Strength and

Ductility
Requirements for
Simple Shear
Connections
With Shear and
Axial Load

Author
illiam A. Thornton is chief
engineer of Cives Steel
Company and president of Cives
Engineering Corporation, both of
Roswell, Georgia. He is responsible for all structural design performed by the company and is a
consultant to the six divisions of
Cives Steel Company in matters
relating to connection design and
fabrication practices. Dr.
Thornton has 36 years of experience in teaching, research, consulting, and practice in the area of
structural analysis and design,
and is a registered professional
engineer in 30 states and the
District of Columbia. He has frequently served as an invited lecturer at AISC and company sponsored seminars on connection
design and is author or co-author
of over 45 published papers in
this and related areas. A member

of ASCE, ASME, ASTM, AWS

William A. Thornton

and Research Council on

Structural Connections (RCSC),
Dr. Thornton currently serves as a
member of technical committees
of AISC, ASCE and RCSC and as
chairman of the AISC Committee
on Manuals, Textbooks and
Codes.

Summary

imple Shear Connections

must often be designed to
accommodate some axial forces
in addition to shear. Shear force
will normally result in a connection
which allows simple beam end
rotation to occur with little
restraint. Axial forces, which can
be code required tying or robustness forces, or actual calculated
forces, tend to make shear connections less flexible to simple
beam end rotation. This paper
develops formulas which can be
used to determine if this reduced
flexibility will lead to progressive
fracture of the connection, and
provides a design method which
provides adequate strength with
maximum flexibility.

38-1

STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY REQUIREMENTS

FOR
SIMPLE SHEAR CONNECTIONS
WITH SHEAR AND AXIAL LOAD

W. A. Thornton1

Abstract

Simple Shear Connections must often be designed to accommodate some axial

forces in addition to shear. Shear force will normally result in a connection which
allows simple beam end rotation to occur with little restraint. Axial forces, which can
be code required tying or robustness forces, or actual calculated forces, tend to make
shear connections less flexible to simple beam end rotation. This paper develops
formulas which can be used to determine if this reduced flexibility will lead to
progressive fracture of the connection, and provides a design method which provides
adequate strength with maximum flexibility.
INTRODUCTION
As its name implies, a simple shear connection is intended to transfer shear load
out of a beam while allowing the beam end to rotate without significant restraint. The
most common simple shear connections are the double clip, Fig. 1, the shear end plate,
Fig. 2, and the tee, Fig. 3. This paper will deal with the ductility and strength
requirements for these connections.
GENERAL

Under shear load, these connections are flexible regarding simple beam end
rotation because there is an element of the connection which while remaining stiff in
shear has little restraint to motion perpendicular to its plane. This is an angle leg for
the double clips, a plate for the shear end plate, and the tee flange for the tee
connection. These are shown in Figs. 1-3 where the thickness t and the leg width
are the fundamental variables. When these connections are subjected to axial loads,
either calculated or from code required "robustness", considerations, the important
limit states are angle leg bending and prying action. These tend to require the
thickness t to increase or the leg width decrease, or both, and these requirements
compromise the connection's ability to remain flexible to simple beam end rotation.
This lack of connection flexibility causes a tensile load on the upper bolts (field bolts
for the double clips and shear end plate, shop bolts for the tee) or the upper part of the
welds. This tensile load could lead to fracture of the bolts or welds and to a
progressive failure of the connection and the resulting collapse of the beam. To the
authors' knowledge, there has never been a reported failure of this type, but it is
perceived to be possible.

Chief Engineer, Cives Steel Co., Roswell GA

38-3

DUCTILITY

As the beam end rotates under gravity loads a moment will be induced by the stiffness
of the angle leg, end plate, or tee flange. Based on yield line theory, a formula for the
maximum possible moment that can be induced by the connection has been given by
Thornton (1996) as
1

where is the material yield strength and the remaining parameters are defined in
Figs. 1-3. Data are available test the efficacy of this formula from Lewitt, Chesson,
and Munse (1969) for double angles and from Astaneh and Nader (1988, 1989) for
tees. Table 1 compares the moment calculated from Eq. 1 with the experimental
moments obtained by Lewitt, et al, at a simple beam end rotation of 0.03 radian.
This rotation is chosen as the maximum a beam end connection need be subjected to
because it exceeds the beam end rotation for most beams when a plastic hinge forms
at the center of the beam. Table 1 shows that Eq. 1 provides an excellent estimate for
the beam end moment induced by the connection. Eq. 1 provides a fairly tight upper
bound to the experimental results, and so provides a safe estimate of the maximum
connection induced moment. Table 2 compares the moment of Eq. 1 with the
experimental moments for tee connections obtained by Astaneh and Nader. Here, the
experimental moments are given for rotations of 0.03 radian and 0.07 radian (except
test No. 4, which is given at 0.06 radian). Except for test No. 1, Eq. 1 is seen to
overestimate the induced moment at 0.03 radian. Eq. 1 also generally over-estimates
the moment at the very large rotation of 0.07 radian. Thus it can be said that Eq. 1 is a
reasonable upper bound to the experimental data, and therefore will yield very safe
estimates for the maximum connection induced couple.

