You are on page 1of 9

# Prying Action—a General Treatment*

WILLIAM A. THORNTON

INTRODUCTION
The 8th Edition AISC Manual1 uses a model (Fig. 1) for
predicting the prying force which was recommended in the
book by Fisher and Struik.2 Unlike the approach taken in the
7th Edition Manual, this method is not restricted to specific
bolt-plate combinations, since all major parameters which
influence the prying action are included in the model. The Q
denotes the prying force per bolt and is assumed to act as a
line load at the edge of the flange. Test results have shown
this to be a reasonable assumption for conditions near
ultimate, as long as the edge distance a is within certain
limits. The tensile load in the fastener is Bc, and the
corresponding applied load per bolt is equal to T. The
bending moment at the interface between the web and the
flange is taken as Mc, and the moment at the bolt line due to
prying force Q is taken equal to δαMc where δ is equal to the
ratio of the net area (at the bolt line section bb) and the gross
area (at the web face section aa) of the flange. The α
represents the ratio between the moment per unit width at the
centerline of the bolt line and the flange moment at the web
face. When α = 0, it corresponds to the case of single
curvature bending, i.e., no prying action, and α = 1
corresponds to double curvature bending and maximum
prying action. Note that, from physical considerations, 0 ≤ α
≤ 1.

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
Considering equilibrium of the portions of the flange shown
in Figs. 1c and 1d, the following independent equilibrium
equations result:
Mc – Tb + Qa = 0
T + Q – Bc = 0 Fig. 1. Prying action analytical model

Qa – δαMc = 0
* This paper is part of the author's paper "Details in Bolted Steel
Construction," presented at the AISC National Engineering
Conference, Tampa, Florida, March, 1984. It was also presented
William A. Thornton, PhD, is Chief Engineer, Cives Corporation, in the BSCE/ASCE Structural Group Lecture Series, at MIT,
Atlanta, Georgia. October 1983

## SECOND QUARTER / 1985 67

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
If T is taken as a known applied load, Mc, Q, Bc and α are where p = b'/a'. These are the basic equations for prying
unknowns. The problem is statically indeterminate and no analysis. A third equation which provides an explicit result
elastic solution is possible without recourse to compatibility for Q is:
and constitutive relationships. Alternately, limit analysis can
be used. This is the approach taken in Ref. 2. Reference 2  δα 
Q=T  ρ
also proposed an adjustment in the position of the bolt force  1 + δα 
as shown in Fig. 2 to bring the theoretical and experimental
results closer together. Replacing b with b' = b – d/2 and a Next, introducing the limit state conditions:
with a' = a + d/2, the equilibrium equations can be
rearranged into the following two equations: Mc ≤ M
where
Tb′
= Mc M=
1 2
pt Fy
1 + δα 8
and
 δα 
T 1 + ρ = Bc Bc ≤ B
 1 + δα 
where B = specified allowable bolt tension, any solution to
the following two inequalities:
Tb′ 1
≤ pt 2 Fy
1 + δα 8

 δα 
T 1 + ρ ≤ B
 1 + δα 

## is a valid solution to the prying action problem.

The solution space for these inequalities is shown in Fig.
3 in dimensionless form by introducing the parameter tc,
where:

8Bb′
tc =
pFy

## In terms of T/B and t/tc, the above two inequalities can be

rewritten as:
2
T t
≤ (1 + δα )   (1)
B  tc 
T 1 + δα
≤ (2)
B 1 + δα (1 + ρ)
The family of curves labeled a in Fig. 3 is obtained from the
Inequality 1 above with the inequality sign replaced by the
equality sign. The family of curves labeled b in Fig. 3 is
obtained from the prying force equation:
Q T  δα 
=  ρ
B B  1 + δα 
with:

2
T t
= (1 + δα )  (3)
Fig. 2. Influence of flange deformations on location of resultant B  tc 
bolt force

## 68 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
Fig. 3. Solution space for prying action analysis

Thus, curves b are given by: known, and any value of T/B from 0 to curve OABP is a
2 solution. Obviously, efficient solutions are those that lie on
Q  t
= δαρ  (4) curve OAB. Points on this curve give the least required
B  tc  material thickness t for a given applied tension T, or the
The curve c in Fig. 3 is the locus of points for which: largest allowable applied load T for a given material
thickness. Thus, methods for achieving points which are on or
T Q
+ =1 close to curve OAB will be developed.
B B
and is given by: METHODS OF SOLUTION

