CHAPTER VII

MONOTONIC STIFFNESS MODELING

Renewed interest in bolted connections for use in moment resisting frames

has prompted the research community to develop methods of predicting their
moment-rotation behavior. In the previous chapter, methods for determining the
strength of a T-stub connection were presented. In this chapter, a method of
determining the monotonic deformation, or moment-rotation curve, for a T-stub
connection is presented. This task will be accomplished by first considering the
behavior of several mechanisms that contribute to the deformation of T-stubs.
These mechanisms are then combined into a force-deformation response for an
entire T-stub. Finally, the T-stub force-deformation relationship is transformed into
a moment-rotation response by considering two T-stubs that are subjected to
equal but opposite loads and are separated by a moment arm. Because ductility
is such an important characteristic of connection performance, ultimate deformation predictions are built into the model for each deformation mechanism. These
ultimate deformation predictions are then used to predict the connections rotational capacity.
Mechanisms that influence the behavior of T-stub connections, shown in
Figure 7-1, include 1) panel zone deformation, 2) column flange bending or continuity plate deformations, 3) T-stub deformation, 4) shear connection behavior, 5)
beam deformation including deformations within the connected region, elastic
rotations, and plastic hinges. Only the mechanisms that contribute to the defor-

218

mation of a T-stub will be considered explicitly in this work. Those mechanisms

include tension bolt elongation, bending of the T-stub flange, elongation of the Tstem, slip of the T-stub relative to the beam flange, bearing deformation of the Tstem, and bearing deformation of the beam flange. These mechanisms will be
considered in three groups that act in series. First, the T-stub flange bending and
tension bolt elongation will treated together because their behavior is inherently
coupled and cannot be combined conveniently in either series or parallel. Stem
elongation will be treated individually by considering a bi-linear representation.
Finally, bearing deformation of the T-stem and beam flange will be combined with
slip deformation. Although an argument can be made that the mechanisms act
independently and can be combined in series, implementation is simplified by
considering them together.

Figure 7-1: Total Connection Deformation Spring Model

The methods and procedures contained herein are not intended for hand
computation. The flange/tension bolt model and bearing/slip model are especially

219

complex, incremental, and require a large number of computations. Simple computer subroutines developed by the author were used for calculation of the forcedeformation and moment-rotation responses.
The first section of this chapter will address the flange deformation component by proposing two models of different complexity and accuracy. In the second
section, deformation resulting from stem yielding and plasticity will be addressed.
In the third section, the final component, slip and bearing deformation, will be considered and a robust procedure will be proposed. Finally, a method of assembling
the various deformation components into the overall T-stub deformation will be
presented in Section 7.4, followed by a brief discussion of transforming a P- Tstub response into an M- connection response.

7.1 Flange/Tension Bolt Model

A simple but accurate method of obtaining the force-deformation relationship
for a T-stub flange is critical to an accurate connection model. A model that uses
geometrical and mechanical properties consistent with the modified Kulak et al.
strength model was desired so as to make implementation easier by design engineers. It was decided a priori that the model should incorporate the changing stiffness of the tension bolts as a function of the force present in the bolts. It was also
determined that for the sake of simplicity, the model should yield a piecewise linear force-deformation relationship. Because of the emphasis placed on designing
ductility into connections, it was decided that the model must also be able to predict the response of the flange well into its plastic and strain hardening range with
a reasonable degree of accuracy. Finally, because of the length to depth ratio of
many T-stub flanges, shear deformation was considered significant enough to be
included in the formulation of the model.
220

The flange is modeled as shown in Figure 7-2. The tips of the flange are
supported by pins and the bolts are modeled by springs positioned at the inside
edge of bolts shanks. The pinned support conditions model the prying forces as
point loads, as was assumed in the discussion of Kulaks strength model. To
ensure that this is representative of the actual condition, the length, a, of the
flange exterior of the bolt centerline is limited to a value less than or equal to
1.25b. The symmetry of the flange permits the use of a half model which reduces
the number of degrees of freedom. The half model is shown in Figure 7-3.

0.5r

gt
0.5r

gt

Figure 7-2: Flange Stiffness Model

221

0.5r

gt

Figure 7-3: Half Model of a T-stub Flange

The system is loaded by applying a vertical displacement to the support A,

as is shown in Figure 7-4. The ratio of the vertical reaction at this support, T, to its
displacement, , is the stiffness of the flange. The value of the vertical reaction at
the pinned support at C is the prying force. The relationship between the prying
force and the displacement, , will be referred to as the prying gradient.
7.1.1 Bolt Stiffness
It was decided beforehand that the model should incorporate a variable bolt
stiffness that captures the changing behavior of the bolts as a function of the loads
that they are subjected to. Based on observations of T-stub component tests and
individual bolt tests, the bolt stiffness model shown in Table 7-1 was developed.

222

B
A
C

a
Q

Figure 7-4: Half Flange Model Loading

Table 7-1: Bolt Stiffness Model

Bolt Force

Bolt Stiffness

0 B < Bo

K b,1

1000K b

where,
B = Bolt force
Bo = Bolt pretension
Bn = Tensile capacity of the bolt
Bfract = Fracture load of the bolt
Kb = Elastic stiffness of the bolt
A graphical comparison of the model and experimental results is made in
Figure 7-5. The experimental results were taken from a direct tension bolt test.
The model is made up of four linear segments. The first segment models the bolt

223

before its pretension is overcome, the second segment models the bolt during the
linear-elastic portion of its response, the third segment models the bolt after initial
yielding has started and the fourth segment models the bolt after it has reached a
plastic state. The force limits used to distinguish between the different bolt stiffnesses were based on the tests of individual bolts discussed in Chapter 3. The
limit of 85% of the tensile capacity is used to identify the onset of yielding. The
ultimate strength of the model is intentionally lower than that of the bolt subjected
to pure tension. This is because the bolt as it is loaded by the T-stub flange is
actually subjected to bending in addition to tension. The amount of bending is
dependent on the geometry of the flange and location of the bolt. This bending
acts to reduce the overall strength of the bolt. Another characteristic of the bolt
model is that it only extends to the point of maximum load on the experimental
curve. This is because the bolts will always be loaded in force control, regardless
of what type of loading is applied to the T-stub. As the bolts reach their point of
maximum resistance, they will elongate until fracture without displaying the
unloading shown on the experimental curve in Figure 7-5.

