Design

Procedures for
Extended Shear
Tabs

Al Ghorbanpoor

Author
l Ghorbanpoor is professor of
A
structural engineering and
chairman of the Department of
Civil Engineering and Mechanics
at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee. He received his
Ph.D. degree from the University
of Maryland in 1985 and is a
Registered Professional Engineer.
Prior to joining the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1986, he
worked for seven years as a project engineer and later as chief
structural engineer in construction
and in consulting engineering
firms in the Washington D.C.
area.
Dr. Ghorbanpoor's teaching
and research include fatigue and
fracture, steel connections, nondestructive testing, analysis and
design of structures, and finite
elements. He has been a principal investigator in over forty sponsored research studies and has
published frequently on related
topics. He is a Fellow of the
American Society of Civil
Engineers and holds membership
in a number of other professional
engineering societies. Dr.
Ghorbanpoor has served as the
chair and member of a number of
national technical committees of
ASCE, ACI, ASNT, TRB and PTI.

Author
rofessor Sherman received his
bachelor of science and master of science degrees in civil
engineering from Case Institute of
Technology. His Ph.D. was
obtained from the University of
Illinois in 1964.
Dr. Sherman was a faculty
member at University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee for 31
years. Prior to joining the faculty
at the University of Wisconsin, he
worked as a test engineer for the
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories
and as a design engineer for
Aerojet-General and Esso
Research & Engineering. Much
of his industrial experience has
been concerned with the design

P
Donald R. Sherman

of pressure vessels and pipelines.

He has been active in research
and consulting in the design of
metal structures, particularly tubular structures and equipment
designed for seismic loads. His
major area of study is tubular
structures, and he has authored
over 40 publications on the design
of tubular members and connections.
Professor Sherman is a member of the AISC Specification
Committee and chairs the Task
Committee on Structural Tubing.
He is also the past chairman of
the Structural Stability Research
Council and has been involved in
its activities for over 30 years. He
is a member of the American
Society of Civil Engineers and has
been active in several national
technical committees, including a
term as chairman of the
Committee on Metals. Dr.
Sherman is a Professional
Engineer in Ohio and Wisconsin.

Summary
his session will focus on two
recent research projects
"Design Procedures for Extended
Shear Tab Connections" and
"Tests on Simple Connections
Including Slab Effects". The first
paper presents new design procedures for shear connections using
extended shear tabs, which
reduces costs by eliminating the
need for expensive coping or
flange reduction of framing
beams. The second paper discusses the use of composite PR
connections to resist seismic
loading and to reduce the cost of
repair or retrofit of FR steel frame
buildings and presents information on the creation of design
guidelines regarding the use of
simple connections in lateral loadresisting systems.

15-1
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR EXTENDED SHEAR TABS

INTRODUCTION

Extended shear tabs welded to the webs of columns or girders are economically attractive since they eliminate
the necessity of coping beams framing into a connection in order to avoid interference with supporting
member flanges. When the bolt line on the shear tab extends 3-in. beyond the flanges of the supporting
member, the detailing and tolerances of the beam are the same as typical tabs welded to a column flange.
There are three possible weld configurations for connecting an extended tab to the supporting member.
1.

Use only a pair of vertical fillet welds between the tab and the web of the supporting member. This
produces a large spacing between the weld and the bolt line and larger than typical eccentricities of the
shear force. It also requires thicker tabs to avoid buckling.
2. In addition to vertical welds, add a pair of horizontal welds between the top of the tab and the top flange
of a supporting girder. There will now be the typical 3-in. spacing between the end of the horizontal weld
and the bolt line. However, the large distance between the vertical weld and the bolt line still exists at the
bottom of the tab. This detail can also be used with supporting columns if a stiffening or continuity plate
is welded between the column flanges at the top of the tab.
3. Stiffening plates can be welded between the column flanges at both the top and bottom of the tab so the
pairs of horizontal welds can be placed at both locations. This is in addition to the vertical welds to the
web. The 3-in. spacing between the horizontal welds and bolt line exists at both the top and bottom of the
tab.
All of these details have been used in practice, but there are no uniform design procedures. Consequently, a
program of 17 tests supplemented with finite element analyses was undertaken. The research identified the
critical limit states and the eccentricities of the shear force relative to the weld and bolt line. From these
results, a design procedure is recommended.
TEST PROGRAM

There were four combinations of supporting members and beams used in the experimental program. These

included extremes of beam stiffness with L/d of 10 and 23. Web stiffness of the supporting members ranged
from h/t of 22 to 54.