1   t 
2 Method 1.
T
= 1 + ρ   This method solves the problem:
B 1+ ρ   tc  
  Given: T, a', b', p, Fy, and B
Find: the smallest value of t
The boundary between the region of solutions to
Such that: Inequalities 1 and 2 are satisfied
Inequalities 1 and 2, Region A and the remainder of the
It can be verified that the solution to this problem is given by
solution space, Region B, is denoted by the cross-hatched
the following algorithm:
curve ROABP of Fig. 3. It will be apparent from Fig. 3 that
there is no unique solution to the prying action problem. For 1. Check T ≤ B; if so proceed, if not use more or stronger
instance, if the applied tension is given, T/B is known and bolts
any value of t/tc from curve OAB to t/tc → ∞ is a solution. 1 B 
2. Then calculate β =  − 1
Likewise, if t is given, t/tc is ρT 

## SECOND QUARTER / 1985 69

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
3. If β ≥ 1 set α = 1 and α=1
1  β   Thus
4. If 0 ≤ β < 1, α = min    , 1
δ  1− β  8 × 11 × 1417
.
t reqd = =.651 in.
5. With the determined value of α, calculate: 4.5 × 36 × 1819
.
8Tb′
treqd = Since tact = .695 > treqd = .651, the W18×60 is o.k. To
pFy (1 + δα ) calculate the prying force:
In using this method, an initial choice of WT or angles will 8 × 19.4 × 1417
.
probably have to be made because of the geometry involved tc = = 11651
.
4.5 × 36
in calculating a' and b'. Let this initial choice for t be denoted
tact. Then, if tact ≥ treqd calculated above, the initial choice is 1  11/19.4 
α act =  − 1 =.7246
satisfactory. .819  (.695/ 11651
. ) 2

Note that, if tact > treqd, the design point will not lie on 2
 .695 
curve OAB, but will be to the right of OAB. Thus, the actual Qact = 19.4 × .819 × .7246 × .6582 ×  
 11651
. 
value of α will be less than the value calculated above. This
reduced value of α, say αact, can be calculated from Eq. 3 = 2.696 kips
above, as:
Example 2
1  T/B 
α act =  − 1 This example is also drawn from the Manual. It is Ex. 2 on p.
δ  (tact / tc ) 2
 4-92, and involves the same situation as Ex. 1, but with a
fatigue loading of more than 20,000 but less than 500,000
if αact < 0, set αact = 0
cycles. Section B3 of the AISC Specification has a provision
and this value of α should be used if the true value of the for reducing the allowable bolt tension B to .6 B, exclusive of
prying force is required. The latter can be calculated from prying force if Q/T > .10. In this example, Q/T = 2.696/11 =
Eq. 4, as: .2451 > .10, thus B = .6 × 19.4 = 11.64. Since 11.64 > 11.0,
2 the connection is satisfactory.
 Q t 
  = δα act ρ  act  Example 3
 B  act  tc 
This is Ex. 4, pp. 4-92 and 4-93 of the Manual, and it serves
Example 1 to demonstrate the solution to problems in which the bolts are
Consider Ex. 1 of the 8th Edition AISC Manual, p. 4-91. subjected to both tension and shear. The bolts are A325N
Given the data B = 19.4 kips, T = 11 kips, p = 4.5 and 4-in. 3/4-dia. Skipping the preliminary selection routine which is
cross-centers, an initial choice of WT section must be made performed here exactly as it was in Ex. 1, as a 5/8-angle is
to determine a and b. The Manual provides a Preliminary chosen and the geometric data are a' = 1.875, b' = 1.50, δ =
Selection Table on p. 4-98 which is based on Eq. 1 with δ = .819, p = .8000, T = 8.95, and the shear per bolt V = 26.8/6 =
α = 1, and b' = b. Thus, 4.47. Interaction enters this problem as (see Table 1):
B = .4418 × 55 – 1.8 × 4.47 = 16.253 kips
Tb
t prehm = 2
pFy Since 16.253 > 8.95, we proceed to calculate:
1  16.253 
4 − tw 4 − .5 β=  − 1 = 102
. and α=1
and we have, with b = = = 175
. , assuming a .5- .8  8.95 
2 2
in. web thickness,

