Cyclic Behavior and Seismic Design of Steel Shear Connections

Judy Liu, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1284,USA

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.

Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1710, USA

ABSTRACT
An experimental and analytical program was undertaken to determine the
contribution of typical shear, or simple, connections, including the floor slab, to
the lateral resistance of steel structures. Through the experimental program, the
cyclic behavior of typical shear connections was established. In the analytical
program, this information was used for the development of models of moment-
rotation response. These efforts have resulted in tools for establishing the role of
simple connections in the seismic behavior of steel buildings.

INTRODUCTION

In an effort to establish the contribution of simple connections to the lateral resistance of steel
structures, a combined experimental and analytical program was undertaken. Results from the
experimental program suggested that simple connections, including the effects of the floor slab,
behave as partially restrained connections. Information on their cyclic behavior was used for
development of models of their moment-rotation response. Presented here is an overview of
the test program, experimental results, and basic parameters from the moment-rotation models.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

The test program consisted of sixteen full-scale cyclic tests of simple connections. Specimens
were designed as if from a building with W14x90 columns at 7.62 m (25’-0”) spacing, with
W18x35 beams framing into W24x55 girders. Connection details included typical 4-, 6- and 8-
bolt shear tab connections, a supplemental seat angle, a stiffened seat, pre-80’s shear tabs,
and a top-and-bottom angle connection. Variations included the presence of the floor slab, the
type of concrete used, the amount of reinforcement in the floor slab, and the presence of
concrete within the column web cavity. Figure 1 shows a typical specimen with slab. The
dimensions of the specimen were 7.62 m (25’-0”) and 3.05 m (10’-0”) pin-to-pin for the beams
and columns, respectively. The slab was 2.44 m (8’-0”) across. The floor was a 158 mm (6-
1/4”) concrete slab on 1 mm (20 gage) metal deck with 76.2 mm (3”) ribs. The slab
reinforcement included welded wire fabric for temperature and shrinkage, as well as nominal
reinforcement across the girders for crack control. With nominal shear studs, the beams and
girders were 20-30% composite. All bolts were ASTM-A325N. Table 1 gives details for test
specimens. For more information on connection details, the reader is referred to Liu and
Astaneh-Asl (1).

148
 Figure 1. Typical specimen with floor slab

The test set-up was designed for the application of gravity loads and lateral drift (Figure 2). The
column was pinned at the top and the bottom. Pin-ended struts at the ends of the girders
provided vertical support while allowing for horizontal translation. Two actuators, one on each
beam, were used to simulate the initial gravity loads on the system. The actuator at the top of
the column applied increasing, cyclic, lateral displacements (SAC (2)). The drift angle was
defined as the displacement at the top of the column divided by the column height, pin to pin.

Table 1. Test Specimens

Seat / Flange Floor Slab Concrete

# Beam/ Bolts on Connection Shear Slab in
Girder Web Studs Reinforcement Column
1A W18x35 4 - 22 mm None N.A. N.A. N.A.
2A W24x55 6 - 22 mm None N.A. N.A. N.A.
3A W18x35 4 - 22 mm None 610 mm o.c. Nominal LW
4A W18x35 4 - 22 mm None 610 mm o.c. D16 (No. 5) LW
5A W18x35 None Stiffened 610 mm o.c. Nominal LW
6A W24x55 6 - 22 mm None 305 mm o.c. Nominal LW
7A W24x55 6 - 22 mm None 305 mm o.c. Nominal None
8A W24x55 6 - 22 mm 203x102x19mm 305 mm o.c. Nominal LW
1B W18x35 3 - 25 mm None N.A. N.A. N.A.
2B W24x55 4 - 25 mm None N.A. N.A. N.A.
3B W18x35 4 - 22 mm None 610 mm o.c. Nominal NW
4B W24x55 6 - 22 mm None 610 mm o.c. D13 (No. 4) NW
5B W24x55 4 - 25 mm None 305 mm o.c. Nominal NW
6B W24x55 6 - 22 mm None 305 mm o.c. Nominal NW
7B W33x118 8 - 22 mm None 203 mm o.c. Nominal NW
8B W24x55 None 203x102x19mm 305 mm o.c. Nominal NW
N.A.=Not Applicable; o.c.=on center; LW=lightweight concrete; NW=normal-weight
concrete

149
CYCLIC BEHAVIOR OF TYPICAL SHEAR CONNECTIONS

In general, the tested connections showed significant moment capacity, ductile behavior and
large drift rotations. Cyclic behavior tended to be characterized by bolt slip, yielding of steel,
elongation of the bolt holes, and other ductile mechanisms.

