MORE WORK IS REQUIRED

J Colin Taylor, Steel Construction Institute, UK.

In code drafting, “open questions” on connections issues include block shear,

effects of hole spacing on bearing resistance, high strength steels, interaction of
shear and tension in “friction grip” connections, long joints, design criteria for
pins, resistance of fillet welds, deformation limits, end distance in backing plates,
end distance for web “doubler” plates, circular yield lines, staggered holes and
effects of packing on fully-threaded bolts.
The paper draws attention to potential research topics of practical use.

BLOCK SHEAR
Originally seen as an issue for bolted shear connections at beam ends, block shear is now also
recognised as a potential failure mode at the ends of axially loaded bars Two distinct types of
block shear can occur, see Figure 1. At beam ends there is one failure plane in shear and one
in eccentric tension, whereas in gusset plates there are two failure planes in shear, with one in
pure tension.
Although AISC codes currently apply the same formula to both, other design codes such as
Eurocode 3 use a formula only for the first type and cover the second type by rules for hole
spacing combined with limits on bearing resistance.

(a) At end of member (b) In gusset plates

Figure 1: Block shear

33
As papers on gusset plates and block shear are scheduled for Session 6, further detail is not
given here, except to make two clarifications. The calibration done for Eurocode 3 indicated
that for beam ends the eccentricity of the tension component cannot be neglected. It also
showed that for the net tension area the deduction for a single row of bolt holes is 0.5 times the
hole size, but the comparable deduction for cases with two rows of bolts should be 2.5 times the
hole size. This was determined by analysing the test results, but appears to be due to the outer
bolt row being located nearer the peak tensile stress at the outer edge.
However the main point to note is that only 15 test results are available for block shear at beam
ends. A total of 19 tests were performed, but 4 failed in other modes.
Another point is that block shear can occur at the end of an angle bar in tension, but in this case
the effect is complicated by being combined with eccentricity of connection, shear lag of the
unconnected leg and partial fixity of the end connection.
Finally, Figure 2 indicates a possible block shear failure mode for a welded end connection, but
no test data appear to be available for this.

Figure 2: Block shear – welded cleats

BEARING
Amongst the criteria for bearing resistance of bolts is avoidance of block shear. The spacing
and pitch of bolts, combined with code values for bearing stresses, are intended to cover this.
However resistance to this form of block shear is a complex matter to predict. Failure is initiated
when ultimate strain is surpassed at the critical point, but the total resistance is due to a
combination of shear and tension, with shear lag and non-linear response. Thus the length and
aspect ratio of the line of failure affect the resistance. It is probable that the shape of the stress-
strain curve is also relevant, thus additional test results would be helpful in validating FE
predictions and any improved design rules developed.

HIGH STRENGTH STEELS

Inevitably the majority of the design rules in codes were originally developed for mild steels with
“classical” stress-strain curves, exhibiting a distinct yield point and an extensive yield plateau.
Modern “concast” steels (with alloy content due to re-use of scrap) are different,, especially the
high strength and super strength grades. A number of design rules have been validity for such
steels, but others have not. A first step would be a thorough survey of what further checks are
needed. Pitch and spacing of bolts, edge and end distances, plus the effects of holes on
various resistances, all seem to be candidates. Some traditional rules seem to be related to the

34
use of rivets or the avoidance of corrosion when exposed to rain, assuming outmoded protective
coatings.
TENSION AND SLIP-RESISTANT CONNECTIONS
The distribution of the clamping force in a preloaded connection through the thickness of the
connected plies is believed to be barrel-shaped, as indicated in Figure 3. The distribution at the
outer surfaces is related to the contact areas under the head and nut of the bolt, strain
compatibility modifying this elsewhere. The effect is commonly simplified in the form of an
equivalent cylinder of the same axial compressibility.