224

120

100

Bolt Fracture

Plastic - Kb,4
Yielding - Kb,3
Bolt Force (kip)

80

Elastic - Kb,2

60

40

Pretension - Kb,1
20
Experimental
Model
0
-0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

Bolt Elongation (in)

Figure 7-5: Bolt Force-Elongation Model

Until the pretension in the bolts is overcome, they are assumed to be infinitely rigid. The value of 1000Kb was deemed a sufficiently high stiffness. The linear-elastic stiffness, Kb, governs the bolt response from the pretension force until
first yield, at which point the elastic stiffness is reduced by 90%. Finally, the plastic portion of the bolts response is modeled by assuming a stiffness equal to 2%
of the elastic stiffness. A positive stiffness, even in the plastic range, is necessary
to ensure a stable flange system under load control. The elastic stiffness of the
bolt, Kb, was discussed in Section 3.8 and is calculated as (Barron et al., 1998b)

1

Kb

fd b
Ls
L tg
fd b

 
 
  

A b E A b E A be E A be E

225

EQ 7-1

where:
f = a stiffness correlation factor (Section 3.8)
db = the nominal diameter of the bolt
Ab = the nominal area of the bolt shank
Abe = the effective area of the threads
Ls = the shank length of the bolt
Ltg = the length of threads within the bolts grip
A consequence of using a plastic stiffness corresponding to 2% of the elastic
stiffness for the bolt is that the model predicts very large bolt elongations at ultimate. These exaggerated ultimate elongations are undesirable in a model in
which the accurate prediction of deformation capacity is required.

It thus

becomes necessary to limit, or cap, the ultimate elongation of the bolt in the
model.
The ultimate elongation of the bolt is predicted as shown in Equation 7-2.
This prediction is based on the assumption that the shank of the bolt remains
elastic with the inelastic deformation concentrated in the threads that are included
in the grip. It is also recognized that a portion of the bolt inside the nut will deform
inelastically. As a result, two of these threads are included in the prediction.
Because of the way that the model is implemented, it is convenient to convert the
ultimate elongation to a fracture load. This load is referred to as Bfract and is calculated as shown in Equation 7-3.

fract

0.90B n L s
2

  fract L tg  
Ab E
n th

226

EQ 7-2

B fract

0.85B n ( 0.90 0.85 )B n

   ( 0.02K b ) 0.90B n

fract 
Kb
0.10K b

EQ 7-3

where
Ab = the nominal or gross area of the bolt
Ls = the length of the bolt shank
Ltg = the length of the threaded portion included in the bolts grip
fract = the fracture strain of the bolt material
Bn = the tensile capacity of the bolt
Kb = the elastic stiffness of the bolt
nth = the number of threads per inch of the bolt

7.1.2 Elastic-Plastic Flange Model

The basic flange stiffness model considers only the limits of plastic hinges
forming at the K-zone and bolt line, leading to the formation of a plastic mechanism. If a uniform beam is assumed, it can be shown that the plastic hinge will
always form at the K-zone before it forms at the bolt hole. It is important to recognize, however, that a significant amount of material is removed from the flange
when the holes are drilled for the bolts. Because of this, it is possible for a plastic
hinge to form at the hole before one forms at the K-zone. Bearing this in mind, the
decision tree shown in Figure 7-6 presents the possible flange states. These various flange states are then supplemented by the four different bolt stiffnesses
resulting in a model that contains up to seven different stiffnesses.

227

Kee,k

Kpe,k

Kep,k

Kpp,k

Figure 7-6: Elastic-Plastic Decision Tree

The subscripts used on the stiffness coefficients in the Figure 7-6 indicate
the state of the flange and bolt. For instance, Kee,k is the stiffness of the flange
that is totally elastic with the bolts in their kth stiffness state. Similarly, Kpe,k is the
stiffness of the flange that has formed a plastic hinge at the K-zone but is elastic at
the bolt line, Kep,k is the stiffness of the flange that is elastic at the K-zone but has
formed a plastic hinge at the bolt line, and Kpp,k is the stiffness of the flange that
has formed a mechanism with plastic hinges at the K-zone and at the bolt line.
The stiffnesses and corresponding prying gradients were derived using the
direct stiffness method and are presented in Equations 7-4(a) through 7-7(c).
Shear deformation was included by incorporating the factors a and b as defined
by Equations 7-8(f) and 7-8(g). Strain hardening was assumed to start immediately following the formation of a plastic hinge and was modeled by using rotational springs with constants Kh1 and Kh2. The rotational spring constants were

228

determined by using the product of the strain hardening modulus of the steel and
the moment of inertia of the flange divided by the length of the plastic hinge as
shown in Equations 7-8(h) and 7-8(i) (White, 1999; Douty, 1964). The hinge
length was assumed to be equal to the thickness of flange. Note also that the
model in its present form is purely mechanistic.

K ee,k

12EI ( 3EI  K b,k 3 )


ee,k

EQ 7-4(a)

Q ee,k

18EI ( K b,k ab 2 b 2EI )


ee,k

EQ 7-4(b)

ee,k

12EI 1  K b,k 2

EQ 7-4(c)

K pe,k

12EI [ 3EI ( K b,k a 2  K h1 )  K b,k K h1 3 ]


pe,k

EQ 7-5(a)

Q pe,k

18EI [ 2EI ( K b,k ab K h1 )  K b,k K h1 ab 2 b ]


pe,k

EQ 7-5(b)

pe,k

12EI ( K h1 1  K b,k ( a 3 b 2 a  a 2 b 3 b )  3EI4 )  K b,k K h1 2

EQ 7-5(c)

K ep,k

12EI [ K b,k K h2 3  3EI ( K h2  K b,k a 2 ) ]


ep,k

EQ 7-6(a)

229

Q ep,k

18EIK h2 ( K b,k ab 2 b 2EI )


ep,k

EQ 7-6(b)

ep,k

12EI ( K h2 1  K b,k a 2 b 3 b  3EIa 2 )  K b,k K h2 2

EQ 7-6(c)

K pp,k

K h1 K h2  K b,k a 2 ( K h1  K h2 )

pp.k

EQ 7-7(a)

Q pp,k

K h2 ( K b,k ab K h1 )

pp,k

EQ 7-7(b)

pp,k

K h2 4  K h1 a  K b,k a 2 b 2

EQ 7-7(c)

where,

b ( b
3  3a
b
2  3a
2 b
)  a
3 a

EQ 7-8(a)

