The Effect of Eccentricity on Brace-to-gusset Angles

W. A. THORNTON

INTRODUCTION singled out for further study. One of these three will usually
Claw angles are used in many bracing connections as shown produce a capacity close to the greatest lower bound value
in Figure 1. Normally these angles and their connections are of P.
designed for direct load only without consideration of the fact Admissible Set No. 1:
that the connections are to opposite legs of the angles and of Hx=H2 = 0
the eccentricities thereby induced. It is the purpose of this note
MA=MB=0
to demonstrate that this practice is generally acceptable, and
to produce some guidance as to when it is not. Pgi=MAi
Pgi = MBx
THEORY
This set is shown in Figure 3. It is the set that first comes to
Consider the single claw angle shown in Figure 2. The applied
mind when the question of eccentricity is first raised with
load is P. The other forces shown in Figure 2, i.e., Hl9 H2,
claw angle connections. It places the applied load P at the heel
MA,MB,MA, and MB, are possible. Two additional couples,
of the angle. Thus, in addition to axial force, the angle section
MA, and MB, are also possible but are never necessary for
midway between the connections is subjected to biaxial bend-
equilibrium and therefore can be assumed to not exist (have
ing moments.
identically zero value). The forces shown in Figure 2 must
satisfy equilibrium, as represented by the following three
equations.

Pgl=LH^MAi + MB2 (1)

Pg2 = LH2 + MA+MBx (2)

Hlg2 = H2gl (3)

Any set of forces which satisfies these three equations is said
to be admissible. There are obviously an infinite number of
admissible sets of forces which satisfy Equations 1-3. Each
admissible set, when made to satisfy the various yield and
fracture limit states associated with the angle and bolts, will
result in an allowable value for P. In the sense of the Lower
Bound Theorem of Limit Analysis, the admissible set which
produces the largest allowable value for P is the set which
most closely approximates the true solution, which satisfies
compatibility in addition to equilibrium and the limit state
criteria. Therefore, of all the possible admissible sets of forces
which also satisfy the limit states, the one which maximizes
P provides the best approximation for the capacity of the
connection.

Admissible Force Sets

Of the many possible admissible force sets, three will be
Bolts: 7/BT 0 A325-N
Holes: Standard

W. A. Thornton is chief engineer, Cives Steel Company, Roswell,

GA. Fig. 1. Typical bracing connection with claw angles
(from AISC1992, pg. 7-114).

ENGINEERING JOURNAL /FOURTH QUARTER/1996 123

Admissible set No. 2: into the latest AISC Manuals on Connection Design (AISC
MA=MA=MB=MB=0 1992, AISC 1994B). Consider the following two examples
from the Manuals. For these two examples, admissible set No.
Pg^LH, 2 will be used. From Figure 4, it can be seen that Bolts A are
Pg2 = LH2 subjected to forces
This set is shown in Figure 4. It will generally produce the
greatest value of P except for short connections with light shear = ^lP2 + ti1l
angles. Note that this distribution causes the resultant force tension = H2
on the bolt groups A and B to pass very close to the centroid while Bolts B are subjected to forces
of the angle on the cross-section midway between the cen-
troids of the two groups. Thus, the assumption that the angle shear = ^lP2 + ti22
is axially loaded is closely approximated. tension = Hx
Admissible Set No. 3. Note that P is assumed to be tension. This is the critical case.
Forces Hx and H2 are taken as large as the thickness of the When P is compression, the "tensions" Hi and H2 are com-
angle leg allows, but not to exceed the tension/shear interac- pressions and are transmitted by bearing and not by the bolts.
tion expression for the bolts. Let these values ofHx and H2 be The notation used in these examples is that of AISC (1989)
denoted by Hx and H2 . Then, setting MA = MB = 0 (these if not defined herein.
will add extra tension on the bolts if non zero).
Example 1
+ MA
AISC Manual Vol. II (ASD/LRFD 1992) p. 7-111, Ex. 16.;
+ MB Ex. 11-2 of the AISC Manual Vol. II (LRFD 1994) p. 11-27,
„8i is similar.
This is the claw angle of the connection of Figure 1.
This set is much more complex than either of the first two,
but will produce a larger value for P than sets 1 or 2 for very
gl=g2 = g = 2l/2
short connections with light angles.
L=22
P= 173/2 = 86.5k
APPLICATIONS
As stated in the introduction, claw angle connections are
22
normally designed for direct load (P) only, with no consid- , 3
eration of the eccentricities. This has been the practice of L s4x4x /4
many designers for many years and has been incorporated Material A36

p p

©—• 1 1
O 1 <B—•*- l H I 2 -*-©

3
t
*
-o
1
I
o
o
- ^ H ,

Bolt5 A
h
MAl
H*

M
)
1V1
Bolts A
A2

J 8 2
§2
•~ o 1
Oca I ''
MB2-L Bolts B w
0
1
> . ? 1 H2 <—£ o
*." v r 0
(
L
J
Fig. 2. Most general set of claw angle forces. Fig. 3. Forces for admissible set No. 1.

