shear

connections. Do not specify full-depth connections or rely on the AISC uniform load tables.
2. For moment connections, provide the actual moments and the actual shears. Also, provide a
“breakdown” of the total moment, that is, give the gravity moment and lateral moment due to wind or
seismic loads separately. This is needed to do a proper check for column web doubler plates. If
stiffeners are required, allow the use of fillet welds in place of complete joint penetration welds. To
avoid the use of stiffeners, consider redesigning with a heavier column to eliminate them.
3. For bracing connections, in addition to providing the brace force, also provide the beam shear and
axial transfer force. The transfer force is the axial force that must be transferred to the opposite side
of the column. The transfer force is not necessarily the beam axial force that is obtained from a
computer analysis of the structure. See Thornton (1995b) and Muir and Thornton (2014) for a
discussion of this. A misunderstanding of transfer forces can lead to both uneconomic and unsafe
connections.

2.1.4 Types of Connections

There are three basic forces to which connections are subjected. These are axial force, shear force, and
moment. Many connections are subject to two or more of these simultaneously. Connections are usually
classified according to the major load type to be carried, such as shear connections, which carry
primarily shear; moment connections, which carry primarily moment; and axial force connections, such as
splices, bracing and truss connections, and hangers, which carry primarily axial force. Subsequent
sections of this chapter will deal with these three basic types of connections.

2.1.5 Organization
This chapter will cover axial force connections first, then moment connections, and lastly shear
connections. This is done to emphasize the ideas of load paths, limit states, and the lower bound theorem,
which (except for limit states) are less obviously necessary to consider for the simpler connections.
This chapter is based on the limit states of the AISC Specification (AISC, 2016). The determination of
loads, that is, required strengths, is dependent upon the specific building code required for the project,
based on location, local laws, and so forth. At this time (2008), there is much transition taking place in the
determination of seismic loads and connection requirements. Wherever examples involving seismic loads
are presented in this chapter, the solutions presented are indicative of the author’s experience in current
practice with many structural engineers, and may need to be supplemented with additional requirements
from local seismic codes. Chapter 5 deals with connections in high seismic regions and covers these
additional requirements.

2.2 AXIAL FORCE CONNECTIONS

2.2.1 Bracing Connections
2.2.1.1 Introduction. The lateral force-resisting system in buildings may consist of a vertical truss.
This is referred to as a braced frame and the connections of the diagonal braces to the beams and columns
are the bracing connections. Figure 2.1 shows various bracing arrangements. For the bracing system to be
a true truss, the bracing connections should be concentric, that is, the gravity axes of all members at any
joint should intersect at a single point. If the gravity axes are not concentric, the resulting couples must be
considered in the design of the members. The examples of this section will be of concentric type, but the
nonconcentric type can also be handled as will be shown.

FIGURE 2.1 Various vertical bracing arrangements.

2.2.1.2 Example 1. Consider the bracing connection of Fig. 2.2. The brace load is 855 kips, the beam
shear is 10 kips, and the beam axial force is 411 kips. The horizontal component of the brace force is 627
kips, which means that 627 – 411 = 216 kips is transferred to the opposite side of the column from the
brace side. There must be a connection on this side to “pick up” this load, that is, provide a load path.
FIGURE 2.2 Example 1, bracing connection design.

The design of this connection involves the design of four separate connections. These are (1) the
brace-to-gusset connection, (2) the gusset-to-column connection, (3) the gusset-to-beam connection, and
(4) the beam-to-column connection. A fifth connection is the connection on the other side of the column,
which will not be considered here.

1. Brace-to-gusset: This part of the connection is designed first because it provides a minimum size for
the gusset plate which is then used to design the gusset-to-column and gusset-to-beam connections.
Providing an adequate load path involves the following limit states:
a. Bolts (A325SC-B-N 1⅛-in-diameter 1-3/16 in holes (note that the 2016 Specification allows up
to ⅛-in hole clearance for bolt greater than or equal to 1-in diameter), serviceability limit
state): The above notation indicates that the bolts are slip critical, the surface class is B, and
threads are not excluded from the shear planes. The slip-critical design strength per bolt is

ϕrstr = 1 × 1.13 × 0.5 × 64 = 36.2 kips

The specification requires that connections designed as slip critical must also be checked as
bearing for the bearing condition. The bearing design strength per bolt is
 Since 36.2 < 40.3, use 36.2 kips as the design strength. The estimated number of bolts required is
855/(36.2 × 2) = 11.8. Therefore, try 12 bolts each side of the connection.
b. W14 × 109 brace checks:
(1) Bolt shear, bearing, and tearout: The proper check is one that considers bolt shear, bearing,
and tearout for each bolt individually. The resistances of the individual bolts are then summed
to determine a capacity for the bolt group.
The bolt shear strength has already been established as 36.2 kips per bolt.
The bearing strength per bolt is

