Gusset Plate8 05

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

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
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)
Brace / Gusset Configurations
Astaneh, 1998
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
Whitmores Section
Whitmore, 1952
Whitmores Section
Astaneh, 1998
Whitmore (1952)
Distribution of normal and shear stresses along critical sections of gusset do not match beam formulas:
= Mc I
= VQ It
Maximum normal and shear stresses measured matched beam theory values Location of maximums is different
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
Rabern and Chakrabarti, 1983
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
Gross & Cheok (1988)
Gross & Cheok, 1988

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
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

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

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
Williams, 1986
Williams, 1986
Williams, 1986
Williams, 1986
Berkeley BRB Tests, 2002
Lopez et al. 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
Aiken et al. 2002
Lopez et al. 2002

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

Observed Seismic Performance
Astaneh, 1998
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
Current Gusset Design

Astaneh recommends the following hierarchy for gusset design failure modes
Astaneh, 1998
Out-of-Plane Brace Buckling
Astaneh, 1998

Hinges at brace midpoint and in gussets Provide min. 2t to allow rotation in gusset max 4t
Astaneh, 1986
Astaneh, 1998
Limit States at Brace Gusset Connection
Astaneh, 1998

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

Astaneh, 1991
Tension Yielding and Net Section Fracture of Whitmores Area

Tension Yielding is the most desirable mode of gusset failure

Py = AgwFy
Net Section Fracture is the least desirable

Astaneh suggests:
Pn (1.1R yP y )
Pn = A nwFu
Buckling of Gusset Plate
Astaneh, 1998
Yamamoto et al. 1988

Pseudo-Column Buckling Approach

Equivalent Strip or Thornton Method Applies buckling compressive stress over Whitmores area
Astaneh, 1998

Use AISC column equations for Fcr

Kl Fy c = E r Fcr = (0.658 )Fy .877 Fcr = 2 Fy c
2 c
c 1.5 c > 1.5

L= Average of l1, l2, l3 Longest one-inch wide strip Longest of l1, l2, l3

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

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

Gusset Plate Edge Buckling
Astaneh, 1998
Gusset Plate Edge Buckling
Astaneh, 1991
Edge Stiffeners
AASHTO (1997)
This has been around for years for steel bridge trusses
L fg t
< 2.0 E
Fy
Brown (1988)
Formula proposed to prevent edge buckling prior to gusset yielding
L fg t
< 0.83 E
Fy
Adequate for monotonic loading

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 t
< 0.75 E
Fy
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 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
Gusset Plate Interface Forces
Astaneh, 1998
Interface Connection Models
Astaneh, 1998
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

KISS Model (Thornton 1991)
Thornton, 1991

AISC Model (AISC 1984)
Thornton, 1991

Ricker Model
Thornton, 1991

Modified Richard Method (Williams 1986)
Thornton, 1991

Thornton Model Uniform Force Method
Thornton, 1991

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

AISC Uniform Force Method
AISC UFM Special Case 1
Design Criteria for Gusset Plates at Interface with Beam / Column

Astaneh check for critical sections
(N / NY )

+ M / MP + (V / VY )4 1.0
Chambers and Ernst

Determine von Mises and the maximum principal stresses considering shear and normal stresses Von Mises stress < 0.9Fy
2 2 e = x +y x y + 3 xy
Maximum principal stress < 0.75 Fu

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

Hewitt & Thornton, 2004

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.
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
Frame Action
Frame Action
Richards uses F- relationships to approximate M-

PRCONN program uses results of nonlinear FEA to develop M- relationships
Research needed to develop M- equations for braced frame connections
Detailing to Reduce Frame Action Effects
Detailing to Reduce Frame Action Effects
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
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
SEAONC MINI SEMINAR
Gusset Plate Design

Russell Berkowitz Forell / Elsesser Engineers, Inc.

Gusset Plate8 05

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Gusset Plate8 05

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SEAONC MINI SEMINAR Gusset Plate Design

Russell Berkowitz Forell / Elsesser Engineers, Inc.

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

What We Will Cover

Gusset Plate Design References

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Gusset Plate Design References

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Brace / Gusset Configurations

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Bjorhovde & Chakrabarti 1983-88

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Bjorhovde & Chakrabarti 1983-88

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Bjorhovde & Chakrabarti 1983-88

Rabern and Chakrabarti, 1983

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Gross & Cheok (1988)

Gross & Cheok (1988)

Gross & Cheok, 1988

Experiments included frame action

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

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:

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

Berkeley BRB Tests, 2002

Lopez et al. 2002

Berkeley BRB Tests, 2002

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Berkeley BRB Tests, 2002

Aiken et al. 2002

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Berkeley BRB Tests, 2002

Lopez et al. 2002

Observed Seismic Performance of Gusset Plates

Mexico City, Northridge, Kobe Earthquakes Observed failure modes

Observed Seismic Performance

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

Current Gusset Design

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Out-of-Plane Brace Buckling

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Out-of-Plane Brace Buckling

Out-of-Plane Brace Buckling

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Limit States at Brace Gusset Connection

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Limit States at Brace Gusset Connection

Block shear failure