Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

A finite element parametric study on block

shear failure of steel tension members
Cem Topkaya

Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey
Received 4 December 2003; accepted 26 March 2004

Abstract

Block shear is a limit state that should be accounted for during the design of steel tension
members. Current design equations are not based on analytical findings and fail to predict
failure modes of tested specimens. A study has been conducted to develop simple block
shear load capacity prediction equations that are based on finite element analysis. Over a
thousand nonlinear analyses were performed to identify the important parameters that influ-
ence block shear capacity. In addition, the effects of eccentric loading were investigated.
Based on the parametric study block shear load capacity prediction equations were
developed. The predictions of the developed equations were compared with the experimental
findings and were found to provide estimates with acceptable accuracy.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Block shear failure; Finite elements; Tension members

1. Introduction

Tension members with bolted ends are frequently encountered as principal struc-
tural members in trusses and lateral bracing systems. Design of these members
should ensure that yield of gross area, rupture of the net section and block shear
failure are precluded during the lifetime of the structure.
Block shear is a limit state that combines a tension failure on one plane and a
shear failure on a perpendicular plane. The AISC-ASD [1] and LRFD [2] specifica-
tions present equations to predict the block shear rupture strength. In the AISC-
ASD [1] procedure, failure is assumed to occur by simultaneous rupture of the net

Tel.: +90-312-210-5462; fax: +90-312-210-1262.
E-mail address: ctopkaya@metu.edu.tr (C. Topkaya).

0143-974X/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2004.03.006
1616 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635

tension and shear planes. The service load capacity is predicted by a single equa-
tion that incorporates a factor of safety of 2.0. The ASD [1] nominal load capacity
without the factor of safety is given in Eq. (1)
Rn ¼ Fu Ant þ 0:6Fu Anv ð1Þ
where Anv is the net area subject to shear; Ant is the net area subject to tension and
Fu is the tensile strength of steel.
On the other hand the AISC–LRFD specification [2] has a more elaborate treat-
ment. The LRFD [2] procedure assumes that when one plane, either the tension or
shear, reaches ultimate strength the other plane develops full yield. This assump-
tion results in two possible failure mechanisms in which the controlling mode is the
one having a larger fracture strength term. In the first mechanism, it is assumed
that failure load is reached when rupture occurs along the net tension plane and
full yield is developed along the gross shear plane. On the contrary, the second fail-
ure mechanism assumes that rupture occurs along the net shear plane while full
yield is developing at the gross tension plane. The nominal load capacity per
AISC–LRFD [2] is calculated as follows:When Fu Ant  0:6Fu Anv
 
Rn ¼ 0:6Fy Agv þ Fu Ant  ½0:6Fu Anv þ Fu Ant ð2Þ
When Fu Ant < 0:6Fu Anv
 
Rn ¼ 0:6Fu Anv þ Fy Agt  ½0:6Fu Anv þ Fu Ant ð3Þ
where Agv is the gross area subject to shear; Agt is the gross area subject to tension
and Fy is the yield stress of steel.
The LRFD [2] procedure has an upper limit on the nominal strength such that
its value could not exceed the value determined by considering the simultaneous
fracture at the net shear and tension planes. In order to calculate the design
strength, the nominal strength is further multiplied by a / factor which is equal to
0.75.
Both the ASD [1] and LRFD [2] procedures provide a reasonable level of accu-
racy in predicting load capacities while exhibiting a wide variation in experimental-
to-predicted capacity ratios [3]. In addition, there are differences between the
observed and predicted failure modes [3]. In majority of the experiments performed
so far ductile rupture of the tension plane preceded by significant necking was
observed [3]. Rupture of the tension plane is accompanied by inelastic deforma-
tions along the gross shear plane. Displacement of a block of material was seen
only when the experiment was continued until the parts separate.
Both the ASD [1] and LRFD [2] block shear predictions have drawbacks in
terms of the anticipated failure mode. It is evident from the test results [3] that ten-
sion and shear planes do not rupture simultaneously as assumed by the ASD speci-
fication [1]. In LRFD [2] typically the equation (Eq. (3)) with shear fracture term
governs, while experiments tend to exhibit a failure mode similar to that described
by the equation (Eq. (2)) with tensile fracture term. The current code equations
are based on simple models that do not depend on principles of mechanics. The
 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635 1617

objective of this study is to develop simple block shear prediction equations based
on numerical modeling of physical systems. In this paper the use of finite element
analysis in predicting block shear capacity of tension members is presented. The
comparisons between finite element predictions and experimental findings are given
for gusset plates, angle and tee sections with nonstaggered bolted connections. A
finite element parametric study was conducted to identify the important parameters
that influence the block shear capacity. Based on the parametric study simple equa-
tions to predict block shear were developed and are presented herein.

