SEAONC MINI SEMINAR

Gusset Plate Design

Russell Berkowitz
Forell / Elsesser Engineers, Inc.

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

What We Will Cover
„ Overview of prominent research and
experiments to date

„ Current gusset plate design requirements

„ Limitations of current gusset plate design

requirements

„ Recommendations for future research to

develop gusset plate design guidance

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

 Gusset Plate Design References
„ “Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates”
„ Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl
Steel Tips December 1998

„ “Brace Frame Gusset Plate Research” Literature Review

„ Janice Chambers and Christopher Ernst

„ University of Utah February 2005

„ “On the Analysis and Design of Bracing Connections”

„ W.A. Thornton (1991)
Proceedings, National Steel Construction Conference

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

 Gusset Plate Design References
„ “Handbook of Structural Steel Connection Design & Details”
„ Tamboli, 1997

„ “Handbook of Structural Steel Connection Design & Details”

„ Thornton & Kane 1999

„ AISC
„ Manual of Steel Construction, 3rd Edition

„ Seismic Provisions (2002, 2005)

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Brace / Gusset Configurations

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Whitmore (1952)
„ Tested aluminum joints

„ Iso-stress lines obtained by strain gages

mounted on gusset plate

„ Plots showed stress trajectories to be

along 30° lines with the connected
member

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Whitmore’s Section

Whitmore, 1952

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Whitmore’s Section

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Whitmore (1952)
„ Distribution of normal and shear stresses
along critical sections of gusset do not
match beam formulas:

σ = Mc I τ = VQ It
„ Maximum normal and shear stresses
measured matched beam theory values

„ Location of maximums is different

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Bjorhovde & Chakrabarti 1983-88
„ Six full size steel assemblages

„ 30, 45, 60 angle braces

„ Monotonic

„ No frame action

„ Not applicable to determining interface loads

„ Used to validate FEM

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Bjorhovde & Chakrabarti 1983-88

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Bjorhovde & Chakrabarti 1983-88

Rabern and Chakrabarti, 1983

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Gross & Cheok (1988)
„ Used regular frame subassemblages

„ Moment and forces in members showed all members

resist lateral loads

„ Gusset failed by buckling when brace was in

compression

„ Not monitored for interface forces

„ Predicted prying action failure but frame forces

precluded development

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Gross & Cheok (1988)

Gross & Cheok, 1988

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Cheng et al.
„ Experiments included frame action
„ Buckling capacity of gusset 4% - 107% higher with frame
action
„ Experimental buckling capacity 63% higher than
calculated capacity (using K = 0.65)
„ Cyclic tests with / without edge stiffeners
„ Slight increase in compressive capacity with stiffeners
„ Tapered plate dramatically reduced compressive and
energy absorption of gusset plates (46%)
„ Flexibility of tapered gusset caused weld fracture at the
boundaries with increasing deformation

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986
„ Most rigorous analytical research to date

„ Used FEA INELAS and NASTRAN

„ 51 configurations

„ Frame action considered

„ Measured fastener behavior modeled into nonlinear FEA

to determine gusset interface forces

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986
„ Interface forces largely dependent on:
„ Plate aspect ratio
„ Brace load
„ Brace angle

„ Interface forces less dependent on:

„ Direction of force (tension vs. compression)
„ Bracing configuration
„ Beam and column properties
„ Gusset fasteners (bolted vs. welded)
„ Brace eccentricity

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986
„ Frame action
„ “beam and column load the gusset, equally as much
as the brace”
„ Pinching occurs , frame angle changes
„ Brace in tension buckles gusset

„ Direction of forces align with brace with

increased loading

„ 1.4 connection factor

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

Williams, 1986

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

Williams, 1986

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

Williams, 1986

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

Williams, 1986

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Berkeley BRB Tests, 2002

Lopez et al. 2002

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Berkeley BRB Tests, 2002
„ Test 1
„ Yielding at brace-to-column gusset plates
„ Yielding at column base
„ Yielding at beam-column moment connection

„ Test 2
„ CP welds at gusset - col. initiated crack at 1.7% , 2”
long at 2.6% drift
„ Free edge of gusset buckled at 2.6% drift when brace
was in tension

