design (LRFD) specification (3). This design method is consistent with what had been used
world wide, as well as for the design of other materials, for example, cold-formed steel and
concrete. Since 1986, there have been two more versions of the LRFD Specification, in
1993 and 1999, and one revision of the ASD Specification in 1989. For various reasons, the
LRFD method of design has not gained in popularity among steel designers. After careful
consideration of the needs of the design community and observing how other standards
developers have handled the dilemma of incorporating two design philosophies into one
standard, AISC has embarked on the development of a combined or single specification,
incorporating both the ASD and LRFD methods. The design capacity will be given in a sideby-side format throughout, which consists of a nominal strength for each limit state, followed
by an LRFD resistance factor and an ASD factor of safety. For example, for calculating
tensile yield strength, the new specification will read:
Pn = FyAg
t = 1.67 (ASD)
t = 0.90 (LRFD)
where the design tensile strength is tPn and the allowable tensile strength is Pn / t. The
safety factors were determined based on a live load-to-dead load ratio of 3, which results in
1.5 as the target effective load factor for the load combination of 1.2D+1.6L. Therefore, in
most cases, the safety factor is calculated as 1.5/ and it is given to 3 significant digits. The
required strength or available strength are based on ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures (4) factored load combinations for either LRFD or ASD,
depending on the method used. This arrangement will result in greater clarity, uniformity and
efficiency when applying AISC specifications. In the final analysis, the only difference
between the LRFD and ASD method of strength design is on the required strength side.
LRFD is based on factored load combinations given in ASCE 7 and ASD is based on service
load combinations in ASCE 7. Chapter J, Design of Connections, begins by stipulating the
design basis, similar to the above followed by more definitive design provisions as discussed
in the following.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Chapter J of the 2005 Specification contains the majority of the connection design provisions
in that document. The first section entitled General Provisions contains revisions to such
topics as compression members with bearing joints, splices in heavy sections, beam copes
and weld access holes, bolts in combination with welds, and limitations on bolted and welded
connections.
Compression members with bearing joints
The new provision permits that compression members, other than columns, be proportioned
for the less stringent of: 1. an axial tensile force of 50% of the required compressive strength
of the member or 2. the moment and shear resulting from a transverse load equal to 2
percent of the required compressive strength of the member. The application of this
transverse load should be at the splice location exclusive of other loads that act on the
member. The member shall be taken as pinned for the determination of the shears and
moments at the splice. This sub-section begins with a User Note that reminds the designer,
All compression joints should also be proportioned to resist any tension developed by the
load combinations. User Notes are a new feature of the 2005 Specification. They are
non-mandatory and are interspersed throughout the document to offer the designer concise
assistance with using the specification.
This provision is required to account for member out-of-straightness and to resist unexpected
lateral loads that may not have been considered in the design. In the past 40 years of the
AISC Specification, the only requirement that has existed required that splice materials and
connectors have a capacity of at least 50% of the required member strength. In the new
provision 1., the stipulation that these elements be designed for a tensile force provides a
more definitive way to address situations where compression on the connection imposes no
force on the connectors. Although this is a simple way to address this issue, it also can be
very conservative. Therefore, provision 2. was added offering an alternative that more
directly addresses the design intent of these provisions. The application of a lateral load of
2% simulates a kink at the splice, which could be caused by slightly out-of-square finished
ends or other construction conditions.
Splices in heavy sections
The special material toughness requirements for splices of heavy sections connected by
complete-joint-penetration groove welds have previously existed in the 1999 Specification.
The 2005 Specification will include clarification of these requirements. Shrinkage of large
welds between elements that are not free to move causes strains in the material adjacent to
the weld that can exceed the yield point strain. As the Commentary to the 2005 Specification
states, "In thick material the weld shrinkage is restrained in the thickness direction, as well as
in the width and length directions, causing triaxial stresses to develop." and this can
prevent the steel from deforming in a ductile manner. Thus, special material toughness
requirements, and carefully prepared weld access holes and copes are required for heavy
tension members to prevent brittle fracture.
For both rolled and built-up shapes, special toughness requirements apply to shapes with
flanges or plates exceeding 2 in. (50 mm), when "used as members subject to primary tensile
forces due to tension or flexure and spliced using complete-joint-penetration groove welds
that fuse through the thickness of the member." The latter phrase was added to clarify the
extent of welding required for these provisions to be applicable. The verbiage in the 1999
Specification explaining how the impact test should be performed is replaced with a
reference to ASTM A6/A6M, Supplementary Requirement S30, Charpy V-Notch Impact Test
for Structural Shapes - Alternate Core Location (5). The impact test must meet a minimum
average value of 20 ft-lbs (27 J) absorbed energy at +70F. The requirements do not apply if
the splices and connections are made by bolting, or if shapes with elements less than 2 in.
thick are welded to a heavy section, or to splices of elements of built-up shapes that are
welded prior to assembling the shape. On the other hand, the provisions do "apply to builtup cross section consisting of plates exceeding 2 in. that are welded with complete-jointpenetration groove welds to the face of other sections."
