THE SEMINAR REPORT ENTITLED

BLOCK SHEAR FAILURE IN TENSION MEMBERS

Submitted to the

DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED MECHANICS

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the award of the degree
of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted by Guided by
PRAKASH AGARWAL Prof. A J SHAH

DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED MECHANICS

S V NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SURAT - 395007 GUJARAT
DECEMBER 2009
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the seminar entitled ‘BLOCK SHEAR FAILURE IN

TENSION MEMBERS’ submitted by PRAKASH AGARWAL in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree in BACHELOR OF
TECHNOLOGY IN CIVIL ENGINEERING of Sardar Vallabhbhai National
Institute of Technology, Surat is the record of his own work carried out under my
supervision and guidance. The matter embodied in the seminar has not been
submitted elsewhere for the award of any degree or diploma.

A J SHAH Anant M Parghi Dr A K Desai

Lecturer Lecturer Associate professor
Faculty Supervisor Seminar Coordinator Head of the department
Dept. of Applied Mechanics Dept. of Applied Mechanics Dept. of Applied Mechanics
SVNIT, SURAT SVNIT, SURAT SVNIT, SURAT
 EXAMINER’S CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

The seminar entitled ‘BLOCK SHEAR FAILURE IN TENSION MEMBERS’

submitted by PRAKASH AGARWAL in partial fulfillment for the award of the
degree in Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering of Sardar Vallabhbhai
National Institute of Technology, Surat is hereby approved for the award of the
degree.

Examiners:

1.

2.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This seminar work would not have been possible without the valuable guidance of
Prof. A J Shah of Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat. I hereby take this
opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude and indebtedness to him. His
kind cooperation and the interactive environment ensured the successful
completion of this work.

I am also thankful to our teaching and non-teaching staff members and all my
friends who helped me avail the necessary information for the completion of this
seminar work.
 CONTENTS

ABSTRACT (i)
LIST OF FIGURES (ii)
NOMENCLATURE (iii)

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Tension Members 1
1.3 Behaviour of Tension Members 3
1.4 Design Strength of Tension Members 4
1.5 Block Shear Failure Mechanism 7
1.6 AISC 2005 Specification for Block Shear 9
1.7 Eurocode 3 Specification for Block Tearing 10

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 12

2.1 Introduction 12
2.2 Study of Ling et al. (2007) 13
2.3 Study of Yam et al (2007) 13
2.4 Study of Topkaya (2004) 14
2.5 Study of Gupta and Gupta (2004) 15
2.6 Study of Epstein and McGinnis (2000) 16

3.0 NUMERICAL EXAMPLE 17

3.1 Problem Statement 17

3.2 Solution 17

4.0 CONCLUSION 20

REFERENCES 21
 ABSTRACT

Block shear is a limit state that should be accounted for during the design of steel tension
members. This failure mechanism combines a tensile failure on one plane and a shear failure on
a perpendicular plane. It is important for a design equation not only to predict the capacity
reliably, but also to predict accurately the failure mode.

In this study, we begin with an overview of tension members, their behaviour and design
strength which is affected by yielding, fracture or block shear. Different codal provisions in IS
800: 2007 for tension members have been dealt, with a special focus on block shear and its
failure mechanism. Latest specifications on block shear in AISC 2005 and Eurocode 3 have also
been explained so as to provide a broader view of the standards being adopted worldwide to
check failure of structures by block shear.

Recent developments in block shear research have also been discussed, both finite element
analysis and experimental programs. Block shear failure is not just limited to bolted connections
and keeping this in mind, research works conducted on block shear in bolted as well as welded
steel sections have been presented herein.

Finally, a numerical on block shear has been solved using the provisions in IS 800, AISC 2005
and Eurocode 3. The results obtained shows the given section to be safe from block shear failure;
with the Eurocode provisions predicting the lowest design strength (though more than the
applied reaction), AISC value being the highest and IS 800 values somewhere in the middle
range. Based on these findings and studies, a conclusion has been arrived at and presented at the
end of the report.

i
 LIST OF FIGURES

Sl. No. TITLE Page No.