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Berkeley BRB Tests, 2002

Aiken et al. 2002

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Berkeley BRB Tests, 2002

Lopez et al. 2002

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Observed Seismic Performance
of Gusset Plates
„ Satisfactory performance in general
„ A few cases of gusset failure have been
reported:
„ Mexico City, Northridge, Kobe Earthquakes
„ Observed failure modes
„ Fracture of welds
„ Buckling of gusset plate
„ Net section fracture of gusset plate or brace
„ Most of these failures are related to non-ductile
design and poor detailing

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Observed Seismic Performance

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Current Gusset Design (SCBF)
„ AISC Seismic Provisions (2002)
„ Tensile strength of bracing connection
„ RyAgFy
„ Maximum force that can be delivered by structure

„ Flexural strength of bracing connection

„ In-Plane Buckling = 1.1RyMp
„ Out-of-Plane Buckling
„ Connection must be able to accommodate inelastic
rotations associated with post-buckling deformations
„ Design compressive strength at least FcrAg

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Current Gusset Design
„ Astaneh recommends the following
hierarchy for gusset design failure modes

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Out-of-Plane Brace Buckling

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Out-of-Plane Brace Buckling
„ Hinges at brace midpoint and in gussets
„ Provide min. “2t” to allow rotation in gusset
max “4t”

Astaneh, 1986

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Out-of-Plane Brace Buckling

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Limit States at Brace – Gusset
Connection

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Limit States at Brace – Gusset
Connection
„ Block shear failure
„ Calculate using AISC Eq. J4-3

„ Bolt tear through on the gusset

„ Calculated using AISC Eq. J3-2

„ Strength of Bolts or Welds

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Limit States at Brace – Gusset
Connection

Astaneh, 1991

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Tension Yielding and Net Section
Fracture of Whitmore’s Area
„ Tension Yielding is the most desirable
mode of gusset failure
„ Py = AgwFy

„ Net Section Fracture is the least desirable

„ Astaneh suggests:
φPn ≥ φ (1.1R yP y )
Pn = A nwFu
Forell / Elsesser Engineers
Buckling of Gusset Plate

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Buckling of Gusset Plate

Yamamoto et al. 1988

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Buckling of Gusset Plate

„ Pseudo-Column Buckling Approach

„ Equivalent Strip or Thornton Method

„ Applies buckling compressive stress

over Whitmore’s area

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Buckling of Gusset Plate

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Buckling of Gusset Plate
„ Use AISC column equations for Fcr

Kl Fy
λc =
rπ E
λc2
Fcr = (0.658 )Fy λc ≤ 1.5
⎡ .877 ⎤
Fcr = ⎢ 2 ⎥ Fy λc > 1.5
⎣ λc ⎦

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Buckling of Gusset Plate
„ L=
„ Average of l1, l2, l3

„ Longest one-inch wide strip

„ Longest of l1, l2, l3

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Buckling of Gusset Plate

„ What “K” value to use for buckling length?

„ Values from 0.5 – 1.2 have been proposed

„ K = 0.65 (0.45 for double) often used

„ Consistently conservative

„ K = 1.2 proposed by Brown (1988) and

Astaneh (1998)
„ Tests indicating possibility of end of bracing
member moving out of plane
Forell / Elsesser Engineers
Gusset Plate Buckling Limit State
„ Not been accurately modeled by pseudo-column
buckling approach

„ Highly variable compared to test results

„ Consistently conservative

„ Buckling capacity strongly dependent on frame

action effects

„ Local gusset plate research needed to produce

more accurate methods of predicting buckling
Forell / Elsesser Engineers
Gusset Plate Edge Buckling

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Gusset Plate Edge Buckling

Astaneh, 1991

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Edge Stiffeners
„ AASHTO (1997)
„ This has been around for years for steel bridge trusses
L fg
„ < 2.0 E
t Fy

„ Brown (1988)
„ Formula proposed to prevent edge buckling prior to gusset
yielding
L fg
„ < 0.83 E
t Fy

„ Adequate for monotonic loading

Forell / Elsesser Engineers
Edge Stiffeners
„ Astaneh 1998

„ Gussets showed edge buckling when Brown criteria

satisfied during cyclic tests

„ Limit Lfg / t to the point where Fcr / Fmax is reduced

significantly

„ Proposed criteria to prevent cycling free edge

buckling prior to reaching maximum compression
capacity

L fg
„
< 0.75 E
t Fy
Forell / Elsesser Engineers
Edge Stiffeners
„ Little experimental research published on the
effects of stiffeners