Group 1- W14x53 girder with 30-ft. long W12x87 beam

Group 2- W24x55 girder with 20-ft. long W18x71 beam
Group 3- W8x31 column with 30-ft. long W12x87 beam
Group 4- W14x90 column with 20-ft. long W18x71 beam
In all tests, the column segments were 8-ft. long and the girder segments were 10-ft. long.

Connections to the W12 beam used three bolts and connections to the W18 beam used five bolts. All bolts
were -in. diameter A325. Both standard (STD) and short slotted (SSL) holes were used in the tabs. Bolts
were installed snug tight in standard holes and fully tightened when slotted holes were used. Table 1 shows
the variables for the four tests with no horizontal welds, which are referred to as unstiffened tab tests. Only
slotted holes were used in these tests.

15-3
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

The tab thickness was determined to meet stability limit states under the anticipated maximum shear.
Considering the tab as a cantilever beam of narrow rectangular cross section under an end load applied at the
centroid of the section, the critical end load is

(1)

where: t is the tab thickness

L is the tab length
a is taken as the spacing between the bolt line and weld
For tab proportions, the second square root term is approximately unity, and the equation can be solved for a
required thickness.

(2)

In addition, the tab thickness should meet the stability criteria in the AISC Manual (1994) for tabs.
(3)

TABLE 1 - VARIABLES FOR UNSTIFFENED TESTS

TEST

SUPPORT
MEMBER

1-U
2-U
3-U
4-U

W14x53 gird.
W24x55 gird.
W8x31 col.
W14x90 col.

TAB t
(in.)
3/8

3/8
3/8
1/2

WELD
SIZE
(in.)
5/16
5/16
5/16
5/16

WEB
h/t

# of

TAB

BOLTS

LENGTH
(in.)

WELD-BOLT
SPACE
(in.)

30.8
54.6
22.2
25.9

3
5
3
5

9
15
9
15

6.85
6.30
6.86
10.04

Table 2 shows the variables in the remaining tests. All tabs in these tests were 1/4-in. thick and the fillet
welds were 3/16-in. The four Groups of beam and support combinations had one test with standard holes and
one test with short slotted holes. A few variations in the weld configurations were also tested. In Test 2-C
the fillet weld to the column web was doubled in size and placed on only one side of the tab. In Test 3-C no
weld was used at the column web and the tab was welded only to the top and bottom stiffening plates. The
stiffening plates were generally welded to column flanges but not to the column web. However, since the
stiffening plates could be continuity plates for orthogonal framing, the plates were also welded to the web in
Tests 3-D and 3-E. Test 3-E also had an extra long tab to reflect a condition where the continuity plate
spacing is considerably larger than required for the 9-in. tab length.
Twisting of the tabs was evident in some of the earlier tests. Therefore, lateral bracing to prevent twist of the
beam was used in several tests. This bracing was at the location where the beam was loaded, which is close to
the connection.

15-4
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

In stiffened connections, the tab is supported by the horizontal weld to within 3-in. of the bolt line and the
stability criteria of Equation (2) does not apply. Only Equation (3) must be satisfied.
TABLE 2 - VARIABLES FOR STIFFENED TESTS

TEST

1-A
1-B

2-A
2-B
2-C
3-A
3-B
3-C
3-D
3-E
4-A
4-B
4-C

SUPPORT
MEMBER

# of
BOLTS

HOLE

TYPE

TAB
LENGTH
(in.)

WELD*
CONFIG.