3a 2 b 4 b2  4a 3 b 3 a b

EQ 7-8(b)

a 3 a  3a 2 b b

EQ 7-8(c)

a 2  2ab  b 2

EQ 7-8(d)

230

pt 3
f
12

EQ 7-8(e)

12EI
1  
Gpt f a 2

EQ 7-8(f)

12EI
1  
Gpt f b 2

EQ 7-8(g)

K h1

Es I

tf

K h2

d E sI
1 h 
p tf

EQ 7-8(h)

EQ 7-8(i)

The stiffnesses and prying gradients were derived to be used in an incremental solution technique. The incremental applied load and prying force can be
calculated as shown in Equations 7-9 and 7-10. An engineer would begin by
determining the initial stiffness, Kee,1 and initial prying gradient, Qee,1. Next, several checks would be made to determine which limit will be reached first. Potential
limits include the bolt force limits that define which bolt stiffnesses are to be used,
moment limits at joints A and B, and total flange separation limits that are possible
when the prying gradient is negative. Incremental displacements are then calculated for each of the potential limits with the smallest value governing. Finally, the
moments at joints A and B, the prying force, the bolt force, the applied load, and

231

the new stiffness and prying gradient are calculated and the process is repeated
until the bolt force reaches Bfract.

K ij,k

EQ 7-9

Q ij,k

EQ 7-10

Considering force equilibrium of the system, the force in the bolt, B, after the
pretension has been overcome can be shown as the sum of the applied load, T,
and the prying force, Q. Moment equilibrium of the system yields the moments MA
and MB at joints A and B, respectively.

TQ

EQ 7-11

MA

Tb Qa

EQ 7-12

MB

Qa

EQ 7-13

Incremental values are then calculated from these relationships.

T  Q

232

EQ 7-14

M A

Tb Qa

EQ 7-15

M B

Qa

EQ 7-16

Substituting these values for the incremental applied load and prying force
into Equations 7-14 through 7-16 and solving for the incremental displacement,
, yields the bolt force and moment limits.

B 

K ij,k  Q ij,k

EQ 7-17

M A

K ij,k b Q ij,k a

EQ 7-18

M B


Q ij,k a

EQ 7-19

When the prying gradient is negative, the possibility of the T-stub flange separating completely from the column must also be checked.

Q

Q ij,k

EQ 7-20

233

The bolt force limits are calculated as was described previously in Section
7.1.1. The moment limits are simply the plastic moments at the K-zone and bolt
line.

F y pt f2


4

EQ 7-21

d h F
y pt f
1  
p 4

EQ 7-22

M pA

M pB

7.1.3 Elastic-Yielding-Plastic Flange Model

The elastic-plastic flange model yielded acceptable results for relatively flexible flanges, but was less accurate when used on stiffer flanges having small tension bolt gages. The cause of the inaccuracy was believed to be attributable to
yielding in the stiffer flanges prior to the formation of plastic hinges. The elasticplastic flange model is not able to detect any loss of stiffness due to these
sources. It was therefore determined that a partially plastic flange was needed in
the model.
Adding the partially plastic flange state to the model complicates the formulation considerably. The elastic-plastic decision tree shown previously in Figure 76 is revised to include the possible partially plastic states and is shown as Figure
7-7. Regardless of which path is followed through the tree, five different flange
states are possible. Combined with the four possible stiffness states of the tension bolts, a total nine different stiffnesses may be experienced in this model

234

before failure. Although this may seem overly complicated, it is unlikely that even
the elastic-plastic model would ever be used extensively without being programed
into a simple computer subroutine. With this in mind, there seems little use for the
elastic-plastic model. In fact, the refined model is relatively efficient considering
the alternatives. Most other flange models that incorporate strain hardening and
shear deformation are iterative and no other models are known that incorporate a
changing bolt stiffness.
A complete derivation of the stiffnesses and prying gradients of the partially
plastic states was deemed too complicated for the present work. Furthermore,
the theoretical partially plastic stiffnesses would most definitely be nonlinear and
would thus yield nonlinear force-deformation relationships. For these reasons, a
rational system of weighted averages of the fully plastic states was used to determine the partially plastic stiffnesses and prying gradients. The results are shown
as Equations 7-23 through 7-27.

K ye, k

K ee, k  3K pe, k

4

Q ye, k

Q ee, k  3Q pe, k

4

EQ 7-23

K ey, k

K ee, k  3K ep, k

4

Q ey, k

Q ee, k  3Q ep, k

4

EQ 7-24

K py, k

K pe, k  3K pp, k

4

Q py, k

Q pe, k  3Q pp, k

4

EQ 7-25

K yp, k

K ep, k  3K pp, k

4

Q yp, k

Q ep, k  3Q pp, k

4

EQ 7-26

K yy, k

K ee, k  3K pp, k

4

Q yy, k

Q ee, k  3Q pp, k

4

EQ 7-27

235

The partially plastic stiffnesses were weighted towards the more flexible of
the two plastic states because it was thought that the added deformation of these
states contributed more to the overall behavior during the yielding than the stiffer
states. A calibration of possible weights resulted in the ratio of 1:3 that was used
in Equations 7-23 through 7-27.
The solution technique is the same for the elastic-yielding-plastic flange
model as for the elastic-plastic model except that yield moment limits must be
checked in addition to the plastic moments. The yield moments are calculated as

M yA

2
 M pA
3

EQ 7-28

M yB

2
 M pB .
3

EQ 7-29

It should be noted that the reduced cross section resulting from the material
lost to the bolt holes is accounted for in the moment limits but is not accounted for
in the moment of inertia or shear stiffness factors. The influence on the overall
stiffness was not significant enough to warrant the added complexity.
A comparison of the model prediction to experimental results for representative T-stubs are show in Figures 7-8 through 7-13. The general response of the
model compares well with the experimental data. For those T-stubs that failed
with tension bolt fractures, the ultimate deformation is predicted with reasonable
accuracy. The response of stiffer flanges does not match as well as for more flexible flanges. This is likely because of the complexities associated with partially
plastic hinges and shear deformations.