Using Eq. 1, the following requirements can be derived (Thornton, 1996) for the
minimum weld and bolt sizes to resist progressive failure by fracture:
For the bolts subjected to tension due to connection rigidity
2

and for the welds

3

In the above expressions

min. bolt diameter
material yield strength

38-4

= bolt tensile strength adjusted to gross area

= weld tensile strength

p = bolt pitch
L = length of connection (see Figs. 1 -3 )
bending length (see Figs. 1-3)
= min. fillet weld leg size

t = thickness of angle leg, tee flange, or end plate.

Note that Eqs. 2 and 3 are valid in all unit systems and for both allowable stress design
(ASD) and ultimate strength or limit states design (LRFD).
IMPLICATIONS OF THE DUCTILITY FORMULAS

In US customary units, Eqs. 2 and 3 become, for ASTM A36 connection

material, A325 bolts, E70 electrodes, and p = 3 inches:
4

Double Angles

Eq. 4 can be used to develop a table (see Table 3) of angle thicknesses and gages
for various bolt diameters which can be used as a guide for the design of double angle
connections subjected to shear and axial tension. Note that Table 3 validates AISC's
long-standing (since 1970) recommendation (AISC 1970, 1994) of a maximum 5/8
inch angle thickness for the "usual" gages. The usual gages would be 4 to 6
inches. Thus, for a carried beam web thickness of say inch, GOL will range from 2
inches to 3 inches. Table 3 gives a GOL of 2 inches for inch bolts (the most
critical as well as the most common bolt size). Note also that Table 3 assumes a
significant simple beam end rotation of 0.03 radian, which is approximately the end
rotation that occurs when a plastic hinge forms at the center of me beam. For short
beams, beams loaded near their ends, Seams with bracing gussets at their end
connections, and beams with light shear loads, the beam end rotation will be small and
Table 3 does not apply.
Table 3 shows that the "usual gages and bolt sizes" would be 2-1/2 (GOL) inches
with 3/4 inch A325 bolts. Larger bolts and thicker angles can also be used as shown
in Table 3. For instance, clip angles 1 inch thick could be used with 1 inch diameter
bolts at a clip gage (GOL) of about 3-1/2 inches.

38-5

Table 3 rationalizes AISC's 5/8 inch maximum angle leg thickness by showing
that it is not a "hard and fast" requirement but rather a worst case "rule of thumb."

Shear End Plate Connections

Shear end plates (Fig. 2) involve both ductility equations, Eq. 4 for the bolts and
Eq. 5 for the weld between the end plate and the beam web.
The AISC Manuals (AISC 1989 for instance) have stipulated that end plate
thicknesses should be in the thickness range of 1/4" to 3/8" inclusive with a gage of 31/2 inch to 5-1/2 inch. These are very restrictive requirements which can be replaced
by the rational approach of using Eqs. 4 and 5. For example, suppose a W18x35 beam
of A36 steel has to carry, in addition to a shear load, an axial load which requires a 3/4
inch end plate. Let the gage be 5-1/2 inches, and the end plate length L for a 5 row
connection at 3 inch pitch be 14-1/2 inches. Estimate the fillet weld between the beam
and end plate to
be w= 5/16. Then
and Eq. 4
gives
so the minimum bolt size would be 3/4 inch

diameter.
For the weld size, Eq. 5 gives

Thus, a 5/16" minimum fillet is indicated. It can be seen that with the rational and
conservative formulas given by Eqns. 4 and 5, shear end plate connections can be
applied to a much wider range of problems than if the old AISC "suggested" plate
thicknesses and gages are used. It is worth noting again that Eqns. 4 and 5 are based
on a very large simple beam end rotation of 0.03 radian. This is why the term
"conservative" is used above. Another consideration regarding weld size for shear
end plate connections is that the maximum weld size is limited by the beam web
thickness and strength. For A36 material, fillet welds 75% of the beam web thickness
in size will fully develop the beam web in tension. For = 50 ksi material, the
maximum effective fillet size is 100% of beam web thickness. Therefore, the required
weld size for ductility is
6

Thus, from Eq. 6,

which indicates that sufficient ductility will be provided by 1/4" fillet welds, rather
than the previously calculated 5/16" fillet welds, in this case.