W14x53 gird.
"
W24x55 gird.
"
"
W8x31 col.
"
"
"
"
W14x90 col.
"
"

3
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5

STD
SSL
STD
SSL
STD
STD
SSL
STD
STD
STD
STD
SSL
STD

9
9
15
15
15
9
9
9
9
19
15
15
15

w-t
w-t
w-t
w-t

w(3/8", one side)-t

w-t-b
w-t-b
t-b
w-t-b **
w-t-b **
w-t-b
w-t-b
w-t-b

WELD c.g.
TO BOLT
SPACE
(in.)
6.50
6.50
5.98
5.98
5.98
5.91
5.91
5.91
5.91
6.23
8.25
8.25
8.25

BRACING

no

no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes

* Weld Configurations: w = web; t = top; b = bottom

** Stiffening plates welded to column web

TEST SETUP AND SPECIMENS

The test setups for the four Groups of beams and support members are shown in Figure 1, where two have
columns and two have girders as the supporting member. The position of the concentrated load is such that
the shear reaction and end rotation of each beam are the same as for a uniformly loaded beam with length of:
(4)

where: Lp is the length of the test beam with a concentrated load

b is the length between the load and the far end of the beam.

The W12x87 beam used with the three-bolt connections has a length to depth ratio (Lu /d) of 23, representing a
flexible beam. The stiff W18x71 beam used with the five-bolt connections has Lu /d of 10.
The tests were instrumented to obtain important data. Load cells measured the applied load and the reaction
at the far end of the supported beam. The difference in these readings is the shear force in the connection.
Two displacement transducers measured the displacement between the supporting member and the end of the
top flange of the supported beam. The average of the transducer readings gives the connection distortion and
the difference divided by their spacing gives the twist in the connection.

Readings from tiltmeters on the supporting member and the end of the beam give the rotation of each member
at the connection.

15-5
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

Fig. 1 - SETUPS FOR BEAM AND SUPPORT MEMBER COMBINATIONS

Three pairs of strain gages were mounted on the top and bottom flanges of the supported beams at three
locations between the bolt line and the applied load. A pair of gages reflect the bending moment at the
location and a linear regression analysis of the data from the three pairs of gages establishes the moment
gradient. By calculating where the moment is zero, the eccentricity of the shear force from the bolt line or
weld is determined.
Strain gages were mounted on both sides of the tab at the top and bottom, 1-in. from the welds. They measure
the normal strain perpendicular to the weld and indicate if the tab is bending in a twisting mode. Gages were
also mounted on the back of the web of the supporting member at the top and bottom of the tab. These gages
were perpendicular to the tab and indicate the amount that the web is being bent. A rosette gage was mounted
on the tab to provide information on the general state of stress. The data from the gages are primarily used to
verify the connection behavior and to provide information to calibrate a finite element model.
The connection area was whitewashed so that the initiation of yielding and slip in the connection could be
observed.

15-6
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

The following parameters were common to all four tests:

-in. A325-X bolts; 3-in. pitch and 1-in. edge distances
short slotted holes perpendicular to the length of the tab when used
fillet welds on both sides of the tab (except Test 2-C)
E70 electrode for welding
A36 material for the tabs
Gr50 material for the supporting members
8-ft. long columns and 10-ft. long girders with tabs at midlength
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Tensile properties of the tabs were obtained from extra plate material supplied with the specimens. Coupons
cut from the supporting member webs were used to determine tension properties (based on ASTM 370). The
measured values that are used in the calculation of limit states are given in Table 3.
TABLE 3 - MATERIAL PROPERTIES
MEMBER
UNSTIFFENED
3/8-in. TAB
-in. TAB
W14x53 WEB
W24x55 WEB
W8x31 WEB
W14x90 WEB
STIFFENED
-in. TAB (W8,W24)
-in. TAB (W14s)
W14x53 WEB
W24x55 WEB
W8x31 WEB
W14x90 WEB

THICKNESS
(in.)

