column web had no significant impact on the connection capacity.

As well, increasing the

thickness of the stiffener plates had minimal effect on the behaviour of the connection. The
results showed that an additional limit state, the yield line mechanism, for unstiffened shear tabs
was necessary to account for the web mechanism failure. Motallebi (2018) determined that large
axial and shear forces accumulate at the location where the shear tab extends beyond the flanges
of the supporting member. This is the cause for the out-of-plane deformation of the girder or
column web resulting in a girder or column web mechanism.

Goodrich (2005) provides a design procedure for the continuity plates: design the continuity
plates for flexure according to Section F of the AISC Specification 360-05 (2005), for tensile
strength according to Section D of AISC Specification 360-05 (2005) and for compressive strength
according to Section E of the AISC Specification 360-05 (2005). Commonly, the size of the
continuity plates is taken equal to the thickness of the flanges of the strong-axis beams; these
are typically heavy members since they make up part of the rigid frame, and therefore the
continuity plates are normally at least ¾”. However there is a minimum thickness requirement
the continuity plates should meet depending on the load. It can be shown that this limit is 1.5
times the thickness of the shear tab that is designed using Table 10-9 of the AISC Manual (2005).
As well, the thickness of the continuity plate to supporting member welds is equal to 75% of the
thickness of the continuity plates and has a minimum value of 1.5 times the thickness of the shear
tab-to-continuity plate welds. The length and width of the continuity plates are determined
based on the geometry of the column to which they are welded.

As previously mentioned, Sherman and Ghorbanpoor (2002) recommend only using stiffened
shear tabs to avoid excessive lateral twist. Thornton and Fortney (2011) suggest that this
conclusion may be invalid. The authors analysed the past results and suggested that the excessive
distortion only occurred at loads much beyond the capacity of the connection as calculated with
the AISC design procedure. For this reason, Thornton and Fortney recommend using stiffened
shear tabs only when one or both of two conditions are not satisfied:

20
 1) the lateral-torsional buckling strength of the plate is insufficient and/or

2) the torsional moment strength due to lap eccentricity is insufficient.

In order to check the first condition, the shear tab connection is represented as a double-coped
beam end and therefore uses the same lateral-torsional stability check. This resemblance has
been proven through research by Cheng et al. (1984).

The lateral torsional buckling strength of the shear plate is (AISC 14 th Eq. 10-6):

1500𝜋𝐿𝑡 3
𝜙𝑅𝑛 = 𝜙 (2-9)
𝑎2

Where φ = 0.9, t is the thickness of the plate, a is the distance from the support to the interior
line of bolts and L is the depth of the plate. The buckling strength is compared to the shear force
applied to the connection to determine if it is adequate without stabilizer plates.

The second check to determine the need for stabilizer plates accounts for the torsional moment
strength due to lap eccentricity. The lap eccentricity is the offset between the beam and the shear
plate along their longitudinal axis:
𝑡𝑝 +𝑡𝑤
𝑒= (2-10)
2

This lap eccentricity produces a torsional moment, which is resisted by the torsional strength of
the shear tab as well as the local torsional strength of the beam due to the floor slab or roof deck.
See Figure 2.2.

21
 Figure 2.2: Moment Generation due to Lap Eccentricity (Thornton and Fortney, 2011)

The available torsional moment strength due to lap eccentricity is as shown in Eq. 2-11 (AISC 14th
Ed., 2011, Eq. 10-7):
2
𝐿𝑡𝑝 2 (𝑡 +𝑡 )𝑏
2𝑅𝑢
𝑅 𝑤 𝑝 𝑓
𝜙𝑀𝑡 = [𝜙𝑣 (0.6𝐹𝑦𝑝 ) − 𝐿𝑡𝑢 ] ( )+ 2 (2-11)
𝑝 2 𝜙𝑏 𝐹𝑦𝑏 𝐿𝑠 𝑡𝑤

Where Ls is the span length of the beam, Ru is the required strength, φb = 0.9 and φv = 1.0. This
accounts for the lateral shear strength of the plate as well as the lateral bending strength of the
beam in the connection region. This second portion should only be included when there is a slab
present, since it occurs as bending of the beam flange comes into contact with the slab (AISC 14th
Ed., 2011). The result is compared to the required torsional moment strength calculated as the
shear force times the lap eccentricity from Equation 2-10.

The 14th edition of the AISC Manual (2011) provides a sketch of a flexible support, extended shear
tab connection which has “stabilizer plates, if required”. It is assumed that these stabilizer plates
provide a bracing force to the connection (Figure 2.3). Upon further research, it was suggested
by Fortney and Thornton (2016) to avoid the use of stabilizer plates unless absolutely necessary.
The two checks explained above to determine the need for stabilizer plates are still valid in the
15th edition of the AISC Manual (2017), however the sketch no longer includes these optional
plates. The reason for removal was the misinterpretation of engineers assuming the plates were

22
there to provide stability to the beam end. To continue, if either of these limits are not met, best
practice would suggest altering the shear plate thickness or connection geometry to try making
the connection adequate without the use of stabilizer plates. However if adequate geometric
changes are not possible, stabilizer plates may be used so long as they are designed
appropriately. The intent for the stabilizer plates is only to laterally stabilize the shear tab and
not to alter the load path of the applied shear force. Therefore avoiding them would be ideal to
prevent additional costs and added stiffness to the connection.

Figure 2.3: Extended Shear Tab Configuration Showing Optional Stabilizer Plates (AISC, 2011)

In the case where stabilizer plates are used, to minimize their effects on the behaviour of the
connection, they should provide negligible stiffness to the connection (Fortney and Thornton,
2016). This would result in minimally inducing rotational demands on the supporting member,
and consequently the AISC extended shear tab design procedure would remain valid since no
changes are made to the load path. If additional rotational demands are induced, these tend not
to be accounted for in frame analysis. The challenge in achieving this desired result is that
stiffness attracts loads. Consequently, experimental and numerical studies are required to justify
these claims.

23
Therefore, two design methods were analysed. 1) The bolt group is designed for a moment M =
R a as previously done. Here a is the distance from the face of the column web to the first line of
bolts (Figure 2.4) and R is the reaction force. In this case, through static analysis, the force in the
stabilizer plates, Vs is equal to zero (Fortney and Thornton, 2016). This reflects a case where no
load is transferred between the shear plate and the stabilizer plate and therefore no additional
moment is transferred to the column (or girder) web. However, engineering judgement
presumes that some load is transferred, regardless of what the static analysis illustrates.

2) The bolt group is designed for a moment M = R g (reduced). Here g is the distance from the
toe of the stabilizer plate to the first line of bolts (Figure 2.4). In this case, Vs is no longer equal
to zero. Therefore, a force is transferred and a moment generated in the minor axis of the column
(or girder). This rotational demand imparted on the column is equal to Vs*a’*L, where L is the
vertical separation between stabilizer plates (Fortney and Thornton, 2016). As well, the moment
demand on the shear plate is reduced since the design considers a smaller eccentricity. This
second design method is similar to the design of rigid extended shear tabs which frame into the
flange of a column rather than into the web. Finally, Fortney and Thornton (2016) suggest
designing the stabilizer plates for moment, shear and shear rupture.

Figure 2.4: Stiffened Extended Shear Tab (Fortney and Thornton, 2016)

24