Gusset Plate Design

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

Connection
Block shear failure
Bolt tear through on the gusset
Calculate using AISC Eq. J4-3
Calculated using AISC Eq. J3-2
Strength of Bolts or Welds


Connection
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
c 1.5
.877
Fcr = 2 Fy
c
c > 1.5
c2
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
Richard Method
Comprehensive
Offers approximate value to capture frame action
effects and a way to incorporate into design
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
e = + x y + 3 xy
2
x
2
y
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 Plate Design

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Gusset Plate Design

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SEAONC MINI SEMINAR

Gusset Plate Design

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

What We Will Cover

Overview of prominent research and

Current gusset plate design requirements

Limitations of current gusset plate design

Recommendations for future research to

Gusset Plate Design References

Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates

Brace Frame Gusset Plate Research Literature Review

On the Analysis and Design of Bracing Connections

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Gusset Plate Design References

Handbook of Structural Steel Connection Design & Details

Handbook of Structural Steel Connection Design & Details

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Brace / Gusset Configurations

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Tested aluminum joints

Iso-stress lines obtained by strain gages

Plots showed stress trajectories to be

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Distribution of normal and shear stresses

Maximum normal and shear stresses

Location of maximums is different

Bjorhovde & Chakrabarti 1983-88

Six full size steel assemblages

30, 45, 60 angle braces

Not applicable to determining interface loads

Used to validate FEM

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Bjorhovde & Chakrabarti 1983-88

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Bjorhovde & Chakrabarti 1983-88

Rabern and Chakrabarti, 1983

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Gross & Cheok (1988)

Used regular frame subassemblages

Moment and forces in members showed all members

Gusset failed by buckling when brace was in

Not monitored for interface forces

Predicted prying action failure but frame forces

Gross & Cheok (1988)

Gross & Cheok, 1988

Experiments included frame action

Buckling capacity of gusset 4% - 107% higher with frame

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

Most rigorous analytical research to date

Used FEA INELAS and NASTRAN

Frame action considered

Measured fastener behavior modeled into nonlinear FEA

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

Interface forces largely dependent on:

Plate aspect ratio

Interface forces less dependent on:

Direction of force (tension vs. compression)

Forell / Elsesser Engineers

Richards et el. , Williams 1986

beam and column load the gusset, equally as much

Direction of forces align with brace with