YIELD
(ksi)

ULTIMATE
(ksi)

% ELONGATION

0.371

0.506
0.370
0.392
0.288
0.468

42.6
40.5
54.2
55.1
55.2
56.7

66.5
63.6
70.8
70.1
75.3
71.7

34
36
38
38
31
37

0.246
0.247
0.363
0.382
0.276
0.473

44.4
45.7
55.5
59.2
55.7
55.5

72.3
69.8
73.8
73.6
73.6
70.8

33
30
29
30
28
30

As indicated in the Table, the in. tabs for the stiffened W14 girder and column tests were from a different
material than the other stiffened tests. The values reported for the stiffened webs are an average of all the
members in a Group.
TEST RESULTS

The most important information in developing a design procedure is:

the eccentricity of the shear relative to bolt line
the ultimate load
the failure mode
The tests were terminated when the distortions posed a stability problem to the test setup. However, as
indicated in data plots, either the shear-deflection or shear-twist curves approached a level condition,
indicating that failure was imminent. Although the exact failure mode is sometimes difficult to determine, a
judgement as to the primary failure and observations of secondary modes that were developing was made. In

15-7
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

all cases, there was significant and permanent shear distortion of the tab, although this did not lead to a loss of
load.
Eccentricity
The shear eccentricity relative to the bolt line and welds is important in evaluating several of the limit states
applicable to tab connections. The AISC Manual (1994) contains eccentricity equations relative to the bolt
line for flexible and rigid supports with standard and short slotted holes. These equations involve the number
of bolts, n, and the spacing between the welds and bolt line, a.

Rigid - Standard:
(5)

Rigid - Slotted:
(6)

Flexible - Standard:
(7)

Flexible - Slotted:
(8)

From the tests of shear tabs on HSS columns, where the wall has boundary conditions similar to a W column
web, Sherman & Ales (1991) proposed an empirical equation that involves the wall stiffness of the supporting
member (h/t for a column web) and the stiffness of the beam, L/d, in addition to the length of the tab, L. The
eccentricity in inches from the weld is:

(9)

The eccentricity from the bolts line, e b , is determined by subtracting e w from the distance a. Since this
equation is based on tests with only vertical welds, it should not be used for the current stiffened weld
configurations. The eccentricity used for stiffened weld configurations should be to the centroid of the weld
group as defined in the LRFD Manual (1994).

Measured eccentricities are based on the pairs of strain gages mounted on the supported beam. Although this
is an extrapolation of data and not precise, the results are consistent with the failure modes observed in the
tests. Data plots show that the measured eccentricity varies with the shear. However, as the ultimate shear is
approached, the eccentricity tends toward a constant value and this is the value that is critical for evaluating
the limit states. Table 4 compares the measured eccentricities relative to the bolt line with the various
predictions. The a distance used in the AISC equations for the stiffened tests is taken as the distance from the
weld group centroid to the bolt line. In Table 4, negative values indicate that the shear force is between the
weld and bolt line, while for positive values it is outside the bolt line. Although the AISC equations give

absolute values which are satisfactory for designing the bolts, negative values have been tabulated for
comparison with the experimental values.

15-8
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

TABLE 4 - SHEAR ECCENTRICITIES RELATIVE TO THE BOLT LINE (in.)

EXP.

TEST

AISC

S&A

Rig-STD

Rig-SSL

Flex-STD

Flex-SSL

-3.2
-5.8
-3.3
-6.5

-4.85
-2.30
-4.86
-6.04

-4.85
-2.97
-4.86
-6.71

-6.85
-6.30
-6.86
-10.04

-6.85

n.a.

-6.30
-6.86
-10.04

n.a.
-4.40
-8.51

-2.8

-4.50

-1.98

-1.98
-3.91

-3.91

-4.50

-2.65

-3.91

-4.92

-6.50

-5.98

-5.98
-5.91

-5.91

-6.50

-5.98

-5.91

-8.25

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

UNSTIFFENED

1-U, W14 gird.

