A DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR BOLTED TOP-AND-SEAT ANGLE

CONNECTIONS FOR USE IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS

J ared D. Schippers, Daniel J . Ruffley, Dr. Gian A. Rassati, and Dr. J ames 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
moment
must be
account
adds a c
and Zha
W
more re
into PR
and fram
of PR c
is antici
contribu
resistan
PR con
eventua
to be in
seismic
ANSI/AI
Addition
envision
future th
lateral
system
IMFs wi
to also c
PR con
procedu
design p
and mec
and one
ABAQU

In
FEMA e
steel m
performe
and TSA
scale T
compon
Schraub
tests led
prying fo
prying m
previous
t frames (IM
e considere
ing for the
considerab
ang, 2012).
With more
esearch go
R connect
mes consis
connections
pated that
tion of lat
ce from
nnections
lly be allow
ncorporated
design
SC 341.
nally, it
ned in
hat the prim
resis
in SMFs
ll be perm
consist of F
nections.
ure for bolte
procedure h
chanistically
e PS, hav
S. The res
n 1995, afte
entered into
moment fra
ed at the G
A connectio
TSA conne
ents were
ben, 2000).
d directly to
orces in T-s
model for
sly compiled
MF) and s
ed simple g
moment co
le amount o
and
oing
ions
sting
s, it
the
teral
PS,
will
wed
d in
per
is
the
mary
sting
and
itted
S,

Given the
ed top-and
has been v
y, using the
e been de
sults are the
er the North
o an agree
mes and
Georgia Inst
ons. As pa
ctions, 48
e experime
. All full-s
o Swanson
stub connec
predicting
d data from
pecial mom
gravity con
ontribution
of lateral re
F
ese assum
-seat angle
verified thro
e software
esigned us
en presente
2. BA
hridge and
ement to fu
connection
titute of Tec
art of this r
bolted T-
entally test
cale tests
(1999) dev
ctions. Swa
prying for
m SAC subta
ment frame
nnections.
of these gr
esistance d
Figure 1: M
(Swanso
ptions, this
e connectio
ough finite e
ABAQUS.
sing the pr
ed and com
ACKGROU
Kobe earth
urther resea
ns (FEMA,
chnology a
esearch, 8
-stub comp
ted (Small
were perfo
veloping the
anson and
rces in he
ask 7.03.
es (SMF),
Previous
ravity conn
during a sei
oment-Rot
on and Leo
s paper pr
ons for use
element mo
Three exa
roposed pr
mmented.
ND
hquakes, th
arch in sei
2000).
nd was con
full-scale T
ponents, a
lidge, 1999
ormed cycl
e Modified
Gao (2000
eavy clip a
and all oth
research h
ections in m
ismic event
ation Curve
n, 2000)
resents a
e in seismi
odeling, bot
ample conn
rocedure a
he SAC J o
ismic desig
SAC Subt
ncerned wit
T-stub con
and 10 bo
9; Swanso
ically and
Kulak Mod
0) later deve
angle com
her connec
has shown
moment fra
t (Barber, 2
e
general de
ic design.
th quantitat
ections, tw
nd modele
int Venture
gn pertainin
task 7.03
th bolted T-
nections, 2
lted clip a
on, 1999;
the compo
el for predi
eloped a si
ponents, u
ctions
that
ames
2011,
esign
The
tively
o FS
ed in
e and
ng to
was
-stub
2 full-
angle
and
onent
cting
milar
using
S
connect
ANSI/AI
gathered
for preq
impleme
Connect
this pap

3.1 M
In
qualified
have sh
procedu
connect
mechan
ANSI/AI
Modified

Fig

3.2 G
T
the mom
beam fla
must be
moment
Schrader (2
ions as FR
SC 358-10
d from SAC
ualifying a
ented the M
tion Prequa
er is molde
3
Methodolog
n order for
d as FR to b
own insuffi
ure under
ions in sei
istic princip
SC 358-10
d Kulak Mod
ure 2: Typi
General
Top and sea
ment resista
anges by h
e identical
t. The she
2010) com
R connect
0 (2010). H
C Subtask 7
connection
Modified Ku
alification R
ed after the
. TOP-AND
gy for Desi
r AISC-CP
be consider
cient stiffne
the assum
ismic desig
ples and m
0 (2010). T
del develop
cal TSA Co
at angle (TS
ance in the
high-strengt
so the con
ear connec
mpiled the
ions for us
He used the
7.03. In add
n, a design
ulak Model
Review Pan
design pro
D-SEAT AN
ign Proced
RP to preq
red for use
ess to be c
mption that
gn. Under
mostly follow
The portion
ped by Swa
onnection
SA) connec
connection
th bolts as
nnection ha
ctor is des
documen
se in IMFs
e moment-
dition to us
procedure
l and is cu
nel (CPRP)
cedure in S