236

Kee,k

Kye,k

Kpe,k

Key,k

Kyy,k

Kep,k

237
Kpy,k

Kyp,k

Kpp,k

Figure 7-7: Elastic-Yielding-Plastic Decision Tree

600

500

Applied Load, P (kip)

400
Net Section Fracture

300

200

100
Experimental
Model
0
-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Uplift (inch)

Figure 7-8: TA-05 Flange Stiffness Model Comparison

600

500

Applied Load, P (kip)

400

300

200

100
Experimental
Model
0
-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Uplift (inch)

Figure 7-9: TA-07 Flange Stiffness Model Comparison

238

0.35

0.40

700

600

Applied Load, P (kip)

500

400

Net Section Fracture

300

200

100
Experimental
Model
0
-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Uplift (inch)

Figure 7-10: TB-05 Flange Stiffness Model Comparison

700

600

Applied Load, P (kip)

500

400
Net Section Fracture

300

200

100
Experimental
Model
0
-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Uplift (inch)

Figure 7-11: TB-06 Flange Stiffness Model Comparison

239

0.35

0.40

600

500

Applied Load, P (kip)

400

300

200

100
Experimental
Model
0
-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Uplift (inch)

Figure 7-12: TC-04 Flange Stiffness Model Comparison

600

500

Applied Load, P (kip)

400

300

200

100
Experimental
Model
0
-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Uplift (inch)

Figure 7-13: TC-12 Flange Stiffness Model Comparison

240

0.35

0.40

7.1.3.1 Membrane Action

One limitation of the flange model is that in its current state it is not able
include effects of membrane action that can be important when thin, flexible
flanges are considered. To consider this mechanism, the plastic mechanism stiffness was modified to include second order, nonlinear geometric effects for the
portion of the flange between the bolt line and stem. Equations 7-30(a) through 730(c) replace the previously presented formulations for the plastic-plastic flange
mechanism stiffness and prying gradient shown as Equations 7-7(a) through 77(c). Setting AB equal to zero in Equations 7-30(a) through 7-30(c) yields Equations 7-7(a) through 7-7(c).

( AB  b
) [ K b,k a
( K h1  K h2 )  K h1 K h2 ]  pt f AB b
E ( K h2  K b,k a
)
 EQ 7-30(a)
pp,k
2

K pp,k

EQ 7-30(b)

EQ 7-30(c)

where
AB = the displacement of the flange near the K-zone minus the displacement at the bolt line ( - )
AB = the axial elongation of the flange between the bolt line and
stem given by

241

 AB

2AB  b
2 b

EQ 7-31

An examination of Equations 7-30(a) through 7-30(c) shows that, as would

be expected for a geometrically nonlinear problem, the stiffness and prying gradient are functions of the centerline flange displacement, , and the bolt line flange
displacement, . As a result, the solution of the problem is now dependent on the
increment size of the solution process.
None of the T-stubs tested had flange stiffnesses low enough to properly
illustrate and calibrate the model. As a result, the analytical model will be compared to a finite element model that was developed specifically for the purpose. A
T-stub cut from a W16 x67 was chosen as a test case and a detail of the flange is
shown in Figure 7-14. Four different load-deformation responses are shown in
the figure. The curve labeled Analytical w/out Membrane and ABAQUS w/out
Membrane represent the model responses without including the effects of membrane action. The ABAQUS model was configured identically to the 2D flange
model discussed in Section 5.2. The curves labeled Analytical with Membrane
and ABAQUS with Membrane represent the model responses including the
effects of membrane action. The membrane effects were added to the ABAQUS
model by restraining the nodes on the bolt line through the thickness of the flange
against horizontal translation. Both ABAQUS models include simple tri-linear
material models. It was discovered that the response of the analytical model
grossly overestimated the membrane stiffness of the flange when a totally elastic
material model was assumed. As a result, a tri-linear material model was added

242

to incorporate axial yielding in the model. The analytical model including membrane effects roughly predicts the same response as the ABAQUS model.

11

/ 8"

/16"

7"
101/4"

Figure 7-14: Detail of Thin, Flexible T-stub Flange Susceptible to Membrane Action

The model has limitations. First, the tri-linear material model used in the
analytical model to account for axial yielding does not interact with the material
model used to monitor the yielding caused by bending. The ABAQUS model
inherently included this interaction and this difference may be a cause of the discrepancy between the two curves in Figure 7-15. Second, the clearance between
bolt and the bolt hole is not accounted for in any way. The actual flange will not be
totally restrained as was assumed here. Instead, the bolt line will be free to travel
horizontally until the bolt comes into contact with the bolt hole. At that point the
restraint will not be total but will instead be more of an elastic restraint dependent
on factors such bearing of the bolt on the bolt hole, local bending of the bolt, and
shear deformations of the bolt.

243

500

450

400

Applied Load (kip)

350

300

250

200

150
Analytical w/out Membrane
Analytical with Membrane
ABAQUS w/out Membrane
ABAQUS with Membrane

100

50

0
-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Flange Uplift (in)

Figure 7-15: Analytical and Finite Element Model Results Including Membrane Action

One eventuality that was uncovered during the analysis of the example Tstub flange is the introduction of significant shear forces into the tension bolts as a
direct result of the membrane action. Figure 7-16 shows the relationship between
the pseudo shear force introduced to a tension bolt and the total applied load.
The pseudo shear force is the horizontal reaction at the bolt line from the finite element model. As the figure shows, the shear force increases as the load and displacement increase.

Figure 7-17 shows the bolt force response from the

ABAQUS model plotted on an interaction diagram for the bolt.1 As the figure
shows, the levels of shear force introduced into the bolts in the model are sufficient to reduce the tensile capacity.