11 × 175
. Table 1. Interaction Expressions for Bearing
t prelim = 2 =.6894
4.5 × 36 Connections
On the basis of tprelim = .6894, a tee cut from a W18 × 60, Value of B
with tact = .695, is chosen, and the following geometric
parameters ensue: b = 1.792, a = 1.778 < 1.25 × 1.792, b' = Bolt Type Threads Included Threads Excluded
1.417, a' = 2.153, δ = .819, p = b'/a' = .6582. Then: A325 55Ab – 1.8V ≤ 44Ab 55 – 1.4V ≤ 44Ab
1  19.4  A490 68Ab – 1.8V ≤ 54Ab 68Ab – 1.4V ≤ 54Ab
β=  − 1 = 116
.
.6582  11  A307 26Ab – 1.8V ≤ 20Ab

## 70 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
Thus Table 2. Interaction Expressions for Friction
Connections
8 × 8.95 × 15.
treqd = =.605 < .625 o.k.
4.5 × 36 × 1819
. Bolt Type Value of B (or Br)
 V 
The -angle is therefore satisfactory. The prying force, if A325 Tb  1 −  ≤ 44 Ab
required, can be calculated in the same manner as explained  Ab Fv 
in Ex. 1, as follows:  V 
A490 Tb 1 −  ≤ 54 Ab
 Ab Fv 
8 × 16.253 × 15.
tc = = 10972
.
4.5 × 36 The interaction equations for friction type connections are
summarized in Table 2. Proceeding now with Ex. 4:
1  8.95/16.253 
α act =  − 1 = .8513  4.47 
.819  (.625/ 10972
. )2
 B = 28  1 −  = 14.542 kips < 19.4 kips o.k.
  9.3 
2
 .625  V = 4.47 kips < 9.3 kips o.k.
Qact = 16.253 × .819 × .8513 × .8 ×  
 10972
. 
Then:
= 2.942 kips
1  14.542 
β=  − 1 =.7810
.8  8.95 
Example 4
Suppose the connection of Ex. 3 above is required to be a  1  .7810  
α = min    , 1
friction type connection. Let the faying surfaces be blast  .819  1−.7810  
= min {4.35431 . }= 1
cleaned and coated with inorganic zinc primer, thus
producing surface class F. Let the holes be standard holes
and assume that threads are not necessarily excluded from 8 × 8.95 × 15.
t reqd = =.605 <.625 o.k.
shear planes. Then, the allowable bolt shear stress is Fv = 21 4.5 × 36 × 1819
.
ksi.
From AISC Specification Sect. 1.6.3, the interaction The -angles and -dia, bolts are satisfactory for a friction-
equation for friction type connections is: type connection.
The prying force is calculated, as before, by calculating
 f A  tc, αact and Qact as:
Fv′ =  1 − t b  Fv
 Tb  8 × 14.542 × 15
.
tc = = 10379
.
where F'v is the reduced allowable bolt shear stress, ft is the 4.5 × 36
bolt tensile stress due to a direct load applied to all of the 1  8.95/14.542 
α act =  − 1 =.8514
bolts in the connection, Ab is the nominal bolt cross-sectional .819  (.625/10379
. )2 
area and Tb is the specified bolt pretension load from 
2
Specification Table 1.23.5. It will be noticed this interaction  6.25 
Qact = 14.542 × .819 × .8514 × .8 ×  
equation is expressed in a form inverse to the interaction  10379
. 
equations for bearing type connections. This inverse form is
= 2.942 kips
not convenient for use in the prying equations because these
require an expression which gives the allowable bolt tension Alternate formulation for the friction-type connection As is
B as a function of the applied shear. Thus, inverting the well known, there is no interaction between tension and shear
above friction type interaction expression to the required in friction-type connections when the tension is not applied to
form, we get: all the bolts of the group. This situation occurs when the bolt
tension is caused by a moment due to eccentric shear, such as
 V 
B = Tb 1 −  ≤ Ab Ft occurs, for instance, in bracket connections. In this case, the
 Ab Fv  reduction in shear capacity due to unloading of the faying
surfaces in the vicinity of the tension bolts is picked up by an
where Ft is the allowable bolt tensile stress in the absence of
increase in shear capacity due to increased loading of the
shear, and the applied bolt shear V must satisfy the
faying surfaces in the compression zone. Something akin to
inequality:
this occurs in prying connections. The faying surfaces
V ≤ AbFv adjacent to

