Articles Charles J. Carter* Cynthia J.

Duncan
DOI: 10.1002/stco.201300004

Recent changes in U.S. connection design practice

The 2010 AISC Specication for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 360-10) forms the basis for the 14th edition of the AISC Steel Construction Manual. Both publications reect 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. place, and so ASTM standards have been developed to dene them: ASTM F1852 is similar to A325, and ASTM F2280 is similar to A490. When added to the other grades that exist in the U.S. marketplace, such as ASTM A354 and A449, and also counting all the metric equivalents that exist for these standards, there are many fastener options and many of those have similar or identical strength levels for design. To simplify the provisions used in the AISC Specication, these products have been grouped as shown in Table1. 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 class A and class B faying surface classications used in slip-critical connection design.

1 Basic bolt strength increased

U.S. practice in the design of bolted joints for shear has long since been based on reducing the basic shear strength to account for conditions in which the shear distribution in the joint is not uniform. For simplicity, this reduction has been applied to all bolted joints so that the bolt shear strength is not usually aected by the number of bolts in the joint. Prior to the 2010 AISC Specication [1], a 20 % reduction was included in the basic strength for joint lengths up to 50 in. (1270mm). 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 Specication. 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 is 38 in. (965 mm). This new approach is illustrated and compared with the old approach in Fig.1. In theory, the non-uniform distribution is present only in end-loaded
Selected and reviewed by the Scientic Committee of the 7th International Workshop of Connections in Steel Structures, 30 May2 June 2012, Timioara, Romania Corresponding author: *

joints (see Fig. 2). However, for simplicity, the reduction is applied to all joints, and also to account for restraint and behaviour that is customarily ignored in many connection design approaches.

2 Bolt strength groupings established

ASTM A325 and A490 bolts are the usual fasteners contemplated for bolted joints in U.S. practice. The twist-o-type tension-control congurations of these products have become prevalent in the U.S. market-

carter@aisc.org

Fig. 1. Comparison of bolt shear strengths in the 2005 and 2010 AISC Specications

Ernst & Sohn Verlag fr Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin Steel Construction 6 (2013), No. 1

Ch. J. Carter/C. J. Duncan Recent changes in U.S. connection design practice

Fig.2. Examples of end-loaded and non-end-loaded joints Table1. Bolt strength levels as grouped in the 2010 AISC Specication
Basic strength Group ASTM Tension ksi A B A325, A325M, F1852, A354 gr. BC, A449 A490, F2280, A354 gr. BD 90 113 MPa 620 780 ksi 54 68 Shear N MPa 372 457 ksi 68 84 X MPa 457 579

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

The new equation for calculating 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 with the direction of the load: = 0.85 and = 1.76 For long slotted holes: = 0.70 and = 2.14 The value of the slip coecient 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 coecient 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 llers are used was

3 Slip-critical connection design simplied and improved

Up until the 2005 AISC Specication, 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 dierent 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 re-

quired to be designed with more bolts at the strength-level slip resistance. These included connections with oversized holes or slotted holes parallel with the direction of the load. Large-scale (see Fig.3) and other research [3], [4], [5] was undertaken almost immediately, and much was learned about slip behaviour and joint design requirements. The results aected the design method, allowing signicant simplication and better ways to address the behaviour. The serviceabilitystrength dichotomy was eliminated, slip coecients were changed and requirements regarding when to use llers in the joint were added, among other renements.

Steel Construction 6 (2013), No. 1

Ch. J. Carter/C. J. Duncan Recent changes in U.S. connection design practice

added; alternatively, additional bolts can be added to develop the llers. The ller factor hf is determined as follows: Where bolts have been added to distribute loads in the llers: hf = 1.0 Where bolts have not been added to distribute loads in the llers: hf = 1.0 for one ller between connected parts, and hf = 0.85 for two or more llers between connected parts It also is worth noting that prior to the 2010 AISC Specication, llers > in. (19mm) thick had to be developed. This is no longer the case. A reduction factor still applies to the bolt shear strength when llers are not developed, but the 2010 Specication recognizes that the reduction factor need not exceed 0.85 regardless of the thickness of the ller.