1. Interaction diagrams for bolts are discussed in Section 3.7.5

244

35

30

Pseudo Shear Force (kip/bolt)

25

20

15

10

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Total Applied Load (kip)

Figure 7-16: Shear Forces Introduced to the Tension Bolt as a Result of Membrane Action

90

80

70
2

Rt + Rv = 1.0

Tension (kip)

60

50
Rt + Rv = 1.3
40

30

20

10
Bolt Response

0
0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Pseudo Shear Force (kip)

Figure 7-17: Tension and Shear Force Interaction for the Bolts of the Membrane Example

245

7.2 Stem Model

As was previously noted, the load-deformation behavior of the stem is very
complex. The stress distributions revealed by the finite element analyses, shear
bolt interaction, and frictional forces combine to make a simple but rigorous treatment of the stem response impossible. Consequently, a semi-rational bi-linear
model will be developed that satisfactorily predicts the initial stiffness, yield load,
plastic or secondary stiffness, and ultimate deformation.
7.2.1 Elastic Stiffness
To obtain the elastic stiffness of the stem, a tapered beam model similar to
that shown in Figure 7-18 was utilized. Lines were drawn from the center of the
first two bolt holes to the intersection of the tapered edges of the stem with the
gross section. The angle of these lines relative to the horizontal was limited to a
value no greater than eff defined in the discussion of the modified Whitmore
strength model (Section 6.2.1.3). The material outside of these lines was not considered to participate as far as stiffness is concerned. No account was taken of
the area of the stem lost during drilling or punching of the shear bolt holes. The
load was assumed to be distributed uniformly along the tapered length of the
stem. This idealization is not far from the actual condition when the effects of friction are considered. Only when the stem enters into its nonlinear range will this
assumption be grossly inaccurate. At that point, however, the secondary stiffness, which is independent of the force transfer mechanism, governs. The elastic
stiffness of the stem can be written as

246

4L sb t s E ( tan eff )

.

gs
2L sb tan eff  g s ln 
2L sb tan eff  g s
2

Lgross

EQ 7-32

wbeam

gs

wT-stub

K e, stem

Lsb

Figure 7-18: Stem Stiffness Model

7.2.2 Yield Load

The yield load, or load at which the load-deformation response of the stem
becomes non-linear, was predicted by multiplying the area of the net section by
the materials yield stress, as is shown in Equation 7-33. The actual stem does
not start yielding uniformly because of the stress concentrations that are created
by the holes and the effects of the taper. This approximation, though, provides
reliable and relatively accurate results.

247

P yield

F y ( W eff 2d h,eff )

EQ 7-33

where
Pyield = the force required to initiate stem yielding
Fy = the yield strength of the T-stem base material
Weff = the effective width of the T-stem (Section 6.2.1.3)
dh,eff = the effective bolt hole diameter
7.2.3 Plastic Stiffness
The plastic stiffness was based on the assumption that the material between
the last two bolt holes, Figure 7-19, yields and starts to strain harden before the
rest of the cross section. This is consistent with observation from component testing and finite element modeling. The length of the strain hardening area is taken
as 3db, which leads to a plastic stem stiffness of

K p,stem

( g s d h, eff )t s E s

.
3d b

248

EQ 7-34

3db

Figure 7-19: Area of Concentrated Strain Hardening

7.2.4 Deformation at Fracture

As the yielding in the material progresses in the stem, a fracture initiates
between the last two bolt holes. The total deformation at fracture can be estimated as the sum of the plastic deformation in this region, as is illustrated in Figure 7-20, and the elastic deformation in the rest of the stem. This is not entirely
consistent with the plastic stiffness determination because the plastic stiffness
was based on an assumed yield zone with a length of 3db while an assumed yield
length of 1db is assumed here. Regardless, the following equation provides reasonable results.

stem,fract

P yield
fract d h,eff  

K e, stem

249

EQ 7-35

db

Figure 7-20: Net Section Fracture Initiation Zone

7.2.5 Results
A summary of the stem deformation data was compared to the values computed using Equations 7-32 through 7-35. The results are presented in Table 7-2.
The yield load predictions were quite accurate. The elastic stiffness values were
somewhat lower than those observed during testing. Because of the stems high
elastic stiffness relative to other components, however, an error of 20 to 30% will
not greatly affect the predicted overall force-deformation behavior. The plastic
stiffness predictions are also somewhat lower than the actual stiffnesses. Finally,
the deformations at fracture predicted by Equation 7-35 are slightly nonconservative. The test data are not entirely reliable for this value though, because of local
bearing deformations near the mounting for displacement instrumentation.

250

Table 7-2: Stem Deformation Model Accuracy

Average
Standard
% Error
Deviation
Yield Load
0.2%
8.7%
Elastic Stifness
-19.7%
32.7%
Plastic Stiffness
-21.6%
41.2%
Fract Deformation
12.7%
35.9%

Figures 7-21 though Figure 7-25 show comparisons on the stem model with
experimental force deformation curves from the component tests. The T-stubs
that were chosen for comparison were those with narrow tension bolt gages and
substantial stem deformations. T-stubs with wider tension bolt gages did not
always sustain inelastic stem deformations. It should be noted, however, that the
stems of the T-stubs within a group were the same and the model will predict identical behavior. That is, the stem of T-stub TA-05 was identical to that of TA-07 and
as a result, the models predicted behavior is the same.

500

450

400

Applied Load (kip)

350

300

250

200

150

100
Experimental
Model

50

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Stem Deformation (in)

Figure 7-21: Model Comparison for T-stub TA-05

251

0.45

0.50

500

450

400
T-bolt Fracture

Applied Load (kip)

350

300

250

200

150

100
Experimental
Model

50

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Stem Deformation (in)

Figure 7-22: Model Comparison for T-stub TA-07

500

450

400

Applied Load (kip)

350

300

250

200

150

100
Experimental
Model

50

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Stem Defomation (in)

Figure 7-23: Model Comparison for T-stub TA-12

252

0.45

0.50

600

500

Applied Load (kip)

400

300

200

100
Experimental
Model
0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Stem Deformation (in)

Figure 7-24: Model Comparison for T-stub TB-05

700

600

Applied Load (kip)

500

400

300

200

100
Experimental
Model
0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Stem Deformation (in)

Figure 7-25: Model Comparison for T-stub TC-09

253

0.35

0.40

7.3 Slip/Bearing Model

As was discussed earlier in the chapter, the bearing deformation of the Tstem, bearing deformation of the beam flange, and relative slip between the beam
flange and T-stem will be treated together. Some treatment of the individual
mechanism is required, though, before they can be combined. Work by Rex and
Easterling (1996a, 1996b) will be used extensively to characterize the behavior of
both the slip and bearing deformation.
7.3.1 Bearing Mechanism
A modified version of the bearing deformation model developed by Rex and
Easterling (1996a) will be adopted for use in this work. In their work, Rex and
Easterling considered many existing bearing models including the model used in
the Eurocode (1993), a model developed by Tate and Rosenfeld (1946) and a
model developed by Vogt (1947). After testing single bolt lap splices and simple
bearing assemblages and conducting finite element analyses, Equation 7-36 was
developed to predict the deformation of a bolt bearing on a plate. The relationship
is an application of the Richard equation.1