2-U, W24 gird.
3-U, W8 col.
4-U, W14 col.
STIFFENED
1-A, W14 gird.
1-B
2-A, W24 gird.
2-B
2-C
3-A, W8 col.
3-B
3-C
3-D
3-E
4-A, W14 col.
4-B
4-C

-2.2
-4.3
-5.0
-4.9
-0.3
-0.2
2.6
0.5
0.4
-1.7
-0.3
-1.5

44

-4.73
-4.25

-4.25

"
44

-8.25

-8.25

n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.

None of the equations give a consistent accurate prediction of the measured eccentricity. For TEST 3-U and 4U with column supporting members, the AISC equations for rigid supports are reasonable, as are the Sherman
& Ales equation. TEST 2-U with a girder supporting member correlates better with the AISC flexible support,
but this is not the case for TEST 1-U. However, the girder h/t for Test 2-U is much higher.

A similar trend is evident for the stiffened connections. The Group 2 tests with a flexible girder web are in
better agreement with the AISC flexible support equations. The other Groups agree better with the rigid
equations and the AISC values are larger than the measured, which is conservative for evaluating limit states
associated with the bolts. There is no consistent trend in the eccentricities between STD and SSL holes. For
the Group 1 and Group 3 connections with three bolts, the AISC equations show no difference for hole type,
which agrees with the measured values. For five-bolt connections, AISC predicts the same or larger
eccentricities for SSL holes, but the measured values in Group 4 indicate the opposite.

Ultimate Capacity and Limit States

The ultimate shear forces for the tests, Vex , are shown in Table 5. The tests were terminated when the sheardistortion curves flattened. The flattening of the curve corresponded to considerable distortion in the
connection and further loading may have caused damage to the test setup. The failure modes have also been
identified. To some extent, that is a judgement since several conditions usually existed simultaneously.
Secondary failure modes are listed in parentheses.

15-9
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

The standard AISC limit states for single plate connections that were evaluated are taken from the AISC HSS
Connections Manual (1997.) This Manual identifies the limit states, provides the equation for evaluating the
capacity and gives references for the source of the equations. These limit states are:
bolt shear using an ultimate analysis that includes eccentricity
bolt bearing in the tab based on the bolt shear analysis
gross shear of the tab
net shear rupture in the tab at the bolt line
block shear rupture in the tab
weld capacity based on an ultimate analysis including eccentricity (However, if the AISC
recommendation of using a weld size that is of the tab thickness is used, the weld capacity will
never control.)
Beam web limit states are not considered in these tests, since they never control.
The critical AISC capacities in Table 5 are calculated using the thickness and material strengths in Table 3
and the weld to bolt line spacing in Tables 1 and 2. No resistance factors are included. The AISC capacities
are calculated using the appropriate AISC eccentricity equation and using the measured eccentricity from
Table 4. The critical limit state is identified. For the Group 2 tests with high h/t webs, the AISC eccentricity
values for flexible supports were used, since these correlated better with the experimental eccentricities.
Eccentricities for a rigid support produced capacities that were greater than the experimental loads in the
Group 2 tests, and are not reported.
In addition to the strength limit states, there are two tab thickness checks to insure rotation and prevent
buckling. The -in. and 3/8-in. tabs meet both criteria, but the -in. tab is somewhat thicker than the 0.438in. limit (calculated by db /2 + 1/16 ) for rotation capacity.
During the tests with unstiffened connections and column supporting members, considerable distortion of the
column web was observed. Therefore, an additional limit state of a yield line mechanism in the column web
has been included for these tests. The equation for the moment capacity of this mechanism is taken from
Abolitz & Warner (1965.)

(10)

where: ew is the shear eccentricity to the welds

h is the depth of the column web (nominal h/t times t)
tw is the column web thickness
Fyw is the column web yield strength
L is the length of the tab
Due to differing web boundary conditions with the girder supporting members or for stiffened connections, the

yield line mechanism does not apply.

Table 5 also contains the capacity, V3 , that would be predicted by AISC if the distance between the bolt line
and welds was the standard 3-in. Although this has no meaning for the tests, it is included to indicate the
amount of strength reduction associated with extended shear tabs.