2. Finite element modeling

2.1. Previous studies

Finite element method was used in the past to study the behavior of structural
members subject to block shear and net section failure modes. Ricles and Yura [4]
examined block shear failure in coped beams using a two-dimensional elastic
analysis. A modified block shear model was proposed based on the stress distri-
bution around the block. Epstein and Chamarajanagar [5] studied the effects of
bolt stagger and shear lag on block shear failure of angle members. Angles were
modeled with 20 node brick elements and an elastic–perfectly plastic stress–strain
curve for steel was used in the analysis. A strain-based criterion was employed to
determine the failure load of members. The nondimensionalized finite element
results were compared with the results of full scale testing. Kulak and Wu [6] stud-
ied the shear lag effects on net section rupture of single and double angle tension
members. Angles were modeled with shell elements and multilinear isotropic hard-
ening behavior was assumed for the material response. The failure load was con-
sidered as the load corresponding to the last converged load step. The failure loads
obtained through the analysis were compared with the actual test results. Recently,
finite element studies were conducted by Barth et al. [7] to predict the net section
failure of WT tension members. A very elaborate analysis method was employed
which includes geometric and material nonlinearities as well as the surface to sur-
face contact between the tee and the gusset plates. Tee sections were modeled using
eight node incompatible hexahedral elements and a trilinear true-stress true-strain
curve was used to represent material nonlinear effects. The load deflection curve
was traced beyond the limit point using the Newton–Raphson method. The load
corresponding to the load limit point was considered as the failure load. The
numerical simulation results were found to be in close agreement with the actual
test results.

2.2. Current study

As explained before finite element models with differing complexity levels were
employed in the previous studies. This study aims to develop simple block shear
capacity prediction equations that are based on principles of mechanics. Therefore,
an accurate prediction of the block shear failure load is essential. For this purpose
an analysis methodology similar yet less detailed than the one explained by Barth
1618 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635

et al. [7] was employed. A general purpose finite element program ANSYS [8] was
used to perform the analyses.
In this methodology, gusset plates are modeled using six node triangular plane
stress elements. On the other hand, angles and tee sections are modeled using 10-
node tetrahedral elements. These element types are capable of representing large
deformation geometric and material nonlinearities. The nonlinear stress–strain
behavior of steel is modeled using von Mises yield criterion with isotropic harden-
ing. A generic true-stress true-strain response is used in all analyses. In this generic
response the material behaves elastic until the yield point. A yield plateau follows
the elastic portion. Strain hardening commences at a true strain value of 0.02 and
varies linearly until the true ultimate stress is reached. The true-strain at true ulti-
mate stress is assumed to be 0.1. After the true ultimate stress is reached there is a
constant stress plateau until the material is assumed to break at a true strain of 0.3.
The generic true-stress true-strain curve is given in Fig. 1.
Usually half length of the specimens is modeled if specimens possess a symmetry
plane along the length. Similarly, for cross sections that possess a symmetry plane
like the tees, only half of the cross section is modeled. In an effort to reduce the
computational cost, end connection details which are used to apply loading are not
modeled. In order to simulate the end reactions, nodes that lie on the half circum-
ference of each hole where bolts come into contact are restrained against displace-
ment in two perpendicular directions in the plane of the plate. A longitudinal
displacement boundary condition is applied at the opposite end of the member.
Throughout the analysis the Newton–Raphson method is used to trace the entire
nonlinear load–deflection response. The failure load is assumed to be the maximum
load reached during the loading history. In most of the experiments failure was
triggered by significant necking of the tension plane. In the finite element analysis
substantial amount of necking is observed near the vicinity of the leading bolt hole

Fig. 1. Generic true-stress true-strain material response for steel.