38-6

Tee Connections
These are of two types, as shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 4 applies to the shop bolted case,
and Eq. 5 applies to the shop welded case.

As with the shear end plate, Eq. 5 can be generalized to

7

where

is the Tee stem thickness, and it is assumed that the Tee is A36 steel.

For the shop bolted case, Thornton (1996) has shown that

exceed 0.69

of Eq. 4 need not

(A36 steel assumed for the Tee), so Eq. 4 can be generalized to

8

Equations 7 and 8 are applied to Tee shear connections in the same way that Eqs.
4 and 6 were applied to the shear end plate connection.
STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS

The design requirements for shear alone, and for shear and axial load combined,
are well defined in various AISC publications. For instance, the design of double
angle connections subjected to shear and axial tension can be accomplished as shown
in the following AISC publications.
1.

AISC (1989) Manual (ASD 9th Ed.), p.4-94, Ex. 34, where the beam web
plays the same role as the gusset of this example.

2.

AISC (1992) Manual (ASD 9th Ed./LRFD 1st Ed.) Vol. II, pp. 7-123 and
124, pp. 7-125 and 126, pp. 7-167 through 170.

3.

AISC (1994) Manual (LRFD 2nd Ed.), Vol. II, pp. 11-38 through 42.

While the design is being completed in the usual way as shown in these publications,
Table 1, or Eq. 4, can be consulted to guide the design and maintain ductility, if
appropriate. Shear end plate and Tee shear connections can be designed and checked
for ductility in essentially the same way as the double clips are checked.
Since these are all considered to be "simple" connections, the design routine for
shear allows a very flexible connection to be obtained because shear strength, while
affected by t, is not dependent on

and

However, as discussed under the GENERAL section, axial force affects both t
and tends to compromise the "flexible" nature of these connections.

38-7

Axial strength design routines

The axial strength design routine presented in the AISC (1989) ASD Manual and
the AISC (1994) LRFD Manual are originally due to Struik (1969) and were presented
in the books by Fisher and Struik (1974) and Kulak, Fisher and Struik (1987). The
versions presented in the AISC ASD and LRFD Manuals are optimal formulations
developed by Astaneh (1985) and Thornton (1985) which for a given thickness t
provide the absolute maximum allowable load (ASD) or design strength (LRFD).
This is accomplished by choosing a value of
, where
is the ratio of the
moment at the bolt line to that at the stem line, that gives a solution on the boundary
of the acceptable and unacceptable design spaces - see Thornton (1985).
In ASD format, the axial force design routine is, following AISC (1989), page 490:

In the above, the notation follows AISC (1989) and

B = allowable bolt tension, kips, adjusted as required for shear interaction

b-d/2
b = GOL -t for double clips
for shear end plates
for Tee shear connections
p = bolt pitch, inches
= hole diameter, inches
= allowable connection tension, per bolt, kips
In LRFD format, the axial force design routine is, following AISC (1994), page
11-10:

38-8

From the above, it can be seen that the ASD and LRFD formulations are the
same except for notation and the strength level at which the calculations are
performed.
In the LRFD formulation, all the terms have the same physical meaning as in the
ASD formulation. The LRFD notations, following AISC (1994) are

Bolt design strength in tension, kips, adjusted as required for shear

interaction, and
Design tensile strength of the connection, per bolt, kips
The meaning of all the other terms are the same in ASD and LRFD formulations.
Modified Axial Strength Design Routines

All of the examples for simple connections under shear and axial forces presently
presented in the AISC publications noted above use the formulations of the previous
section. Research on Tee hanger connections by Kato and McGuire (1973) caused
them to suggest that a much better correlation to failure data is achieved in these
connections, which are essentially the same as Tee shear connections with respect to
axial load, if the yield stress is replaced by the ultimate tensile strength in their
proposed strength model. Thornton (1992) has applied this idea to the Struik (1969)
model as presented by Thornton (1985) in optimal form. Using the data of Kato and
McGuire (1973), and running it through the Struik/Thornton model, excellent
correlation with ultimate failure strength was achieved. Therefore, it is proposed in
the design of simple connections under shear and axial forces, to use in place of
in the ASD and LRFD formulations given above. All of the equations in both cases

38-9

remain the same except the equation for where replaces

By doing this,
connections with maximum rotational capability will be achieved when axial forces
are present. An example for double clips worked out in detail is given in Tamboli
(1996).
DISCUSSION