NGLE DES
dure
qualify a c
in SMFs a
classified as
future pr
r this assu
ws provisio
n of the pro
anson and G

Figu
ctions use a
n. The ang
shown in
as equal re
igned to c
tation to
s and SM
rotation an
sing existing
was create
urrently bei
). The des
Schrader (2
SIGN PROC
connection,
and IMFs. P
s FR, so th
rovisions w
mption, thi
ns in ANSI
ocedure co
Gao (2000)
ure 3: Syste
hi
a top angle
gles are con
Figure 2.
esistance f
carry all the
prequalify
Fs per the
d other exp
g data to m
ed. This de
ng reviewe
sign proced
2010).
CEDURE
the conne
Previous TS
his paper ou
will allow t
is procedu
I/AISC 341
onsidering p
) and Gao (
em Detail s
nge locatio
e and seat a
nnected to
The top a
for a nega
e shear re
bolted T-
e provision
perimental
eet the crite
esign proce
ed by the A
dure outline
ection mus
SA experim
utlines a de
the use of
re is base
-10 (2010)
prying uses
(2001).
howing pla
on
angle to pro
the column
and seat an
ative or pos
esistance in
-stub
ns of
data
erion
edure
AISC
ed in
st be
ments
esign
f PR
d on
) and
s the
stic
ovide
n and
ngles
sitive
n the
connect
the beam
D
provision
current
ANSI/AI
Schippe
Figu

3.3 D
F
Step 1: C

ion. The s
m flange an
Due to the le
ns, and req
standards
SC 341-10
ers (2012).
ure 4: Colum
Figure
Design Pro
For commen
Compute th
H
p
= PS
%
shear conne
nd welded t
ength limita
quirements
in ANSI/
0 (2010). F
mn and She
e 6: Angle D
cedure
ntary on de
he maximum
C
p
R

F
b
Z
x
ector show
to the colum
ations for th
could not
/AISC 358
For a detaile
ear Tab Det
Details
sign proced
m expected
x
(1)
wn in Figure
mn flange.
his paper, a
be included
-10 (2010
ed design p

tails
dure, see S
d moment (

es 2 and 3
a detailed lis
d. Most of
), ANSI/AI
procedure
Figu
Schippers (2
(occurs at th
wbcrc, C
is a shear
st of all sys
f these item
ISC 360-1
listing all th
ure 5: Beam

2012).
he beam hi
C
p
=
F
b
+
2F

r plate bolte
stem limitat
ms strictly fo
0 (2010),
hese items,
m Details
inge)
+F
ub
b
(2)
ed to
tions,
ollow
and
, see
For a FS design, PS
%
equals 100%, or 1. R
y
=R
t
=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:

R
t
F
ub
Z
nct
R

F
b
Z
x
(S)

y
PNA
=
1
2t
wb
_jb
]b
-2 [J
h
+
1
16
"[ t
]b
+t
wb
J
bcum
-b
]b
t
]b
_ (4)

Z
nct
= Z
1
+Z
2
(S)

Z
1
=
(y
PNA
-t
]b
)
2
t
wb
2
+b
]b
t
]b
_y
PNA
-
t
]b
2
] (6)

Z
2
=
(J
bcum
-y
PNA
-t
]b
)
2
t
wb
2
+jb
]b
-2 [J
h
+
1
16
"[ t
]b
_J
bcum
-y
PNA
-
t
]b
2
] (7)

Step 3: Determine the preliminary shear strength per bolt.

r
n
= min _

n
n
4
(J
b
)
2
F
n
(Bolt Sheai)

d
2.4J
b
t
]b
F
ub
(Beam Beaiing)

d
2.4J
b
t
u
F
uu
(Angle Beaiing)
(8)

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

n
b

1.2SH
p
J
bcum

n
r
n
(9)

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

S
h
= S
1
+I
b
+
1
2
J
bcum
(1u)

S
1
= SB +I
cb,2
(11)

I
b
= s
b
[
n
b
2
-1 (12)

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

I
h
=
2H
p
I
h
+
w
u
I
h
2
(1S)
I
h
= I
0
-J
coIumn
-2S
h
(14)

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

H
]
= H
p
+I
h
S
h
(1S)
F
p
=
H
]
1.uSJ
bcum
(16)

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

t
u
= mox
`
1
1
1
1
2F
p

d
F
u
w
u
(iclJing) (17)
2F
p

n
F
uu
|w
u
-2(J
h
+
1
16
")]
(Frocturc) (18)


J
tb
= _
SF
p
n
tb

n
nF
nt
(19)

Step 9: Determine a preliminary configuration for the angles.

p =
w
u
n
tb
(2u)

b = g
t
-t
s,c]]
(22)

b
i
= b -
J
tb
2
(24)

o = 1 -
J
th
p
(26)
o = b
I
-g
t
1.2Sb (21)

o
i
= o +
J
tb
2
(2S)

I SB u.4ut
u
, t
s,c]]
=
4k
u
+t
u
S
(2So)
I SB > u.4ut
u
, t
s,c]]
=
t
u
2
(2Sb)

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

r
nt
= A
tb
F
nt
(27)
I
cqd
=
F
p
n
tb
(28)
Three limit states can control the tensile capacity of the connection. For more
information on these limit states, see Swanson (1999).

