PART 13 DESIGN OF BRACING CONNECTIONS AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS SCOPE ween BRACING CONNECTIONS . Diagonal Bracing Members Force Transfer in Diagonal Bracing Connections ‘The Uniform Force Method Required Strength Special Case 1, Modified Working Point Location Special Case 2, Minimizing Shear in the Beam-to-Column Connection Special Case 3, No Gusset-to-Column Web Connection... Analysis of Existing Diagonal Bracing Connections Available Strength... ‘TRUSS CONNECTIONS Members in Trusses .......... fete tects ences Minimum Connection Strength... Panel-Point Connections Design Checks ..... Shop and Field Practices Support Connections 0.0... 0.6... cece Design Checks Shop and Id Practices ‘Truss Chord Splices Design Considerations for HSS-to-HSS Truss Connections ........ PART 13 REFERENCES AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC, BH132 DESIGN OF BRACING CONNECTIONS AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS: SCOPE ‘The specification requirements and other design considerations summarized in this Part apply to the design of concentric bracing connections and truss connections, For bracing connections and truss connections that are part of a seismic force resisting system in which the seismic response modification factor, R, is taken greater than 3, the requirements in the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings also apply. The AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings is available in Part 6 of the AISC Seismic Design Manual from the American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. at www.aisc.org. BRACING CONNECTIONS Diagonal Bracing Members Diagonal bracing members can be rods, single angles, channels, double angles, tees, W-shapes, or HSS as required by the loads. Slender diagonal bracing members are relatively flexible and, thus, vibration and sag may be considerations. In slender tension-only bracing com- posed of light angles, these problems can be minimized with “draw” or pretension created by shortening the fabricated length of the diagonal brace from the theoretical length, Ly between member working points. In general, the following deductions will be sufficient to accomplish the required draw: no deduction for L< 10 ft; deduct Ys in, for 10 ft 35 ft. This approach is not appli- cable to heavier diagonal bracing members, since it is difficult to stretch these member vibration and sag are not usually design considerations in heavier diagonal bracing members. In any diagonal bracing member, however, it is permissible to deduct an additional /32 in. ‘when necessary to avoid dimensioning to thirty-seconds of an inch. When double-angle diagonal bracing members are separated, as at “sandwiched” end connections to gussets, intermittent connections must be provided if the unsupported length of the diagonal brace exceeds the limits specified in AISC Specification Section D4 for ten- sion members or AISC Specification Section E6 for compression members. Note that a minimum of two stitch-fillers are required. These may be either bolted or welded stitch- fillers. Many fabricators prefer ring or rectangular bolted stitch-fillers when the angles require other punching, as at the end connections. In welded construction, a stitch-filler with protruding ends, as shown in Figure 13-Ia is preferred because it is easy to fit and weld. The short stitch-filler shown in Figure 13—1b is used if a smooth appearance is desired. (@) Protruding (b) Short Figure 13-1. Welded stitch fillers. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF SreEt, CONSTRUCTION, INC.BRACING CONNECTIONS 133 When a full-length filler is provided, as in corrosive environments, the maximum spacing. of stitch bolts should be as specified in AISC Specification Section J3.5. Alternatively, the edges of the filler may be seal welded. Force Transfer in Diagonal Bracing Connections ‘There has been some controversy as to which of several available analysis methods provides the best means for the safe and economical design and analysis of diagonal bracing con- nections. To resolve this situation, starting in 1981, AISC sponsored extensive computer studies of this connection by Richard (1986). Associated with Richard's work, full-scale tests were performed by Bjorhovde and Chakrabarti (1985), Gross and Cheok (1988), and Gross (1990). Also, AISC and ASCE formed a task group to recommend a design method for this connection. In 1990, this task group recommended three methods for further study; refer to Appendix A of Thornton (1991). Using the results of the aforementioned full scale tests, Thornton (1991) showed that these three methods yield safe designs, and that of the three methods, the Uniform Force Method (see Model 3 of Thornton, 1991) best predicts both the available strength and criti- cal limit state of the connection. Furthermore, Thornton (1992) showed that the Uniform Force Method yields the most economical design through comparison of actual designs by the different methods and through consideration of the efficiency of force transmission. For the above reasons, and also because it is the most versatile method, the Uniform Force Method has been adopted for use in this book. The Uniform Force Method ‘The essence of the Uniform Force Method is to select the geometry of the connection so that moments do not exist on the three connection interfaces; ic., gusset-to-beam, gusset-to-column, and beam-to-column. In the absence of moment, these connections may then be designed for shear and/or tension only, hence the origin of the name Uniform Force Method. Required Strength With the control points (c.p.) as illustrated in Figure 13-2 and the working point (w.p.) cho- sen at the intersection of the centerlines of the beam, column, and diagonal brace as shown. in Figure 13~2a, four geometric parameters 2, , and B can be identified, where ¢y = one-half the depth of the beam, €c = one-half the depth of the column, in. Note that, for a column web support, ¢- ~ 0. 