AISC RESEARCH PROGRAM

BEHAVIOR OF BOLTED STEEL SLIP

CRITICAL CONNECTIONS WITH
FILLERS

Jerome F. Hajjar Mark Denavit

Professor and Narbey Khachaturian Faculty Scholar Graduate Research
Chair, Structures Faculty Assistant

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, Illinois

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
Background: ASD 1989 on SC Connections with Fillers
ASD 1989 Section J3.8 on Slip Critical Connections
Rn = FvAbNs
Fv is from RCSC Specification for oversized: 29 ksi for
A490 Class B surface
ASD 1989 Section J6 on Fillers
Exception on developing fillers for slip critical
connections, but fills are developed for bearing
connections

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
Background: AISC 2005 on SC Connections with Fillers

AISC 2005 Section J3.8 on Slip Critical Connections

Rn = DuhscTbNs
Connections with standard holes or slots transverse
to the direction of the load shall be designed for slip
as a serviceability limit state, = 1.50
Connections with oversized holes or slots parallel to
the direction of the load shall be designed to prevent
slip at the required strength level, = 1.76
AISC 2005 Section J5 on Fillers
For fillers with t or greater, one of the following
shall apply:
1. For fillers with t , Rn for bolt shear should be reduced
by [1-0.4(t-0.25)].
2. Connection shall be extended and the filler developed
3. Joint shall be extended to equivalent of #2
4. Joint shall be designed to prevent slip at required strength

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
Fillers: Effect on Slip and Bolt Shear
W14x730
Standard holes and oversized holes
W14x455
Full (2 rows, with duplicate), half (1 row), and no
development (0 rows)
W14x159
Full (4 rows), half (2 rows), and no development
(0 rows, with duplicate)
Two ply filler, no development (duplicate)
TC bolts, half and no development
Welded filler, full and half development

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
Fillers: Effect on Slip and Bolt Shear

To develop the filler to be fully developed, e.g.,

W14x159: 3.75/(3.75+1.19)=76% of the slip critical
strength of 24 splice plate bolts

W14x159
Actual number of rows needed to develop the filler:
o 4.56 rows (fully developed) we used 4 rows
o 2.28 rows (half developed) we used 2 rows
W14x455
Actual number of rows needed to develop the filler:
o 2.01 rows (fully developed) we used 2 rows
o 1.00 rows (half developed) we used 1 row

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
Scenarios
AISC 2005 strength with measured material properties and
no or factors should provide the best estimate of the
test results
If expected slip value can be reached consistently for all
connections, we may be able to:
Verify ability to use different safety factors at serviceability
and required strength level
Lower the of 1.76 (raise the of 0.85) for connections in
which prevention of slip is at required strength level (i.e.,
oversized holes)
Verify that the filler need not be developed if you design at the
required strength level (noting that we are not using standard
holes)
If expected bolt shear value can be reached consistently for
all connections, we may be able to:
Ensure that a new reduction formula is not needed for thick
fillers even when designing at required strength level
Eliminate required reductions for bolt shear strength (noting
that we are not using standard holes)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
Scenarios
If expected slip value cannot be reached consistently for
all connections, that may indicate:
The of 1.76 is appropriate for oversized holes
The filler needs to be developed (we can try to
determine if it is a function of filler thickness)
If expected bolt shear value cannot be reached
consistently for all connections, that may indicate:
Recommend reductions for bolt shear strength
for thick fillers or oversized holes to ensure
safety
If some test values meet the expected values and some
do not, it will be necessary to reduce the data carefully

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
 AISC Test Specimen 159n-2ply1
Required Strength = slip critical strength of 24 bolts in splice plate
Comparison of ASD Codes (using design values)
AISC 2005 ASD 1989
Specimen 11
Pn Pn/ Pallow
159n-2ply1 (kips)
rank
(kips)
rank
(kips)
rank

between splice and filler 922 1 524 1 692 1

between filler and top
slip 922 1 524 1 692 1
column
between splice and bot.
2,459 5 1,397 1,845
column
between splice and filler 1,789 3 895 3 954 3
between filler and top
1,789 3 895 3 954 3
column
between splice and bot.
4,771 2,386 2,545
column
shear between splice and filler
2,460 6 1,230 5 1,312 5
(overstrength)
between filler and top
2,460 6 1,230 5 1,312 5
column (overstrength)
between splice and bot.
6,561 3,280 3,499
column (overstrength)
splice plate 7,449 3,725 3,221
bearing
w shape 4,432 2,216 1,916
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
 AISC Test Specimen 159n-2ply1
Required Strength = slip critical strength of 24 bolts in splice plate