Fig. 1.1 Tension members in buildings and bridges 2

Fig. 1.2 Cross-section of typical tension members 3
Fig. 1.3 Load – Elongation of tension members 3
Fig. 1.4 Stress concentration due to holes 5
Fig. 1.5 Typical block shear failure geometry 6
Fig. 1.6 Block shear failure in plates and angles 7
Fig. 1.7 Examples of block shear failure 8
Fig. 1.8 Block shear rupture in a gusset plate 9
Fig. 1.9 Block Tearing 11
Fig. 2.1 Non-uniform stress distribution along the gross shear plane 15
Fig. 3.1 ISMB 600 17

ii
 NOMENCLATURE

Ag - Gross cross-sectional area

An - Net area of the total cross-section
Atg - Gross cross-sectional in tension from the centre of the hole to the toe of the
angle section / channel section, etc perpendicular to the line of force.
Atn - Net sectional in tension from the centre of the hole to the toe of the angle
perpendicular to the line of force.
Avg - Gross cross-sectional area in shear along the line of transmitted force
Avn - Net cross-sectional area in shear along the line of transmitted force
fy - Characteristic yield stress
fu - Characteristic ultimate tensile stress
Rn - Nominal resistance (AISC 2005)
Tdg - Yielding strength of gross section under axial tension
Tdn - Rupture strength of net section under axial tension
Tdb - Block shear strength at end connection
Ubs - Reduction factor in block shear (AISC 2005)
Veff, 1, Rd - Block shear strength for centric loading (Eurocode 3)
Veff, 2, Rd - Block shear strength for eccentric loading (Eurocode 3)
γm0 - Partial safety factor for failure in tension by yielding (IS 800: 2007)
γm1 - Partial safety factor against ultimate tensile failure by rupture (IS 800: 2007)
γM0 - Partial factor for resistance of cross-sections (Eurocode 3)
γM2 - Partial factor for resistance to breakage of cross-sections in tension (Eurocode 3)
∅ - Resistance factor (AISC 2005 LRFD)
Ω - Safety factor (AISC 2005 ASD)

iii
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Tension members with bolted ends are frequently used as principal structural members in
trusses and lateral bracing systems. These members are designed to resist yielding of the gross
section, rupture of the minimum net section and block shear failure during the lifetime of the
structure. Block shear is known to be a potential failure mode which can control the load
capacity of several different types of bolted connections, including shear connections at the ends
of coped beams, tension member connections and gusset plates. A block shear failure of the
connection includes shear yield or rupture through the line of bolts parallel to the applied load,
and tensile yield or rupture along a plane perpendicular to the loads. In some cases, the ‘block’ of
material bounded by these two planes may separate completely from the angle; this is the
mechanism assumes by IS 800:2007 in the design of steel tension members.

High strength bolts are used extensively for connecting structural steel elements in a
variety of applications, including tension member end connections and coped beam simple
connections. Due to their high strength, a relatively small number of bolts are needed for a given
connection, and the area bounded by these fasteners is relatively small. As a result, bolted
connections can exhibit a failure mode known as block shear, wherein a ‘block’ of the connected
element is partially driven from the remainder of the element.

1.2 Tension Members

Tension members are linear members in which axial forces act so as to elongate (stretch)
the member. A rope, for example, is a tension member. Tension members carry loads most
efficiently, since the entire cross section is subjected to uniform stress. Unlike compression
members, they do not fail by buckling. Ties of trusses [Fig 1.1 (a)], suspenders of cable-stayed
and suspension bridges [Fig.1.1 (b)], suspenders of buildings systems hanging from a central
core [Fig.1.1 (c)] (used in earthquake prone zones as a way of minimising inertia forces on the
structure), and sag rods of roof purlins [Fig 1.1 (d)] are other examples of tension members.

1
 Tension members are also encountered as bracings used for lateral load resistance. In X
type bracings [Fig.1.1 (e)] the member which is under tension, due to lateral load acting in one
direction, undergoes compressive force, when the direction of the lateral load is changed and
vice versa. Hence, such members may have to be designed to resist tensile and compressive
forces.

Fig. 1.1 Tension members in buildings and bridges

Tension members can have a variety of cross sections. Any cross-sectional configuration
may be used, because for any given material, the only determinant of the strength of a tension
member is the cross-sectional area. Circular rods and rolled angle shapes are frequently used.
Built-up shapes either from plates, rolled shapes, or a combination of plates and rolled shapes are
sometimes used when large loads must be resisted.