Figure 2. Test set-up

The shear tab connections with slabs (3A, 4A, 6A, 7A, 3B, 4B, 6B, 7B) acted as partially-
restrained connections with maximum moment capacities on the order of 30 - 60% of the plastic
moment capacities of the connected beams and girders. However, the slab contribution was
typically lost after 0.04 radians due to the crushing of the concrete slab at the column. The
connections then behaved similarly to bare steel shear tab connections (1A, 2A), with bolt slip,
yielding in the shear tab and elongation of the bolt holes. Omitting the concrete in the column
web cavity caused a 20% drop in maximum lateral load. The type of concrete and the addition
of reinforcement around the column did not have such a significant effect on capacity. Binding
of the beam flanges and column flanges at large rotations led to increases in stiffness and
strength, as well as fractures in the shear tabs. Shear tab connections were able to reach large
levels of drift while still carrying the applied gravity loads. For example, the 6-bolt shear tab
connections with slab typically reached 0.11 radians of drift. Figure 3 shows the 4-bolt shear
tab connection without slab (1A) at 0.14 radians of drift. Figure 4 shows a 6-bolt shear tab with
slab at 0.03 radians and at the end of the test.

150
 Figure 3. 4-bolt Shear Tab at 0.14 Radians of Drift

Figure 4. (Clockwise from Top Left) 6-bolt Shear Tab Connection with Slab (6B)
at 0.03 Radians, Connection at 0.11 Radians (End of Test), Floor Slab at End of Test

The addition of a supplemental seat angle (8A) significantly increased the lateral resistance of
the shear tab connection, with moment capacities on the order of 80% of the plastic moment

151
capacity of the girder. The initial stiffness was roughly twice that of the shear tab connection
alone. The supplemental seat angle also demonstrated ductile behavior, marked by bolt slip,
yielding in the tab and plastic hinging in the seat angle, and elongation of bolt holes in the shear
tab, but also fracture along the bolt line of the shear tab, starting at 0.05 radians drift. The test
was ended with fracture of one seat angle due to low cycle fatigue. Figure 5 shows the
supplemental seat angle connection at the end of the test. Figure 6 shows a comparison of load
versus drift for a 6-bolt shear tab specimen with slab (6A) and the same connection with the
supplemental seat angle (8A).

Other connections generally demonstrated ductile behavior. For the shear tabs designed to pre-
80's standards (1B, 2B, 5B), the deformation tended to be concentrated in the beam web rather
than in the shear tab. On average, the bare-steel pre-80's connections demonstrated capacities
of 10-20% of the plastic moment capacity of the beam. For the stiffened seat connection (5A),
the yielding occurred primarily in the beam flanges. Fracture of the erection angle at the top of
one beam occurred at 0.05 radians; this was followed by fracture of the two bolts connecting the
bottom flange of the beam to the stiffened seat on the opposite side at 0.06 radians. The
maximum moment capacity was roughly 50% of the plastic moment capacity of the beam. For
the top-and-bottom angle connection (8B), the main mechanism was ductile plastic hinging of
the angles. The ultimate failure mode at 0.06 radians was fracture of the bolts in shear. This
connection had an initial stiffness comparable to the supplemental seat angle connection and
moment capacity on the order of 80% of the plastic moment capacity of the girder. For more
detailed summaries of the cyclic behavior of tested specimens, the reader is referred to Liu and
Astaneh-Asl (3).

Figure 5. Supplemental Seat Angle Connection (8A) at End of Test

152
 100
80
60
40

Load (kips)
20
0
-20
-40
-60
Shear Tab (6A)
-80
With Seat Angle (8A)
-100
-0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12
Drift (radians)

Figure 6. Load vs. Drift for Shear Tab and Supplemental Seat Angle Connections

DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS OF SHEAR TAB CONNECTIONS

Experimental results showed trends with regard to cyclic behavior of typical shear tab
connections. For example, recorded moment-rotation responses for the shear tabs with slab
invariably reach a peak and then, due to crushing of the concrete, drop in load at around 0.04
radians of drift. These observations and other data were used to develop guidelines for
establishing simplified moment-rotation curves for shear tab connections with the slab. Among
the parameters defined were ultimate rotation capacities, maximum positive bending moment
capacity, maximum negative bending moment capacity, and initial stiffness.

