A DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BOLTED TOP-AND-SEAT ANGLE

CONNECTIONS FOR USE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS

Jared D. Schippers, Daniel J. Ruffley, Dr. Gian A. Rassati, and Dr. James A. Swanson
School of Advanced Structures, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
Jared.schippers@gmail.com; djruffley@gmail.com; gian.rassati@uc.edu;
swansojs@ucmail.uc.edu

ABSTRACT

Since the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe earthquakes, bolted moment
connections have garnered considerable interest for their application in Seismic Lateral
Resisting Systems (SLRS). However, the considerable amount of research conducted
over the last two decades has not produced many design procedures that would allow
the applications of bolted connections either as fully-restrained or partially-restrained.
This paper outlines a step-by-step design procedure for the design of bolted top-and-
seat angle moment connections for seismic applications. The proposed procedure is
used to design three practical examples of top-and-seat angle connections: two full-
strength and one partial-strength. The connections are then are modeled in ABAQUS
following a validated modeling approach that has been verified against multiple
experimental tests, both quantitatively and mechanistically. The analysis results of
these models are subsequently compared to the expected outcomes from the design
procedure, as a proof-of-concept. The results of this comparison are presented and
commented, and it is concluded that the proposed procedure is suitable for the design
of top-and-seat angle connections for seismic applications.

1. INTRODUCTION
In the wake of the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe earthquakes, numerous
moment connections were investigated and studied. The earthquakes demonstrated
that welded moment connections were far more brittle than previously thought, and as a
result there arose an increased interest in bolted moment connections.
Moment connections can be classified in terms of strength, stiffness, and
ductility. For strength, a connection is considered full-strength (FS) if the connection
has enough capacity so the beam can develop a full plastic hinge. If the capacity of the
connection is not enough for this to occur, it is considered to be partial-strength (PS).
Concerning stiffness, a connection is considered fully-restrained (FR), partially-
restrained (PR), or simple, depending on the relative rotational stiffness of the
connection with respect to the connected beam. When the initial stiffness is greater
than 20EI/L, the connection is FR. If the initial stiffness is less than 2EI/L, the
connection is simple. Anything between these two limits classifies the connection as
PR. Finally, a connection is considered ductile if it has at least 80% of its nominal
strength at a plastic rotation of 0.03 radians. Figure 1 shows a full-strength, partially-
restrained, ductile connection (Swanson, 1999).
Currently, only full-strength, fully-restrained moment connections are allowed for
use in seismic lateral resisting systems per ANSI/AISC 341-10 (2010) in intermediate
momentt frames (IM MF) and special mom ment frame es (SMF), and all oth her connecctions
must be e considere ed simple gravity
g con
nnections. Previous research h has shown that
accounting for the moment co ontribution of these grravity connections in m
moment fra ames
adds a considerab
c le amount ofo lateral re
esistance dduring a seiismic eventt (Barber, 22011,
and Zha ang, 2012).
With
W more and
more re esearch go oing
into PR R connections
and frammes consis sting
of PR connections
c s, it
is anticipated that the
contribution of latteral
resistance from PS,
PR con nnections will
eventually be allow wed
to be in ncorporated d in
seismic design per
ANSI/AISC 341.
Additionnally, it is
envisionned in the
future th
hat the prim mary Figure
F 1: Moment-Rotation Curve e
lateral resis sting (Swanso on and Leon, 2000)
system in SMFs and
IMFs will be permitted
to also consist
c of FS,
PR connections. Given the ese assumptions, thiss paper prresents a general de esign
procedu ure for bolte ed top-and-seat angle e connectioons for usee in seismiic design. The
design procedure
p has
h been verified
v thro
ough finite e
element mo odeling, botth quantitattively
and mec chanistically y, using thee software ABAQUS. Three exa ample connections, two FS
and one e PS, have been de esigned us sing the prroposed prrocedure and modele ed in
ABAQUS. The res sults are the
en presente ed and com mmented.