P bearing

R n, bearing

1.74  0.009

0.5 2
(1  )

EQ 7-36

1. A background of the Richard equation (three parameter power model) is not provided in
the present work. For a thorough background and rigorous treatment of applications of
the Richard equation, the reader is referred to Richard and Abbott (1975) and Rex and
Easterling (1996a, 1996b)

254

where
Pbearing = plate load
Rn,bearing = nominal bearing strength ( R n

L e t p F u 2.4d b t p Fu )

Le = end distance of plate

= normalized deformation (

K i,bearing Rn,bearing )

bearing = bearing defromation or hole elongation

30%
= steel correction factor 

% Elongation

Ki,bearing = initial bearing stiffness

The % elongation is taken as 30% for typical steel which yields a steel correction factor of unity. The initial bearing stiffness required was given by Rex and
Easterling as

K i,bearing

1


1
1
1
    
K br K be K ve

EQ 7-37

where
Kbr = bolt bearing stiffness
Kbe = bending stiffness
Kve = shear stiffness
The bearing stiffness in Equation 7-37, Kbr, was derived by considering a bolt
and hole in their deformed state as shown in Figure 7-26. The deformed material
shown in grey is assumed to have reached its ultimate stress. Thus the force
exerted on the plate by the bolt is the product of the materials ultimate stress and

255

the contact area, Abearing, between the bolt and the inside of the hole. The contact
area can be derived by considering the geometry of Figure 7-26.1

A bearing

2 1 r 1 t p

EQ 7-38

r 22 r 21 2
acos 
2r 1

EQ 7-39

For standard holes with diameters 1/16 inch larger then the bolt diameter, the
bearing stiffness can be written as

K br

120Fy t p d b .

EQ 7-40

Bearing
Deformation

1
r1
bearing

r2

Figure 7-26: Bearing Deformation Model

1. A more complete treatment of the problem is given in the original work.

256

Comparison of bearing stiffnesses computed using Equation 7-40 with those

obtained experimentally and with finite element analyses showed that the relationship between the bolt diameter, db, was not completely linear. The error was
attributed to simplifying assumptions made in the derivation of Kbr and a factor of
0.8 was added to db. The resulting relationship is

K br

0.8

120Fy t p d b .

EQ 7-41

The bending and shearing stiffnesses, Kb and Kv, refer to the stiffness associated with the end distance of a lap plate. The end of the plate was modeled as a
short, deep beam as shown in Figure 7-27. The bending and shear stiffnesses of
the fixed-fixed beam can be written in terms of the inverse of the beam slenderness as

K be

3
 ,
32Et p h
L

EQ 7-42

K ve

 ,
6.67Gt p h
L

EQ 7-43


and h
L

Le
 0.5 .
db

257

EQ 7-44

Le

When the end distance of 1.5db is used, h/L reduces to unity.

L
Figure 7-27: Fixed Beam Bending and Shear Stiffness Model

Rex and Easterling evaluated the bearing model by comparing data points
from load-deformation curves obtained from testing with those predicted by the
model. An average difference of -0.6% with a coefficient of variation of 19.0% for
the predicted bearing force was achieved.
7.3.2 Slip Mechanism
As with the bearing deformation model, a modified version of the slip model
developed by Rex and Easterling (1996b) will be used in this work. Several existing slip investigations were evaluated including work by Frank and Yura (1981),
Fisher et al (1974), Kulak et al (1987), Karsu (1995), and Gillett (1978). None of

258

the literature reviewed attempted to characterize the pre or post slip behavior.
Karsu tested a total of 61 lap plate connections and investigated the effects of
varying parameters such as plate thickness, end distance, edge condition, and
bolt diameter. Gillett conducted 75 lap plate tests, of which data is available for 66
tests. Varied parameters include plate thickness, end distance, steel grade, and
bolt diameter and grade. Caccavale (1975) documented 11 lap splice tests with
the plate thickness being the primary variable. Sarkar and Wallace (1992) documented 16 lap splice tests. Data supplied independently to Rex and Easterling
(1996b) contained 19 tests with varied parameters including the end distance,
plate thickness, and bolt type. Frank and Yura (1981) conducted 77 tests of steel
plates in double shear and reported slip-deformation relationships similar to that
shown in Figure 7-28. The load-slip curve shows a linear initial portion up to a slip
load followed by a degrading post slip relationship. This behavior was also noted
by Gillett (1978).

Applied Load

Slip Load

Measured Slip

Figure 7-28: Slip Deformation

259

The model proposed by Rex and Easterling characterizes the slip behavior
by using three parameters; the initial slip stiffness, Kfi, the slip load, Pslip, and the
post slip stiffness, Kfp. Using a constant stiffness for the post slip portion of the
curve implies a linear load-deformation relationship. Although this is clearly not
the case based on Figure 7-28, it was deemed sufficiently accurate. The three
parameter method or rational method as it is referred to by Rex and Easterling,
is shown graphically in Figure 7-29.

Applied Load

Pslip

Kfp

Kfi

slip

Measured Slip

fu

Figure 7-29: Proposed Slip Model

The slip load prediction was based on the LRFD and recommendations
given by Fisher et al and is given as

260

P slip

n sb slip ( 0.70F u ) ( 0.75A b )

EQ 7-45

where
nsb = number of shear bolts
slip = 1.0 for A325 bolts and 0.88 for A490 bolts
= coefficient of friction between the two plates
Fu = ultimate strength of the bolt material
Ab = nominal area of the bolt
The stiffnesses Kfi and Kfp were determined as functions of the displacements slip
and fu as

K fi

K fp

P slip

slip

EQ 7-46

P slip

.
slip fu

EQ 7-47

value of 0.0076 in with a COV of 46% was determined for slip by conducting a
statistical analysis of data reported by Karsu and Gillett and fu was determined to
be a function of the thickness of the joined plates as is shown in Table 7-3.

