Recent Changes in U.S. Connection Design Practice Charles J. Carter, S.E., P.E., Ph.D.1 and Cynthia J.

Duncan2 The 2010 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 360-10) is the basis upon which the 14th edition AISC Steel Construction Manual was written. These documents reflect changes in connection design requirements and practices. This paper summarizes the most relevant changes in connection design requirements and practices made in these latest versions of these documents. Basic bolt strength increased U.S. practice in the design of bolted joints for shear has long been based upon a reduction in the basic shear strength to account for conditions in which the shear distribution in the joint is not uniform. As a matter of simplicity, this reduction has been applied to all bolted joints so that the bolt shear strength is not usually affected by the number of bolts in the joint. Prior to the 2010 AISC Specification, a 20% reduction was included in the basic strength for joint lengths up to 50 in. (1 270 mm). Above that dimension, an additional 20% reduction was required in the calculations. A re-evaluation of existing data and common joint lengths in modern construction led to a change in the 2010 AISC Specification. A similar approach is used, but the initial reduction is taken as 10% and the length at which an additional reduction (of 17%) is taken at 38 in. (965 mm). This new approach is illustrated and compared to the old approach in Figure 1. In theory, the non-uniform distribution is present only in end-loaded joints (see Figure 2). However, the reduction is applied to all joints as a matter of simplicity, and also to account for restraint and behavior that is customarily ignored in many connection design approaches. Bolt strength groupings established ASTM A325 and A490 bolts are the usual fasteners contemplated in bolted joints in U.S. practice. The twist-off-type tension-control configurations of these products have become prevalent in the U.S. marketplace, and so ASTM standards have been developed to define them: ASTM F1852 is similar to A325, and ASTM F2280 is similar to A490. When added to the other grades, such as ASTM A354 and A449 that exist in the U.S. marketplace, and also counting all of the metric equivalents that exist for these standards, there are a number of fastener options and many have similar or identical strength levels for design.
1

Charles J. Carter, S.E., P.E., Ph.D., is Vice President and Chief Structural Engineer at the American Institute of Steel Construction in Chicago, IL, USA. 2 Cynthia J. Duncan is Director of Engineering at the American Institute of Steel Construction in Chicago, IL, USA.

Figure 1. Comparison of Bolt Shear Strengths in 2005 and 2010 AISC Specifications

Figure 2. Examples of end-loaded and non-end-loaded joints. 2

Table 1. Bolt strength levels as grouped in 2010 AISC Specification Basic Strength Group ASTM A325, A325M, F1852, A354 gr. BC, A449 A490, F2280, A354 gr. BD Tension ksi MPa ksi Shear N MPa ksi X MPa

90

620

54

372

68

457

113

780

68

457

84

579

To simplify the provisions used in the AISC Specification, these products have been grouped as shown in Table 1. One unintended item of confusion has been discovered: Group A and B tension and shear strength levels do not have anything to do with the faying surface classifications Class A and Class B used in slip-critical connection design. Slip-critical connection design simplified and improved Up until the 2005 AISC Specification, the designer was asked to decide if slip was to be prevented as a matter of serviceability or strength. Dubiously buried in the background of this decision was the reality that the actual checks were calibrated to give similar results in common cases, making the choice confusing at best. In 2005, changes were made that created different levels of design between serviceability and strength. However, the strength-level slip checks caused concern in the industry because some joints previously designed for serviceability slip were now required to be designed with more bolts at the strength-level slip resistance. These included connections with oversized holes or slotted holes parallel to the direction of the load Large-scale (see Figure 3) and other research (Borello et al., 2009; Dusicka and Iwai, 2007, and Grondin et al., 2007) was undertaken almost immediately, and much was learned about slip behavior and joint design requirements. The results affected the design method, allowing significant simplification and better addressing behavior. The

serviceability-strength dichotomy was eliminated, slip coefficients were changed, requirements for when fillers are used in the joint were added, among other refinements. The new equation for calculation of slip resistance is given as: Rn= Du hfTb Ns The variables Tb and Ns are unchanged. They represent the bolt pretension and number of slip planes, respectively. A resistance factor for LRFD or safety factor for ASD is required: For standard holes and short-slotted holes perpendicular to the direction of the load, = 1.0 and = 1.50 For oversized and short-slotted holes parallel to the load the direction of the load, = 0.85 and = 1.76 For long-slotted holes , = 0.70 and = 2.14

The value of the slip coefficient, was changed from 0.35 to 0.30 primarily because of the wide variability of the slip resistance of Class A clean mill scale surfaces. The slip coefficient for Class B surfaces was maintained as =0.50 for Class B blast-cleaned surfaces and blast-cleaned surfaces with Class B coatings. A reduction applicable to joints in which multiple fillers are used was added; alternatively, additional bolts can be added to develop the fillers. The filler factor, hf, is determined as follows: Where bolts have been added to distribute loads in the fillers, hf =1.0 Where bolts have not been added to distribute loads in the fillers, hf =1.0 for one filler between connected parts; hf =0.85 for two or more fillers between connected parts.