Rotation Capacity of Shear Tab Connections

For shear tab connections, the limit state for rotation is defined as binding of the beam on the
column, since this binding was consistently followed by shearing of bolts or fracture of plate.
Binding is largely dependent on the position of the shear tab on the beam, the depth of the
beam, and the distance that the beam flange has to travel before binding. Therefore, the
equation for rotation capacity considers the gap between the beam flange and column flange,
and the distance from the center of rotation of the connection to the farthest beam flange. Since,
at the maximum rotation, the slab is typically damaged and ineffective, the center of rotation is
considered to be about the center of the bolt group.

The equation for rotation capacity, θtotal, is:

θtotal = g/df (Equation 1)
where;
g = gap between the beam flange and the column
df = distance from the mid-height of the shear tab to the furthest beam flange, or the
largest of d1 and d2 (Figure 7)

153
 Figure 7. Parameters for Calculating Rotation Capacity

Calculation of Positive Moment Capacity of Shear Tab Connections with Slabs

For guidelines on estimating moment capacities of shear tab connections, the idea of a “bolt ele-
ment” is introduced to simplify the distribution of forces throughout the shear tab (Figure 8).
Experimental observations of failure modes and calculated capacities of bolt elements are
combined in the procedures presented. An explanation of failure modes for shear tab
connections is given in Liu and Astaneh-Asl (1).

Figure 8. Bolt Elements for Calculating Moment Capacities

For the calculation of positive moment capacity, assumptions related to distribution of forces
and effective depth of slab were made based upon experimental results. The assumption for the
model is that the top bolt elements carry the shear load, and the bottom bolt elements are
responsible for the bending moment. Assumptions on participation of the concrete slab were
also determined from experimental results. The effective width of slab, beff , is assumed to be
the width of the column face, flange or web, bearing on the concrete. The effective depth of the
slab is also adjusted to account for the orientation of the metal deck and observed damage.

The following procedure was developed for evaluation of positive moment capacity:
1. Using the governing failure mode for a bolt element in shear, determine how many bolt
elements are needed to carry the shear load. The top elements are assigned as shear
elements.

2. Assume that the remaining bolt elements are used to resist the bending moment. Calculate
T, the capacity of these elements in tension. For ductile failure modes, such as yielding and
bearing and edge deformation, the force distribution is fully plastic, or rectangular. For brittle

154
 failure modes such as net section or bolt fracture, the force distribution is linear, as shown in
Figure 9.

3. Calculate C, the capacity of the concrete slab in compression. For this calculation,

C=0.85(f’c)(beff)(a), (Equation 2)
where beff is the width of the column face (i.e., flange or web)
bearing against the concrete, f’c is the strength of the concrete, and
a = r, for the deck parallel to the tab and beam (strong-axis)
a = 0.6 r, for the deck perpendicular to the tab and beam (weak-axis)
r= depth of slab above the deck ribs

4. The smaller of C or T governs. By equilibrium, C equals T. Find either the new “a” of
concrete or new number of bolt elements. Calculate the moment capacity.

The method shown provides conservative estimates of the moment capacity, with values in the
range of 80 - 90% of the experimental values.

Figure 9. Force Distribution for Estimate of Positive Moment Capacity

Estimate of Negative Moment Capacity of Shear Tab Connections with Slabs

A similar approach was developed for calculating the negative moment capacity of a shear
connection with slab. The contribution of the floor slab is conservatively assumed to be
negligible. Moment capacity due to binding of the beam flange on the column is also ignored.
With these considerations, one may use the following procedure for determining the negative
moment capacities of shear tab connections with slabs:
1. Using the governing failure mode for a bolt element in shear, determine how many bolt
elements should be allocated to carry the shear load. Assignment of these bolt elements as
shear elements begins with the middle bolt(s) and is distributed evenly above and below the
centroid of the bolt group.
2. Assume that the remaining bolt elements are used to resist the bending moment, and that
the center of rotation of the connection is at the centroid of the bolt group. Use the
appropriate force distribution to calculate C, the compression component, which is then
equal to T, the tensile component.
3. Given the force distribution, calculate the moment arm and moment capacity.

155
The predicted capacities are approximately 95% of the observed experimental values for the
bare-steel moment capacity.

Initial Stiffness of Shear Tab Connections with Slabs

Guidelines for estimating initial stiffness, Kinitial, of typical shear tab connections with slabs were
also established. Since slip was typically the first observed mechanism, the estimates are based
upon a moment and rotation at which the connection is considered to have slipped, or Mslip and
θslip. θslip is 0.0042 radians, based on slip rotations of all shear tab connections tested.