 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635 1619

Fig. 2. Representative finite element analysis of a gusset plate. (a) Model of half plate and (b) typical
load–displacement responses.

at the ultimate load. A representative finite element analysis on a gusset plate is

presented in Fig. 2 along with the load–displacement response obtained. The com-
parisons of the finite element predictions with the experimental findings will be pre-
sented in the following section.

3. Finite element analysis predictions

The prediction of block shear capacity using finite element analysis was assessed
by making comparisons with the experimental findings. Block shear test results
1620 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635

[9–11] reported on gusset plates, angles and tees by three independent research
teams were considered. Following is an overview of the properties of the specimens
tested by the research groups.
3.1. Previous experimental studies

Hardash and Bjorhovde [9] tested 28 specimens to develop an improved design

method for gusset plates. Primary variables were the gage between the lines of
bolts, end distance, bolt pitch and the number of bolts. Gusset plates fastened
through two lines of bolts were tested in their study. The test specimens had a gage
distance of 51 (2 in.), 76 (3 in.) and 101 mm (4 in.), an end distance of 25 (1 in.)
and 38 mm (1.5 in.), and a pitch distance of 38 (1.5 in.) and 51 mm (2 in.).
Connections had two to five bolts with a hole diameter of 14 (9/16 in.) and 17 mm
(11/16 in.). All of the specimens except one had a yield strength of 229 MPa
(33.2 ksi) and an ultimate strength of 323 MPa (46.9 ksi). A block shear model
incorporating a connection length factor was developed as a part of the study.
Gross et al. [10] tested 13 angle specimens that failed in block shear. Ten of the
specimens were made of A588 Grade 50 steel with a yield and ultimate strength of
427 (62 ksi) and 545 MPa (79 ksi), respectively. The rest of the specimens were
made of A36 steel with yield and ultimate strength of 310 (45 ksi) and 469 MPa
(68 ksi), respectively. Angles had 6 mm (0.25 in.) thick connected and outstanding
legs that vary between 76 (3 in.) and 101 mm (4 in.) in length. Connections had
two to four bolts with a hole diameter of 21 mm (13/16 in.). A hole spacing of
63.5 mm (2.5 in.) and an end distance of 38 mm (1.5 in.) was used in all specimens.
The edge distance was varied between 32 (1.25 in.) and 50 mm (2 in.) in 6 mm
(0.25 in.) increments. The test results were compared with the code predictions.
Orbison et al. [11] tested 12 specimens that failed in block shear. Three of the spe-
cimens were L 6
4
5=16 angles with yield and ultimate strength of 346 (50 ksi)
and 490 MPa (71 ksi), respectively. Nine of the specimens were WT 7
11 tee sec-
tions with a yield and ultimate strength of 335 (48 ksi) and 463 MPa (67 ksi), respect-
ively. Connections had two to four bolts with a hole diameter of 27 mm (17/16 in.).
A hole spacing of 76 mm (3 in.) and an end distance of 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) was used in
all specimens. The edge distance was varied between 50.8 (2 in.) and 88.9 mm (3.5
in.) in 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) increments. Recommendations were given based on the ulti-
mate load and the strain variation along the tension plane that was measured during
the experiments.
3.2. Simulation of previous experiments

For all of the above-mentioned specimens a finite element mesh was prepared.
These meshes were analyzed using the same procedure explained before. Ultimate
load value was documented for every analysis. Fig. 3 shows representative
deformed finite element meshes for a gusset plate and an angle specimen. The dis-
placement of a block of material could be easily seen in the half plate model
(Fig. 3a). In addition, the necking behavior of the tension plane is displayed in the
angle model (Fig. 3b).
 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635 1621

Fig. 3. Representative deformed shapes. (a) Half gusset plate model and (b) angle section.