The question is sometimes asked - when does a simple flexible connection

become a rigid connection? The question can be answered using the equations
developed in this paper. As long as the ductility equations are satisfied, i.e., Eq. 4 for
double angles, Eqs. 4 and 6 to shear end plates, and Eqs. 7 and 8 for Tee connections,
the connections are flexible. Nevertheless, when subjected to shear and axial load,
these connections are capable of inducing a significant moment in the supporting
member. Will this moment have to be considered in the design of this supporting
member? There are several situations to be considered. If the supporting member is a
wide flange beam or column web, with connections to one side only, the rigidity of
the connections will not be mobilized because of the flexibility of the support. If
connections are made to both sides, the connections will tend to work against each
other with little or no effect on the supporting member. If the connections are to both
sides of a column flange, the previous sentence applies. Perhaps the critical case is a
connection to one side of a column and to the column flange. In this case, the
connection will induce a moment in the column. Will this moment have a
destabilizing effect on the column? The answer is generally no. Most columns which
have beams with simple shear connections framing to them will be designed for a K
factor of 1, i.e., the simple shear connections provide no resistance to rotation of the
column at the "simple shear" connection support points. Likewise, the "simple shear"
connection will induce no moment in the column. If the simple shear connection is in
fact quite rigid, it will induce a moment in the column which tends to induce an initial
imperfection in the column. However, once the column tries to deform beyond the
deformed shape induced by the connection, the rigidity of the connection acts to resist
further deformation. Thus, the K factor is now less than 1. The moment between the
beam and the column reverses direction and now tends to stabilize the column i.e., the
system is self-stabilizing. This is explained in the AISC (1994) LRFD Manual, 2nd
Ed., Vol. II, pp. 9-192 through 9-194, in the context of connections eccentric to
column weak axes, but similar arguments apply to non-eccentric connections to
column strong axes.
CONCLUSIONS

Formulas have been presented which can be used to determine if a simple shear
connection is sufficiently flexible to preclude overloading the less ductile elements of
the connections, i.e., the field bolts of Figs. 1 and 2, and the shop bolts or shop welds
of Fig. 3. It was noted above that these formulas are valid for all design methods. It
should also be recognized that these formulas provide a test criterion against which a
connection can be checked for ductility. They do not provide a design of a connection
for specific applied loads. Connection design would be performed in the usual
manner, except for replacing with as has been proposed for specified shears and
axial forces.

38-10

In order to maximize the flexibility of these connections under shear and axial
load, it is pointed out that the axial force analysis can use the connection tensile
strength in place of the yield strength

The effect of the rigidity of these connections on the supporting members is

discussed and it is concluded that there need be no concern over this matter.
Three types of simple shear connections have been treated here, i.e., double
angles, tees, and shear end plates. These all have a common bending property, ,
which is the primary provider of ductility. A fourth type of simple shear connection,
the single plate shear connection or shear tab, is not considered here because it does
not possess this bending property. A future paper will detail a method for the design
of this type of connection under shear and axial load.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Part of this paper was developed for the "Design Office Problems" project of the
ASCE Committee on Metal Building Structures. L. Griffis is the Chairman of the
sub-committee dealing with simple shear connections under shear and axial loads, and
the sub-committee members are R. Disque, T. Murray, D. Ricker, and K. Wiesner, in
addition to the author. This sub-committee has guided some of the development of
this paper, and offered suggestions, discussion items, and criticisms, which are hereby
gratefully acknowledged by the author.

38-11

REFERENCES

1. American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC (1970), Manual of Steel Construction,

Seventh Ed., AISC, Chicago IL, p. 4-12.

2. American Institute of Steel Construction (1989), Manual of Steel Construction (ASD),
9th Ed., AISC, Chicago IL.
3. American Institute of Steel Construction (1992), Manual of Steel Construction, Vol. II,
AISC, Chicago IL.

4. American Institute of Steel Construction AISC (1994), Manual of Steel Construction,

LRFD, 2nd Ed., Vol. II, Connections, AISC, Chicago IL, p 9-12.

5. Astaneh, A. (1985), Procedure for Design and Analysis at Hanger-Type Connections,

AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 63-66.

6. Astaneh, A., and Nader, M. N. (1988), "Behavior and Design of Steel Tee Framing Shear
Connections," Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Report
to Sponsor, AISC, July.
7. Astaneh, A., and Nader, M.N, (1989), "Design of Tee Framing Shear Connections, AISC
Engineering Journal, 1st Quarter, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 9-20.