## SECOND QUARTER / 1985 71

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
the bolt are unloaded by the prying force Q, but the faying Method 2.
surface compression near the toes of the angles or tee flanges Let us now proceed to the second method of solution to the
is increased due to the Q force. For this reason, interaction prying action problem which yields points which are on or
need not be applied to the total bolt tension T + Q, but only near curve OAB.
to that part T caused by the direct load.
Consider the problem:
Introducing the notation:
Given: t, a', b', p, Fy and B
 V  Find: the largest value of T
Br = Tb  1 −  ≤ Ab Ft Such that: Inequalities 1 and 2 are satisfied
 Ab Fv 
It can be verified the solution to this problem is given by
where Br is called the reduced allowable bolt tension, and the following algorithm:
letting B now represent the unreduced bolt tension (= AbFt),
the solution to this alternate formulation is exactly the 1. Check T ≤ B; if so, proceed; if not use more or stronger
previous Method 1 solution with Step 1 changed to: bolts
2. Then, calculate:
1a. Check T ≤ Br
1  8Bb′ 
In all remaining steps and subsidiary calculations, when B α =  2 − 1
δ(1 + ρ)  pt Fy 
appears, it is the unreduced value.
Applying this algorithm to Ex. 4: 3. If α < 0, set α = 0 (bolts control), and
 4.47  B(1 + δα )
Br = 28 1 −  = 14.542 kips (< 19.4 kips) Tallow = =B
 9.3  1 + δα (1 + ρ)
Since T = 8.95 kips < 14.542 kips, the solution may proceed. 4. If α > 1, set α = 1 (material thickness controls), and
If T > Br, more or larger bolts would have to be used to pt 2 Fy
proceed. Continuing: Tallow = (1 + δα )
8b′
1  19.4  5. If 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 (bolts and material thickness both control),
β=  − 1 = 14595
.
.8  8.95  and
B (1 + δα )
Since β > 1, set α = 1, and: Tallow =
1 + δα (1 + ρ)
or
8 × 8.95 × 15.
t reqd = = .605 < .625 o.k. pt 2 Fy
4.5 × 36 × 1819
. Tallow = (1 + δα )
8b′
Thus the -angle and A325F -dia. bolts are satisfactory. The two values given for Tallow for the latter case will
The alternate formulation does not, for this example, yield a always be equal. The designer can choose which one he
different result, but it is a much more liberal solution which prefers to calculate.
can yield significantly reduced angle or tee flange As in Method 1, an initial choice of section is made to
thicknesses. Reductions in thickness of 10% to 15%, when get t, a' and b'. The initial choice can be based, as before, on:
compared to those obtained from the initial solution method
Tb
presented for friction-type connections, can be obtained. t prelim = 2
Completing the solution, the actual prying force is pFy
calculated as follows: Once a section is chosen, Tallow is calculated. If Tallow > T, the
choice is adequate. If Tallow < T, choose a thicker t, reduce
8 × 19.4 × 15
.
tc = = 11988
. cross-centers, use more or stronger bolts, and try again.
4.5 × 36 When a satisfactory section is found, the prying force Q
can be found using the same formulas developed in Method 1,
1  8.95/19.4 
α act =  2
− 1 =.8514 i.e.,
.819  (.625/11988
. )  1  T/B 
α act =  − 1
2 δ  (tact / tc ) 2

 .625 
Qact = 19.4 × .819 × .8514 × .8 ×  
 11988 
2
.  Q t 
  = δα act ρ act 
 B  act  tc 
= 2.942 kips