2. BAACKGROUND
In
n 1995, afte er the Northhridge and Kobe earth hquakes, thhe SAC Joint Venture e and
FEMA entered
e into
o an agree ement to fu urther resea
arch in seiismic desiggn pertainin
ng to
steel moment
m frames and connection ns (FEMA, 2000). SAC Subttask 7.03 was
performe ed at the Georgia
G Insttitute of Tec
chnology a nd was con ncerned witth bolted T--stub
and TSA A connectio ons. As pa art of this research, 8 full-scale T
T-stub connections, 2 full-
scale TSA
T connections, 48 bolted T--stub comp ponents, aand 10 bolted clip a angle
components were e experime entally testted (Smalllidge, 1999 9; Swanso on, 1999; and
Schraub ben, 2000).. All full-scale tests were perfo ormed cyclically and the compo onent
tests ledd directly to
o Swanson (1999) dev veloping the
e Modified Kulak Model for predicting
prying foorces in T-s stub connec ctions. Swa anson and Gao (2000 eloped a similar
0) later deve
prying model
m for predicting prying forrces in he eavy clip aangle components, u using
previous sly compiled d data from
m SAC subta ask 7.03.
 Schrader
S (2
2010) com mpiled the documentation to prequalify bolted T--stub
connections as FR R connections for us se in IMFss and SMFs per the e provisionns of
ANSI/AISC 358-10 0 (2010). He H used the e moment- rotation and other exp perimental data
gatheredd from SAC C Subtask 7.03.
7 In add
dition to ussing existing
g data to meet the crite
erion
for prequalifying a connection n, a design procedure was create ed. This deesign proceedure
impleme ented the Modified
M Kuulak Modell and is cu urrently being reviewe ed by the A AISC
Connecttion Prequa alification Review
R Pannel (CPRP)). The dessign proced dure outlineed in
this paper is moldeed after the design procedure in S Schrader (2 2010).

3. TOP-AND D-SEAT AN NGLE DES SIGN PROC CEDURE

3.1 Methodolog
M gy for Desiign Proced dure
In
n order forr AISC-CPRP to preq qualify a cconnection, the conne ection musst be
qualifiedd as FR to be
b considerred for use in SMFs a and IMFs. PPrevious TS SA experimments
have shown insufficient stiffne
ess to be classified
c ass FR, so th
his paper ouutlines a de
esign
procedu ure under the assum mption that future prrovisions w will allow tthe use off PR
connections in seiismic desig gn. Underr this assu mption, thiis procedure is based on
mechanistic princip ples and mostly
m follow
ws provisio ns in ANSII/AISC 341-10 (2010)) and
ANSI/AISC 358-10 0 (2010). The
T portionn of the proocedure coonsidering pprying usess the
Modified d Kulak Moddel develop
ped by Swa anson and G Gao (2000)) and Gao ((2001).

Figure 2: Typical TSA Co

onnection Figu
ure 3: Syste
em Detail showing plastic
hinge locatio
on

3.2 General
G
Top
T and sea at angle (TS
SA) connecctions use a top anglee and seat a
angle to pro
ovide
the mom
ment resista
ance in the connection
n. The ang gles are connnected to the columnn and
beam fla
anges by high-strengt
h th bolts as shown in Figure 2. The top a and seat anngles
must be
e identical so the connnection haas equal reesistance ffor a negaative or possitive
momentt. The she ear connecctor is designed to ccarry all the
e shear reesistance in
n the
connection. The shear
s conne ector showwn in Figurees 2 and 3 is a shearr plate bolte ed to
the beamm flange annd welded to
t the colum mn flange.
Due
D to the le ength limita
ations for th
his paper, a detailed lisst of all sysstem limitattions,
provision
ns, and reqquirements could not be included d. Most off these item ms strictly fo
ollow
current standards in ANSI//AISC 358-10 (2010 ), ANSI/AIISC 360-10 (2010), and
ANSI/AISC 341-10 0 (2010). For
F a detaile ed design p procedure listing all th hese items,, see
Schippeers (2012).