The finite element analysis predictions are presented in Fig. 4 for the 53 speci-
mens analyzed. In Fig. 4 experimental failure loads are plotted against the finite
element analysis predictions. Data points appearing below the diagonal line indi-
cate tests for which the finite element analysis predictions are unconservative (load
capacity is overestimated) while points above the line indicate conservative load
predictions. For statistical analysis a professional factor (experimental load divided
by the predicted load) was calculated for every test. A perfect agreement between
the predicted and experimental failure loads are expressed by a professional factor
of unity. Factors less than unity and greater than unity represent underestimate
and overestimate of the failure load, respectively. The statistical analyses of the
predictions are presented in Table 1. It is evident from Fig. 4 and Table 1 that the
finite element method provides excellent load capacity predictions.
Similar type of comparisons were performed for the LRFD and ASD load
capacity predictions. In calculating the LRFD and ASD failure loads bolt hole
sizes were taken as 2 mm (1/16 in.) greater than the nominal bolt hole diameter.
LRFD and ASD load capacity predictions are presented in Figs. 5 and 6, and the
statistical measures of the predictions are given in Table 1. It is worthwhile to note
that in almost all of the 53 tests considered, fracture occurred at the net tension
plane. On the other hand, in all of the LRFD predictions except three cases, the
equation with the shear fracture term governed. It is obvious from this discussion
that LRFD predictions do not capture the failure mode of the specimens.
Based on the tests considered both LRFD and ASD procedures offer on average
a conservative estimate of the failure load. On the other hand, the finite element
1622 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635

Fig. 4. Comparison of finite element analysis predictions with experimental findings.

Table 1
Professional factor statistics for finite element analysis–LRFD–ASD predictions
Professional factor
Finite element AISC–LRFD AISC–ASD
Mean 0.990 1.174 1.150
Standard deviation 0.068 0.138 0.128
Maximum 1.123 1.458 1.458
Minimum 0.840 0.925 0.925

analysis predictions give much closer results with less scatter compared to the code
equations. The finite element procedure explained earlier is promising in terms of
estimating the failure loads. This procedure will be employed for the rest of this
study to develop simple block shear load capacity prediction equations.

4. Parametric study

4.1. Concentric connections

A parametric study has been conducted to develop simple equations for predict-
ing block shear load capacities. The procedure explained before was used in all
analyses. Initially, edge distance, end distance, number of bolts, bolt pitch, yield
 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635 1623

Fig. 5. Comparison of LRFD procedure predictions with experimental findings.

Fig. 6. Comparison of ASD procedure predictions with experimental findings.

1624 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635

stress (Fy), ultimate strength (Fu), bolt diameter and edge boundary conditions
were considered as the prime variables. In order to reduce the computational cost
two-dimensional plane stress models were analyzed. Two typical edge boundary
conditions were considered in the analysis namely, boundary condition 1 (BC1)
and boundary condition 2 (BC2) (Fig. 7). Boundary condition 1 (BC1) represents
the case of a gusset plate where half of the member is modeled and rollers are
placed along the side which is close to the bolt holes. On the other hand, BC2
represents the case of a splice plate used to join the flanges of W-shapes. Since the
bolts are symmetrically placed on both sides, only half of the plate is modeled and
rollers are placed along the side which is farther away from the bolt holes. The pri-
mary difference between the two boundary conditions is, in the case of a gusset
plate, fracture of tension plane is between two bolt holes and in the case of a splice
plate, the fracture of the tension plane is between a bolt hole and a free edge.
A total of 504 nonlinear finite element analyses were performed in which the
cases for two boundary conditions had equal share. For all analyses connections
with single line of bolts in the half plate model were considered. The analyzed spe-
cimens had an end distance of 25 (1 in.), 38 (1.5 in.), 50 (2 in.) and 64 mm (2.5 in.)
and an edge distance of 25 (1 in.), 38 (1.5 in.), 50 (2 in.), 64 (2.5 in.) and 76 mm
(3 in.). Plates connected with two, three or four bolts were modeled in which
14 (0.56 in.) and 27 mm (1.06 mm) diameter bolt holes were considered. In all
models a bolt pitch greater than or equal to three times the bolt diameter was
chosen to satisfy the minimum hole spacing provisions. Bolt pitch values of 38
(1.5 in.), 50 (2 in.), 64 (2.5 in.) and 76 mm (3 in.) were used. The resulting geome-
tries have connection lengths from 64 (2.5 in.) to 292 mm (11.5 in.). For these 504
cases the ultimate strength of the plate material was held constant at a value of
352 MPa (50.4 ksi). Yield stress values of 210 (30 ksi), 252 (36 ksi), and 293 MPa
(42 ksi) were considered. The combinations of the variables considered in the study
are given in Table 2.

Fig. 7. Edge boundary conditions for the parametric study.