15-10
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

TABLE 5 - MAXIMUM SHEAR AND LIMIT STATE CAPACITIES (KIPS)

TEST

EXPERIMENTAL

Vex

FAILURE

CRITICAL AISC

MODE

Vth
(AISC e)

LIMIT

AISC TYP.
LIMIT

STATE

Ve
(MEAS. e)

STATE

V3

UNSTIFFENED

1-U

58.7

89.3
54.8
98.7

b (d,a)
f (e,a,b)
e (a)
f (e,a)

36.1
61.7
31.5
80.9

a
a
a
a

45.6
70.2
41.0
64.3

a
a
e
a

72.6

2-U

58.3
54.6
89.0
92.6
83.3
53.2
53.1
22.1
51.1
48.1
103
107
107

c (f,b)
c (f,b)
c,f (b)
c,f (b)
c,f (b)
c,f
c,f
c,f
c,f
c,f
c,f
c,f
c,f

34.1
34.1
68.6
68.6
68.6
38.9
38.9

38.9
32.4
86.1
78.7
86.1

a
a
a
a
a
a
a

a
a
a
a
a

49.8
56.7
85.5
77.9
78.9
59.0
59.0

59.0
59.0
102
102
102

a
a
a
a
a
c
c

c
c
c
c
c

61.0
61.0
98.3
98.3

59.0
59.0

59.0

98.3
98.3
98.3

3-U
4-U
STIFFENED
1-A
1-B
2-A
2-B
2-C
3-A
3-B
3-C
3-D
3-E
4-A
4-B
4-C

142
72.6
144

a - bolt shear; b - bolt bearing; c - shear yield; d - shear rupture; e - web mechanism; f - twist
A number of observations can be made from Table 5.

1. The calculated capacities are conservative compared to the test capacities. Therefore, current design
procedures with appropriate determination of the a distance are conservative.
2. Except for Test 4-U, the calculated capacities based on measured eccentricities correlate better with test
capacities than the capacities based on AISC eccentricities. The latter always produce bolt shear as the
critical limit state.
3. In Test 3-U and the stiffened tests in Group 3 and 4, a change in the eccentricity not only affects the
calculated capacity, but may also change the governing limit state.
4. The support web mechanism must be considered for unstiffened connections to columns with high
5. For unstiffened connections, the capacity is significantly less than a typical tab of the same thickness with
3-in. between the weld and bolt line. However, unstiffened tabs could still be used for small beam
reactions. The reduction is not as great for stiffened connections and the reduction is less than 10%,
except for the elongated tab in Test 3-E. The reductions when the support is a girder with just one
horizontal weld is similar to those for supporting columns with two horizontal welds.
6. Comparing Tests A and B in each of the Groups with stiffened connections, using snug bolts in STD holes
or tightened bolts in SSL holes does not influence the capacity. No tests were conducted with snug tight
bolts in SSL holes.
7. From Test 3-C, the vertical weld to the supporting web is essential. This test failed at a low load when
plastic beam mechanisms developed in both the upper and lower stiffeners. Thicker stiffeners or welding

15-11
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

the stiffeners to the supporting web would increase the capacity, but would probably not be as effective as
including the vertical welds.
8. Test 2-C has a somewhat lower capacity than Test 2-A, indicating that two vertical fillet welds are
preferable to a single larger weld on just one side.
9. Since Test 3-D has a similar capacity to 3-A, welding the stiffening plates to the column web, as would be
done for continuity plates, is not a significant factor.
10. Comparing Test 2-B vs. 2-A and 4-C vs. 4-A, providing lateral bracing that prevents twist to the beam
does not have an influence on the capacity.
BEHAVIOR
Two types of behavior that were observed in the tests deserve some comments. These are the termination of
linear load-deflection behavior and twisting of the tab. Both of these were observed well before the
termination of the tests and do not represent failure limit states.