The single angle and double angle sections [Fig 1.2(a)] are used in light roof trusses as in
industrial buildings. The tension members in bridge trusses are made of channels or I sections,
acting individually or built-up [Figs. 1.2(b) and 1.2(c)]. The circular rods [Fig. 1.2 (d)] are used
in bracings designed to resist loads in tension only. They buckle at very low compression and are
not considered effective. Steel wire ropes [Fig.1.2 (e)] are used as suspenders in the cable
suspended bridges and as main stays in the cable-stayed bridges.

2
 Fig. 1.2 Cross-section of typical tension members

1.3 Behaviour of Tension Members:

Fig. 1.3 Load – Elongation of tension members

Since axially loaded tension members are subjected to uniform tensile stress, their load
deformation behaviour [Fig.1.3] is similar to the corresponding basic material stress strain
behaviour. Mild steel members exhibit an elastic range (a-b) ending at yield point (b). This is
followed by yield plateau (b-c). In the yield plateau the load remains constant as the elongation
increases to nearly ten times the yield strain. Under further stretching the material shows a
smaller increase in tension with elongation (c-d), compared to the elastic range. This range is
referred to as the strain hardening range. After reaching the ultimate load (d), the loading

3
decreases as the elongation increases (d-e) until rupture (e). High strength steel tension members
do not exhibit a well-defined yield point and a yield plateau [Fig.1.3]. The 0.2% offset load, T, as
shown in Fig. 1.3 is usually taken as the yield point in such cases.

1.4 Design Strength of Tension Members:

The strength of tension members based on IS 800:2007 is the minimum of the following
three categories as stated below:
 Yielding of the gross section, i.e. yielding of the tension member over the member length
away from the connection.
 Fracture of the effective net section, i.e. fracture of the tension member in the connection
region.
 Block shear rupture, i.e. tearing out of the connection due to the combination of tensile
and shear failure.

1.4.1 Design strength due to yielding of gross section:

Although steel tension members can sustain loads up to the ultimate load without failure,
the elongation of the members at this load would be nearly 10-15% of the original length and the
structure supported by the member would become unserviceable. Hence, in the design of tension
members, the yield load is usually taken as the limiting load. The corresponding design strength
in member under axial tension is given by:
Tdg = Ag fy / γm0 Eq. (1.1)
where,
fy is the yield strength of the material (in MPa),
Ag is the gross area of cross section, and
γm0 is the partial safety factor for failure in tension by yielding.
The value of γm0 according to IS 800:2007 is 1.10.

1.4.2 Design strength due to rupture of critical section:

A tension member is often connected to the main or other members by bolts or welds.
When connected using bolts, tension members have holes and hence reduced cross section, being
referred to as the net area. The tensile stress in a plate at the cross section of a hole is not

4
uniformly distributed in the elastic range, but exhibits stress concentration adjacent to the hole
[Fig. 1.4 (a)]. The ratio of the maximum elastic stress adjacent to the hole to the average stress
on the net cross section is referred to as the Stress Concentration Factor. This factor is in the
range of 2 to 3, depending upon the ratio of the diameter of the hole to the width of the plate
normal to the direction of stress.

Fig.1.4 Stress concentration due to holes

When a tension member with a hole is loaded statically, the point adjacent to the hole
reaches yield stress fy first. On further loading, the stress at that point remains constant at the
yield stress and the section plastifies progressively away from the hole [Fig. 1.4 (b)], until the
entire net section at the hole reaches the yield stress fy [Fig. 1.4(c)]. Finally, the rupture (tensile
failure) of the member occurs when the entire net cross section reaches the ultimate stress fu [Fig.
1.4(d)]. Here, only a small length of the member adjacent to the smallest cross section at the
holes would stretch a lot at the ultimate stress, and the overall member elongation will not be
large, as long as the stresses in the gross section is below the yield stress. Hence, the design
strength as governed by the net cross-section at the hole is given by:
Tdn = 0.9 fu An / γm1 Eq. (1.2)
where,
fu is the ultimate stress of the material,
An is the net area of the cross section after deductions for the hole, and
γm1 is the partial safety factor against ultimate tension failure by rupture.
The value of γm1 according to IS 800:2007 is 1.25.