Figu
ure 4: Colum
mn and She
ear Tab Dettails

ure 5: Beam
Figu m Details

Figure
e 6: Angle Details
D

3.3 Design
D Procedure
For
F commen ntary on design proced
dure, see S
Schippers (22012).
Step 1: Compute
C th
he maximum m expectedd moment ((occurs at th
he beam hiinge)

% 1
, 2
2
For a FS design, PS% equals 100%, or 1. Ry=Rt=1.1 per ANSI/AISC 358-10 (2010).

Step 2: Compute the maximum shear bolt diameter

To ensure a ductile failure in the beam, the following must be met:

3

1
2 " 4
2

6
2 2

2 " 7
2 2

Step 3: Determine the preliminary shear strength per bolt.

Bolt Shear
2.4 Beam Bearing 8
2.4 Angle Bearing

Step 4: Estimate the number of shear bolts needed for each beam flange.

1.25
9

Step 5: Estimate the location of the plastic hinge in the beam.

10 , 11

1 12
2

Step 6: Calculate the shear force at the plastic hinge in the beam.

2 2 14
13
2
Step 7: Find the expected moment and corresponding force at the column face.

15
16
1.05
Step 8: Approximate the thickness of the angles and size of the tension bolts.

2
17

2
18
2 "

5
19

Step 9: Determine a preliminary configuration for the angles.

1.25 21
20

23
, 22 2
4
24 0.40 , , 25
2 5
0.40 , , 25
2
1 26

Step 10: Find the required thickness of the angle when considering prying.

27
28
Three limit states can control the tensile capacity of the connection. For more
information on these limit states, see Swanson (1999).

1 2 30
29 1
4 ′

2.5 ′
′ 32
31
′ 4 ′

33

Step 11: Compute the actual force in the horizontal angle leg.

(34)
Step 12: Confirm that the shear bolts provide adequate resistance.

(35)

Step 13: Back-check the capacity of the horizontal angle leg.

Check that (in the order shown): gross section yielding, net section
fracture, and compressive yielding or buckling.

(36)

2 1 (37)
16

0.75 , ,
2.5981
(38)
12
If / 25, compressive yielding governs, is the exact same as in gross section
yielding. If / 25, flexural buckling governs and the provisions of Section E3 of the
ANSI/AISC 360-10 (2010) apply.
Step 14: Back-check all three limit states for tensile failure defined in step 10 (ϕT1,2,3).
Step 15: Finalize Design.
Lastly, bearing and tear-out and block shear in the beam flange and horizontal
angle leg should be checked in accordance with Sections J3.10 and J4.3 in the
ANSI/AISC 360-10 (2010). Also, the shear connection needs to be detailed accounting
for eccentricity. All applicable shear limit states should be checked per Chapter J in
ANSI/AISC 360-10 (2010). Panel zone strength shall be in accordance with Section
2.4.4 and 6 in ANSI/AISC 358-10 (2010). Finally, lateral bracing requirements shall
meet the lesser length found in either ANSI/AISC 360/10 (2010) or ANSI/AISC 341-10
(2010).

4. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING (FEM)

Figure 8: FS-01 Comparative Plots Figure 9: FS-02 Comparative Plots

4.1 Modeling Existing Experimental Data
As previously mentioned, Schrauben (2000) tested two full-scale TSA
connections and both of these experiments have been modeled in ABAQUS. For a
detailed summary of the modeling procedure, see Ruffley (2011). Figures 8 and 9 show
both force-displacement results of Schrauben’s (2000) experimental data and the curve
obtained by modeling the same connections in ABAQUS. It can be observed that the
modeling procedure produced highly accurate results. Ruffley (2011) also modeled
component tests that Swanson (1999) tested, in order to verify the procedure’s
capability of predicting various failure modes, obtaining very satisfactory results.