8. Fisher, J. W., and Struik, J. H. A. (1974), Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and
Riveted Joints, Wiley-Interscience, New York NY, pp. 270-279.
9. Kato, B., and McGuire, W. (1973), "Analysis of T-Stub Flange to Column Connections,"
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. ST5, May, pp. 865-888,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York NY.

10. Kulak, G. L., Fisher, J. W., and Struik, J. H. A. (1987), Guide to Design Criteria for
Riveted and Bolted Joints, 2nd Ed., Wiley-Interscience, NY, pp. 274-286.
11. Lewitt, C.S., Chesson, E., Jr., and Munse, W. H., (1969), "Restraint Characteristics of
Flexible Riveted and Bolted Beam to Column Connections," University of Illinois
Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 500, Vol. 66, No. 63, Jan.
12. Struik, J. H. A. (1969), as referenced in Fisher and Struik (1974) and Kulak et. al. (1987).
13. Tamboli, A. (1996), Editor, Steel Design Handbook - LRFD Method, McGraw Hill, New
York, pg. 7-117.

14. Thornton, W. A. (1985), Prying Action - A General Treatment, AISC Engineering

Journal, Vol. 22, NO. 2, pp. 67-75.

15. Thornton, W. A. (1992), Strength and Serviceability of Hanger Connections, AISC

Engineering Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 145-149, AISC, Chicago IL. Also see: Errata
(1996), AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 39-40, Chicago IL.

16. Thornton, W.A. (1996), "A Rational Approach to Design of Tee Shear Connections," AISC
Engineering Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1 pp. 34-37, AISC, Chicago IL.

38-12

Table 1

Theoretical and Experimental Connection Couples

(Bolted and Riveted Double Angles)
Theoretical M
(Eq.1)

Specimen

FK-3
FK-4AB
FK-4P
WK-4
FK-4AB-M
FB-4
FB-4A
FK-5
WB-10AB

39.3
39.3

39.3
39.3
41.6
38.8
38.8
38.8
40.1

0.354
0.354
0.354
0.354
0.375
0.371
0.371
0.443
0.440

14
29

1.771
1.708
1.708

1.708
1.6875
1.8165
1.8165
1.6195
1.7475

0.2084
0.1486
0.1486
0.1486
0.1467
0.1580
0.1580
0.1117
0.0592

Experimental M
(Lewitt, Chesson, & Munse)

205
385
385
385
463

170
330

394
394
943
3873

330
330(2)
810
(2,3)
3,500

330
320
370

(1)
(2)
(3)

Slip between clip angles and beam web not included

Extrapolated from Fig. B35 of Lewitt, Chesson and Munse

Table 2

Theoretical and Experimental Values of Connection Couple

(Shop Welded WT)

Test
No.

Section

WT4x7.5
WT7x19
WT7x19
WT4x7.5
WT4x20
WT4x20
WT7x19(2)
WT4x20(2)
WT4x20(2)

3
4
5

6
7
8
9

Theoretical M
(Eq.1)

8.5
14.5
8.5
14.5
14.5
8.5
14.5
8.5
14.5

0.315
0.515
0.515
0.315
0.56
0.56
0.515
0.56
0.56

4.00
6.77
6.77
4.00
8.07
8.07
6.77
8.07
8.07

1/2
5/8
5/8
1/2
5/8
5/8
1/2(3)
1/2(3)
1/2(3)

1.5
2.76
2.76
1.5
3.4
3.41
2.89
3.53
3.53

217
921

327
626
890
321
881
312
861

(1)
(2)

With stem replaced with 1/2 A36 plate, 1/4 fillet welds

(3)
(4)

Estimated from Fig. 4.5 of Astaneh & Nader (1988) or Fig. 11 of Astaneh & Nader (1989).
47.9 in original. Data assumed corrupt.
(6)
Value is for 0.06 radian.
(5)

38-13

Experimental M
(Astaneh & Nader)

180(4)
300(4)
110(4)
370(4)
250(4)
50(4)
(4)
290(4)
30
440(4)

223
533

218
413(6)
479(5)
227
683
228
748

Table 3
Estimated Minimum Angle Gages (GOL) for A36 Angles and A325 Bolts for Rotational
Flexibility
ANGLE

THICKNESS
(in.)

Minimum Gage of Angle (GOL)

Driving clearances may control minimum GOL. GOL is defined in Fig. 1.

38-14

Fig. 1 Geometry of Double Angles

(Shop Bolted Shown)

38-15

FIG. 2 SHEAR END PLATE CONNECTION

38-16

FIG. 3 TEE SHEAR CONNECTIONS

38-17