124 ENGINEERING JOURNAL/ FOURTH QUARTER/ 1996

Bolts A325 N7/8((>
1 '70^
Holes STD15/i6<t> a =-.69x1.68 IL V l = -.n
75
7
Since gx = g2, both sets of bolts see the same loads Tallow = 5.0k > 1.4k o.k.

shear = V86.52 + 9.832 = 87.1k .*. Bolts and claw angles are o.k.
tension = 9.83k
87.1 The angles and bolts were originally designed (AISC 1992,
shear per bolt = V- 12.4k < 12.6k o.k. AISC 1994B) only for P = 86.5k, with the extra shear and
9 83 tension of 9.83k ignored. The original design was very close
tension per bolt = T= —'— = 1.4k to the limit on the bolts, i.e. 86.5/7 = 12.36k < 12.6k, i.e.
within 1.9 percent of the allowable load. Nevertheless, the
Allowable tension per bolt = B = extra shear and tension do not cause the design to be unsatis-
factory.

4 442 - 4.39
( 12.4 Y
.6013
x.6013 = 5.0k> 1.4k o.k. Example 2
AISC Manual Vol. II (ASD/LRFD 1992) p. 7-160, Ex.24.
Figure 5 shows the configuration where
Check bending of angle leg under tension load H = 9.83k
(Prying Action) Si = #2 = 8 = 2!/2
L= 13.25
6 = 2 . 5 - / 7 5 = 1.75 P = 28.1k
0 = 4 - 2 . 5 = 1.5 < 1.256 o.k. 28.1x2.5
H = 5.30
13.25
b'= 1.75-4^= 1.31
L/s4x4x3/8
^=1.5 + ^ = 1 . 9 4 Material A36
BoltsA325SC-A-N7/8((>
p = .68
9375 Note: This is a shorthand way to say the bolts are slip critical
5=l-^4^-=.69 with surface Class A, and with threads in the shear plane(s).
Holes STD15/16(|>

w 8x5.0xl.31
3x36
= .70 Since g{ = g2, both sets of bolts see the same loads
shear = V28.P + 5.302 = 28.6k
tension = 5.30k
28.6
shear per bolt = V - 9.53k < 10.2k o.k.
5.30

¥ H,
H 3
tension per bolt = T = -^r— = 1.77k

allowable tension per bolt = B = 39

9.53
10.2
= 2.56k > 1.77k o.k.

• * *
o o o L4x4xW-2 3 4
1
41, 1
4, 4'4 4*

H
Tg2J

Fig. 4. Forces for admissible set No. 2. Fig. 5. Claw angle for Example 2.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 1996 125

Check bending of angle leg (prying action) 8 = 1 - .9375/3 = .6875
b = 2.5 -.375 = 2.125 At max bolt shear, Fv = 21 ksi, the allowable bolt tensile
a = 1.5 < 1.25b o.k. stress Ft = 55 - 1.8 x 21 = 17.2 ksi, and the max allowable
b' =1.69 bolt tensile force B = 17.2 x .6013 = 10.34k. Note that the
a'=1.94 tension/shear interaction equation used here is the "three
straight lines" version rather than the ellipse. This is accept-
p = .87
able per the AISC specification as mentioned in the com-
.9375 mentary (AISC 1994A).
8=1 •=.79
4.5
Thus
8x2.56x1.69
'C=Y = .462
4.5 x 36 8x10.34x1.6875
tc = \ = 1.137
3x36
2
1 [7.462]
a = .79 x 1.87 [ .375 - 1 = .35
-V J 1 '1.137^
= 6.37
.6875x1.871 .375
'.375^
= 2.56 (1+ .35 x.79) = 2.15k > 1.77k o.k.
.462 use a' = 1
v
.*. bolts and claw angles are o.k. ' 375 ^
Tn11= 10.34 x 1.6875= 1.90k
Example 3 1.137
As a "worst case" situation, consider the claw angle of Fig- Based on Ta[low, # max = 2 x 1.90 = 3.80k
ure 6. This is a very short angle, of fairly light weight, and Setting Hmax = 3.80 =.385F, P = 9.87k. With P = 9.87k, the
with strong bolts (A325N7/8<t)). shear per bolt is
a. Solution via Admissible Set No. 1 (Both sets of bolts see
the same loads so subscripts are unnecessary). '9.87 Y f3.80^2
M=2.5P V /
+
V J
: 5.29k < 12.6k o.k.

