Civil Engineering Study 94-1 Cold-Formed Steel Series First Summary Report TENSILE AND BEARING CAPACITIES OF BOLTED CONNECTIONS by Jeffrey L. Carril Research Assistant Roger A. LaBoube Wei-Wen Yu Project Directors A Research Project Sponsored by the American Iron and Steel Institute May 1994 Department of Civil Engineering Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures University of Missouri-Rolla Rolla, Missouriii PREFACE Experimental studies were preformed to investigate the tensile capacity, bearing capacity and the interaction of tension and bearing capacities of flat sheet cold-formed steel bolted connections. The effect of bolt hole deformation on the bearing capacity of bolted connections, was also investigated. In the experimental investigation, single shear flat sheet connections were investigated for single bolt and multiple bolt configurations. The intent of this investigation was to compare the current AISI and AISC Specifications for the nominal bearing and tensile capacities and to develop appropriate serviceability design criteria. A review and evaluation of past research on the tensile and bearing capacity of bolted flat sheet connections was performed and is discussed. ‘The test results indicated that for connections failing in bearing, the AISI Specification correlated better with the test results than did the AISC Specification; for tension failure, both specifications correlated similarly to the test results. An analysis and discussion of the test results is included, as well as the development of a serviceability limit for nominal bearing capacity. This report is based on a thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School ofili the University of Missouri-Rolla in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. This investigation was sponsored by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). The technical guidance provided by the AISI Connections Committee: M. Golovin (chairman), R. E. Albrecht, B. Bjorhovde, E. R. diGirolamo, D. S. Ellifritt, E. R. Estes Jr., W. B, Hall, M. A. Huizinga, A. L. Johnson, D. L. Johnson, W. E. Kile, R. A. LaBoube, L. D. Luttrell, W. McGuire, T. B. Pekoz, C. W. Pinkham, and W. W. Yu. Thanks are also extended to R. B. Haws, and K. L. Cole, AISI Staff, and J. N. Macadam, former chairman of the Subcommittee, for their assistance.PREFACE LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS LIST OF TABLES: ...0. 006.4 SECTION L IL Im. TABLE OF CONTENTS BNTRODUGCTION 2 «wives eecesxesawes A. GENERAL... 2.200.000 cee cece eee B. PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION C. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ............... LITERATURE REVIEW A. GENERAL .. B. BEARING CAPACITY STUDIES ................-5 C. TENSILE CAPACITY STUDIES . D. COMBINED BEARING AND TENSILE, CAPACITY STUDIES........ —E. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS EVALUATION OF EXISTING DATA ..... A. GENERAL . B. TENSILE CAPACITY EVALUATION ..... 1. AISI Specification eee ee iv viii 14 21S 16 16 . 18IV. C. BEARING CAPACITY EVALUATION ...... |. AISI Specification 2. AISC Specification . . 3. Canadian Standard... 2... 4. ECCS Recommendations 5. British Standard 2.0... eee eee eee 6. Zadanfarrokh’s Method 7. Comparison of Tested to Computed Capacity ....... Dy (RESULTS same soneananteceasm tram res ands A B, Table of Contents, Continued AISC Specification... 0... eee eee eee Canadian Standard ECCS Recommendations ...... British Standard cause ase cae: oie Comparison of Tested to Computed Capacity . MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF STEEL SHEETS PREPARATION OF TEST ASSEMBLIES TESTING OF TEST ASSEMBLIES Attachment of Test Assembly to Testing Machine . 23 24 224 .24 as 26 28 29 30 ax 32 fase 42 . 42 ane 46 - 46Table of Contents, Continued 2. Installation of Bolts... 6.0... eee eee 3. Measurement of Load and Elongation... .. V. TEST RESULTS AND EVALUATION OF DATA ....... A. GENERAL ............-- beeen B. BEARING CAPACITY EVALUATION ........ 1. Comparison of Design Specifications ....... . 2. Development of Deformation or Serviceability Limit C. TENSILE CAPACITY EVALUATION 1. Comparison of Design Specifications ..... . 2. Correlation of Design Specifications with Test Results ........ : Vi, ‘GONCLUSIONS + ci: gicsacieves -wisamnsegiamessa as APPENDICES A Dimensions And Results Of Bolted Connections Used In The Evaluation Of Existing Data - Type III Failure Mode B Dimensions And Results Of Bolted Connections Used In The Evaluation Of Existing Data - Type II Failure Mode... .... C Dimensions And Results Of Bolted Connections Used In The Evaluation Of Existing Data - Combination Type I & III Failure Mode... 600.0 e sees eect eee cence ees D Dimensions And Results Of Bolted Connections Used In The Evaluation Of Existing Data - Combination Type 1&0 Failure Mode ......... . oe vi 58 58 58 68 B B .B 127 136vii ‘Table of Contents, Continued Page E Dimensions And Results Of Bolted Connections Used In The Evaluation Of Existing Data - Combination Type I & III Failure Mode . ene NEEN - 150 F Dimensions And Results Of Bolted Connections Used In The Evaluation Of Existing Data - Combination Type II & V Failure Mods arcs cles ic cases scine tess nt a tania -- 160 G Dimensions And Results Of Bolted Connections Used In The Evaluation Of Existing Data - Combination Type I & If & III Failure Mode... . . (aiid Paste Min adie tan rash +. 166 H Typical Load Deflection Curves From Present Experimental Investigation 2.0.0... ee eevee eee bce ee es 169 BIBLIOGRAPHY . = 183LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE 10. WL 13. 14 Failure Types Of Bolted Connections . Test Specimens Of The Available Data... .............4- Test Specimens Used In The Present Experimental Studies .......... Photograph Of The Tinius Olsen Testing Machine ........-.+.-- Typical Test Assembly (Type A Specimens Shown) . Photograph Of Grip Plates Attached To The Test eae And Testing Machine (Type | Shown) ........ cane os Delail OF Grp Plates: zi avansys anes mu ere dss de aero Photograph Of LVDT Attached To A Typical Test Assembly Glype'A'Specimens Shown) 2.6.3 ei. secre oceans sewed ciees Detail Of LVDT Attached To A Typical Test Assembly (Type A Specimens Shown) ... 2. +0022 eee eee ees Photograph Of A Typical Test Assembly Failing By Type I Failure Mode (Type B Specimens Shown)... 00.2.0 eee e eens zi Photograph Of A Typical Test Assembly Failing By Combination Type II And III Failure Mode (Type B Specimens Shown) . . Photograph Of A Typical Test Assembly Failing By Combination Type I And V Failure Mode (Type E Specimens Shown) ..... 2.000.005 Photograph Of A Typical Test Assembly Failing By Type III Failure Mode (Type E Specimens Shown)........... veces Photograph Of A Typical Test Assembly Failing By Combination Type Il And V Failure Mode (Type D Specimens Shown) ............ viii 244 . 46 53 - 34 56 . 57 - 7 67 78 78Table IL UW. IV. Vi. vil VIL Ix, XL XII. XII. XIV XV. ix LIST OF TABLES Page Nominal Bearing Stress For Bolted Connections With Washers Under Bolt Head And Nut... 0.000 Serer enn rene rrnes 25 Nominal Bearing Stress For Bolted Connections Without Washers Under Bolt Head and Nut, Or With Only One Washer... .. . . : .. 25 Factor C, For Bearing Resistance Of Fasteners........ 0.0 .00002...27 Summary Of Statistical Data For Type III Failure Mode From Appendix A .. 34 ‘Summary Of Statistical Data For Type II Failure Mode From Appendix B. . . 36 Summary Of Statistical Data For Combination Type II & III Failure Mode From Appendix Co... 0c cece cece cee eee eee 37 Summary Of Statistical Data For Combination Type 1 & Il Failure Mode From Appendix ........... z Be cee ees Summary Of Statistical Data For Combination Tyee 1 & Il Failure Mode From Appendix E ............ . we 39 Sunimisy Of Sue Data orl Conbianion T¥pe 1'& V/ Pali Mode From Appendix F Summary Of Statistical Data For Combination Type I & II & III Failure Mode From Appendix G ....... : eevee 4l Material Properties And Thicknesses Of Steel Sheets Used In The Present Experimental Studies . . ‘eee wer 45 Dimension And Mechanical Properties Of Test Assemblies. 2.2.2... 47 Test RESIS eee eect eect eee e eee +59 Comparison Of Test Results With AISI Specification’ And AISC Specification? For Failure Type Il... . . iss ee eee eee ce Comparison Of Test Results With AISI Specification! And AISC Specification’ For Combination Failure Type II & III (Bearing).......... 63Table XVL XVII. XVII XIX. XX, List of Tables, Continued Comparison Of Test Results With AISI Specification! And AISC Specification? For Combination Failure Type II & III (Tension, Fracture Through The Net'Section) si cacesiadirsessuineaitees tdes ne Comparison Of Test Results With AISI Specification’ And AISC Specification? For Combination Failure Type II & V (Bearing) Evaluation Of Test Results For Deformation Limit . Evaluation Of Test Results For Computed Tensile Capacity With Washers (Fracture Through The Net Section) . . . Evaluation Of Test Results For Computed Tensile Capacity Without Washers (Fracture Through The Net Section) : vee 65 10 74 151. INTRODUCTION A. GENERAL In the United States, the design of cold-formed steel bolted connections is based on the AISI Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members! Prior to the development of the design criteria, bolted connections were tested at the University of Michigan in the 1940's and then at Cornell University in the 1950's. Since 1960, additional connections have been tested at Cornell University, University of Missouri-Rolla, University