Comparison of Limit States

(using measured values)
Specimen 11 AISC 2005
Pn Pn/
159n-2ply1 (kips)
rank
(kips)
rank
slip between splice and filler 1,173 1 666 1
between filler and top column 1,173 1 666 1
between splice and bot. column 3,128 1,777
shear between splice and filler 2,429 3 1,214 3
between filler and top column 2,429 3 1,214 3
between splice and bot. column 6,476 3,238
splice in compression 3,752 2,247
W shape in compression 2,615 6 1,566 6
fracture splice plate 4,551 2,276
w shape 2,473 5 1,237 5
bearing splice plate 9,397 4,699
w shape 4,978 2,489

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
 AISC Test Specimen 730-over
Required Strength = slip critical strength of 24 bolts in splice plate

Comparison of ASD Codes (using design values)

Specimen 02 AISC 2005 ASD 1989
Pn Pn/ Pallow
730-over (kips)
rank
(kips)
rank
(kips)
rank
between splice
922 1 524 1 692 1
and top column
slip
between splice
2,459 3 1,397 4 1,845 4
and bot. column
between splice
1,789 2 895 2 954 2
and top column
between splice
4,771 5 2,386 5 2,545 5
and bot. column
between splice
shear
and top column 2,460 4 1,230 3 1,312 3
(overstrength)
between splice
and bot. column 6,561 6 3,280 6 3,499
(overstrength)
splice plate 7,449 3,725 3,221 6
bearing
w shape 18,287 9,144 7,907

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
 AISC Test Specimen 730-over
Required Strength = slip critical strength of 24 bolts in splice plate
Comparison of Limit States
(using measured values)
Specimen 02 AISC 2005
Pn Pn/
730-over (kips)
rank
(kips)
rank
between splice and top
column 1,173 1 666 1
slip
between splice and bot.
column 3,128 3 1,777 3
between splice and top
column 2,429 2 1,214 2
shear
between splice and bot.
column 6,476 6 3,238 6
splice in compression 3,752 4 2,247 4
W shape in compression 13,330 7,982
splice plate 4,551 5 2,276 5
fracture
w shape 13,335 6,668
splice plate 9,397 4,699
bearing
w shape 23,633 11,816

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
159n-2ply1
Bolts

Measured Material Properties

Nominal Measured
Material Yield Stress Ultimate Stress Yield Stress Ultimate Stress
Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi) Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi)
Top Column
50 65 56 73
(W14x159)
Bottom Column
50 65 62 84
(W14x730)
Filler Plates
50 65 50 71
159n-2ply1
(3 thick)
Filler Plates
50 65 53 75
( thick)
Splice Plates
50 65 56 82
(2 thick)
Nominal Measured
Material Yield Stress Ultimate Stress Yield Stress Ultimate Stress
Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi) Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi)
Top Column
730-over (W14x730)
50 65 62 84
Bottom Column
50 65 62 84
(W14x730)
Splice Plates
50 65 56 82
(2 thick)
Nominal Measured
Length Pretension Shear Strength Pretension Shear Strength
Bolts Tb (kips) Fv (ksi) Tb (kips) Fv (ksi)
9
80 75 115 102
(all bolts)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
AISC Test Specimen 01
Slip Shear
Design Strength 1,085 1,789
(Nominal Values) kips kips
Design Strength 1,380 2,429
(Measured Values) kips kips
1,697 2,542
Observed Strength
kips kips
Load vs. Splice/Column Relative Displacement
3000

2500

2000
Load (kips)
1500

1000

500
01t2s-1w
01t2s-2w
0
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Splice/Column Relative Displacement (in)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
AISC Test Specimen 01
Load vs. Top Column Displacement Load vs. Splice Plate (1 row bolts) Strain
3000 3000

2500 2500
Load (kips)

Load (kips)
2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000
01spl-5n
01spl-6n
500 01top-1e 500 01spl-5s
01top-1w 01spl-6s
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Top Column Displacement (in) Splice Plate (1 row bolts) Strain (mm/mm)

Load vs. Splice Plate (3 rows bolts) Strain Load vs. Splice Plate (6 rows bolts) Strain
3000 3000

2500 2500
Load (kips)

Load (kips)
2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000
01spl-3n 01spl-1n
01spl-4n 01spl-2n
500 01spl-3s 500 01spl-1s
01spl-4s 01spl-2s
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Splice Plate (3 rows bolts) Strain (mm/mm) Splice Plate (6 rows bolts) Strain (mm/mm)