261

Table 7-3: Ultimate Slip Deformation Definition

(tp1 + tp2)

fu

(tp1 + tp2)<0.5

0.4

0.5<(tp1 + tp2)<1.5

0.4-0.3(tp1 + tp2 - 0.5)

1.5<(tp1 + tp2)

0.1

7.3.2.1 Accuracy
Rex and Easterling compared the predicted values from several slip load
models with experimental test data to evaluate the models accuracy. The LRFD
(AISC, 1994) model had an average difference of -23.6% with a coefficient of variation of 23% while Rexs rational model showed and average difference of -8.3%
with a coefficient of variation 22.0%. Rex and Easterling also compared predictions of the slip stiffnesses from their model with test data and obtained an average difference of -2.0% for Kfi with a coefficient of variation of 42.0% and an
average difference of 0.0% for Kfp with a coefficient of variation of 29.0%.
The slip loads from the T-stub tests conducted in this research were compared to the prediction of the LRFD model and Rexs rational model. An average
difference of -22.1% with a standard deviation of 10.7% was obtained for LRFD
predictions and an difference of -7.4% with a standard deviation of 11.9% was
obtained using Rexs rational model. A class A surface was assumed for the Tstub faying surfaces. No attempt was made to extract the load-slip relationship
from the T-stub test data for evaluation of the stiffnesses. The accuracy of the
extracted data would not have justified the effort required.
7.3.3 Combining the Slip and Bearing Mechanisms
Before the bearing and slip models developed by Rex and Easterling can be
directly implemented into a the procedure, some minor changes and simplifica-

262

tions are required. First, the bearing model was developed for the case of a single
bolt lap splice. As a result, some manipulation is required for application to a Tstem containing multiple shear bolts. The most significant alteration concerns the
bending and shear stiffnesses used in the evaluation of the initial bearing stiffness, Ki,bearing. Rexs model considered initial stiffness contributions from bolt
bearing, Kbr, bending of the material contained within the end distance, Kbe, and
the shear stiffness of the material contained within the end distance, Kve. In a typical T-stub stem, there are an even number of bolts with only one pair subjected to
these end conditions. The initial stiffness of the remaining bolts, though, will be
unaffected by the end conditions and can predicted by the bearing stiffness, Kbr,
directly. Because of the way the procedure is implemented, consideration of the
influence of Kbe and Kve for only the two end bolts is excessively cumbersome. As
a result, the influence of Kbe and Kve on the two end bolts will be neglected and the
initial stiffness of all of the shear bolts will be set equal to Kbr.
The bearing model is implemented in displacement control (i.e. Equation 736 yields a force as a function of a given displacement). It is more convenient to
implement the model in force control but Equation 7-36 cannot easily be solved to
provide a displacement as a function of the force. Additionally, the bearing deformation model in its present form provides a continuous response. Since the
model being developed is multi-linear, the continuous response of the bearing
model will be represented by a series of straight lines. To accomplish this, a peak
load is sent to the routine. If the peak load is greater than the slip load, the difference between the peak load and slip load is divided into a predetermined number
of bearing load steps. The routine plots the points for the slip plateau and first
contact of the bolts with the holes. For each of the bearing load steps, an iterative

263

process is used to find the bearing deformations of the stem and beam flange that
yield a bearing force that, when added to the frictional force, will equal the target
load.
After the connection has exceeded its slip load, the routine estimates a bearing deformation for the stem and calculates the associated load. Next, a separate
iterative loop is used to find the bearing deformation of the beam flange that will
result in the load equal to the load developed by the stem bearing deformation.
The sum of the stem bearing deformation, the beam flange bearing deformation,
and the initial clear distance between the bolts and the holes is the total slip distance and is used to calculate to the frictional force from the slip model. The frictional force is then added to the bearing force. If the total force is less than the
target load for the step, a larger bearing deformation for the stem is estimated and
the procedure is repeated. If the total load is larger than the target load for the
step, the deformation increment is reduced until sufficient accuracy is achieved.
The entire procedure is illustrated as a flowchart in Figure 7-30.

264

Enter the routine with a target

force, Ptarget, and select a trial
stem bearing deformation,
bearing,stem

Find the force associated with

the trial stem bearing
deformation, Pbearing,stem

Adjust

bearing,stem

Select a trial flange bearing

deformation, bearing,flange

Adjust
bearing,flange

Find the force associated with

the trial flange bearing
deformation, Pbearing,flange

No

Does Pbearing,flange = Pbearing,stem?

Yes

bearing = bearing,stem + bearing,flange

total = clear slip + bearing
Find Pslip from total

Ptotal = Pslip + Pbearing,stem

No

Does Ptotal = Ptarget?

Yes

Load Step Finished

Figure 7-30: Slip and Bearing Deformation Flowchart

265

Figure 7-31 shows a comparison of the model with experimental results for
T-stub TA-07. The predicted behavior differs significantly from the experimental.
Two factors contribute to the difference. First, the model assumes that there is no
interaction of the shear bolt bearing deformation with the stem deformation. In the
actual T-stub, however, stem deformations influence the behavior of the bolt bearing by forcing more deformation into the last pair of bolts than the first. Secondly,
the model assumes that all of the bolt holes are drilled precisely where they were
supposed to be and that the bolts are located directly in the center of the holes. In
reality, the holes are drilled close to where theyre supposed to be but not exactly,
and the bolts are aligned in a relatively random manner. Because the bolts are
relatively free to slide where they want to, the effects of lack of fit, or the variation
of hole location, impact the slip behavior to a greater degree than the alignment of
the bolts, particularly when cyclic behavior is considered. In the model, though,
the bolts are not free to slide where they want to and it is more convenient to
account for the lack of fit issues by altering the alignment of the bolts than it is to
consider variable hole locations.