 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635 1625

Table 2
Combinations of the variables used in parametric study
End distance Edge distance Pitch distance Fu/Fy
Hole diameter (14 mm)
2 bolt case
25 25/38 38/50/64 1.68/1.4/1.2
38 25/38 38/50 1.68/1.4/1.2
50 25/38 38 1.68/1.4/1.2
3 bolt case
25 25/50 38/50/64 1.68/1.4/1.2
38 25/50 38/50/64 1.68/1.4/1.2
50 25/50 38/50/64 1.68/1.4/1.2
4 bolt case
25 25/50/76 38/50/64/76 1.68/1.4/1.2
38 25/50/76 38/50/64/76 1.68/1.4/1.2
50 25/50/76 38/50/64/76 1.68/1.4/1.2
Total number of cases 198
Total number of 396
cases for two BC
Hole diameter (27 mm)
2 bolt case
50 50/64/76 76 1.68/1.4/1.2
64 50/64/76 76 1.68/1.4/1.2
3 bolt case
50 50/64/76 76 1.68/1.4/1.2
64 50/64/76 76 1.68/1.4/1.2
4 bolt case
50 50/64/76 76 1.68/1.4/1.2
64 50/64/76 76 1.68/1.4/1.2
Total number of cases 54
Total number of 108
cases for two BC
All dimensions are in mm.

In all finite element analyses the net tension plane reached ultimate stress at fail-
ure load while there were significant amounts of yielding at the gross shear plane.
These observations are in agreement with the experimental findings [3] and suggest
that there should be a single equation to predict the block shear load capacity. The
prediction equation should consider the contributions of the tension and shear
planes and should be based on the premise that the net tension plane reaches ulti-
mate stress at failure. Based on this discussion the only unknown would be the
effective shear stress developing at the gross shear plane. If this effective shear
stress could be determined from the parametric study then a simplified equation
based on numerical analysis could be found.
1626 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635

Effective shear stress values were calculated for each analysis case using the ulti-
mate load values. A careful examination of the data reveals that the effective shear
stress does not depend much on the end and edge distances for centric loading.
However, the dependence is much more pronounced when connection length,
boundary conditions and ultimate-to-yield ratio are considered. In Fig. 8 a generic
plot for the dependence of effective shear stress normalized by yield stress
(Fy ¼ 252 MPa ð36 ksiÞ) is given as a function of the connection length. Similar
type of plots could be obtained if other yield stress values are considered. It is evi-
dent from Fig. 8 that the effective shear stress decreases as the connection length
increases. This phenomenon was pointed out by Hardash and Bjorhovde [9] earlier.
It is interesting to note that the slope of this decreasing trend is different for two
boundary conditions. For the case of gusset plates represented by the BC1 the
decrease in effective shear stress is much more pronounced than the case of splice
plates which were represented by the BC2. This observation initially suggests that
there should be different prediction equations for each structural member type.
Although it is possible to derive such equations based on the analysis results, it is
not necessary for practical purposes. The difference in effective shear stress between
two boundary conditions stays below 10%. This observation suggests that the effect
of the difference between boundary conditions could be ignored and the two
boundary conditions could be used together to represent the general variation as a
function of connection length and ultimate-to-yield ratio.

Fig. 8. Effect of boundary conditions on effective stress.

 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635 1627

The variation of effective shear stress as a function of connection length and ulti-
mate-to-yield ratio is presented in Fig. 9. In this figure data points that belong to
both boundary conditions are included. The decrease in effective shear stress with
connection length is observed for all three yield stress values. However, it is worth-
while to note that the slope of the trendlines for three sets of data are different. For
high ultimate-to-yield ratio the decrease in effective shear stress with connection
length is much more pronounced than the low ultimate-to-yield ratio. In addition,
according to Fig. 9 the effective shear stress on gross area varies with the ultimate-
to-yield ratio. For a given connection length the effective shear stress developing is
a function of the yield stress. A single value (0.6 Fy) like the one used in the LRFD
specification could not be used if more accurate predictions are required.
For the 504 previously mentioned finite element analyses the ultimate strength of
the material was kept constant and the yield stress was varied to get ultimate-to-
yield values of 1.68, 1.4 and 1.2. In order to investigate the validity of previous
observations for other ultimate strength values a set of additional analyses were
conducted. The ultimate strength of the material was taken as 472 MPa (68.4 ksi).
Yield stress values of 279 (40.5 ksi) and 393 MPa (57 ksi) that produce an ulti-
mate-to-yield ratio of 1.68 and 1.2, respectively were considered. A total of 216
analyses were performed for the two boundary conditions. Examination of the
results revealed that the variation in effective shear stress with connection length is
the same for materials possessing the same ultimate-to-yield ratio. The findings
presented so far will be used in developing block shear prediction equations that
are functions of ultimate-to-yield ratio and connection length.