Nonlinear Behavior

In all of the tests, there was considerable permanent shear distortion that was visually evident and was
reflected in the load-deflection curves. Table 6 presents three loads concerning linear behavior. V1 is the
measured load where the load-deflection curve became nonlinear, V2 is when strain gauge data indicates that
shear yielding had occurred in the tab, and Vy is the calculated load for shear yielding through the depth of the
tab. The ultimate experimental load, Vex is included as a reference.
TABLE 6 - LOADS RELATED TO LINEARITY
TEST
UNSTIFFENED
1-U

2-U
3-U
4-U
STIFFENED
1-A
1-B
2-A
2-B
2-C
3-A
3-B
3-D
3-E
4-A
4-B
4-C

V1 (kips)

V2 (kips)

Vy (kips)

Vex (kips)

48

65
37
82

81
>54.8
>98.7

85.3
142
85.3
184

54.8
98.7
54.8
98.7

42
44
64
69
65
37
38
38
40
88
84
84

93
97

59.0
59.0
98.3
98.3
98.3
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
102
102
102

58.3
54.6
89.0
92.6
83.3
53.2
53.1
51.1
48.1
103
107
107

Nonlinear behavior began at nearly the same load level in all stiffened tests in a Group. In all cases, it was
observed well below the calculated yield load. Therefore, it should be considered a system connection
phenomenon. It is not an indication of imminent failure. The calculated yield load is generally greater than
the ultimate test load, although shear yielding was evident in gross distortion of the tab and by flaking of the

applied whitewash. This behavior was also observed in previous tests by Sherman and Ales (1991).

15-12
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

Twisting
Particularly in the tests with five bolts in the connection, twisting was also observed. The tab and the
supported beam web twisted and a separation between them occurred at the bottom of the tab. The separation
was such that a shim could be inserted as far as the bottom bolt. A limit state was developed for pure torsion
of the rectangular tab cross section with the torsion taken as the shear force times 1/3 of the sum of the tab and
beam web thickness. Considering the shear force acting at a third of the thickness was verified by finite
element analysis that match measured strains. Failure is defined when the maximum shear stress reaches the
shear yield of the material. The resulting limit state is:

(11)

The torsion limit state, Vt, average termination of load-deflection linearity, V1 and the average ultimate
experimental strengths are in shown in Table 7.
TABLE 7 - SHEAR AT YIELD FOR TORSION
TEST

Vt

V1

Vex

1-U
2-U
3-U
4-U

35.7
60.9
35.7
93.2

48
65
37
82

58.7
89.3
54.8
98.7

GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 3

19.1
32.6
19.1
33.8

43
65
38
85

56
89
52
101

UNSTIFFENED

STIFFENENED

There appears to be some correlation between termination of linear behavior and the torsion limit state. Since
torsion and shear both produce vertical shear stresses in the tab, it is logical to assume that they combine in
some way to initiate yielding and produce nonlinear behavior. However, analysis combining the two stresses
and setting the sum equal to the shear yield, produces shear forces that are considerably below the observed
nonlinear behavior. The initiation of nonlinear behavior does not represent a failure limit state since it occurs
well below ultimate shear forces. However, the full shear yield limit state still correlates reasonably well with
experimental strengths in some tests.
Lateral-torsional buckling was considered as a limit state associated with twist, as it is for coped beams.
(Cheng and Yura, 1985). However, since the computed critical shear for full yielding is much lower than the
ultimate experimental shear and the addition of torsional bracing near the connection had no influence on the
ultimate load, lateral-torsional buckling was not considered to be a factor. In addition, load-deflection and
load-twist curves did not indicate a drop in load as is typical of stability failures. At the same time, it must be
recognized that the tab support has little torsional stiffness at high loads and the beam must be prevented from
rolling as a rigid body. The history of using tabs in practice indicates that lateral bracing and typical floor
framing near the connection are sufficient.

15-13
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

DESIGN PROCEDURE
A design procedure has been developed based on an examination of the test results presented in this paper.
First, however, the limits of applicability must be defined.
1.