266

500

450

400

Applied Load (kip)

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Slip Deformation (in)

Figure 7-31: Comparison of Uniform Bearing Model with Experimental Results for T-stub TA-07

Figure 7-32 shows the results obtained using a model based on the linear
and spread bolt alignments shown in Figure 5-35. The routine was modified to
include variable bolt locations. The initial bolt location, bearing deformation, and
bearing force are kept track of independently for each pair of bolts in the model.
This allows each pair of bolts to be located arbitrarily.
An additional source of error is related to the testing procedure and apparatus. Referring to Figures 4-8 and 4-3, the member that was used to load the Tstubs, the force element, was a built up tee section of a WT section and connected the upper header beam to the T-stub specimen. Each force element was
used to test several different T-stubs. As a result, the bolt holes on the end that
was bolted to the T-stem sustain cumulative bearing deformation. This accumulated damage led to longer free slip distances. Measured bearing deformation up

267

to 0.125 were noted. As a result of these deformations, T-stub tests that were the
first to be loaded with a given force element are used for comparison of the slip/
bearing deformation model. The comparisons are shown in Figures 7-33 through
7-36

500

450

400

Applied Load (kip)

350

300

250

200

150

100
Experimental
Linear Alignment
Spread Alignment

50

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Slip Deformation (in)

Figure 7-32: Linear and Spread Slip/Bearing Models for T-stub TA-07

268

0.50

500

450

400

Applied Load (kip)

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.45

0.50

Slip Defomation (in)

Figure 7-33: Linear Slip/Bearing Model for T-stub TA-12

600
550
500
450

Applied Load (kip)

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Slip Deformation (in)

Figure 7-34: Linear Slip/Bearing Model for T-stub TB-08

269

500

450

400

Applied Load (kip)

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.45

0.50

Slip Deformation (in)

Figure 7-35: Linear Slip/Bearing Model for T-stub TC-07

600
550
500
450

Applied Load (kip)

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Slip Deformation (in)

Figure 7-36: Linear Slip/Bearing Model for T-stub TC-15

270

7.4 Assembly of the Total Model

After each of the different deformation mechanisms have been examined,
they can be assembled into the total deformation response of the T-stub and
finally, into the moment-rotation curve of the connection. The total deformation
response is assembled by adding the deformations from the various mechanisms
together at common loads.

Figure 7-37 illustrates the assembly process.

Because each of the mechanism responses has independent load points due to
specific local behavior, linear interpolation is required to insure that the total deformation response includes all of the load points from all of the individual mechanisms.

Figures 7-39 though 7-44 show comparisons of the predicted and

experimental behavior for several T-stubs. When examining the comparisons, the
reader is reminded that the experimental results of T-stubs TA-05, TC-07, and TD01 include excessive bearing and slip deformations that resulted from cumulative
damage to the beam flanges of the components test series.

271

500

450

400

Applied Load (kip)

350

300
Flange

Stem

Slip & Bearing

250

200

150

100
Flange
Flange + Stem
Flange + Stem + Slip

50

0
-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

Total Deformation (in)

Figure 7-37: Assembly of the Individual Deformation Components

600

500

Applied Load (kip)

400

300

200

100
Experimental
Model
0
-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

T-stub Deformation (in)

Figure 7-38: Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Total Deformation for T-stub TA-05

272

500

450

400

Applied Load (kip)

350

300

250

200

150

100
Experimental
Model

50

0
-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

T-stub Deformation (in)

Figure 7-39: Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Total Deformation for T-stub TA-07

500

450

400

Applied Load (kip)

350

300

250

200

150

100
Experimental
Model

50

0
-0.10

0.10

0.30

0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

T-stub Deformation (in)

Figure 7-40: Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Total Deformation for T-stub TA-12

273

600

500

Applied Load (kip)

400

300

200

100
Experimental
Model
0
-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

T-stub Deformation (in)

Figure 7-41: Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Total Deformation for T-stub TB-08

500

450

400

Applied Load (kip)

350

300

250

200

150

100
Experimental
Model

50

0
-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

T-stub Deformation (in)

Figure 7-42: Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Total Deformation for T-stub TC-07

274

600

500

Applied Load (kip)

400

300

200

100
Experimental
Model
0
-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

T-stub Deformation (in)

Figure 7-43: Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Total Deformation for T-stub TC-12

300

250

Applied Load (kip)

200

150

100

50
Experimental
Model
0
-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

T-stub Deformation (in)

Figure 7-44: Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Total Deformation for T-stub TD-01

275

The moment-rotation response of the connection is computed by combining

two monotonic curves for the top and bottom T-stub. One T-stub is subjected to
monotonic tension while the second is subjected to monotonic compression. The
moment is calculated as the T-stub force multiplied by the beam depth and the
rotation is calculated by the sum of the displacements of the two T-stubs at a
given load divided by the beam depth. Figure 7-45 shows the deformation curves
of the two T-stubs (TA-07) that were used to create the monotonic moment-rotation curve shown in Figure 7-46. The moment-rotation curve is based on a 24
deep beam.

500

400

300

Applied Load (kip)

200

100

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500
-0.70

-0.60

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

Total Deformation (in)

Figure 7-45: Full Range (Tension/Compression) Force/Deformation Curve for T-stub TA-07

276

12000
11000
10000
9000

Applied Moment (k-in)

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-0.005

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

0.050

Connection Rotation (rad)

Figure 7-46: Monotonic Moment Rotation Curve for T-stub TA-07 Connected to a 24 Deep Beam

7.5 Discussion
The monotonic stiffness model described in this chapter provides accurate
deformation predictions for the T-stubs tested. Provisions were made for including 1) nonlinear material properties, 2) variable tension bolt stiffnesses, 3) partially
plastic hinges in the flange, 4) second order membrane behavior of thin flanges,
and 5) variable shear bolt locations in the slip/bearing mechanism. Some limitations of the model exist, however.

Only the tests conducted in this research project were used to calibrate the
model. Although the model is based mostly on sound, rational theory, caution
should be exercised when using the model for T-stubs outside the limits of the
test cases.

277

The stem model is bi-linear with a secondary stiffness and ultimate deformation based on broad assumptions concerning stress concentrations around the
shear bolts. The model should be applied cautiously to T-stubs that use shear
bolt and stem configurations that are significantly different from those tested
here.

Shear deformation of the bolts was neglected in the model. While these deformations were deemed insignificant for the present work, smaller bolt sizes or
other situations may amplify the importance of this component.

The strength and deformation capacity of the flange are not always predicted
accurately because of sensitivities of the model to strain hardening parameters
and bolt ductility. As a result, the modified Kulak et al. strength model must be
used to limit the load capacity (and thus the ultimate deformation) of the T-stub
flange.
Some conclusions can be drawn from the work contained in this chapter.

The elastic-plastic hinge model provided a moderate degree of accuracy for

relatively flexible flanges but was not accurate when applied to stiffer flanges
where yielding, but not plasticity, governed.

A flange model incorporating a variable tension bolt stiffness was required to

accurately include the effects of bolt pretension, bolt yielding, and bolt fracture.

Second order membrane effects of very thin flange can subject the tension
bolts to high shear forces. The combination of the shear and tension on the
bolts may reduce their tensile capacity and thus reduce the overall capacity of
the T-stub.

278