I
1
=
(1 +o)
4b
p
d
F
u
t
u
2
(29)


I
2
=

n
r
nt
o
o
i
+b
+
p
d
F
u
t
u
2
4(o
i
+b)
(S1)

I
3
=
n
A
tb
F
nt
(SS)
t
u
2_
I
cqd
b
i
p
d
F
u
(1 +o)
(Su)

t
u
_
2.S
n
r
nt
b
p
d
F
u
(S2)


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


F
]
=
H
]
J
bcum
+t
u
(34)
Step 12: Confirm that the shear bolts provide adequate resistance.

r
n
n
b
F
]
(35)

Step 13: Back-check the capacity of the horizontal angle leg.
Check that R
n
F
]
(in the order shown): gross section yielding, net section
fracture, and compressive yielding or buckling.

R
n
=
d
F
u
w
u
t
u
(36)


R
n
=
n
F
uu
|w
u
-2(J
h
+
1
16
, )]t
u
(37)


KI
r
=
(u.7S)(I
cb,2
+SB -t
u
)
_
w
u
t
u
3
12w
u
t
u
= 2.S981
I
cb,2
+SB -t
u
t
u

(38)
If KIr 2S, compressive yielding governs, R
n
is the exact same as in gross section
yielding. If KIr > 2S, 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 (T
1,2,3
).
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 J 3.10 and J 4.3 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 Schraubens (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 procedures
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 F
f
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 elements 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 M
pr
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

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
procedures accuracy.

Beam Size W16x31 W18x35 W24x62
Column Size W14x211 W14x211 W14x211
FS or PS Design FS FS PS (60%)
Shear Bolt Size, d
vb
(in) 3/4 7/8 7/8
Shear Bolt Grade A490X A490X A490X
No. Shear Bolts, n
vb
8 8 8
Tension Bolt Size, d
tb
(in) 1 1/4 1 1/2 1 1/2
Tension Bolt Grade A490X A490X A490X
No. Tension Bolts, n
tb 2 2 2
Tension Bolt Gauge, g
t
(in) 2 7/8 3 1/4 3 1/4
Angle Width, W
a
(in) 10 12 12
Angle thickness, t
a
(in) 1 1 1 1/8
Set-back, SB (in) 3/8 3/8 3/8
M
pr
(k-in) 3416 4206 5806
M
f
(k-in) 4061 5050 7065
F
f
(kips) 240 270 285
T
1
resistance (kips) 290 240 290 270 339 285
T
2
resistance (kips) 245 240 305 270 310 285
T
3
resistance (kips) 269 240 388 270 388 285
Prying effect, T
3
/T
2
(%) 10.2% 27.2% 25.2%
Bearing resistance (kips) 367 240 416 270 578 285
Block shear resistance (kips) 242 216 262 243 313 256
Angle GSY resistance (kips) 500 240 600 270 675 285
Angle NSF resistance (kips) 483 240 585 270 658 285
Shear bolt resistance (kips) 267 240 364 270 364 285
DESIGN PROCEDURE RESULTS
Expected prying force in tension bolts
Actual bolt tensile force at M
pr
Percent error
Plastic Hinge Devolpment ( T
1
) at M
pr
Actual force in shear bolts at M
pr
Block Shear
GSY, NSF
Expected pyring forces in bolts, T
2
Bolt Tensile Force at M
pr
in F.E.M.
Percent error
Actual force in shear bolts at M
pr
Block Shear
GSY, NSF
Expected prying force in tension bolts
Actual bolt tensile force at M
pr
389 kips
Percent error
Plastic Hinge in Angles ( T
1
)
Actual force in shear bolts at M
pr
Block Shear
GSY, NSF
Minimal Hinge Development
No inelastic deformation (I.E.)
No I.E., No I.E.
194 kips
384 kips
11.9%
Analysis shows hinge development
in angle; limit state has not been
reached but is being approached
1.272(270) = 343 kips
W18x35 FS Connection
Expected Limiting State, T
1
226 kips
No inelastic deformation (I.E.)
No I.E., No I.E.
DESIGN PROCEDURE AND FEM COMPARITIVE RESULTS
1.102(240) = 265 kips
293 kips
W16x31 FS Connection
9.0%
1.252(285) = 357 kips
minimal
W24x62 PS (60%) Connection
246 kips
No inelastic deformation (I.E.)
No I.E., No I.E.
11%
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.