ϕrp = 0.75 × 2.4 × 1.125 × 0.525 × 65 = 69.1 kips

The bolt tearout capacity of the edge bolts at the brace web is

ϕrp = 0.75 × 1.2 × (2 – 0.594) × 0.525 × 65 = 43.1 kips

Since tearout through the edge of the brace web is the critical condition and results in a
capacity greater than the shear strength of the bolt, the full bearing capacity of the bolt can be
developed. However, since the connection is to be designed as slip critical, the slip
resistance will govern.
(2) Block shear rupture:

Shear yielding = 39.9 × 0.6 × 50 = 1010 kips

Shear fracture = 31.4 × 0.6 × 65 = 1030 kips
Tension fracture = 2.88 × 65 = 187 kips
Since shear yielding is less than shear fracture, the failure mode is shear yielding and
tension fracture; thus, the design block shear strength is

ϕRbs = 0.75(1010 + 187) = 898 kips > 855 kips, ok

c. Gusset checks:
(1) Bearing and tearout: The bearing strength per bolt is

ϕrp = 0.75 × 2.4 × 1.125 × 0.75 × 58 = 88.1 kips

The bolt tearout capacity of the edge bolts at the gusset is

ϕrp = 0.75 × 1.2 × (2 – 0.594) × 0.75 × 58 = 55.0 kips

 Again the bolt shear governs.
(2) Block shear rupture: These calculations are similar to those for the brace.

(3) Whitmore section: Since the brace load can be compression, this check is used to check for
gusset buckling. Figure 2.2 shows the “Whitmore section” length, which is normally lw = (27
tan 30) × 2 + 6.5 = 37.7 in, but the section passes out of the gusset and into the beam web at
its upper side. Because of the fillet weld of the gusset to the beam flange, this part of the
Whitmore section is not ineffective, that is, load can be passed through the weld to be carried
on this part of the Whitmore section. The effective length of the Whitmore section is thus

The gusset buckling length is, from Fig. 2.1, lb = 9.5 in, and the slenderness ratio is

In this formula, the theoretical fixed-fixed factor of 0.5 is used rather than the usually
recommended value of 0.65 for columns, because of the conservatism of this buckling check
as determined by Gross (1990) from full-scale tests. From the AISC 2005 Specification
Section J4.4, since Klb/r ≤ 25, the design buckling strength is

ϕFcr = 0.9 × 36 = 32.4 ksi

and the Whitmore section buckling strength is thus

ϕRwb = 32.4 × 37.1 × 0.75 = 902 kips > 855 kips, ok

The same result is achieved using the approach given by Dowswell (2006), where the
required gusset thickness to prevent buckling is

where c is the smaller of the distances from the connected edge of the gusset to the brace
 connection, and l1 is the buckling length along the line of action of the brace.
d. Brace-to-gusset connection angles:
(1) Gross and net area: The gross area required is 855/(0.9 × 36) = 26.4 in2
Try 4 Ls 5 × 5 × ¾, Agt = 6.94 × 4 = 27.8 in2, ok
The net area is Ant = 27.8 – 4 × 0.75 × 1.25 = 24.1 in2
The effective net area is the lesser of 0.85 Agt or UAnt,
where . Thus 0.85 Agt = 0.85 × 27.8 = 23.6 and UAnt = 0.944 × 24.1 = 22.8 and
then Ae = 22.8. Therefore, the net tensile design strength is ϕRt = 0.75 × 58 × 22.8 = 992 kips
> 855 kips ok.
(2) Bearing and tearout: Comparing the strength of two ¾″ angles to the ¾″ gusset, it is clear that
bolt bearing and tearout on the angles will not control.
(3) Block shear rupture: The length of the connection on the gusset side is the shorter of the two
and is, therefore, the more critical. Per angle,

This completes the design checks for the brace-to-gusset connection. All elements of the load
path, which consists of the bolts, the brace web, the gusset, and the connection angles, have
been checked. The remaining connection interfaces require a method to determine the forces
on them. Research (Thornton, 1991, 1995b) and practice (AISC, 2016) have shown that the
best method for doing this is the uniform force method (UFM). The force distributions for this
method are shown in Fig. 2.3.