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
 AISC Research Program
Keeping Steel Competitive Through Research
Answer questions that arise in steel performance
o Simplify the specification while retaining safe and reliable designs
o Examples:
Allowing no continuity plates in high seismic zones
Enable steel to be the premier material for projects ranging from fast
and simple construction to the most sophisticated building structures in
the world
o New building topologies demand new technologies
o Steel is sustainable
Generate new ideas and new products
o Examples:
New doubler plate details that lessen the amount of welding
Buckling restrained brace can rejuvenate steel braced frames in seismic zones
Direct analysis can lead the way internationally in stability design to enable
diverse building configurations while simplifying calculations
Composite construction provisions are improving continuously
Stay current with evolving mill, fabrication, and construction practices
o Other materials are innovating
Facilitate adaptation to or drive innovation in new information
technology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
New Doubler Plate Details

Current Potential fracture region

practice: Heavy CJP

weld

Act as both
doubler plate and
continuity plate
45 beveled
doubler plate Approx. 7/8" gap
Alternatives: Approximately
2/3 width of girder
flange
Heavy fillet
Heavy fillet
welds
welds
Full penetration welds

Fillet I Fillet II Box

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
Typical Full-Scale Cruciform Test Specimen

Pin

85.5" 140"
144" 132"

144" 171"

W24x94 72" W24x94

85.5"
W14x176
Two 77-kip
Two 77-kip actuators
actuators
Pin

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
 Local Flange Bending and Local Web Yield Limit States

Pull hard Girder Flange

Column flange

Local web
yielding (LWY)

Local flange
bending (LFB)

Column web

Pull hard
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
 AISC Research Program
Innovation in Steel Is Best Spearheaded by
AISC-funded Research
NSF and other federal agencies typically do not fund
research needed to aid directly a design specification
or manual (however, they may partner on such
projects)
AISC funds can be used to provide excellent leverage
(order of magnitude or more) for funds from NSF,
DOT, etc.
o Typical NSF project: $300K-$750K for three years,
$1.6M for four years, $2M for five years
o Typical DOT project: $150K-$200K for two years
AISC has strong influence over outcome and use of
research

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
AISC Relations with Universities
Future employees for steel and consulting industries
are typically hired from structural engineering
programs at research-oriented universities
These universities are driven by research
The faculty are expected to obtain research funds
and projects and publish results
AISC is an outstanding and critical partner for faculty
interested in steel structures nationwide

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
 University of Illinois Structures Program

52 Faculty, 15 in Structures Nathan M. Newmark, Head of CE, 1956-1976

60 MS and 60 PhD Full-Time Students

Graduate 40 MS and 10 PhD Students per year

MUST-SIM
University of Illinois Structures Program

Consistently Top Ranked CEE Department with many distinguished

alumni who are contributing to the steel industry:
Jim Fisher
Stan Rolfe
Bruce Ellingwood
Shankar Nair
Jim Harris
Emeritus Faculty:
Bill Munse
Jim Stallmyer
Doug Foutch
Bill Hall
Nathan Newmark

MUST-SIM
 NEES@Illinois: MUST-SIM:
Multiaxial Full-Scale Substructured
Testing and Simulation Facility

MUST-SIM http://nees.uiuc.edu
 Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation: Experimental Sites

Oregon State University University of Minnesota

http://nees.orst.edu/ University of Colorado, Boulder http://nees.umn.edu University of Illinois at
Brigham Young University/ http://nees.colorado.edu/ Urbana-Champaign
University of California, Santa Barbara
http://nees.uiuc.edu/
http://nees.ucsb.edu/

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

University of Nevada, Reno http://nees.rpi.edu/
http://nees.unr.edu/

High
High modular
modular walls
walls
(16
(16 segments
segments total)
total)

1.2m
1.2m 3m
3m
Ductile highway support
3m
3m system experiment

Cornell University
Low modular wall

0.9m segments,
(13 segments total)

up to 7.2m
1.2m
1.2m

http://nees.cornell.edu/
1.8m

1.8m
1.8m

Embedded pipeline
experiment

University of California, Davis

http://nees.ucdavis.edu/

Lehigh University
http://www.nees.lehigh.edu/
University of California, Berkeley
http://nees.berkeley.edu