## 72 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
As pointed out in the examples for Method 1, the Since 9.59 kips > 8.95 kips, the -angle and ¾ -dia. A325N
quantity B must be reduced when shear is present in bearing bolts are o.k. As will be obvious from previous calculations,
connections. For friction connections, two alternatives were αact = .8513 and Qact = 2.942 kips.
given, the second being more liberal while still satisfying
Example 7
code requirements.
This is the same as Ex. 4 of Method 1. The first (basic)
In the first (or basic) friction connection method, the
method given in Ex. 4 proceeds as follows:
reduced value of B is substituted for B in every formula in
which B appears. In the second (or alternate) friction β = 14.542 > T = 8.95, so calculate α as:
connection method, the reduced value Br is used only in Step
1  8 × 14.524 × 15
. 
1 of the solution algorithm. The unreduced value of B is used α=  − 1 = 1192
.
in every other step of the algorithm and in all subsidiary . )  4.5 × 6.25 × 36 
.819(18 2

calculations, such as the determination of the actual prying Since α = 1.1922 > 1, set α = 1, and:
force Q.
Tallow = 9.59 kips > 8.95 kips o.k.
Example 5
Using the same data as Ex. 1 of Method 1, the preliminary From the calculations of Ex. 3, αact = .8514 and Qact = 2.942
selection calculation is performed as in Ex. 1. Then with tact kips. The second (alternate) method given in Ex. 4 proceeds
= .695, a' = 2.153, b' = 1.417, p = 4.5, δ = .819, p = .6582, T as follows:
= 11 < B = 19.4 Br = 14.542 kips > 8.95 kips, so calculate α as:
 8 × 19.4 × 1417  1  8 × 19.4 × 15. 
α=
1 .
− 1 = 1333 α=  − 1 = 18171
.
 . . )  4.5 × .6252 × 36 
.819 × 16582
.  4.5 × .695 × 36 
2 .819(18
Since α = 1.8171 > 1, set α = 1, then
Since α = 1.333 > 1, set α = 1, and
Tallow = 9.59 kips > 8.95 kips o.k.
4.5 × .6952 × 36 From the calculations of Ex. 3, αact = .8514. Qact = 2.942
Tallow = × 1819
. = 12.56 kips
8 × 1417
. kips.
Since 12.56 kips > 11.0 kips, the W18×60 tee and ¾-dia. As mentioned earlier, the alternate method for friction
bolts are o.k. To calculate the prying force: connections can yield significantly lighter (cheaper)
connections than the first method, but the above examples,
8 × 19.4 × 1417
.
tc = = 11651
. which are taken from the AISC Manual, do not show this.
4.5 × 36 Consider then the following example:
1  11/19.4 
α act =  2
− 1 =.7246 Example 8
.819  (.695/11651
. )  The framed connection shown in Fig. 4 is subjected to 65
2 kips of shear. The shop and field bolts are A325 ¾ -dia. A
 .695 
Qact = 19.4 × .819 × .7246 × .6582 ×   friction-type connection is required and the surface class is
 11651
. 
A– clean mill scale. Standard holes are used, so Fv = 17.5
= 2.696 kips ksi. Determine the maximum tension this connection can
As expected (and obvious from the equations used), this is carry.
the same result obtained by Method 1. The fundamental parameters can be calculated from the
given information. Thus:
Example 6 b = 3 – .625 = 2.3750
This is the same as Ex. 3 of Method 1. Given the data of Ex. b' = 2.3750 – .3750 = 2.0
3, T = 8.95 < B = 16.253, so proceed to calculate α as:
8.5 − 65
.
1  8 × 16.253 × 15
.  a= = 10
. (< 125
. × 2.3750 o.k.)
α=  − 1 = 14123
. 2
. )  4.5 × .625 × 36 
.819(18 2
a' = 1.375
Since α = 1.4123 > 1, set α = 1, and ρ = 2/1.375 = 1.4545
4.5 × .6252 × 36 13/16
Tallow = × 1819
. = 9.59 kips δ = 1− =.7292
8 × 15
. 3