ways. Provisions in section J2.4 (a) and (c) in the 2010 AISC Specication are based on a loaddeformation behaviour that is aected by the weld size [7]. Accordingly, these provisions have been claried to reect that they are based on llet 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 account for size variations.

design. As a result, eccentricity requirements re-appeared in the single-plate connection design procedures in the 14th edition of the AISC Manual. Table 2 illustrates the eccentricities that are used in the design of single-plate connections.
References
[1]AISC: Specication for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10), AISC, Chicago, IL, 2010. [2]AISC: Steel Construction Manual, AISC Chicago, IL, 2011. [3] Borello, D. B., Denavit, M. D., Hajjar, J. F.: Behavior of Bolted Steel Slip-Critical Connections with Fillers. Report No. NSEL-017, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 2009. [4] Dusika, P., Iwai, R.: Development of Linked Column Frame Lateral Load Resisting System. 2nd Progress Report for AISC and Oregon Iron Works, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 2007. [5] Grondin, G, Jin, M., Josi, G.: 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, 2007. [6] Kanvinde, A. M., Grondin, G. Y., Gomez, I. R., 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. [7] Muir, L. S.: Deformational Compatibility in Weld Groups. ECCS/AISC Workshop Connections in Steel Structures VI. 2324June 2008, Chicago, IL. [8] Swanson, J. A.: Ultimate Strength Prying Models for Bolted T-Stub Connections. Engineering Journal, AISC, 2002, vol. 39, No. 3, 3rd Quarter, AISC, Chicago, IL, pp. 136147 [9] Thornton, W. A.: Strength and Serviceability of Hanger Connections. Engineering Journal, AISC, 1992, vol. 29, No. 4, 4th Quarter, AISC, Chicago, IL, pp. 145149.

7 Prying action formulas improved with simple change

Treatment of prying action in the AISC Manual and other sources has traditionally been based on the use of Fy in the calculations. At the same time, it has long since been known that the resulting predictions of the equations for prying action are signicantly conservative [8], [9]. To address this in a simple manner, the AISC Manual now uses Fu in place of Fy for prying action checks.

4 Base metal design at welds

Table J2.5 in the 2010 AISC Specication summarizes the available strengths for welds and base metal and weld metal in welded joints. Base metal strength at welds is now based on the rupture strength rather than the yield strength. Previously, the design was based on 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.

8 Single-plate connection eccentricity calculations revised

Changes to the bolt shear strength values necessitated a change in the 14th edition of the AISC Steel Construction Manual procedures for single-plate connections. In the 13th edition of the Manual, the 20 % bolt shear strength reduction was used as a convenient way of simplifying the design of single-plate connections. That is, we knew the eect of most eccentricities was less than the 20 % reduction, and we also knew that shear connections are not end-loaded and did not need the 20 % reduction. On this basis it was accepted that most eccentricities in these connections could be ignored. The changes to the 2010 AISC Specication cut the margin on bolt strength to a 10 % reduction, which was no longer enough to oset the impact of eccentricity in the connection
Table2. Bolt strength levels as grouped in the 2010 AISC Specication
n 25 612 Hole type SSLT STD SSLT STD e [in.] a/2 a/2 a/2 a max. tp or tw [in.] none db/2 + 1/16 db/2 + 1/16 db/21/16

5 Directional strength increase extended to out-of-plane loading

Prior to 2010 the AISC Specication included the words in plane when provisions were given for the directional strength increase for llet welds, i.e. 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 [6] was conducted to evaluate that practice and showed that the restriction (the words in plane) could be eliminated. Accordingly, they do not appear in the 2010 AISC Specication.

Keywords: connections; bolts; welds; prying action; slip critical; AISC

Authors:
Charles J. Carter, SE, PE, PhD, Vice-President and Chief Structural Engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, USA, carter@aisc.org Cynthia J. Duncan, Director of Engineering, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, USA, duncan@aisc.org

6 Weld group size uniformity requirements added

Fillet welds used in groups are generally all of the same size but not al-

Steel Construction 6 (2013), No. 1