Figure 3: Pre-loaded bolts

The cross-sectional area of this cylinder affects the net clamping force available at interfaces in
the presence of applied external tension. If the compressive strain in the connected material is
neglected, the clamping force is reduced to zero when the applied tension is equal to the pre-
load. The formula in Eurocode 3 indicating a residual clamping force in this case equal to 20%
of the initial pre-load is based on a cylinder of compression with an area equal to 4 times that of
the bolt.
The effective area of the bolt will be between the shank area and the tensile stress area, the
value depending on the grip and the threaded length. The theory also assumes linear elastic
behaviour at 1.2 times the pre-load, but the greatest uncertainty would appear to be the basis
for the area ratio of 4. From Figure 3 this seems likely to vary with the thickness of the
connected plies. The matter has been debated for many years but experimental evidence, for
or against, seems to be lacking.
LONG JOINTS
The concept of a “long joint” is well established. A long joint can be either a bolted or a fillet-
welded lap joint with force transfer in shear. Differential strain in the connected components
leads to a non-uniform distribution of force. The end bolts fail before sufficient re-distribution is
achieved to equalise the forces in each bolt. Similarly, in a welded joint the fillet welds fail at the
ends before those near the centre can contribute to the transfer of force.
The problem in each case is that two quite different formulations have been developed, but the
database of test results is quite inadequate to enable a clear decision to be made about the
better alternative.
For bolts, a distinction needs to be made between cases where the shear resistance of the bolt,
or the bearing resistance of the connected plates, governs. Where the bearing stress is high,
the local deformation of the plates improves ability of the connection to re-distribute forces
uniformly between bolts. This had been a source of confusion, but has now been established
by additional tests, complemented by numerical analysis.
What remains at issue is the limiting length of a bolted joint in which a uniform distribution or
forces can be assumed, when the shear resistance of the bolts governs. Some experts

35
maintain that non-dimensionality means that the limiting length must be proportional to the bolt
diameter, as in Eurocode 3. The alternative analysis is that the differential strain to be
overcome, and thus the limiting joint length, is related solely to the absolute length. Indeed as
the ability of a bolt to deform in shear is related to the stress developed in it, not its diameter,
substituting smaller diameter bolts of greater strength should increase the deformation capacity,
not reduce it. This is of limited relevance, as it would also reduce the bearing resistance, which
might well change the failure mode, thus avoiding the problem.
A number of tests are available and these form the basis of the AISC limiting length, which is
expressed as an absolute value. However these were mainly done with 7/8th inch (22 mm) bolts
and the small number of tests with other sizes is insufficient to be conclusive, given the scatter
of results due to the influence of other parameters.
A comparable, but more complex, situation exists for fillet welds. In both cases more tests are
needed, though there is also scope for complementary numerical analysis.
DESIGN OF PINS
Wide variations are evident between the design resistances for pins given in different codes.
This appears to be related to different (often unstated) assumptions about the type of pinned
connection envisaged. Where the reason for using a pin is to facilitate repeated de-mounting
and re-assembly, there is a need to avoid irreversible deformation. Where the purpose is to
provide the means for rotation, even elastic deformation must be severely limited. However
pins are also increasingly used in situations where neither of these considerations applies, so
the design criteria can be closer to those for bolts, always bearing in mind the absence of the
benefits derived from the clamping effect of bolt tightening.
In particular many codes quote bearing resistances that are apparently based on strength
criteria, but are in fact based on limiting deformations under service loads. What is needed is to
identify more clearly the intended purpose of each limit. There is also a need to clarify the
deformation limits needed for free rotation and for ease of de-mounting and re-assembly.
RESISTANCE OF FILLET WELDS
In the case of fillet welds, the work needed is not so much to acquire further test data as to
devise an agreed systematic representation of what is already available, in the form of clear
design rules. One problem area is the relation between electrode strength, strength of parent
metal and resistance of fillet welds. Another is the consistent formulation of the resistance of a
fillet weld to longitudinal and transverse forces at any angle to the throat.
Eurocode 3 relates fillet weld resistance to the tensile strength of the steel to be welded, subject
to an over-riding requirement to use appropriate electrodes. However the dominant parameter
is actually the tensile strength of the electrode, with only a secondary role for that of the steel.
This is compounded by the specification of electrodes by their yield strength and a policy of
leaving electrode selection to welding engineers, instead of making it part of the structural
design process. The inevitable result is to inhibit the use of high strength steels by keeping their
design and specification beyond the scope of ordinary designers.

36
 Figure 4: Fillet weld, transversely loaded at an angle to the throat
Eurocode 3 also relates the effects of the forces applied to a fillet weld to stresses calculated on
the throat and combined using an IIW formula comparable to a Von Mises yield criterion. This
ignores the fact that the failure criterion is rupture, not yield. The model ignores the offset
between the throat and the fusion faces, which seems to be traded off against the effects of
assuming that the fusion faces are pinned joints that do not develop moments.
As a result, the ratio of the resistance to a transverse force producing pure shear on the throat
to that for one producing pure tension is 0.58 compared to the ratio of 0.75 based on tests. To
avoid non-conservative results for pure shear, all transverse resistances are kept low, thus
penalising the common case of force transfer parallel and perpendicular to the fusion faces.
Progress cannot be made without abandoning the IIW formula, in favour of one related to the
actual resistance of fillet welds.