„ Four tests with 3/8” and 1/4” plates

„ 3/8” plate showed 15% - 19% increase in buckling
capacity, only 2% for ¼” plate
„ Strain measurements showed more force going
through stiffeners than gusset plate
„ Energy absorption increased in compression

„ FEA shows no increase in peak capacity, but

post-buckling capacity was increased

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Gusset Plate Interface Forces

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Interface Connection Models

Astaneh, 1998

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Gusset Plate Interface Loads

„ Models are based on load paths dictated by the

designer

„ Lower Bound Theorem Limit Analysis

„ Determine force distribution in equilibrium with

applied load

„ If no forces in structure exceed yield criteria, loads

will not likely lead to collapse

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Interface Connection Models
„ KISS Model (Thornton 1991)

Thornton, 1991

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Interface Connection Models
„ AISC Model (AISC 1984)

Thornton, 1991

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Interface Connection Models
„ Ricker Model

Thornton, 1991

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Interface Connection Models
„ Modified Richard Method (Williams 1986)

Thornton, 1991

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Interface Connection Models
„ Thornton Model – Uniform Force Method

Thornton, 1991

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Interface Connection Models
„ Thornton UFM
„ Comprehensive
„ Offers approximate value to capture frame action
effects and a way to incorporate into design

„ Richard Method
„ Captures frame action effects
„ Based on empirical evidence
„ Not applicable for column web connections

„ AISC-LRFD 3rd ed. Manual

„ Recommends use of UFM

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

AISC Uniform Force Method

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

AISC UFM Special Case 1

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

AISC UFM Special Case 2

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

AISC UFM Special Case 3

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Design Criteria for Gusset Plates
at Interface with Beam / Column
„ Astaneh check for “critical sections”
(N / φNY ) + M / φMP + (V / φ VY )4 ≤ 1.0
2

„ Chambers and Ernst

„ Determine von Mises and the maximum principal
stresses considering shear and normal stresses
„ Von Mises stress < 0.9Fy
σ e = σ + σ − σ xσ y + 3τ xy
2
x
2
y

„ Maximum principal stress < 0.75 Fu

Forell / Elsesser Engineers
Gusset Connection to Beam / Col
„ The 1.4 “Ductility Factor” in AISC 3rd Ed.

„ Connection must be designed for the larger of the peak

stress or 1.4 x average stress

„ Originated from figures by Williams and Richards

„ FEA showed ratio max / ave fastener force and the ratio
min / ave fastener force

„ Handbook of Structural Steel Connections (1997)

„ Hewitt and Thornton (2004) reviewed plots and suggest

ductility factor should be 1.25
Forell / Elsesser Engineers
Gusset Connection to Beam / Col

Hewitt & Thornton, 2004

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Gusset Connection to Beam / Col
„ FEA shows resultant connector forces on
welds are not longitudinal

„ Resistance of weldements up to 50% stronger

when not loaded longitudinally

„ Consider vector direction of forces on welds

for design

„ Use eq. A-J2-1 of AISC 3rd ed.

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Frame Action
„ Traditional approach assumes lateral loads
resisted by diagonal braces

„ Large rotational restraint provided by gusset

connection
„ Frame providing bending resistance
„ Braces loaded in bending
„ Semi-rigid, forces at joint strongly dependent on
connection rigidity
„ Welded connections approach fixed condition
Forell / Elsesser Engineers
Frame Action

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Frame Action

„ Richards uses F-∆ relationships to

approximate M-θ

„ PRCONN program uses results of nonlinear FEA to

develop M-θ relationships

„ Research needed to develop M-θ

equations for braced frame connections

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Detailing to Reduce Frame Action
Effects

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Detailing to Reduce Frame Action
Effects

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Research Recommendations

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Research Recommendations
„ Development of moment-rotation curves for semi-rigid
strong and weak axis connection

„ Local response of connections must incorporate realistic

rigidity of connection

„ Shears, axial forces and moments on local connection

determined from global gusset research results

„ Local gusset plate connection research to determine load

distribution through connections

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Research Recommendations

„ Local gusset plate research to track peak

stress values and locations at connections

„ This will help with determining and

designing for individual connector design
loads

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

SEAONC MINI SEMINAR

Gusset Plate Design

Russell Berkowitz
Forell / Elsesser Engineers, Inc.

Forell / Elsesser Engineers