4.2 Modeling New Connections

In an attempt to verify the accuracy of the design procedure, three new
connections have been modeled using the procedure outlined in Ruffley (2011). Two
were FS, and one was PS (60%). Table 1 shows the summary of calculations of the
three connections designed using the proposed procedure. Table 2 shows comparative
results between the predicted forces computed in the design procedure and actual
forces from analyzing the models. It should be noted that the analyses of all three
models showed no signs of block shear in the beam flange or horizontal angle leg,
which verifies the expected over-conservative nature of the block shear resistance
calculation for this connection. Schrader (2010) had similar conclusions when analyzing
T-stub connections concerning block shear. For this reason the design procedures
allows a 10% reduction in Ff when designing block shear. Prying forces were calculated
by taking each element stress multiplied by its corresponding area, and then summing
the forces for all elements in a cross section of a tension bolt.
The plastic mechanism in the angle, block shear, gross section yielding, and net
section fracture were all analyzed by visually inspecting the equivalent plastic strain
contours. Shear bolt forces were analyzed calculating the actual force transmitted by
the horizontal leg of the angle. This force was calculated by summing the stress in each
element of the horizontal leg of the angle and multiplying it by the element’s cross-
sectional area. It was assumed for the sake of simplicity that all shear bolts carried an
equal load. All values in Table 2 correspond to the instant in which the beam in the
model develops Mpr as calculated in step 1 at the expected hinge location calculated in
Step 5 of the design procedure.

4.3 Modeling Results

The FS W16x31 and PS W24x62 connections were both anticipated to be
controlled by tension bolt capacity, which is precisely what the models verified. The
quantitative errors in these two models were 11% and 9%, respectively. For the FS
W18x35 model, the limiting state was expected to be formation of a plastic hinge in the
top angle, and the model showed correspondingly signs of widespread inelastic
deformation. The fact that the angle had yielded indicates that the capacity is being
approached, although model is not capable of quantifying it explicitly. From a visual
inspection, it is concluded that the prediction of plastic hinges forming in the angles is
accurate, so the model is deemed to reproduce the predicted outcome. It should also
be noted that the analyzed prying forces in the tension bolts were within 12% of the
expected forces from the design procedure, once again validating its accuracy.
 Table 1: Design Procedure Results Table 2: Table 2: Analysis Results
DESIGN PROCEDURE RESULTS DESIGN PROCEDURE AND FEM COMPARITIVE RESULTS
Beam Size W16x31 W18x35 W24x62 W16x31 FS Connection
Column Size W14x211 W14x211 W14x211 Expected prying force in tension bolts 1.102(240) = 265 kips
FS or PS Design FS FS PS (60%) Actual bolt tensile force at M pr 293 kips
Shear Bolt Size, d vb (in) 3/4 7/8 7/8 Percent error 11%
Shear Bolt Grade A490X A490X A490X Plastic Hinge Devolpment (φ T 1 ) at M pr Minimal Hinge Development
No. Shear Bolts, n vb 8 8 8 Actual force in shear bolts at M pr 194 kips
Block Shear No inelastic deformation (I.E.)
Tension Bolt Size, d tb (in) 1 1/4 1 1/2 1 1/2
GSY, NSF No I.E., No I.E.
Tension Bolt Grade A490X A490X A490X
No. Tension Bolts, n tb 2 2 2 W18x35 FS Connection

Tension Bolt Gauge, g t (in) 2 7/8 3 1/4 3 1/4 Analysis shows hinge development
Expected Limiting State, φT1 in angle; limit state has not been
Angle Width, W a (in) 10 12 12
reached but is being approached
Angle thickness, t a (in) 1 1 1 1/8
Expected pyring forces in bolts, φT2 1.272(270) = 343 kips
Set-back, SB (in) 3/8 3/8 3/8
Bolt Tensile Force at Mpr in F.E.M. 384 kips
M pr (k-in) 3416 4206 5806
Percent error 11.9%
M f (k-in) 4061 5050 7065
Actual force in shear bolts at M pr 246 kips
F f (kips) 240 270 285
Block Shear No inelastic deformation (I.E.)
φT 1 resistance (kips) 290 ≥ 240 290 ≥ 270 339 ≥ 285 No I.E., No I.E.
GSY, NSF
φT 2 resistance (kips) 245 ≥ 240 305 ≥ 270 310 ≥ 285
W24x62 PS (60%) Connection
φT 3 resistance (kips) 269 ≥ 240 388 ≥ 270 388 ≥ 285
Expected prying force in tension bolts 1.252(285) = 357 kips
Prying effect, φT 3 /φT 2 (%) 10.2% 27.2% 25.2% Actual bolt tensile force at Mpr 389 kips
Bearing resistance (kips) 367 ≥ 240 416 ≥ 270 578 ≥ 285 Percent error 9.0%
Block shear resistance (kips) 242 ≥ 216 262 ≥ 243 313 ≥ 256 Plastic Hinge in Angles ( φT1) minimal
Angle GSY resistance (kips) 500 ≥ 240 600 ≥ 270 675 ≥ 285 Actual force in shear bolts at M pr 226 kips
Angle NSF resistance (kips) 483 ≥ 240 585 ≥ 270 658 ≥ 285 Block Shear No inelastic deformation (I.E.)
Shear bolt resistance (kips) 267 ≥ 240 364 ≥ 270 364 ≥ 285 GSY, NSF No I.E., No I.E.