1 = distance from the face of the column flange or web to the centroid of the ‘gusset-to-beam connection, in B = distance from the face of the beam flange to the centroid of the gusset-to-column connection, in. For the force distribution shown in the free-body diagrams of Figures 13-2b, 13-2c, and 13-2d to remain free of moments on the connection interfaces, the following expression ‘must be satisfied: —B tan0 = ep tan — e, Since the variables on the right of the equal sign (¢), ¢,, and 6) are all defined by the mem- bers being connected and the geometry of the structure, the designer may select values of o. [AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL. CONSTRUCTION, INC.DESIGN OF BRACING CONNECTIONS AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS, (a) Diagonal bracing connection (0) Gusset free-body diagram and external forces (©) Column free-body diagram (0) Beam free-body diagram R= Rvor Re, required end reaction of the beam As = Av oF Ass, required transverse force from adjacent bay H__ =horizontal component of the required axial force Hy =Hyo0F Heo, required shear force on the beam to gusset connection He = HycOt Hoe required axial force on the column to gusset connection Vy =Vyo0r Vao, fequired shear force on the beam to the gusset connection Ve = Vc Ot Vee, Fequired shear force on the column to gusset connection P =P, or Ps, required axial force V__ = vertical component of the required force Figure 13-2. Force transfer by the uniform force (UF) method, work point (w.p.) and control points (c.p.) as indicated. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INCBRACING CONNECTIONS 135 and B for which the equation is true, thereby locating the centroids of the gusset-to-beam and gusset-to-column connections. Once 0 and B have been determined, the required axial and shear forces for which these connections must be designed can be determined from the following equations: 5p fp where raVare? + B+ en? ‘The gusset-to-beam connection must be designed for the required shear force, Hi, and the required axial force, Vj, the gusset-to-column connection must be designed for the required shear force, V-, and the required axial force, H., and the beam-to-column connection must be designed for the required shear R-Vs, and the required axial force Ay +(H- Hp) Note that, while the axial force, P,, or P,, is shown as a tensile force, it may also be a com- pressive force; were this the case the signs of the resulting gusset forces would change. Special Case 1, Modified Working Point Location As illustrated in Figure 13-3a, the working point in Special Case 1 of the Uniform Force Method is chosen at the comer of the gusset; this may be done to simplify layout or for a column web connection, With this assumption, the terms in the gusset force equations involving e,, and e, drop out and the interface forces, as shown in Figures 13-3b, 13-3c, and 13.34, are: Hy=Psin0=H — V,=0 V.=PcosO=V -H.=0 ‘The gusset-to-beam connection must be designed for the required shear force, Hy, and the gusset-to-column connection must be designed for the required shear force, V,.. Note, how- ever, that the change in working point requires that the beam be designed for the required ‘moment, My, where My = Hyer and the column must be designed for the required moment, M,. For an intermediate floor, this is determined as: Vee 2 Me AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.136 DESIGN OF BRACING CONNECTIONS AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS (a) Diagonal bracing connection (b) Gusset free-body diagram Ir — mM, __* Sy M,=H, R. +R, -V (c) Colurmn free-body diagram (d) Beam free-body diagram RyoF Re, required end reaction of the beam Ay = Aw OF Aw, required transverse force from adjacent bay H_ =horizontal component of the required axial force Hy =Hu00r He», required shear force on the beam to gusset connection He = Hof Hee. required axial force on the column to gusset connection Vy =Vipor Veo, required shear force on the beam to the gusset connection Ve = VieOt Vac, required shear force on the column to gusset connection P =Pyor P,, required axial force V__ = Vertical component of the required force Figure 13-3. Force transfer, UF method special case 1. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CoNsTRUCTION, INC,BRACING CONNECTIONS, Ba An example demonstrating this eccentric special case is presented in AISC (1984). This eccentric case was endorsed by the AISC/ASCE task group (Thornton, 1991) as a reduction of the three recommended methods when the work point is located at the gusset corner. While calculations are somewhat simplified, it should be noted that resolution of the required force P into the shears V. and H, may not result in the most economical connection. Special Case 2, Minimizing Shear in the Beam-to-Column Connection If the brace force, as illustrated in Figure 13-4a, were compressive instead of tensile and the required beam reaction, R,,, were high, the addition of the extra shear force, Vj.into the beam might exceed the available strength of the beam and require doubler plates or a haunched connection. Alternatively, the vertical force in the gusset-to-beam connection, Vp, can be limited in a manner which is somewhat analogous to using the gusset itself as a haunch. As illustrated in Figure 13~4b, assume that Vj, is reduced by an arbitrary amount, AV,, By statics, the vertical force at the gusset-to-column interface will be increased to V,+ AV, and ‘moment M, will result on the gusset-to-beam connection, where Mp = (AVp)0. If AV, is taken equal to Vj, none of the vertical component of the brace force is transmitted to the beam; the resulting procedure is that presented by AISC (1984) for concentric grav- ity axes, extended to connections to column flanges. This method was also recommended by the AISC/ASCE task group (Thornton, 1991) Design by this method may be uneconomical. It is very punishing to the gusset and beam because of the moment M, induced on the gusset-to-beam connection. This moment will require a larger connection and a thicker gusset. Additionally, the limit state of local web yielding may limit the strength of the beam. This special case interrupts the natural flow of forces assumed in the Uniform Force Method-and thus is best used when the beam-to-column imerface is already highly loaded, independently of the brace, by a high shear, R, in the beam-to-column connection. Special Case 3, No Gusset-to-Column Web Connection ‘When the connection is to a column web and the brace is shallow (as for large @) or the beam is deep, it may be more economical to eliminate the gusset-to-column connection entirely and connect the gusset to the beam only. The Uniform Force Method can be applied to this situation by setting B and e, equal to zero as illustrated in Figure 13-5. Since there is to be no gusset-to-column connection, V, and H, also equal zero. Thus, V, = Vand H,, = H. If@ = =e, tan®, there is no moment on the gusset-to-beam interface and the gusset-to- beam connection can be designed for the required shear force, H), and the required axial force, Vp, If & # & = eg tan®, the gusset-to-beam interface must be designed for the moment, My, in addition to H, and V,, where My= Vs (x-@) The beam-to-column connection must be designed for the required shear force, R + Vi. Note that, since the connection is to a column web, e, is zero and hence H, is also zero. For a connection to a column flange, if the gusset-to-column-flange connection is elimi- AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF SteEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.138 DESIGN OF BRACING CONNECTIONS AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS HH, +H, V=W, +A¥,)+0 -aK) M = (AV, Jor (0) Gusset free-body diagram Lea ey M, (0) Column free-body diagram (&) Beam tree-body diagram R= Ror Re, required end reaction of the beam. Av = Auw OF Aso, required transverse force from adjacent bay H_ =horizontal component of the required axial force Hy =Hio oF Hao, required shear force on the beam to gusset connection He = Hc Of Hc required axial force on the column to gusset connection Vp =Vsp oF Va» required shear force on the beam to the gusset connection Ve = VicOf Vac, fequited shear force on the column to gusset connection P= P,or Ps required axial force V__ = vertical component of the required force Figure 13-4. Force transfer, UF method special case 2. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL. CONSTRUCTION, INCBRACING CONNECTIONS 139 troa-v (c) Column free-body diagram (d) Beam free-body diagram R= Ryor Rs, required end reaction of the beam Ay = Aw oF Aap, required transverse force from adjacent bay H_ =horizontal component of the required axial force Hy = Hig of Hao, required shear force on the beam to gusset connection He = HycOt Hse, required axial force on the column to gusset connection Vy = Vip oF Vo, fequited shear force on the beam to the gusset connection Ve = VicOF Voc, required shear force on the column to gusset connection P= Por P. required axial force Y= vertical component of the required force Figure 13-5. Force transfer, UF method special case 3. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC,13-10 DESIGN OF BRACING CONNECTIONS AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS nated, the beam-to-column connection must be a moment connection designed for the moment, Ve,, in addition to the shear, V. Thus, uniform forces on all interfaces are no longer possible. Analysis of E; ing Diagonal Bracing Connections A combination of « and B which provides for no moments on the three interfaces can usu- ally be achieved when a connection is being designed. However, when analyzing an existing connection or when other constraints exist on gusset dimensions, the values of cand B may ‘not satisfy the basic relationship o.