of Wyoming and other institutions. This previous research studied only bolted connections in flat sheets. The structural behavior of cold-formed steel tension members has not been fully studied, particularly for profile sections connected by mechanical fasteners, For some design cases, particularly for structural members, Sections C2 and E3.2 of the AIST Specification’ for determining the tensile capacity of bolted connections may be inappropriate. This is especially true for connections containing connected parts other than flat sheets. The current design provisions for the bearing capacity of bolted connections included in Section E3.3 of the AISI Specification’ were based on the ultimate bearing capacities between the connected parts and the bolts. In order to reach the ultimate bearing capacities, it may be necessary to have large deformations around the bolt hole ‘Therefore, if the deformation around the hole is a critical design consideration, Section E3.3 may be found to be unconservative.B. PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION The purpose of this investigation was to study the tensile capacity, bearing capacity, and the interaction of tensile and bearing capacities of connected flat sheets in bolted connections, and to develop the appropriate design recommendations. C. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION The investigation consisted of a review of pertinent literature, an analysis of available test data, an experimental study of bolted connections using flat steel sheets, and an analysis of the experimental results. A compilation of the available test data and analytical study of this data is contained herein. The analytical study consisted of a comparison between tested failure load and predicted failure load, where the predicted load was computed by each of the following: (1) AISI Specification’ (2) AISC Specification* (3) ECCS Recommendations’ (4) British Standard (5) Canadian Standard’ (6) Zadanfarrokh's Method® ‘The summary of pertinent literature is contained in Section II. The experimental phase of this investigation explored the bearing and tensile strength behavior of thin steel sheetsconnected by bolts. Particular emphasis was placed on defining the influence of hole deformation on load capacity of a connection. The development of appropriate design recommendations and a summary of the research findings are presented in Section V.Il LITERATURE REVIEW A. GENERAL For this phase of the investigation, relavant publications and research reports have been studied in detail, These publications and reports focus on the bearing and tensile capacities of cold-formed steel bolted connections. The purpose of the literature review ‘was to study the previous experimental investigations on bearing and tensile capacities of cold-formed steel bolted connections, and to utilize the data from these studies to evaluate current design equations. In the review of previous experimental studies, it was found that Winter™* observed four general failure modes in cold-formed steel bolted connections: TYPE! ~- Longitudinal shearing of the steel sheet along two practically parallel planes whose distance of separation equals the bolt diameter (Fig. 1a) TYPE I] - Bearing failure or "piling up" of material in front of the bolt (Fig. 1b) TYPE III - Transverse tearing of the sheet in the net section (Fig. Ic). TYPEIV - Shearing of the bolt (Fig. Id). A fifth failure mode was defined by Yu and Mosby ° as: TYPE V - Tearing of the sheet caused by the excessive bolt rotation and dishing of the sheet material (Fig. le) Often a combination of these failure modes was observed.(a) \2\ \ —— (b) —_ (ce) (e) Figure 1. Failure Types Of Bolted Connections'”.During the review of previous experimental studies due consideration was given to the following parameters which may affect the tensile and bearing capacities of bolted connections a) Bolt diameter, d b) Edge distance, e (Fig. 2) ©) Bolt spacing parallel to the direction of stress, e1 (Fig. 2) 4) Bolt spacing normal to the direction of stress, s (Fig. 2). For a single bolt, s is the full width of the connected sheet. ¢) Thickness of connected sheet, t £) Yield stress, F, g) Tensile strength, F, h) e/d, Wt, W/s and F/F, ratios i) Number of bolts j) Use of washers k) Single or double shear connections B. BEARING CAPACITY STUDIES From tests performed at Cornell University’ '*""*, Winter ”* concluded that a type of failure by bearing will control the load carrying capacity of a bolted connection when the edge distance of a bolt is relatively large. Tests results indicated that when the e/d ratio is equal to or greater than 3.5, the ultimate bearing stress can conservatively be determined by 0, =4.9F, Eq.)Figure 2. Test Specimens Of The Available Data Winter's” results also indicated that when the e/d ratio is less than 3.5, longitudinal shearing of the sheet, Type I failure mode, will occur. The following allowable bearing stress, F,, given in the 1968 AISI Specification’* was derived from Equation | by applying a safety factor of 2.33:F,=2.1F, (Eq. 2) Based on their studies, Dhalla et al."