It also is worth noting that prior to the 2010 AISC Specification fillers greater than in. (19 mm) thick had to be developed. This is no longer the case. A reduction factor still applies to the bolt shear strength when fillers are not developed, but the 2010 Specification recognizes that the reduction factor need not exceed 0.85 regardless of the thickness of the filler.

Figure 3. Test specimen used in AISC slip-critical joint research.

Base metal design at welds Table J2.5 in the 2010 AISC Specification summarizes the available strengths for welds and base metal and weld metal in welded joints. Base metal strength at welds is now based upon the rupture strength rather than the yield strength. Previously, the design was based upon yielding in the base metal, which has come to be viewed as conservative and incorrect, since the weld itself adjacent to the base metal is designed for a rupture limit state. 5

Directional strength increase extended to out-of-plane loading Prior to 2010, the AISC Specification included the words in plane when provisions were provided for the directional strength increase for fillet welds. That is, the provisions were limited to loading in the plane of the weld or weld group. Common usage of the provisions in practice, however, extended these provisions to out-of-plane loading as well. Research (Kanvinde et al., 2009) was conducted to evaluate that practice and showed that the restriction (words in plane) could be eliminated. Accordingly, they do not appear in the 2010 AISC Specification. Weld group size uniformity requirements were added Fillet welds used in groups generally are all of the same size, but not always. Provisions in Section Sections J2.4 (a) and (c) in the 2010 AISC Specification are based upon a load-deformation behavior that is affected by the weld size (Muir, 2008). Accordingly, these provisions have been clarified to reflect that they are based upon fillet weld groups in which the size of the weld is uniform. When the weld group is not of uniform size, Section J2.4(b) can be used to accounts for size variations. Prying action formulas improved with simple change Treatment of prying action in the AISC Manual and other sources traditionally have been based upon the use of Fy in the calculations. At the same time, it has long been known that the resulting predictions of the equations for prying action are significantly conservative (Thornton, 1992; Swanson, 2002). To address this in a simple manner, the AISC Manual now uses Fu in place of Fy for prying action checks. Single-plate connection eccentricity calculations revised Changes in the bolt shear strength values necessitated a change in the 14th Edition AISC Steel Construction Manual procedures for single-plate connections. In the 13th Edition AISC Manual, the 20% bolt shear strength reduction was used as a convenient way to simplify the design of single-plate connections. That is, we knew the effect of most eccentricities was less than the 20% reduction, and we also knew that shear connections are not end-loaded and didnt need the 20% reduction. It was accepted on this basis that most eccentricities in these connections could be ignored. The changes to the 2010 AISC Specification cut the margin on bolt strength to a 10% reduction, which no longer was enough to offset the impact of eccentricity in the connection design. As a result, eccentricity requirements re-appeared in the single-plate connection design procedures in the 14th Edition AISC Manual. Table 2 illustrates the eccentricities that are used in the design of single plate connections.

Table 2. Eccentricities used in single-plate connection design

Hole Type

e, in.

Max. tp or tw, in.

SSLT 2 to 5 STD

a/2

None

a/2

db/2 + 1/16

SSLT 6 to 12 STD

a/2

db/2 + 1/16

db/2 - 1/16

References AISC, 2010, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-11), AISC, Chicago, IL. AISC, 2011, Steel Construction Manual, AISC Chicago, IL. Borello, D.B., Denavit, M.D., and Hajjar, J.F., 2009, Behavior of Bolted Steel SlipCritical Connections with Fillers, Report No. NSEL-017, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL. Dusika, P. and Iwai, R., 2007, Development of Linked Column Frame Lateral Load Resisting System, 2nd Progress Report for AISC and Oregon Iron Works, Portland State University, Portland, OR. Grondin, G, Jin, M. and Josi, G., 2007, Slip Critical Bolted Connections A Reliability Analysis for the Design at the Ultimate Limit State, Preliminary Report prepared for AISC, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CA. Kanvinde, A.M., Grondin, G.Y., Gomez, I.R., and Kwan, Y.K., "Experimental Investigation of Fillet Welded Joints Subjected to Out-of-Plane Eccentric Loads," Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, 3rd Quarter, 2009. Muir, L.S., Deformational Compatibility in Weld Groups. ECCS / AISC Workshop Connections in Steel Structures VI. June 23-24, 2008. Chicago, IL. Swanson, J.A., 2002, Ultimate Strength Prying Models for Bolted T-Stub Connections, Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 39, No. 3, 3rd Quarter, pp. 136-147, AISC, Chicago, IL. Thornton, W.A., 1992, Strength and Serviceability of Hanger Connections, Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol., 29, No. 4, 4th Quarter, pp. 145-149, AISC, Chicago, IL.