—B tan@ = ¢ tan® ~ e, When this happens, uniform interface forces will not satisfy equilibrium and moments will exist on one or both gusset edges or at the beam-to-column interface. To illustrate this point, consider an existing design where the actual centroids of the gusset- to-beam and gusset-to-column connections are at @ and B, respectively. If the connection at one edge of the gusset is more rigid than the other, it is logical to assume that the more rigid edge takes all of the moment necessary for equilibrium. For instance, the gusset of Figure 13-2 is shown welded to the beam and bolted double angles to the column. For this configuration, the gusset-to-beam connection will be much more rigid than the gusset-to- column connection. Take ot and B as the ideal centroids of the gusset-to-beam and gusset-to-column connec- tions, respectively. Setting B = B, the a required for no moment on the gusset-to-beam connection may be calculated as = K+Btand where K= ey tand ~€, If. #@, a moment M,, will exist on the gusset-to-beam connection where, My = Vp (ce -@) Conversely, suppose the gusset-to-column connection were judged to be more rigid. Setting =, the B required for no moment on the gusset-to-column connection may be caleulated as If B#B, a moment, M,, will exist on the gusset-to-column connection where, M.= HB-B) If both connections were equally rigid and no obvious allocation of moment could be made, the moment could be distributed based on minimized eccentricities o -@ and B ~B by min- mizing the objective function, &, where (23) +(&58) ~2(o.—Bund-K) AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF St#EL, CONSTRUCTION, INC,‘TRUSS CONNECTIONS 41 In the preceding equation, 4 is a Lagrange multiplier. The values of ot and B that minimize & are wna Available Strength The available strength of a diagonal bracing connection is determined from the applicable limit states for the bolts (see Part 7), welds (see Part 8) and connecting elements (see Part 9). In all cases, the available strength, $,, or R,/2, must equal or exceed the required strength, R, oF R,. Note that when the gusset is directly welded to the beam or column, the connec- tion should be designed for the larger of the peak stress and 1.25 times the average stress, but the weld size need not be larger than that required to develop the strength of the gusset. This 25 percent increase is recommended to provide ductility to allow adequate force redis- tribution in the weld group (Hewitt and Thornton, 2004). TRUSS CONNECTIONS Members in Trusses For light loads, trusses are commonly composed of tees for the top and bottom chords with single-angle or double-angle web members. In welded construction, the single-angle and double-angle web members may, in many cases, be welded to the stem of the tee, thus, elim- inating the need for gussets. When single-angle web members are used, all web members should be placed on the same side of the chord; staggering the web members causes a torque on the chord, as illustrated in Figure 13-6. Double-angle truss members are usually designed to act as a unit, When unequal-leg angles are used, long legs are normally assembled back to back. A simple notation for the angle assembly is LLBB (long legs back-to-back) and SLBB (short legs back-to-back). Alternatively, the notation might be graphical in nature as IL. and 1. For ange loads, W-shapes may be used with the web vertical and gussets welded to the flange for the truss connections. Web members may be single angles or double angles, although W-shapes are sometimes used for both chord and web members as shown in Figure 13-7. Heavy shapes AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL ConstRUCTION, INC.12 DESIGN OF BRACING CONNECTIONS AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS, in trusses must meet the design and fabrication restrictions and special requirements in AISC Specification Sections A3.1c and A3.1d. With member orientation as shown for the field- welded truss joint in Figure 13-7a, connections ustally are made by groove welding flanges to flanges and fillet welding webs directly or indirectly by the use of gussets. Fit-up of joints in this type of construction are very sensitive to dimensional variations in the rolled shapes: fabricators sometimes prefer to use built-up shapes in these cases. ‘The web connection plate in Figure 13~7a is a typical detail. While the diagonal member could theoretically be cut so that the diagonal web would be extended into the web of the chord for a direct connection, such a detail is difficult to fabricate, Additionally, welding access becomes very limited; note the obvious difficulty of welding the gusset or diagonal directly to the chord web. As illustrated, this weld is usually omitted. When stiffeners and doubler plates are required for concentrated flange forces, the designer should consider selecting a heavier section to eliminate the need for stiffening Although this will increase the material cost of the member, the heavier section will likely provide a more economical solution due to the reduction in labor cost associated with the climination of stiffening (Ricker, 1992 and Thornton, 1992). Minimum Connection Strength ‘Truss connections are recommended to be designed for a minimum required strength of 10 kips for LRFD or 6 kips for ASD, as noted in AISC Specification Commentary Section J1.1. Additionally, when trusses are shop assembled or field assembled