## SECOND QUARTER / 1985 73

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
Since α = 3.5521 > 1, set α = 1, and
3 × .6252 × 36
Tallow = (1 + .7292) = 4.559
8 × 2.0
Remembering that the applied tension cannot exceed Br:
Tallow = min {4.559, Br} = 4.4554 kips
and the total allowable applied tension is:
Ttotal = 4.4554 × 10 = 44.55 kips
which is 32% greater than the previously obtained value of
33.78 kips. It can be seen that the alternate method is the
significantly more economical method of the two.
It must be kept in mind there are other checks, involving
the shop bolts and beam web, that must be made to assess the
capacity of this joint. Thus, 44.55 kips calculated above may
not be the tensile capacity of the joint. The reader can verify
that the maximum allowable tension, at 65 kips shear, is
41.84 kips, based on resultant shear in the shop bolts.
Methods 1 and 2 for the solution to the prying action
problem provide optimal solutions from the point of view of
least material thickness or maximum capacity, respectively.
Figure 4
Any other method of solution which achieves a point (t/tc,
T/B) in region A of Fig. 3, is an acceptable method. Method
3, which follows, is just such a method. It is an organized
p=3
version of the method given on pp. 4-89 and 4-90 of the
V = 65/10 = 6.5 kips Manual.
Solution by "basic" Method:
Method 3.
An initial choice of thickness t is required for this method.
 . 
65
B = 28 1 −  = 4.4554 < 19.4 o. k. Note that in Methods 1 and 2, an initial t was not required
 7.73 except that it was needed to estimate a' and b'. After
choosing number, type and arrangement of bolts, proceed as
1  8 × 4.4554 × 2.0 
α=  − 1 follows:
.7292 × 2.4545  3 × .6252 × 36  Choose t = tact, calculate a', b', p, T, V, B, δ.
= .3854 Then

## 3 × .6252 × 36 1. Check T ≤ B; if not increase number of bolts or use

Tallow =
8 × 2.0
(1+ .7292 × .3854) larger or stronger bolts.
1  T/B  1  Tb′ 
= 3.3777 kips 2. Calculate α =  − 1 ≡  − 1
δ  (tact / tc )  δ M 
2
Since there are 10 bolts, the total allowable applied tension
is: (AISC Eq. 3)
3. If α > 1, set α = 1
Ttotal = 3.3777 × 10 = 33.78 kips
8Tb′
treqd = > tact n. g.
Solution by "Alternate" Method: pFy (1 + δ )
B = 19.4 Choose a new tact > treqd, or increase number of bolts; go
Br = 4.4554 to Step 1.
4. If α < 0, set α = 0
1  8 × 19.4 × 2.0  8Tb′
α =  − 1 = 35521
. treqd = < tact o.k.
.7292 × 2.4545  3 × .6252 × 36  pFy

## 74 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
Choice of bolts and tact is satisfactory, no further 8Tb′
calculations are required; go to Step 6. reqd t f = (AISC Eq. 5)
pFy (1 + δα )
5. If 0 ≤ α ≤ 1:
which can be verified by direct substitution of AISC Eq. 4
8Tb′
treqd = = tact o.k. into AISC Eq. 5, thereby eliminating the appearance of B and
pFy (1 + δα ) simplifying the expression. In this simplified form, it can be
 1 + δα (1 + p)  seen that AISC Eq. 5 does indeed appear in Steps 3, 4 and 5
Check Bc = T  ≤B (AISC Eq. 4)
 1 + δα  of the above algorithm.
As a final comment on this method, it will be noticed in
If o.k., go to Step 6, otherwise choose more or stronger
Steps 3, 4 and 5 that the result of the comparison of treqd with
bolts, or increase tact, and go to Step 1.
tact is known in advance. This occurs because the same
6. Solution is complete. Prying force, if required, is
equation is being used to calculate α in Step 2 and treqd in
calculated from:
2
Steps 3, 4 and 5. Thus, there is no need actually to calculate
t  treqd in Steps 4 and 5. In Step 3, treqd is calculated to provide
Qact = Bδαρ act 
 tc  a new guess for tact if a thicker angle or tee is decided upon
In the above algorithm, when shear is present, B is rather than more bolts.
determined from the interaction equation for bearing
connections or friction connections. In the alternative method REFERENCES
for friction connections B is replaced by the reduced B = Br
1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. Manual of Steel
only in Step 1. Everywhere else B appears it is the unreduced
Construction 8th Ed., 1980, Chicago, Ill., pp. 4-88 through 4-
tension value. 93.
The above algorithm will seem to differ from the Manual 2. Fisher, J. W. and J. H. A. Struik Guide to Design Criteria for
procedure in that AISC Eq. 5 (Manual p. 4-89) does not Bolted and Riveted Joints Wiley-Interscience, New York, N.Y.,
appear. Actually, AISC Eq. 5 can be written as: 1974, pp. 270-279.

## SECOND QUARTER / 1985 75

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.