesner, in addition to
the author. This sub-committee has guided some of the development of this paper, and
offered suggestions, discussion items, and criticisms, which are hereby gratefully
acknowledged by the author.

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 12

REFERENCES
1. American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC (1970), Manual of Steel Construction,
Seventh Ed., p. 4-12, AISC, Chicago IL.
2.

American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC (1989), Manual of Steel Construction

(ASD), 9th Ed., AISC, Chicago IL.

3. American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC (1992), Manual of Steel Construction, Vol.
II, AISC, Chicago IL.
4. American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC (1994), Manual of Steel Construction,
LRFD, 2nd Ed., Vol. II, Connections, p 9-12, AISC, Chicago IL.
5. American Railway Engineering Association, AREA (1992), Manual of Railway
Engineering, Chapter 15, 1.8.3(c), Steel Structures, Washington DC.
6. Astaneh, A. (1985), Procedure for Design and Analysis at Hanger-Type Connections, AISC
Engineering Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 63-66, Chicago IL.
7. Astaneh, A., and Nader, M. N. (1988), "Behavior and Design of Steel Tee Framing Shear
Connections," Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Report
to Sponsor, AISC, July.
8. Astaneh, A., and Nader, M.N, (1989), "Design of Tee Framing Shear Connections, AISC
Engineering Journal, 1st Quarter, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 9-20, AISC, Chicago IL.
9. Fisher, J.W. (1977), Bridge Fatigue Guide, Design and Details, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL.
10. Fisher, J. W., and Struik, J. H. A. (1974), Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted
Joints, pp. 270-279, Wiley-Interscience, New York NY.
11. Kato, B., and McGuire, W. (1973), "Analysis of T-Stub Flange to Column Connections,"
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. ST5, May, pp. 865-888, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York NY.
12. Kulak, G. L., Fisher, J. W., and Struik, J. H. A. (1987), Guide to Design Criteria for
Riveted and Bolted Joints, 2nd Ed., pp. 274-286, Wiley-Interscience, NY.
13. Lewitt, C.S., Chesson, E., Jr., and Munse, W. H., (1969), "Restraint Characteristics of
Flexible Riveted and Bolted Beam to Column Connections," University of Illinois
Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 500, Vol. 66, No. 63, Jan.
14. Struik, J. H. A. (1969), as referenced in Fisher and Struik (1974) and Kulak et. al. (1987).
15. Tamboli, A. (1997), Editor, Steel Design Handbook - LRFD Method, pg. 7-117, McGraw
Hill, New York.
16. Thornton, W. A. (1985), Prying Action A General Treatment, AISC Engineering Journal,
Vol. 22, NO. 2, pp. 67-75.

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 13

17. Thornton, W. A. (1992), Strength and Serviceability of Hanger Connections, AISC

Engineering Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 145-149, AISC, Chicago IL. Also see: Errata
(1996), AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 39-40, Chicago IL.
18.

Thornton, W.A. (1996), "A Rational Approach to Design of Tee Shear Connections," AISC
Engineering Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1 pp. 34-37, AISC, Chicago IL.

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 14

Table 1

Theoretical and Experimental Connection Couples

(Bolted and Riveted Double Angles)

Specimen

Fy
ksi.

FK-3
FK-4AB
FK-4P
WK-4
FK-4AB-M
FB-4
FB-4A
FK-5
WB-10AB

39.3
39.3
39.3
39.3
41.6
38.8
38.8
38.8
40.1

(1)
(2)
(3)

81/2
111/2
111/2
111/2
111/2
111/2
111/2
141/2
291/2

1.771
1.708
1.708
1.708
1.6875
1.8165
1.8165
1.6195
1.7475

~
b /L

0.2084
0.1486
0.1486
0.1486
0.1467
0.1580
0.1580
0.1117
0.0592

205
385
385
385
463
394
394
943
3873

Experimental M
(Lewitt, Chesson, & Munse)
=0.03 Radian
k-in.

170
330
330
320
370
330
330(2)
810
3,500(2,3)

Slip between clip angles and beam web not included

Extrapolated from Fig. B35 of Lewitt, Chesson and Munse

Theoretical and Experimental Values of Connection Couple

(Shop Welded WT)

Test
No.

Section

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

WT4x7.5
WT7x19
WT7x19
WT4x7.5
WT4x20
WT4x20
WT7x19(2)
WT4x20(2)
WT4x20(2)

(2)

0.354
0.354
0.354
0.354
0.375
0.371
0.371
0.443
0.440

Theoretical M
(Eq.1)
k-in.

~
1
b =(5 /2-tw(beam))/2-k

Table 2

(1)

Angle Properties
~
b (1)
t
L
in.
in.
in.

L
in.

8.5
14.5
8.5
14.5
14.5
8.5
14.5
8.5
14.5

~
b (1)

t
in.

bf
in.

kl
in.

in.

0.315
0.515
0.515
0.315
0.56
0.56
0.515
0.56
0.56

4.00
6.77
6.77
4.00
8.07
8.07
6.77
8.07
8.07

1/2
5/8
5/8
1/2
5/8
5/8
1/2(3)
1/2(3)
1/2(3)

1.5
2.76
2.76
1.5
3.4
3.41
2.89
3.53
3.53

Theoretical M
(Eq.1)
Fy=44.77
k-in.

217
921
327
626
890
321
881
312
861

Experimental M
(Astaneh & Nader)

@=0.03 @=0.07
k-in.
k-in.

180(4)
300(4)
110(4)
370(4)
250(4)
50(4)
290(4)
30(4)
440(4)

~
b =bf/2-k1

With stem replaced with 1/2 A36 plate, 1/4 fillet welds
k1=1/4+1/4=1/2
(4)
Estimated from Fig. 4.5 of Astaneh & Nader (1988) or Fig. 11 of Astaneh & Nader (1989).
(5)
47.9 in original. Data assumed corrupt.
(6)
Value is for 0.06 radian.
(3)

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 15

223
533
218
413(6)
479(5)
227
683
228
748

Table 3 Estimated Minimum Angle Gages (GOL) for A36 Angles and A325 Bolts for
Rotational Flexibility
ANGLE
THICKNESS
(in.)
3
1
5
3

Minimum Gage of Angle (GOL)a___

3

in. dia. bolt

(in.)

in. dia. bolt

(in.)

1 in. dia. bolt

(in.)

138

114

118

178

158

112

212

218

178

314

21116

2516

4516

312

1
a

Driving clearances may control minimum GOL. GOL is defined in Fig. 1.

Table 4 Relationship Among Span, Load, Rotation, and Displacement for a W18x35
(A36) at Nominal Elastic Strength (FySx).
Span
(ft)

End Reaction
(Kips)

End Rotation
(Radians)

Displacement
(in.)

Displacement/ Span
(dimensionless)

10

69

0.0056

0.21

1/570

20

35

0.0117

0.84

1/285

30

23

0.0168

1.89

1/190

40

17

0.0224

3.36

1/143

50

14

0.0280

5.26

1/114

60

12

0.0336

7.58

1/95

SW:D:ENG:WAT 9-5.doc

Page 16