SLOTTED HOLES
With an increased use of slotted holes, both straight and “kidney-shaped”, has come a
requirement for clarification whether bearing resistances need to be modified to suit them.
Tests in the UK have led to two such reports and similar work on straight slots has been carried
out in Belgium, the Czech Republic and the USA.

Figure 5: Slotted and kidney-shaped holes

37
Code rules for bearing resistance generally seek to cover numerous potential failure modes, of
which the most critical is usually permanent deformation under service loads, provided that
there is sufficient edge and end distance.
A surprising feature in the UK tests was that, compared to the bearing resistance for normal
circular holes, a larger reduction appeared to be needed for slots 2.5 times longer than the
normal hole size D than for those 3.5D in length.
It was also found that the reference tests for normal circular holes gave deformations different
from those reported in earlier test programs. It would appear that other parameters such as
spacing, pitch and edge distance, possibly in combination, may have a greater influence than
previously thought. Other possibilities are material properties or the methods used to form the
holes, but unless one of these is the cause, there seems to be scope for a more detailed study
of the behaviour of plate material within multiple-bolted joints.

BACKING PLATES
Sufficient general test data is available to establish the behaviour of backing plates in
augmenting the resistance of outstand flanges in T-stub type tension connections and to
validate a design procedure. There is one glaring exception, the minimum value of the distance
e needed from the end bolt to the end of the backing plate.

Figure 6: Backing plates

Existing tests have simply ensured that ample length was available to produce the normal
pattern of yield lines assumed in design and where design rules give guidance it is no more than
an assumption. In practice it may be important to reduce e as much as possible, so
authoritative data would be valuable in enabling more reliable information to be given.

DOUBLER PLATES
A similar situation exists for column web doubler plates in joints without web stiffeners. The web
doubler plate needs to continue above and below the beam flanges, but how far? There does
not seem to be any test evidence for the required value of the dimension e..

38
 Figure 7: Web doubler plate in joint without web stiffeners.

CIRCULAR YIELD LINES

In a tension connection, if a plate is sufficiently thin, and the bolts are spaced sufficiently far
apart and sufficiently far from the edge, the usually expected patterns of yield lines do not form.
Instead circular yield lines develop in the form of a ring around each bolt.
If the load is increased, the plate around a bolt has been observed to deform in the form of a
bell, but the design resistance is normally based on the point at which the circular yield line is
fully formed, before gross deformation commences.
The design procedures in Eurocode 3 have so far been adapted to include circular yield lines as
a further alternative to be considered when determining the length of equivalent T-stub.
However forming circular yield lines also modifies prying action. It has been suggested that a
better procedure might be to treat this as a limit on the resistance that can be developed by
each bolt, as is done in the case of the “punching-shear” resistance of a bolt head or nut
Only a limited number of tests have produced circular yield lines, so additional test evidence
would be useful in resolving this point.
STAGGERED HOLES
The same formula is given in numerous (but not all) codes for determining the deduction to be
made for staggered bolt holes in calculating the net area. This seems to be based on tests
many years ago when riveting was common. Extensive use of staggered holes used to be
made in the flange angles and flange plates of riveted plate girders.
It seems likely that the rule was developed at a time when mild steel was the only strength
grade of structural steel was in use in most countries. It is not clear to what extent the effects of
strain hardening and the value of the ratio of yield strength to tensile strength may have been
already covered in the formula, if as appears it is empirical. As modern test procedures include
provisions that utilise these effects, there is a possible danger of “double counting”.
However there are few, if any, test results available to check this.

EFFECTS OF PACKING
The rules that appears in AISC codes, British Standards and Eurocodes have three different
formats, but they are all based on one and the same test program. This found that introducing
packing in bolted joints did not affect the shear or bearing resistance, but it did noticeably
increase the deformation. Additional uniform deformation might not necessarily matter,
increased deformation in one flange of a column, but not the other, could have more serious

39
consequences. Accordingly, the various code rules given are all aimed at limiting the additional
deformation.
The joint tested used standard bolts. However for reasons widely documented elsewhere, use
is now made of “fully threaded” bolts and it seems likely that joints through packing might
deform more when made using fully threaded bolts. Indeed some designers have mentioned it
as a reason for not using fully threaded bolts.
As a minimum, a test should be performed for fully threaded bolts, similar to that already carried
out for normal bolts.

40