Fig. 9. Variation of effective shear stress with connection length and ultimate-to-yield ratio.
1628 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635

4.2. Connection eccentricity

4.2.1. In-plane eccentricity

Several analyses were performed in order to investigate the effects of eccentric
loading on block shear load capacity. The parametric study results presented so far
only encompassed the case of centric loading. In order to simulate in-plane eccen-
tricity similar type of two-dimensional plate models were analyzed without any
edge boundary conditions. In other words, the cases that were analyzed using BC2
(Fig. 7) were analyzed again by removing the roller boundary condition (Fig. 10a).
The amount of eccentricity could be quantified by the distance between the line of
bolts and the centerline of the plate. The same variables used for the parametric
study were used for eccentric loading analyses. The resulting eccentricities varied
between 20% and 40% of the depth of the member. To be able to assess the impor-
tance of in-plane eccentricity the results of 198 additional analyses were compared
with the results pertaining to the cases with BC2. Analyses with the second bound-
ary condition were accepted as the basis and provide an upper bound because
bending is not present and the bolts are close to the free edge.

Fig. 10. Effect of in-plane eccentricity on block shear load capacity.

 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635 1629

Examination of the data gathered from this additional analyses revealed that for
some connections presence of eccentricity reduces the block shear load capacity.
The amount of reduction in the capacity is mostly influenced by the connection
length. The amount of eccentricity, other geometric and material properties do not
significantly affect the loss of capacity. Fig. 10b presents the nominal block shear
load capacity of 198 eccentrically loaded connections normalized by their capacity
under centric loading as a function of the connection length. Fig. 10b shows that
there is no reduction in capacity for connections less than 150 mm (6 in.) in length.
For some very short connections the eccentricity seems to increase the strength by
2%. This might be attributable to the numerical details adopted and may not hap-
pen in practice. For connections longer than 150 mm (6 in.) reductions up to 15%
could be obtained. Since the reduction is applied to longer connections and most
of the reduction values stayed below 10%, the effects of in-plane eccentricity was
not studied further. During the design stage the block shear capacity can be
reduced by 10% for longer connections if desired.

4.2.2. Out-of-plane eccentricity

Sixteen three-dimensional finite element models were analyzed to investigate the
effects of out-of-plane eccentricity on block shear. The three-dimensional models
represent the case of a channel section fastened through two lines of bolts located
on the web. The fictitious channel section was 5 mm (0.2 in.) thick and had a depth
of 305 mm (12 in.) and a flange width of 152 mm (6 in.). This kind of a connection
detail has out-of-plane eccentricity while having no in-plane eccentricity. In these
new set of analyses, material properties were kept constant to have an ultimate-to-
yield ratio of 1.2 while the geometric properties were varied. Two, three and four
bolt configurations were considered which resulted in connection lengths between
89 (3.5 in.) and 280 mm (11 in.). End distance was kept constant at 50.8 mm (2 in.)
while the edge distance was varied between 25.4 (1 in.) and 50.8 mm (2 in.). The
results obtained from these three-dimensional analysis were compared with
the two-dimensional models in which no eccentricity is present. Examination of the
comparisons revealed that out-of-plane eccentricity has no significant effect on
the block shear load capacity. Results for connections with out-of-plane eccen-
tricity are at most 5% different than the connections without eccentricity. The
conclusion of block shear load capacity unaffected by out-of-plane eccentricity is in
agreement with the earlier observations of Orbison et al. [11].