5
1.4.3 Design strength due to block shear:
A tension member may fail along end connection due to block shear as shown in Fig. 1.5.
The corresponding design strength can be evaluated using the following equations. The block
shear strength, Tdb of a connection is taken as the smaller of,

T = Avg fy / √3 γm0 + 0.9 Atn fu / γm1 Eq. (1.3 a)

db

Or
T = 0.9 Avn fu / √3 γm1 + Atg fy / γm0 Eq. (1.3 b)
db

where,
Avg and Avn = minimum gross and net area in shear along a line of transmitted force
respectively, and
Atg and Atn = minimum gross and net area in tension from the hole to the toe of the
angle perpendicular to the line of force respectively.

Fig. 1.5 Typical block shear failure geometry

(Representation of Atn, Atg, Avn, Avg)

It can be seen from the above two equations that according to IS 800:2007, block shear
design strength is equivalent to strength of either shear yield and tensile rupture; or shear rupture
and tensile yield (whichever’s value is smaller).

6
1.5 Block Shear Failure Mechanism:
The design strength of tension members are not always controlled by factor of safety or
by the strength of the bolts or welds with which they are connected. They may instead be
controlled by block shear strength, as described below.

In block shear mode, the failure of the member occurs along a path involving tension on
one plane and shear on a perpendicular plane along the fasteners. Typical block shear failure
mechanism for plates and angles are shown in Fig. 1.6. The ‘block’ of the connected plate
bounded by the bolt holes tears out in this failure mechanism, in which tensile force is developed
along the section 2-3 and shear force develops along the section 1-2 and 4-3 (in case of the plate)
and section 1-2 (in case of the angle section).

Fig. 1.6 Block shear failure in plates and angles

When a tensile load applied to a particular connection is increased, the fracture strength
of the weaker plane approaches. This plane does not fail instantly, because it is restrained by the
stronger plane. The load can be increased until the fracture strength of the stronger plane is
reached and during this time, the weaker plane yields. The total strength of the connection equals
the fracture strength of the stronger plane plus the yield strength of the weaker plane. Thus, it is
not realistic to add the fracture strength of the other plane to determine the block shear resistance
of a particular member.

7
 It is also required to check the block shear failure mode around the periphery of welded
connections. Examples of block shear failures including failures in welded connections are given
in Fig. 1.7. It can be observed as shown in Fig. 1.7(a) that the gusset plate may fail in tension on
the net area of section a-a, and in Fig. 1.7(c) it may fail on the gross area of section a-a. The
angle member in Fig. 1.7(a) may also separate from the gusset plate by shear on net area 1-2
combined with tension on net area 2-2 as shown in Fig. 1.7(b). A similar fracture of the welded
connection of Fig. 1.7(c) is shown in Fig 1.7(d). The fracture of a gusset plate for a double angle
member or of one of the gusset plates for an I-section [Fig. 1.7(e)] is shown in Fig. 1.7(f). All
these failures [Figs. 1.7(b), (d) and (f)] are called block shear failures. However, it should be
noted that no net areas are involved in the failure of welded connections [Fig. 1.7(c)]. Therefore,
in applying Eqn. 1.3(a) Atg is to be used instead of Atn; and in Eqn. 1.3(b), Avn is to be replaced
by Avg.

Fig. 1.7 Examples of block shear failure

IS 800: 2007 assumes that when one plane, either tension or shear, reaches ultimate
strength the other plane develops full yield. This assumption results in two possible failure
mechanisms in which the controlling mode is the one having a smaller 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. Conversely, the second
failure mode assumes that rupture occurs along the net shear plane while full yield is developed
at the gross tension plane [Refer Eqns. 1.3(a) and (b)]. Since there is no reserve of any kind
beyond the ultimate resistance, an additional multiplier of 0.09 has been introduced in the said

8
equations. Such a high margin of safety has been traditionally used in design when considering
the fracture limit state than for yielding limit state. The 0.90 factor was included in the strength
equation based on a statistical evaluation of a large number of test results for net section failure
of plate.

