SLIP CRITICAL JOINTS

 Joints subject to fatigue load with

reversal of loading directions
 Joints that utilize oversize holes
 Joints that utilize slotted holes
 Joints in which slip at the faying
surfaces would be detrimental
 Joints where bearing connection is not
practical
Slip Critical Joint
Relies on friction between
faying surfaces for load
bearing.
 AISC 2010 Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings
 Class A
 µ = 0.30
 Uncoated clean mill
scale
 Roughened
galvanized surfaces
 Class B
 μ = 0.50
 Unpainted blast
cleaned surfaces
 Class B coatings on
blast cleaned steel
 EARLY TEST RESULTS
Current provisions for slip performance of galvanized
specimens are based on limited data that is not
reflective of current galvanizing processes.

 Grondin, Gilbert Yves, Ming Jin, and Georg Josi. Slip Critical Bolted Connections: A Reliability Analysis
for Design at the Ultimate Limit State. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of
Alberta, 2007.
 EARLY TEST – SURFACE
ROUGHENING
 Early tests done on galvanized plates
showed roughening improved the slip
performance.

 Kulak, G. L., J. W. Fisher, and J. H. Struik. "Guide to design criteria for bolted and riveted joints,
1987.“ American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Il.
 CURRENT SLIP FACTOR
 RCSC has assigned slip factor of 0.35 to
roughened galvanized surfaces
 AISC has assigned slip factor of 0.30 to roughened
galvanized surfaces
 Roughening method mentioned by both is wire
brushing
 No further definition of wire brushing is available
 All early data was based on a limited number of
samples and no generally accepted test method
 AGA STUDY
 Determine the galvanizer with the lowest “as
received” slip factor – the worst case
 Determine if wire brushing changes the “as
received” slip factor
 Use a Class B coating to increase the slip
coefficient of galvanized steel to Class B
 Paint Preparation needs to be practical and
produce a Class B slip factor
 Application of paint by galvanizer should be
feasible in galvanizing facility
 “AS RECEIVED” TESTS
 Six Galvanizing kettles were
chosen based on differences
in chemistry
 Three tests were performed
for each bath for repeatability
 Bath which produced lowest
slip coefficient to be used in
further testing – worst case
 “AS RECEIVED” SLIP FACTORS
Kettle Average Slip Coefficient
A 0.31
B 0.33
C 0.35
D 0.36
E 0.58
F 0.20
 SURFACE ROUGHNESS
 Surface roughness measurements made in
accordance with ASTM D7127
 Rt is the distance between the highest peak and
lowest valley within a given evaluation length
 Surface roughness produced by wire brushing
 SURFACE ROUGHNESS
Surface Roughness and Slip Coefficient
0.7
0.6
Slip Coefficient

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10 15 20 25 30 35
Average Rt (microns)
 PAINT PREP METHOD
Prep Method Slip Coefficient
Control 0.29
Wire Brushing 0.25
Sandpaper 0.39
Surface Etchant 0.26
Picklex 0.30
 CLASS B PAINT OVER HDG
 Nine paints were chosen for the study
 Mostly zinc silicates
 Chosen because PDS claims of achieving Class B
slip coefficient
 “Sandpaper Roughening” from previous testing was
chosen
 One test was used for each paint
 PAINT TEST RESULTS
Paint Slip Coefficient
Control (no paint) 0.34
A 0.45
B 0.48
C 0.48
D 0.39
E 0.48
F 0.53
G 0.23
H 0.44
I 0.55
 PAINT QUALIFICATION TESTS
 Paint Preparation - Chemical
 Four paints are chosen
 Highest slip coefficient
 Most practical
 Results disappointing
 None of the paints gave qualifying slip
factors for Category B
 FHWA SLIP TEST STUDY
 Perform Round Robin Test on four labs
performing slip test
 FHWA Lab
 CCC&L Lab
 University of Texas
 KTA Tator Lab
 Test results showed inconsistency in test
results
 Recommendation that two Linear Variable
Differential Transformers (LVDTs) be used
in slip tests
 AISC SLIP TEST STUDY
 Project aims to increase the experimental
database of slip performance of modern
galvanized pieces.
 Determine the slip strength of untreated
galvanized pieces
 Investigate the effect of different galvanizers,
steel chemistry and other variables on the slip
behavior of galvanized plates
 Evaluate the effectiveness of roughening
galvanized surfaces, and, if needed,
recommend a more precise procedure for
roughening
 VARIABLES INVESTIGATED
1) Coating Thickness
2) Steel Chemistry (2 different steels)
3) Pickling Acid
4) Variation Among Galvanizers
5) Bath Consistency
6) Spinning of Galvanized Plates
7) Surface Roughening
 PREPARATION OF PLATES
 Holes drilled by Fabricator
 Plates cut by University
GALVANIZING OF PLATES
COATING TOUCH-UP
 TEST SETUP AND PROCDURE
 Tests conducted in accordance with RCSC - App. A

Schematic of Test Setup

RCSC Figure A-3 (Recreated) for Compression Slip Test Setup
23
 INITIAL RESULTS SLIP TEST
 Compared with previous slip studies, modern
galvanizing produces coatings with much higher slip
coefficients.

Tabulated slip
coefficients
represent a five-test
average

24
SLIP VERSUS COATING THICKNESS
 In general, coating thickness did not have a
significant and consistent impact on the measured
slip coefficient.

25
 SLIP VERSUS CENTRIFUGING
 Despite the apparent change in coating structure, the
effect of spinning on slip coefficient was minimal.

29
 SUMMARY OF AISC TESTS
 Bath chemistry and galvanizing process can vary
between galvanizers, produce significantly different slip
coefficients, however all galvanizers produced
coefficients higher than historically assumed.
 Changes in bath chemistry over time had little effect on
the slip coefficient of galvanized pieces.
 Spinning of galvanized plates had limited impact on slip
performance.
 Surface roughening did not improve slip performance.
 The roughening procedures often reduced the
measured slip resistance and should probably
therefore be removed.

31
 FUTURE TEST PLANS
 Qualification Tests with candidate paint systems –
Class B qualification
 Metallized Coatings in contact with Galvanized
Coatings
 Creep Tests on Galvanized and Metallized
Coatings
 Creep Tests on qualified paint systems over
galvanized coatings