5. Development of block shear load capacity prediction equations

Equations that are based on applying numerical results to a theoretical model

were developed to predict the block shear load capacity of tension members.
The aforementioned 504 two-dimensional analyses results constitute the basis of
statistical analysis. As explained before, the aim of the study is to develop a single
equation to predict the block shear load capacity. In this equation, it is assumed
that the net tension plane reaches ultimate strength while the gross shear plane
1630 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635

develops an effective shear stress which is represented as a percentage of yield

stress. The aim of this section is to quantify the value of effective shear stress based
on geometric and material properties. Examination of analytical findings reveals
that the effective shear stress is mostly influenced by the ultimate-to-yield ratio and
the connection length. Several forms of equations were tried and the ones which
are simple to use in design are represented here. If the effective shear stress is based
on both the ultimate-to-yield ratio and the connection length Eq. (4) could be
found by regression analysis and rounding off the coefficients.
 
Fu Cl
Rn ¼ 0:25 þ 0:35  Fy Agv þ Fu Ant ð4Þ
Fy 2800
where Cl is the connection length (distance from the center of the leading bolt hole
to the end of the plate).
The coefficient of determination (r2) for the effective shear stress normalized by
yield stress is 0.87 if the coefficients of Eq. (4) are used. The upper limit on effective
shear stress is 0.6 Fu if Eq. (4) is used. In Eq. (4), Cl is expressed in millimeters and
if another system of units is used, the coefficient for connection length should be
adjusted accordingly.
A more simplified equation could be developed if the effective shear stress is
based only on the ultimate-to-yield ratio. Regression analysis with rounding off the
coefficients revealed that Eq. (5) could also be a simple alternative to Eq. (4).
 
Fu
Rn ¼ 0:20 þ 0:35 Fy Agv þ Fu Ant ð5Þ
Fy
The coefficient of determination (r2) for the effective shear stress normalized by
yield stress is 0.81 if the coefficients of Eq. (5) are used.
A careful examination of the data reveals that an equation in which effective
shear stress is based solely on the ultimate strength could be developed. Two differ-
ent ultimate strength values were used in the parametric study. For the 720 analy-
ses cases the effective shear stress is normalized by ultimate strength and the data
points are presented in Fig. 11. According to this figure the effective shear stress
values fall within a band that is bounded by 40–55% of ultimate strength averaging
a value of 48%. Based on this observation a very simple prediction equation was
developed and is presented in Eq. (6).
Rn ¼ 0:48Fu Agv þ Fu Ant ð6Þ
All the equations derived so far were for cases where loading was centric. As
explained before out-of-plane eccentricity has no significant effect on the block
shear capacity. On the other hand, in-plane eccentricity might cause a small
reduction in the values. Therefore, for cases where in-plane eccentricity is present
designers might reduce the block shear load capacity by 10% for longer connec-
tions.
The quality of the prediction equations were assessed by making comparisons
with the experimental findings. Three sets of experimental data that were men-
tioned before were used for comparison purposes. In calculating net areas for ten-
 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635 1631

Fig. 11. Effective shear stress as a function of ultimate strength.

sion, hole diameters were increased by 2 mm (1/16 in.) to account for damage
allowance. The comparisons of load predictions and test results are presented in
Figs. 12–14 and the statistical measures of the predictions are given in Table 3.
It is evident from the figures and the statistical measures that the developed
equations predict block shear load capacities with acceptable accuracy. The aver-
age professional factor for all three equations is close to unity and the standard
deviation is close to 10%. According to the maximum and minimum professional
factors, predictions of 25% understrength and overstrength are possible. Examin-
ation of the predictions show that maximum understrength is associated with a
gusset plate specimen with a very short connection length (66 mm (2.6 in.)). Predic-
tion equations fail to provide better estimates for this particular specimen. The
data point related with this specimen was discarded by Hardash and Bjorhovde [9]
in developing a block shear capacity prediction equation for gusset plates. If this
data point is discarded from the data set then the maximum understrength predic-
tion would stay below 17% for the three equations.
Figs. 12–14 suggest that all three equations have unconservative estimates for the
angle specimens tested by Gross et al. [10]. In addition, the maximum overstrength
prediction belongs to this set of specimens. The reason of this discrepancy was
investigated further by examining the stress patterns at failure through finite
element analysis. This detailed investigation suggested that some of the failures in
the angle specimens were due to a combination of net section and block shear fail-
ure. Gross et al. [10] also observed that for some of the specimens tearing
continued at an angle from the shear plane after the tension plane rupture. This
observation strengthens the assertion that some of these specimens experienced a
combined failure mode in which the developed equations fail to predict.
1632 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635

Fig. 12. Comparison of Eq. (4) predictions with experimental findings.