Fig. 1.8 Block shear rupture in a gusset plate

1.6 AISC 2005 Specification for Block Shear:

The model used in the current specification (AISC 2005a) assumes that block shear
failure occurs by rupture (fracture) on the shear area and rupture on the tension area. Both
surfaces contribute to the total strength, and the resistance to block shear will be the sum of the
strengths of the two surfaces. The shear rupture stress is taken as 60% of the tensile ultimate
stress, so the nominal strength in shear is 0.6 fu Anv and the nominal strength in tension is fu Ant.
This gives a nominal strength of
Rn = 0.6 fu Anv + fu Ant Eq. (1.4)

9
 The AISC Specification uses Eqn. 1.4 for angles and gusset plates, but for certain types
of coped beam connections, the second term is reduced to account for non-uniform tensile stress.
The tensile stress is non-uniform when some rotation of the block is reqired for failure to occur.
For these cases,
Rn = 0.6 fu Anv + 0.5 fu Ant Eq. (1.5)

The AISC Specification limits the 0.6 fu Anv term to 0.6 fy Agv, where 0.6fy is equal to
shear field stress, and gives one equation to cover all cases as follows:
Rn = 0.6 fu Anv + Ubs fu Ant ≤ 0.6 fy Agv + Ubs fu Ant (AISC Eqn. J4-5) Eq. (1.6)
where
Ubs = 1.0 when the tension stress is uniform (angles, gusset plates and most coped beams)
and Ubs = 0.5 when the tension stress is non-uniform. The above specification can also be read
as: Rn = Shear Rupture + Tension Rupture < Shear Yield + Tension Rupture

For LRFD, the resistance factor ∅ is 0.75 and for ASD, the safety factor Ω is 2.0.
Although AISC Eqn. J4-5 is expressed in terms of bolted connections, block shear can also occur
in welded connections, especially in gusset plates.

1.7 Eurocode 3 Specification for Block Tearing:

In Eurocode 3 pr-EN 1993-1-8: 20xx, the design value for block shear (termed “block
tearing” in the standard) for symmetric bolt groups, under centric loading is determined from the
equation:
Veff,1,Rd = fu Ant / γM2 + (1 / √3) fy Anv / γM0 Eq. (1.7)
where
Ant = Net area subjected to tension,
Anv = Net area subjected to shear,
γM2 = 1.25 (partial factor for resistance to breakage of cross-sections in tension), and
γM0 = 1.00 (partial factor for resistance of cross-sections).

For beam end with a shear force acting eccentric relative to the bolt group, the design value for
block tearing Veff,2,Rd is determined from the following equation:
10
 Veff,2,Rd = 0.5 fu Anv / γM2 + (1 / √3) fy Ant / γM0 Eq. (1.8)

Thus Eqn. 1.8 considers block shear to be a combination of shear rupture and tensile
yield, as evidenced from the first and second term respectively.

The tensile failure occurs along the horizontal limit of the block, and shear plastic
yielding occurs along the left vertical limit of the block. The block is hatched in as shown in Fig.
1.9.

Fig. 1.9 Block Tearing

11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

In the past, a lot of research has been carried out by eminent people on block shear failure
and its properties. Along with experimental studies, finite element methods as well as statistical
studies have been employed in various research works.

Finite element methods have been used to study the behavior of structural members
subjected to block shear and net section failure modes. Ricles and Yura examined block shear
failure in coped beams using a two-dimensional elastic analysis. A modified block shear model
was proposed based on the stress distribution around the block. Epstein and Chamarajanagar
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 non-dimensionalised finite element results were compared with the results
of full scale testing. Kulak and Wu studied the shear lag effects on net section rupture of single
and double angle tension members. Angles were modeled with shell elements and multilinear
isotropic hardening behavior was assumed for the material response. The failure load was
considered 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. 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 surface 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.

Previous experimental studies have also been conducted to compare its findings with the
predictions of block shear capacity using finite element analysis. Hardash and Bjorhovde tested
28 specimens to develop an improved design method for gusset plates. Primary variables were

12
the gauge 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. A block shear model
incorporating a connection length factor was developed as part of their study. Gross et al. tested
13 angle specimens that failed in block shear. Connections had two to four bolts with a hole
diameter of 21 mm. The edge distance was varied between 32 mm and 50 mm in 6 mm
increments and test results obtained were compared with the code predictions. Similarly, Orbison
et al. tested 12 specimens that failed in block shear. Connections had two to four bolts with a
hole diameter of 27 mm. A hole spacing of 76 mm and an end distance of 63.5 mm was used in
all specimens. The edge distance was varied between 50.8 mm and 88.9 mm in 12.7 mm
increments. Recommendations were given based on the ultimate load and the strain variation
along the tension plane that was measured during the experiments.