Calculations for Mslip are based upon the assumption of a plastic distribution of friction forces in
the shear tab. For the calculation of friction forces, minimum bolt tension and the static friction
coefficient as specified in AISC-LRFD Specifications (AISC (4)), are used. The shear tab is
assumed to act entirely in tension through friction, and to be equilibrated by the slab in
compression (Figure 10). Since, for typical shear tabs, the resulting effective depth of the slab
is very small, the compression force is conservatively assumed to be acting at the very top of
the concrete slab. The resulting values of M*slip tend to overestimate the experimental values
for the specimens with slab. However, comparisons of the estimated values and the
experimental values show that the application of a simple γ factor of 0.67 results in very
reasonable estimates of Mslip. The equation for Mslip is :

M slip = γ x M* slip (Equation 3)

The initial stiffness, Kinitial, of the connection is implicit in the establishment of Mslip and θ slip, and
is simply Mslip divided by θ slip.

Figure 10. Force Distribution for Estimate of M* slip

Moment-Rotation Model of Shear Tab Connection with Slab

More parameters are required to complete the description of the moment-rotation behavior, as
shown in Figure 11. These parameters are: θ +max, θ -max, θdrop and Mdrop. The values provided for
these rotation parameters were based on a compilation and averaging of backbone curves of
moment-rotation for tested shear tab connections. Note that for θ +ult and θ -ult, the equation for
θtotal (Equation 1) may either be modified to account for positive and negative bending,
respectively, or θtotal may be conservatively used for both. For more information on cyclic

156
behavior and modeling of shear tab connections, the reader is referred to Liu and Astaneh-Asl
(1).

+
Μ max

Μ drop
Μ slip

- -
θ ult θ max θ slip
+ +
θ slip θ max θ drop θ ult

Μ slip
-
Μ max

Quantity Description
M +max, M -max Maximum positive and negative moment capacities

θ +max = 0.03 radians for shear tab with slab

θ -max = 0.02 radians for shear tab with slab
θ +ult, θ -ult Ultimate positive and negative rotational capacities
M slip Moment at which connection slips
θ slip = 0.0042 radians, empirical value based on test results

M drop = 0.55 M+max for shear tab with slab

θ drop = 0.04 radians for shear tab with slab
Figure 11. Moment-Rotation Model for Shear Tab Connection with Slab

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Through an experimental investigation, simple connections with slabs were shown to behave as
partially restrained connections. They were also shown to exhibit ductile behavior, reaching
large drift rotations without loss of gravity loads. Trends in cyclic behavior formed the basis of
models of moment-rotation response of typical shear tab connections with slabs. Continuing
and future work includes use of these results and models to establish guidelines regarding the
contribution of simple connections to the lateral resistance of steel structures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The sponsor for this project was the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through
the SAC Joint Venture. Thanks are due to the SAC technical advisory panel on connections. In
particular, the input by Professor Stephen A. Mahin, James O. Malley, Professor Charles W.
Roeder, Dr. Peter Clark, C. Mark Saunders and Ronald O. Hamburger is sincerely appreciated.
Thanks are also due to the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) and the Herrick
Corporation. The steel was donated by Nucor-Yamato Steel. Verco Manufacturing donated the
metal decking. Garcias Metal Specialties donated some labor for installation of the deck. John

157
Wolfe of Steven Tipping and Associates and Ted Winneberger of W & W Steel Company
provided some typical details for shear tab and stiffened seat connections.

REFERENCES

(1) Liu, J. and Astaneh-Asl, A., 2000, “Cyclic Testing of Simple Connections, Including Slab
Effects; Final Report,” Report No. UCB/CEE-STEEL-00/01, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
(2) SAC Joint Venture, 1997, “Protocol for Fabrication, Inspection, Testing and Documentation
of Beam-Column Connection Tests and Other Experimental Specimens”, Report No.
SAC/BD-97-02, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA
(3) Liu, J. and Astaneh-Asl, A., 2000, “Cyclic Behavior of Steel Shear Connections with Floor
Slab,” Proceedings, 6th International Conference of the Association for International
Cooperation and Research in Steel-Concrete Composite Structures, Los Angeles, CA.
(4) AISC, 1994, Manual of Steel Construction, Load & Resistance Factor Design, Volume II,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, 1994, pp. 9-147 through 9-167.

158