AISC Manual (ASD 9th) p. 4-62 Table XI

n = 2 1=2.5 c=1.03 Thus the maximum load by Admissible Set No. 2 is 9.87k
P = 1.03x12.6= 13.0k c. Solution via Admissible Set No. 3.
b. Solution via Admissible Set No. 2. The solution given by Admissible Set No. 1 assumes that
H = 2.5/V6.5 = .385P H = 0, i.e. angle legs and bolts can take no tension. Alter-
nately, the solution given by Admissible Set No. 2 assumes
ft = 2.5-.375 = 2.125
that M = 0, i.e. that the couple on the bolt group is zero. The
a = 1.5 < 1.256 = 2.656 o.k. present set allows both H and M to exist. Its genesis lies in
6'= 2.125-.875/2 = 1.6875 the fact that with Set No. 2 the bolt shear is only 5.29k.
fl'= 1.5+ .875/2 =1.9375 Since this is the case allowing the couple M to exist will
p = .871 increase capacity. The relevant equilibrium equation is

2.5P = HL + M
from which it can be seen that a non zero M will increase
M =4=4= P. Set H = # max = 3.80k from the Set No. 2 calculations.
- t
L4x4xVl'-0 2 Then, with L = 6.5
o o
M=2.5/>-24.7
and the resultant load on the critical bolt is

'PY (Htmax MA
Fig. 6. Claw angle for Example 3. R =
\ \ 2 2 3
V J
v J
126 ENGINEERING JOURNAL/FOURTH QUARTER/1996
 Table 1.
Summary for Results for Examples 3 and 4
(A325N7 8(|) bolts, A36 angles, capacities in kips)

Capacity Based on %
Admissible Set Direct Reduction
Ex. Angle Estimated load (Eccentric
No. Size L/g No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Capacity Capacity Effect)

3 4x4x% 2.6 13.0 9.87 18.1 18.1 25.2 28.2

3 4x4x 1 /2 2.6 13.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 25.2 12.7
3 4x4x 3 /4 2.6 13.0 23.5 23.5<1> 23.5 25.2 6.75
4 4x4x 3 /8 3.8 16.0 23.0 24.2 24.2 25.2 3.97
3
<1>Set 3 does not increase capacity over that of Set 2 because /-/max = 17.0k for the 4x4x /4 angle cannot be
reach ed. The maximum achievable H is 9.05k and is reached when M= 0.

Substituting numerical values into Equation 4 and setting

R = 12.6 yields

+ (.833/>-6.33) 2 =12.6 2
< ^ 4 8 x 10.34xl.6875
4.5X36 =
MO
-928
22
V J
1 .928
P = 18.1 kips tt -1 :3.46
"792x1.871 .375
Table 1 summarizes the results. From these three admissi-
use a' = 1
ble sets, the estimated capacity is 19.4 kips. The direct load
or no-eccentricity capacity is 25.2 kips, so the eccentricity
'.375 A
causes a reduction not more than 28.2 percent. Additional = 10.34 x 1.792= 3.03k
admissible distributions may exist which make the reduction .928
smaller than 28.2 percent. Also shown in Table 1 is the effect # max = 2 x 3.03 = 6.06k
of increasing the angle leg thickness. When 4x4x3/4 angles are P = 6.06/.263 = 23.0k
used, the maximum reduction is only 6.7 percent.
The reductions given in Table 1 are from the direct capacity Check maximum bolt shear
based on bolt shear strength. Normally, there will be some
slack between the applied load and the capacity, because an
integer number of bolts must be used. Thus, the effect of
eccentricity will generally be less than 28.2 percent even for
V 23.0 \ 2 f6.06t 11.89k < 12.6k o.k.

this worst case example. c. Admissible Set 3.

Example 4 M = 2.5P - 6.06 x 9.5 = 2.5P - 57.6

Consider the angle of Example 3 but with the bolt pitch The resultant load on the critical bolt is
increased to 4H inches and the distance between bolt groups
increased to 2V4 + 2V4 + xh = 5.
fp\2 Hrmax M "7
a. Admissible Set 1. R= y2 2 4.5
VJ
From AISC Manual (9th) p. 4-62 Table XI
Thus
For& = 3, n = 2, / = 2.5 c = 1.03
For& = 6,rc= 2, / = 2.5c= 1.51
For b = 4V2 c = (1.03 + 1.51)/2 = 1.27 + (.56P-9.77) 2 =12.6 2
2,
P = 1.27x12.6= 16.0k V J
P = 24.2k
b. Admissible Set 2.
These results are also shown in Table 1. It can be seen that a
L = 4.5 + 5 = 9.5 small increase in the length of the claw angle, by increasing
H = 2.5/79.5 = .263P the pitch from 3 to 4V2 inches, yields a great reduction in the
5 = 1 - .9375/4.5 = .792 effect of eccentricity.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FOURTH QUARTER / 1996 127

 CONCLUSION REFERENCES
The examples given show that the eccentric effect of the 1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
connections to opposite angle legs is very small except for Construction, ASD, 9th Ed., Chicago, IL, 1989.
very short connections (Llg < 4), and can safely be ignored. 2. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
For short connections, consideration should be given to ec- Construction, ASD/LRFD, 9th Ed./lst Ed., Vol. II, Connec-
centricity by performing the calculations outlined in this note, tions, Chicago, IL, 1992.
or short connections should be avoided by keeping Llg > 4, 3. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
approxmately. Construction, LRFD, 2nd Ed., Vol. I, Chicago, IL, 1994.
4. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel
Construction, LRFD, 2nd Ed., Vol. II, Connections, Chi-
cago, IL, 1994.

128 ENGINEERING JOURNAL/ FOURTH QUARTER/ 1996