2.2 Study of Ling et al. (2006)

Their study investigated block shear tearout (TO) failure in gusset-plate welded
connections in both very high strength (VHS) tubes and structural steel hollow sections (SSHS).
Twenty-five slotted gusset-plate welded connections in VHS tubes with various weld lengths
were studied under tension. The existing design rules for TO failure from the American,
Canadian, European and Australian standards were examined by comparing their predictions
with both test results from welded connections in VHS tubes and previous tests on similar
connections to SSHS. The results suggested that the existing design rules were not adequate to
predict the connection strength. Therefore, five modifications to the existing design rules were
examined. One of them, which used the proposed net tension area and the minimum material
yield stress and tensile strength provided strength predictions that agreed best with the test
results. From reliability analysis based on the first order second moment (FOSM) method, a
rounded value of 0.70 was proposed for the TO capacity or resistance factor.

2.3 Study of Yam et al. (2005)

Yam et al investigated the block shear strength and behavior of coped beams with welded
end connections and conducted ten full-scale coped beam tests. The failure mechanism in coped
beams with welded end connections was different from that with bolted end connections, since
there was no reduction in the web section area due to bolt holes. The test results showed that

13
only two of the ten specimens failed by block shear mode with tension fractures. Tension
fractures occurred abruptly in the beam web underneath the clip angles. No shear fractures were
observed and no tear-out type of block shear occurred. Local web buckling was also a potential
failure mode for coped beams with welded end connections. High compressive stresses and shear
stresses were localized in the web near the end of the cope due to the combination of bending
and shear in the reduced section, hence resulting in extensive yielding at the cope and inducing
local web buckling. However, the specimens exhibited significant deformation of the block shear
type prior to reaching their final failure mode.

The test parameters examined included the aspect ratio of the clip angles, the tension and
shear area of the web block, web thickness, beam section depth, cope length and connection
position. The results showed that the connection capacity increased as aspect ratio and shear area
increased. A large area of tension would increase the loading eccentricity and hence generate
more bending moments to the edge of the beam web region near the angle. A thin beam web and
long cope length increased the susceptibility to local web buckling. The depth of the beam
section and connected position did not greatly affect the connection capacity.

The design equations from current standards were used to evaluate the capacity of the
specimens. It was found that the existing design standards did not provide consistent predictions
of the block shear strength of coped beams with welded end connections. In addition, the rules
provided by the standards could not accurately reflect the failure mode observed in the tests.

2.4 Study of Topkaya (2004)

This study reported on the experimental testing of 11 welded gusset plate specimens
which were subjected to tension, and ultimately to block shear failure. In the experimental
program, the effects of connection geometry and weld group configuration were investigated.
Connection geometry and weld group configuration were the prime variables of the testing
program. Two different weld group configurations were examined. The failure loads obtained
from the experiments were compared with the predictions of resistance equations presented by
the design codes. Finally, finite element analyses were conducted to predict the failure loads of
the specimens and the respective load-carrying capacities of the shear and tension planes. The

14
study concluded that block shear failure could be observed for connection details with and
without welded tension planes; and that the mechanics of block shear failure for welded details
was different when compared with the bolted details. The tension plane in the welded connection
details could develop stresses in excess of the ultimate tensile strength due to the presence of
stress triaxiality. Finally, design recommendations were given based on the experimental and
numerical findings.

2.5 Study of Gupta and Gupta (2004)

Their study examined the block shear capacity of steel angles (single as well as double
angles), for bolt holes in one or more rows, and with staggered and non-staggered holes. Only
those specimens that follow all provisions regarding minimum pitch, edge and end distances
were included in the study. Angles composed of high strength steel were not included in their
study. An improved approach to compute the block gross shear area of specimens that had bolt
holes staggered such that the end distance along the row of bolts towards the heel was relatively
more, was suggested. The area as per their improved approach was termed as effective block
gross shear area and was somewhat less than the block gross shear area, as per current practice.
There was a considerable improvement in values of professional factors when the concept of
effective block gross shear area was used in the computations. Based on the findings, they
proposed a simple equation to give adequate results for single as well as double angles, for bolt
holes in one or more rows, and with staggered and non-staggered holes.