5. CONCLUSIONS
A design procedure has been presented for full-strength and partial-strength
bolted top-and-seat angle beam-to-column connections for use in seismic design. It has
been discussed that the moment contribution of these connections currently cannot be
incorporated in IMFs and SMFs, but it is envisioned that this could change in the future.
With this assumption, the design procedure closely follows the connection
prequalification standards in ANSI/AISC 358-10 (2010). The accuracy of the procedure
has been demonstrated through finite element modeling in ABAQUS by a modeling
procedure that had been verified through actual experimental data. Using this modeling
procedure, two full-strength and one partial-strength connections were designed using
the proposed procedure and modeled in ABAQUS. The results clearly show the
quantitative accuracy of the design procedure, especially concerning prying forces in
the tension bolts. In addition, all three models show that the predicted limit state was
the likely cause of failure, verifying the mechanistic accuracy of the design procedure.
Future research should include physical experiments of the three connections
discussed in this paper, which would provide the ultimate verification of the design
procedure’s accuracy.
 REFERENCES
ANSI/AISC 360-10 (2010). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
ANSI/AISC 358-10 (2010). Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel
Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, American Institute of Steel
Construction), Chicago, IL.
ANSI/AISC 341-10 (2010). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
Barber, (2011). Contribution of Shear Connections to the Lateral Stiffness and Strength
of Steel Frames, MS Thesis, School of Advanced Structures, University of
Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
FEMA-350 (2000). Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-
Frame Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.
Gao, X. (2001). “Strength Determination of Heavy Clip-Angle Connection Components.”
MS thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Ruffley, D.J. (2010). A Finite Element Approach for Modeling Bolted Top-and-Seat
Angle Components and Moment Connections. MS Thesis, School of Advanced
Structures, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Schippers, J.D. (2012). A Design Procedure for Bolted Top-and-seat Angle Connections
for Use in Seismic Applications. MS Thesis, School of Advanced Structures,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Schrader, C.A. (2010). Prequalification and Design of Rolled Bolted T-stub Connections
in Moment Resisting Frames. MS Thesis, School of Advanced Structures,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Schrauben, C.S. (1999). Behavior of full-scale bolted beam-to-column T-stub and clip
angle connections under cyclic loading. MS Thesis, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Smallidge, J.M. (1999). Behavior of Bolted Beam-to-Column T-stub Connections under
Cyclic Loading. MS Thesis, School of Civil and Env. Engrg, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Swanson, J.A. (2000). Characterization of the strength, stiffness, and ductility behavior
of Tstub connections. PhD Dissertation, School of Civil and Env. Engrg. Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Swanson, J.A. and Gao, X. (2000). “Strength Determination of Heavy Clip-Angle
Connection Components”, in Connection in Steel Structures IV: Steel
Connections in the New Millennium, Roanoke, VA. Oct, 2000.
Swanson, J.A., and Leon, R.T. (2000). “Bolted Steel Connections: Tests on T-stub
Components.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(1):50-56.
Zhang, W. (2012). Study of the Influence of Gravity Connections on the Lateral
Response of Steel-Concrete Composite Moment Frames, MS Thesis, School of
Advanced Structures, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.