University of Texas at Austin

University of California, San Diego http://nees.utexas.edu/
University of California, Los Angeles http://nees.ucsd.edu/ University at Buffalo, SUNY
MUST-SIM http://nees.ucla.edu/ http://nees.buffalo.edu/
Composite Columns

Steel reinforced concrete Concrete-filled tubes

(SRCs, Encased (CFTs, Filled Composite
Composite Columns) Columns)

From R. T. Leon, From R. Kanno,

Georgia Institute of Technology Nippon Steel Corporation

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
 MAST Facility

Maximum non-concurrent
capacities of MAST DOFs
Degree of Load Stroke/
Freedom Rotation
X-Translation 880 kips 16 in
X-Rotation 8,910 kip-ft 7
From NEES@Minnesota
Y-Translation 880 kips 16 in
The MAST facility permits the
comprehensive testing of a wide Y-Rotation 8,910 kip-ft 7
range of composite beam- Z-Translation 1,320 kips 20 in
columns subjected to three Z-Rotation 13,200 kip-ft 10
dimensional loading at a realistic
scale.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
Database Development
Work of previous researchers Number of Tests
(Aho, Kim, Goode) combined
to create a comprehensive CCFT RCFT SRC
worldwide database
Database will be used to Columns 762 455 119
identify gaps in test data and Beam- 395 189 120
calibrate computational model
Columns

RCFT CCFT SRC

M/ M M/ M M/ M P/P o
d P/P o d P/P o d

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
Preliminary Test Matrix

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MUST-SIM December 5, 2007
Controlled Rocking of Steel Frame Structures

Corner of frame is
allowed to uplift.
Fuses absorb seismic
energy
Post-tensioning brings
the structure back to
center.

Result is a building
where the structural
damage is
concentrated in
replaceable fuses with
little or no residual drift

MUST-SIM
 UIUC Half Scale Tests
Loading and Boundary Strong Wall
Condition Box (LBCB)

Post-
Tensiong
Strands

Stiff Braced
Frame

Fuse

Bumpers

MUST-SIM
 E-Defense Testbed Structure

Section
shaking
direction

Plan View
E-Defense

MUST-SIM
AISC TC 5: Composite Construction
Thinking of composite structural members (SRC beam-columns,
Composite Walls, Composite Base Conditions; note that CFTs covered
commonly by AISC rarely have shear connectors)...
Beam-columns Infill Walls

Composite Base

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

13 November 2007
 Shear Connector Provisions: Monotonic
-Tension: Vs = V CV As Fu n n: number of studs
Steel Failure: As: cross sectional area of stud
-Shear: N s = t Ct As Fu n Fu: ultimate strength of stud

v Cv v Cv t Ct t Ct
AISC 1.00* 1.00 1.00 - - -
PCI 4th 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.90 0.90
PCI 6th 0.65 1.00 0.65 0.75 1.00 0.75
Ductile steel
ACI 318-05 element 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.80 1.00 0.80
ACI 318-08 Brittle steel
element 0.65 1.00 0.65 0.70 1.00 0.70
EC-4 0.80 0.80 0.64 - - -
- * The reduction factor is grouped with the flexural phi factor, b, which is 0.85 for plastic redistribution of stress or
0.90 for an elastic stress distribution on the section
- Canadian Standard and CEB are similar to ACI 318-05

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

13 November 2007
 Shear Connector Provisions: Cyclic
Reduction factor by cyclic loading (): Rc = Rm Rc : cyclic resistance
Rm : monotonic resistance

Bursi and Gramola (1999) 0.68 *,**
AISC 341-05 0.75
Zandonini EC-4 0.75*,**
ACI 318-05 0.75 and Bursi (2002) AISC 0.55*,**

ACI 318-08 0.30 Civjan and Singh (2003) 0.60 *, **

NEHRP (2003) 0.75 -*: faliure of the stud
-**: failure of the concrete
Klingner et al. (1982) 0.50*,**
0.83*
Hawkins and Mitchell (1984)
0.71**
Makino (1985) 0.50

Gattesco and Giuriani (1996) 0.90*

-*: faliure of the stud
-**: failure of the concrete
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
13 November 2007
 Shear Connector Strength

AISC Proposal: , 0.9 Cv Proposal: , 0.8 Cv

AISC Stud Strength AISC Stud Strength (Steel Only) AISC Stud Strength (Steel Only)
Steel Failure in Test Steel Failure in Test Steel Failure in Test
2.00 2.00 2.00

Vs(test)/Vs(predicted)

Vs(test)/Vs(predicted)
Vs(test)/Vs(predicted)