on the ground for subsequent erection, consideration should be given to loads induced during handling, shipping, and erection. Figure 13-6. Staggered web members result in a torque on the truss chord. AMERICAN INSTITUTE oF StEEL, CONSTRUCTION, INC;TRUSS CONNECTIONS 1313 Panel-Point Connections A panel-point connection connects diagonal and/or vertical web members to the chord mem- ber of a truss. These web members deliver axial forces, tensile or compressive, to the truss chord. In bolted construction, a gusset is usually required because of bolt spacing and edge distance requirements. In welded construction, it is sometimes possible to eliminate the need for a gusset. Design Checks The available strength of a panel-point connection is determined from the applicable limit states for the bolts (see Part 7), welds (see Part 8) and connecting elements (see (@) Shop and field welding TI (2) Shop welding ‘Note: Check vertical and chord for reinforcing requirements Figure 13-7. Truss panel-point connections for W-shape truss members. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STHEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.1314 DESIGN OF BRACING CONNECTIONS AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS Part 9). In all cases, the available strength, 9R,, or Ry/®, must exceed the required strength, Ry or R In the panel-point connection of Figure 13-8, the neutral axes of the vertical and diago- nal truss members intersect on the neutral axis of the truss chord. As a result, the forces in all members of the truss are axial. It is common practice, however, to modify working lines slightly from the gravity axes to establish repetitive panels and avoid fractional dimensions less than '/g in, or to accommodate a larger panel-point connection or a connection for bottom-chord lateral bracing, a purlin, or a sway-frame. This eccentricity and the result- ing moment must be considered in the design of the truss chord. In contrast, for the design of the truss web members, AISC Specification Section J1.7 permits that the center of gravity of the end connection of a statically loaded truss member need not coincide with the gravity axis of the connected member. This is because tests have shown that there is no appreciable difference in the available strength between balanced and unbalanced connections subjected to static loading. Accordingly, the truss web mem- bers and their end connections may be designed for the axial load, neglecting the effect of this minor eccentricity, Shop and Field Practices In bolted construction, itis convenient to use standard gage lines of the angles as truss work- ing lines; where wider angles with two gage lines are used, the gage line nearest the heel of the angle is the one which is substituted for the gravity axis. To provide for stiffness in the finished truss, the web members of the truss are extended to near the edge of the fillet of the tee (k-distance). If welded, the required welds are then applied along the heel and toe of each angle, beginning at their ends rather than at the edge of the tee stem. Support Connections A truss support connection connects the ends of trusses to supporting members, Design Checks The available strength of a support connection is determined from the applicable limit states for the bolts (see Part 7), welds (see Part 8) and connecting elements (see Part 9). eiomxexen | t Figure 13-8. Truss panel-point connection. American INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC‘TRUSS CONNECTIONS BIS Additionally, truss support connections produce tensile or compressive single concentrated forces at the beam end; the limit states of the available flange strength in local bending and the limit states of the available web strength in local yielding, crippling, and compression buckling may have to be checked. In all cases, the available strength, OR, or R,/Q, must exceed the required strength, R, or Ry, At the end of a truss supported by a column, all member axes may not intersect at a com- ‘mon point. When this is the case, an eccentricity results. Typically, it is the neutral axis of the column that does not meet at the working point. If trusses with similar reactions line up on opposite sides of the column, consideration of eccentricity would not be required since any moment would be transferred through the col- ‘umn and into the other truss, However, if there is little or no load on the opposite side of the column, the resulting eccentricity must be considered. In Figure 13-9, the truss chord and diagonal intersect at a common working point on the face of the column flange. In this detail, there is no eccentricity in the gusset, gusset-to- column connection, truss chord, or diagonal. However, the column must be designed for the ‘moment due to the eccentricity of the truss reaction from the neutral axis of the column. For the truss support connection illustrated in Figure 13-10, this eccentricity results in a moment. Assuming the connection between the members is adequate, joint rotation is resis- ted by the combined flexural strength of the column, the truss top chord, and the truss diagonal. However, the distribution of moment between these members will be proportional to the stiffness of the members. Thus, when the stiffness of the column is much greater than the stiffness of the other elements of the truss support connection, it is good practice to design the column and gusset-to-column connection for the full eccentricity. Due to its importance, the truss support connection is frequently shown in detail on the design drawing os ALB Ye XS aXT'-2 1% 2% wreges | ty, 2 a Cut O.S.legs at 45° mf tk 3| W42x50 Col, Figure 13-9. Truss support connection, working point (w.p.) on column face. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF SreEL. CONSTRUCTION, INC13-16 DESIGN OF BRACING CONNECTIONS AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS Shop and Field Practices When a truss is erected in place and loaded, truss members in tension will lengthen and truss members in compression will shorten. At the support connection, this may cause the tension chord of a “square-ended” truss to encroach on its connection to the supporting column. When the connection is shop-attached to the truss, erection clearance must be provided with shims to fill out whatever space remains after the truss is erected and loaded. In field erected con- nections, however, provision must be made for the necessary adjustment in the connection. When the tension chord delivers no calculated force to the connection, adjustment can usually be provided with slotted holes. For short spans with relatively light loads, the comparatively small deflections can be absorbed by the normal hole clearances provided for bolted construction. Slightly greater ignment can be corrected in the field by reaming the holes. If appreciable deflection is expected, the connection may be welded. Alternatively, bolt holes may be field-drilled, but this is an expensive operation which should be avoided if at all possible. An approximation of the elongation, A, can be determined as aa Ph AE where ‘A = elongation in inches P = axial force due to service loads, kips A. = gross area of the truss chord, in.2 length, in, he 178-385 2 (140°) 2 — (140%) ae : tt Hee a au cwosieg St ata g Gnd ont way g Ty “orming anges 5 4 Ld he ¥-10'% Figure 13-10. Truss-support connection, working point (w.p.) at column centerline. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF St#EL CONSTRUCTION, INCTRUSS CONNECTION 1317 The total change in length of the truss chord is EA,, the sum of the changes in the lengths of the individual panel segments of the truss chord. The misalignment at each support connec- tion of the tension chord is one-half the total elongation. Truss Chord Splices Truss chord splices are expensive to fabricate and should be avoided whenever possible. In general, chord splices in ordinary building trusses are confined to cases where: « the finished truss is too large to be shipped in one piece; the truss chord exceeds the available material length; . the reduction in member size of the chord justifies the added cost of a splice: a sharp change in direction occurs in the working line of the chord and bending does not provide a satisfactory alternative. ere Splices at truss chord ends that are finished to bear should be designed in accordance with AISC Specification Section J1.4b. For the design of HSS-to-HSS truss connections, see AISC Specification Section K2. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF SrEEL CoxstaucTion, INC.138 DESIGN OF BRACING CONNECTIONS AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS PART 13 REFERENCES American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., 1984, 1.55-1.62, AISC, Chicago, IL. Bjorhovde, R., and S.K. Chakrabarti, 1985, “Tests of Full-Size Gusset Plate Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 3 (March), pp. 667-684, ASCE, New York, NY. ingineering for Steel Construction, pp. Gross, J.L., 1990, “Experimental Study of Gusseted Connections,” Engineering Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3 (3rd Qu), pp. 89-97, AISC, Chicago, IL. Gross, J.L. and G. Cheok, 1988, Experimental Study of Gusseted Connections for Laterally Braced Steel Buildings, National Institute of Standards and Technology Report NISTIR 88-3849, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD. Hewitt, C.M., and W.A. Thornton, 2004, “Rationale Behind and Proper Application of the Ductility Factor for Bracing Connections Subjected to Shear and Transverse Loading,” Engineering Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Ist Qtr), pp. 3-6, AISC, Chicago, IL. Lindsay, $.D., and A.V. Goverdahn, 1989, “Eccentrically Braced Frames: Suggested Design Procedures for Wind and Low Seismic Forces,” National Steel Construction Conference Proceedings, pp. 17.1-17.25, AISC, Chicago, IL. Richard, R.M., 1986, “Analysis of Large Bracing Connection Designs for Heavy Construction,” National Steel Construction Conference Proceedings, pp. 31.1-31.24, AISC, Chicago, IL. Ricker, D.T., 1992, “Value Engineering and Steel Economy,” Modern Steel Construction, Vol. 32, No. 2 (February), AISC, Chicago, IL. Thornton, W.A., 1992, “Designing for Cost Efficient Fabrication and Construction,” Constructional Steel Design—An International Guide (Chapter 7), pp. 845-854, Elsevier, London, UK, Thornton, W.A., 1991, “On the Analysis and Design of Bracing Connections,” National Steel Construction Conference Proceedings, pp. 26.1-26.33, AISC, Chicago, IL. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL ConsTRUCTION, INC