Fig. 13. Comparison of Eq. (5) predictions with experimental findings.

 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635 1633

Fig. 14. Comparison of Eq. (6) predictions with experimental findings.

Table 3
Professional factor statistics for developed equations
Professional factor
Eq. (4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6)
Mean 0.997 0.988 1.009
Standard 0.100 0.106 0.102
deviation
Maximum 1.219 1.250 1.269
Minimum 0.786 0.754 0.789

6. Future research needs

Several factors that were not considered in this study require further investi-
gation. These can be summarized as follows:

. This study focused on block shear failure of tension members with nonstaggered
holes. Further research is needed to determine the applicability of these findings
to block shear failure of beams and of connections having staggered holes and
multiple bolt lines.
. Only block shear failure type was considered. However, as mentioned before
failures due to a combination of net section and block shear failure were
observed in the tests [10]. Future research should focus on developing capacity
prediction equations for this type of failure mode, which is usually termed as
1634 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635

partial net section rupture [7]. The detailed modeling technique presented by
Barth et al. [7] could be used to study this behavior.
. For gusset plates the loading was assumed to be parallel to one of the principal
axes of the plate. Additional studies are required to find out the behavior of
these members under inclined loading.
. The study was based on an assumed yield criterion and a generic stress–strain
curve. The effect of using a different yield criterion such as Tresca criterion needs
further investigation. In addition, the effects of stress–strain behavior, parti-
cularly the differences in the yield plateau and strain hardening regions, need to
be studied.
. In this study, the failure was quantified by the ultimate load reached during the
analysis. Other failure measures based on local strains could be used to quantify
ultimate loads and eventually to develop similar load capacity prediction expres-
sions.

7. Conclusions

A comprehensive analytical study on block shear failure of steel tension mem-

bers was presented. A finite element analysis methodology was developed to pre-
dict the block shear failure load capacities. Specimens tested by three independent
research teams were modeled and analyzed with this method. Finite element analy-
sis was found to predict the failure loads of test specimens with acceptable accu-
racy. A parametric study was conducted to identify the important parameters that
influence the block shear response. Simple block shear load capacity prediction
equations were developed based on the analysis results and their quality is assessed
by making comparisons with experimental findings.
The following can be concluded from this study:

. Block shear load capacity is mostly influenced by the ultimate-to-yield ratio,

connection length and boundary conditions.
. Presence of in-plane eccentricity can reduce the block shear load capacity by
10% for longer connections.
. Presence of out-of-plane eccentricity does not significantly affect the response.
. The developed equations provide load capacity estimates with acceptable accu-
racy. These equations could be alternatives to more traditional code equations.

References
[1] AISC. Allowable stress design specification for structural steel buildings, 9th ed. Chicago (IL):
American Institute of Steel Construction; 1989.
[2] AISC. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings, 3rd ed. Chicago
(IL): American Institute of Steel Construction; 2001.
[3] Cunnigham TJ, Orbison JG, Ziemian RD. Assessment of American block shear load capacity pre-
dictions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1995;35:323–38.
[4] Ricles JM, Yura JA. Strength of double-row bolted-web connections. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering 1983;109(1):126–42.
 C. Topkaya / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 1615–1635 1635

[5] Epstein HI, Chamarajanagar R. Finite element studies for correlation with block shear tests. Com-
puters and Structures 1996;61(5):967–74.
[6] Kulak GL, Wu EY. Shear lag in bolted angle tension members. ASCE Journal of Structural Engin-
eering 1997;123(9):1144–52.
[7] Barth KE, Orbison JG, Nukala R. Behavior of steel tension members subjected to uniaxial loading.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2002;58:1103–20.
[8] ANSYS. Version 6.1 on-line user’s manual; 2001.
[9] Hardash SG, Bjorhovde R. New design criteria for gusset plates in tension. AISC Engineering
Journal 1985;22(2):77–94.
[10] Gross JM, Orbison JG, Ziemian RD. Block shear tests in high-strength steel angles. AISC Engin-
eering Journal 1995;32(3):117–22.
[11] Orbison JG, Wagner ME, Fritz WP. Tension plane behavior in single-row bolted connections sub-
ject to block shear. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1999;49:225–39.