Beam copes and weld access holes
When splicing hot rolled shapes with a flange thickness exceeding 2 in. (50 mm) and similar
built-up cross sections, special attention must also be paid to the formation of beam copes
and weld access holes. More detailed rules for the size of an access hole are given;
specifically, the height shall be 1 1/2 times the thickness of the material containing the
access hole, most likely the web thickness, but not less than 1 in. (25 mm) nor greater than 2
in. (50 mm). Room for weld backing must also be provided and no arc of the weld access
hole shall have a radius less than 3/8 in.
For built-up shapes the access hole may
terminate perpendicular to the flange as long as the flange-to-web weld is held back at least
the weld size from the edge. The weld access hole details included in the 2005 Specification
are very similar to those in AWS D1.1, Structural Welding Code-Steel (6).
Groove welds
In line with AWS D1.1, as well as more recent research, the tables for effective throat of
partial-joint-penetration groove welds and effective weld sizes of flare groove welds are being
updated. Table J2.1 shown below has expanded to include more combinations of welding
processes and welding positions for partial-joint-penetration groove welds (new portions are
highlighted). The terminology to describe the effective throat thickness has been revised
from "depth of chamfer" to "depth of groove."
Table J2.1 Effective throat of partial-joint-penetration groove welds.
Welding Process
Welding Position
F (flat), H (horiz.),
V (vert.),
OH (overhead)
All
All
Groove Type
(AWS D1.1 Figure 3.3)
Effective Throat
J or U Groove
60 V
Depth of Groove
J or U Groove
F
60 Bevel or V
F, H
45 Bevel
All
45 Bevel
V, OH
45 Bevel
Depth of Groove
Depth of Groove
Minus 1/8-in (3mm)
Depth of Groove
Minus 1/8-in (3mm)
Flare V Groove
3/4 R
5/8 R
1/2 R
Fnt
fv Fnt
Fnv
Ft
fv
+
= 1.3
Fv
ft fv
+
= 1.3
Ft Fv
(LRFD)
(ASD)
ft
A
(ASD)
Pt. A = Ft or Ft /
Pt. B = Fv or Fv /
fv
One contentious issue in the current draft of the 2005 Specification is how to handle slip
resistance of slip-critical connections. The 1999 Specification gave two procedures for
calculating slip resistance: one method using factored loads and the other based on service
loads. For consistency with the format of the unified specification, only one procedure is
being proposed that is purported to give substantially the same results for ASD and LRFD.
This proposed procedure provides resistance to slip at service loads or resistance to slip at
factored loads with a reliability appropriate for serviceability criteria. The draft criteria can be
summarized as follows:
The design slip resistance Rn and the allowable slip resistance Rn/ shall be determined as:
= 1.00
= 1.40
Rn = 1.13 hscTbNs
where:
hsc
Tb
The 2005 Specification will not reach final approval until later in 2004, therefore the material
discussed in this paper is for information only and should not be applied until the final
document is announced. When that happens, the revised provisions in Chapter J for bolted
and welded connection design will be another step forward for the steel design and
fabrication industry in the United States. The AISC Committee on Specifications will
continue to work toward the goals of their mission statement:
Develop the practice-oriented specification for structural steel buildings that provides for
life safety
economical building systems
predictable behavior and response
efficient use
Based on new information from the areas of research and industry practice, the 2005
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings will allow for continued safe, as well as
economical and efficient steel building designs.
REFERENCES
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
AISC, (2004). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Draft dated March 2004,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC, (1999). Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, December 27, Chicago, IL.
AISC, (1986). Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, September 1, Chicago, IL.
ASCE, (2002). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASTM, (2002), Standard Specification for General Requirements for Rolled
Structural Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling, ASTM A6/A6M-02,
American Society of Testing Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
AWS, (2002). Structural Welding Code -Steel, American Welding Society, AWS
D1.1/D1.1M:2002, Miami, Florida.
Kulak, G.L. and Grondin, G.Y. (2003). Strength of Joints that Combine Bolts and
Welds, Engineering Journal, AISC, 4th Quarter.
Packer, J.A and Frater, G.S., (2003). "The Effective Throat of Flare Bevel and Flare
V Groove Welds," Final Report to AISC and STI, March.
Ng, A.K.F., Deng, K., Grondin, G.Y., and Driver, R.G., (2004). Behavior of
Transverse Fillet Welds: Experimental Program, Engineering Journal, AISC, 2nd
Quarter.
Ng., A.K.F., Driver, R.G., Grondin, G.Y., (2004). Behavior of Transverse Fillet
Welds: Parametric and Reliability Analyses, Engineering Journal, AISC, 2nd
Quarter.
(11)
(12)
(13)
10
RCSC, (2002). Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts,
Research Council on Structural Connections, Chicago, IL.
Kulak, G.L., Fisher, J.W., and Struik, J.H.A., (1987). Guide to Design Criteria for
Bolted and Riveted Joints, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Geschwindner, L., (2004). Evolution of Shear Lag and Block Shear Provisions in the
AISC Specification, Proceedings of the Connections in Steel Structures V
Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.