1.50 1.50 1.50

1.00 1.00 1.00

0.50 0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00 0.00

0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Test Number Test Number Test Number

136 Shear Tests AISC (, Cv) AISC (, 0.9Cv) AISC (, 0.8Cv)

Average 1.009 1.052 1.184
Stand. Dev. 0.122 0.135 0.151

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

13 November 2007
 36
Mid-America Earthquake Center:
Consequence-Based Risk Management (CRM)

The Component (Engineering) Solution

Addresses the vulnerability of a component
Judges its adequacy on its own merit

The Network (Single System) Solution

Addresses the vulnerability of one system
Judges its adequacy on its own merit

The CRM (Integrated) Solution ^_

outh^ Wisconsin
_Dakota

Addresses the vulnerability of all systems Iowa

^_
Madison Michigan
^ Lansing
_
Penns
Nebraska ^_ Des Moines
Lincoln
^_ Ohio

Judges adequacy on their Kansas

^_
Topeka

^_
Missouri
Illinois
^_ Springfield
Jefferson City
Indiana
^_ Indianapolis

^_
^_ Columbus

Frankfort
West Virginia
^_ Charleston
Vir
Kentucky

integrated performance Okl h

^_
Tennessee
Nashville-Davidson
North C

Mid-America Earthquake Center

 37

Memphis Test Bed: Scenario Event Prediction

MAEviz
Study Region:
Shelby County, TN
Damage Assessment of Buildings
HAZARD MODEL (earthquake intensity
contours are shown):
Deterministic
New Madrid Seismic Zone
Moment Magnitude 7.7
LEGEND FOR BUILDING TYPE
Red crosses: hospitals
Purple squares: schools
Orange squares: fire stations
Blue diamonds: police stations
White circles: bridges
Yellow triangle: airport
LEGEND FOR DAMAGE BARS
Red: % extensive damage
Yellow: % moderate damage
Blue: % light damage

Mid-America Earthquake Center

Damage to critical facilities
 Structural Integrity Modeling and Laser-Based Verification
Examples of Models:
Discrete Element Modeling of
Severely Damaged Structures
Collapse modeling of an office structure (ASI)
Prediction of structural integrity
New modeling approaches for
extreme loadings
Determine minimum requirements Collapse modeling
vs. the real
for steel structures demolition of a
building (ASI)
Collapse modeling vs. the real
demolition of a stadium (ASI)

Laser-Based
Verification of Severely
Damaged Structures
High-speed accurate lasers
Capture dynamic collapse
and verify against models

MUST-SIM
Modeling of Moulin Formation in Ice Shelves

MUST-SIM
Steel Construction within a Global Context

www.iris.edu

Google
8000
SBBSBG1-a Cycle G4-3-A
SBBSBG1-b
6000

earth
4000

Microstrain
2000

French,
0

-2000
Cycle G4-3-A

Sritharan
-4000
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Time (seconds)

et al.
MAE Center 2006

Collaborative
Augmented Reality and
Analysis
 Acknowledgments: UIUC, NEES and MAEC Projects
MUST-SIM and MAEC Co-Investigators: Amr Elnashai, Bill Spencer, Dan Kuchma
Composite Column Co-Investigators (CC): Roberto Leon
Controlled Rocking Co-Investigators (CR): Gregory Deierlein, Sarah Billington, Helmut
Krawinkler
Research Engineers: Hussam Mahmoud, Michael Bletzinger,
Greg Banas, shop personnel
Graduate Students: Comp Col: Mark Denavit (UIUC), Tiziano Perea (GIT)
Rocking: Matthew Eatherton (UIUC), Noel Vivar (UIUC)
Xiang Ma and Alex Pena (Stanford)
Comp Conn: Luis Palleres (post-doctoral associate)
MAEC CRM: Josh Steelman
Integrity: Sara Walsh, Lily Rong
Ice Shelves: Maribel Gonzalez
Undergraduate Students: Mark Bingham, Michael Kehoe, Matthew Parkolap,
Brent Mattis, Lina Rong, Angelia Tanamal
Sponsors: National Science Foundation
American Institute of Steel Construction
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Georgia Institute of Technology (CC)
Stanford University (CR)
In-Kind Funding: W&W Steel
University of Cincinnati
LeJeune Steel Company (CC)
Tefft Bridge & Iron (CR)
Infra-Metals (CR)
MUST-SIM
 THANK YOU

Urbana-
Champaign,
Illinois

Chicago, Illinois

MUST-SIM