Fig. 2.1 Non-uniform stress distribution along the block gross shear plane

15
2.6 Study of Epstein and McGinnis (2000)
The goal of their study was to accurately model structural tee specimens using the finite
element method in order to predict the failure mode. In this way, it was believed that future tests
might be designed based on finite element results and the results of their tests might be correlated
with finite element results. The finite element models were accurate in predicting failure mode,
especially when compared to the results of the physical tests, and normalized failure load plots
showed similar shapes. Noteworthy was the strong analytical evidence for the formation of the
block shear failure mode on the alternative path as observed in many of the models. Another
interesting result was the unexpected formation of a compressive zone in the web of the tension
members at the leading set of bolt holes. In terms of behavior, it was noted that an eccentric
tension member was subjected not only to an axial force but also to a moment due to the
connection eccentricity. Opposing moments were also present, created by the reaction shears at
the bolt holes. During the work on failure mode matching, it appeared that better matches were
made when the U factor was included in the code equations. Further, when trying to match the
experimental results, the plots of normalized failure load versus depth also seemed to show the
appropriateness of adding the U factor to the code equations, perhaps in some modified form.

16
3. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE

3.1 Problem Statement

An ISMB 600 is connected to a column by web cleats with a single row of bolts. The
applied reaction is 350 kN and there are four 20-mm-diameter bolts through the web as shown in
Fig. 3.1. Now, this section will be checked for block shear failure using provisions of the IS
800:2007; AISC Specification 2005 (both LRFD and ASD); and Eurocode 3 (all of which have
been discussed in previous sections).

Fig. 3.1 ISMB 600

3.2 Solution
Yield stress of the material = fy = 250 N/mm2
Ultimate stress of the material = fu = 410 N/mm2

Plate or web thickness (ISMB 600) = 12 mm

Net length of shear face = (3 * 50 + 75) – (3.5 * 22) = 148 mm

Net length of tension face = 60 – (0.5 * 22) = 49 mm

Avg = 12 * (50 + 50 + 50 + 75) = 2700 mm2

Avn = 12 * 148 = 1776 mm2
Atg = 12 * 60 = 720 mm2
Atn = 12 * 49 = 588 mm2

17
Computing block shear strength using IS 800: 2007

γm0 = 1.10
γm1 = 1.25

T = Avg fy / √3 γm0 + 0.9 Atn fu / γm1

db1

= [2700 * 250 / (√3 * 1.1) + 0.9 * 588 * 410 / 1.25] / 1000 kN = 527.86 kN
or
T = 0.9 Avn fu / √3 γm1 + Atg fy / γm0
db2

= [0.9 * 1776 * 410 / (√3 * 1.25) + 720 * 250 / 1.1] / 1000 kN = 466.32 kN

Since T < Tdb1

db2

Therefore,
Tdb = 466.32 kN
The value of Tdb = 466.32 kN is much higher than the applied reaction of 350 kN and hence the
section will not fail by block shear.

Computing block shear strength using AISC 2005

Since stress distribution in I section is uniform, Ubs = 1.0

Nominal block shear strength
Rn = 0.6 fu Anv + Ubs fu Ant
= [(0.6 * 410 * 1776) + (1.0 * 410 * 588)] / 1000 = 677.98 kN
with an upper limit of
0.6 fy Agv + Ubs fu Ant = [(0.6 * 250 * 2700) + (1.0 * 410 * 588)] / 1000 = 646.08 kN
The nominal block shear strength is therefore 646.08 kN.

Resistance factor = ∅ = 0.75

The design strength for LRFD = ∅ Rn = 0.75 * 646.08 = 484.56 kN

18
Considering the design strength value obtained, we can see that it is greater than the applied
reaction of 350 kN and hence the section will not fail in block shear.

Computing block shear strength using Eurocode 3

γM0 = 1.00
γM2 = 1.25

For centric loading and symmetrical bolt group, the design value for block shear is
Veff,1,Rd = fu Ant / γM2 + (1 / √3) fy Anv / γM0
= [(410 * 588 / 1.25) + (250 * 1776 / √3 * 1.0)] / 1000 = 367.7 kN

Since the design value of 367.7 kN is higher than the 350 kN applied reaction, there will be no
block shear failure in the section.

Hence, the design block shear strength for different codes arranged in increasing order is:
Eurocode 3 < IS 800:2007 < AISC 2005 (LRFD value)
i.e. 367.7 kN < 466.32 kN < 484.56 kN
Thus, all the three standards give the design block shear strength which is greater than the
applied reaction of 350 kN.

19
4. CONCLUSION

Block shear failure is the important limit state that should be considered during the design
of steel tension members. When the steel tension member connections are relatively short, block
shear failure is usually the governing failure mode. A comparison of the various design standards
used for calculating block shear strength has revealed that there exist inconsistencies in
predicting the accurate design value.