The number of bolts should be from two to five. Since five bolt connections were the largest that were
tested, extrapolation to larger connections is outside the range of the data base, and caution is required.
2. A vertical weld to the web of the supporting member is required and all welds should be in pairs on both
sides of the tab.
3. The bolt line should be 3-in. beyond the flange tip of the supporting member.
4. Either STD or SSL holes may be used. Bolts should be fully tightened in SSL holes but may be snug tight
in STD holes.

5. Stiffeners between column flanges do not have to be welded to the column web, but they may be if the
stiffener also serves as a continuity plate.
6. Any elongated length of the tab between the column flanges should not exceed twice the length of the tab
at the connection.
7. Rigid body twist of the beam must be prevented by bracing or floor framing.
For connections that meet the limits of applicability, the following design procedure may be used.
a.) Determine the tab thickness for stability. Use the larger thickness from Equations (2) and (3) for
unstiffened tabs, where V is the required shear. For stiffened tabs, only Equation (3) applies.
b.) Determine the distance a from the centroid of the weld group to the bolt line. The centroid is at the welds
for unstiffened connections and Table 8-42 or 8-44 of the AISC Manual (1994) are convenient for
determining the weld centroid for stiffened connections.
c.) Determine the eccentricity e of the shear force relative to the bolt line. It is permissible to use the AISC
equations for eccentricity. In lieu of these, a less conservative but still satisfactory design may be obtained
using:
e = a for
of the supporting member > 35
e = 0.5a for unstiffened connections with
e = 0.5a for stiffened connections to girders with
e = 0.25a for stiffened connections to columns with
d.) Using AISC criteria (AISC HSS Connections Manual, 1997), determine the critical limit state based on
bolt shear
bolt bearing in the tab
90% of shear yielding on the gross area (reduce an additional 10% for elongated tabs on columns)
shear rupture on the net section
block shear rupture
e.) For unstiffened connections to column webs, also determine the yield line mechanism by Equation (10)
f.) Use a weld size equal to of the plate thickness.
g.) Examine the beam web for bolt bearing.
Table 8 compares the design strengths, Vn, determined by the proposed procedure with the unstiffened and the
average of the A and B stiffened experimental strengths for each Group.

15-14
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

TABLE 8 - COMPARISONS OF DESIGN SHEAR STRENGTHS (kips)

GROUP
UNSTIFFENED
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
STIFFENED
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4

Vn

Vex

44
66
43
78

59
89
55
99

45
69
53
91

56
91
53
105

The design strengths are conservative with respect to the experimental capacities and are between the
capacities calculated using AISC and measured eccentricities in Table 5.
CONCLUSION
A design procedure for extended shear tabs has been developed. It is based on a series of 17 tests that
included several variations in the weld configuration to the supporting member. The procedure is a
modification of existing AISC criteria for shear tabs. A yield mechanism of the web of a supporting column is
a new limit state that was identified. More study is required to determine if the procedure can be used for
connections with more than five bolts
REFERENCES

Abolitz, A.L. and Warner, M.E., 1965, "Bending Under Seated End Connections," Engineering Journal,
AISC, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.1-5.
American Institute of Steel Construction, 1994, Manual of Steel Construction LRFD, Vol. II, Connections,
2nd ed., AISC, Chicago, IL.

American Institute of Steel Construction, 1997, HSS Connections Manual, AISC, Chicago, IL.

Cheng, J.J.R., Yura, J.A., and Johnson, C.P., 1988, "Lateral Buckling of Coped Steel Beams," Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No.1, January, ASCE, New York, NY.
Sherman, D.R. and Ales, J.M., 1991, "The Design of Shear Tabs With Tubular Columns," Proceedings of the
1991 National Steel Construction Conference, pp. 23.1-24.14, AISC, Chicago, IL.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research was supported by AISC. Tests specimens were fabricated and supplied by Ace Iron & Steel Co.
of Milwaukee, WI. The testing and data evaluation was conducted by a very capable graduate student, Steven
Rech.

15-15
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.