Although the results obtained from the numerical shows that the considered section is
safe from block shear failure, the design capacities differ from each other by as much as 116.86
kN if we compare the end extreme values (i.e. 367.7 kN from Eurocode 3 and 484.56 kN from
AISC 2005). This can be explained from the fact that different standards consider different
modes of failure. For instance, IS 800 assumes block shear design strength to be equivalent to the
strength of either shear yield and tensile rupture; or shear rupture and tensile yield (whichever’s
value is smaller). AISC Specification can be read as: the summation of shear rupture and tension
rupture is less than shear yield and tension rupture combined. Also Eurocode 3 takes a different
view and considers block shear to be a combination of shear rupture and tensile yield only.

While calculating design strength, IS 800 does not incorporate factors like eccentricity
(but considered in Eurocode 3) and also does not check whether the tension stress is uniform or
non-uniform (but this is done in AISC 2005). Also, from previous research studies, it was noted
that eccentric tension members are subjected not only to axial forces but also to moments due to
connection eccentricities. Presence of in-plane eccentricity can reduce the block shear load
capacity by 10% for longer connections. Moreover, shear lag reduction coefficient Ubs has been
incorporated only in the AISC Specification. Stress concentrations, connection geometries and
other factors that may contribute to yield or rupture of the tension plane without affecting the
shear plane can also be expected to reduce block shear load capacity. Equations having high
safety indices than the traditional target for connections can result in uneconomical connections.
Thus, there exists considerable scope for improvement and analytical work together with some
statistically meaningful experimentation could help designers optimize connection geometries,
and may influence the framers of future codes.

20
 REFERENCES

[1] Epstein, H.I. and McGinnis M.J., “Finite element modeling of block shear in structural tees”,
Computers and Structures, vol. 77, pp. 571 – 582, 2000.

[2] Eurocode 3 , NF EN 1993-1-1, “Calcul des structures en acier” (French version), European
Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, October 2005.

[3] Eurocode 3 , prEN 1993-1-8: 20xx, “Design of steel structures” (English version), European
Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, 26 Feb. 2002

[4] Gupta, M and Gupta, L.M., “An improved approach to compute block shear capacity of steel
angles”, Connections in Steel Structures V – Amsterdam, pp. 347 – 354, 2004.

[5] Institute for Steel Development & Growth, “Chapter 5 - Design of Tension Members”
version II, (http://www.steel-insdag.org/new/pdfs/Chapter5.pdf Accessed Nov. 20, 2009).

[6] IS 800:2007, “General Construction in Steel – Code of Practice”, Third Revision, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.

[7] Ling, T.W., Zhao, X.L., Al-Mahaidi, R. and Packer, J.A., “Investigation of block shear tear-
out failure in gusset-plate welded connections in structural steel hollow sections and very high
strength tubes”, Engineering Structures, vol. 29, pp. 469 – 482, 2007.

[8] Orbisona, G. J., Wagner, E.M. and Fritz, P.W., “Tension plane behavior in single-row bolted
connections subject to block shear”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 49, pp. 225–
239, 1999.

[9] Segui, T. William, “Design of Steel Structures”, Cengage Learning India Private Limited,
New Delhi, 2009.

21
[10] S.R., Satish Kumar and A.R., Santha Kumar, “Design of Steel Structures”, Indian Institute
of Technology Madras.

[11] Subramanian, N., “Code of Practice on Steel Structures - A Review of IS 800: 2007”, Civil
Engineering & Construction Review, pp. 114 – 134, August 2008.

[12] Subramanian, N., “Design of Steel Structures”, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2008.

[13] Topkaya, C., “A finite element parametric study on block shear failure of steel tension
members”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 60, pp. 1615 – 1635, 2004.

[14] Topkaya, C., “Block shear failure of gusset plates with welded connections”, Engineering
Structures, vol. 29, pp. 11 – 20, 2004.

[15] Winters-Downey, E. and Fadden, M., “Simple Shear Connection Limit States”, Modern
Steel Construction - Steelwise, Feb. 2008.

[16] Yam, C.H. Michael, Zhong, Y.C., Lam, C.C. Angus and Iu, V.P., “An investigation of the
block shear strength of coped beams with a welded clip angle connection—Part I: Experimental
study”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 63, pp. 96 - 115, 2007.

22