“"” indicated that connections may be one of the most critical problem areas for low ductility steels. Usings Dhalla's findings, McKinney, Liu and Yu"* showed that the ultimate load capacity from bearing tests for both low and high ductility steel can be predicted using a single equation, provided the proper ductility factor is used. The ductility factor, C, was determined as: C,= 1.0 for FYF, > 1.35 (Eq. 3) C= 1.43(F/F,)-0.932 0.643 for 1.05 2.5 (Eq. 7) Considering the effects of ductility on the bearing strength of bolted connections, Yu and Mosby" proposed the following modification to Equation 7 to account for the affect of ductility on bearing strength: 0, =3.5C,F, for e/d > 2.5 (Eq. 8) where C, is given by Equations 3 and 4. Using a factor of safety of 2.3, Yu and Mosby” also proposed Equation 9 to predict the allowable bearing stress of bolted connections without washers: SCF, for e/d > 2.5 (Eq. 9) From tests conducted at the University of Missouri-Rolla, Yu and Mosby’ found that for single shear and double shear connections composed of thin sheets, the ultimate10 bearing stress can be determined accurately in terms of the ultimate tensile strength, F,, instead of the yield point of the sheet, F,. Two separate design formulas were proposed for connections with washers (Eq. 10) and without washers (Eq. 11) 0, = 3.00F, (Eq. 10) 0, = 2.22F, (Eq. 11) The revised provisions for bearing stress in bolted connections in the 1980 AISI Specification”! were based on Equations 10 and 11 Since the diameter of the bolt to the thickness of the steel sheet, d/t, is considerably larger for cold-formed steel bolted connections than for hot-rolled steel connections, it was once believed that the d/t ratio might affect the bearing strength of bolted connections. From their investigation, Yu and Mosby" determined that an increase in the d/t ratio will result in a slight increase in the ultimate bearing stress for single shear connections and a slight decrease in the ultimate bearing stress for double shear. They concluded that the effect of d/t on bearing stress is relatively small and noted that only a limited number of data was available in the region 9 < d/t < 15. C. TENSILE CAPACITY STUDIES For hot-rolled steel sections it is often assumed that for the design of steel shapes in tension, the average stress on the net section can reach the yield point of the steel This assumption is based on the idea that the effect of stress concentrations at bolt holes are made insignificant by plastic stress redistribution. Based on his research, Winter™*ny concluded that for cold-formed steel bolted connections with the ratio d/s < 0.3, the effect of stress concentrations can not be neglected. Winter”*developed the following equation for the ultimate tension stress for single bolt connections: yn = (0.1 +3.00/5)F, < Fy (Eq, 12) For connections with multiple bolts in the line of stress, Popowich found that the sharp stress concentrations in cold-formed steel bolted connections can be significantly relieved when more than one bolt in the line of stress is used. His test results showed that failure in the net section for connections with two and three bolts in the line of stress occurred at a much higher stress than for single bolts. Popowich® developed the following equation to predict the failure stress in the net section for single and multibolt connections: Oya = (1-0.98 + 3,0rd/5)F, s F, Eq. 13) where, r is the force transmitted by the bolt or bolts at the section considered, divided by the force in the member at that section. If is 1,0, Equation 13 will be identical to Winter's equation for tension stress (Equation 12). Yu and Mosby"? showed that Equation 12 gives a good prediction of the tensile strength for high and low ductility single shear and double shear cold-formed steel bolted connections. The study by Yu and Mosby” also showed that Equation 13 gave a conservative prediction of their test results.12 The effect of ductility on cold-formed stee! connections was studied by Dhalla'® From his studies, Dhalla concluded that the ultimate tensile stress of cold-formed bolted connections is not affected by ductility of the steel ‘Yu and Mosby” investigated the effect of d/t ratio on the tensile strength of cold- formed steel bolted connections. From these studies, they showed that the d/t ratio has no significant effect on tensile strength and suggested that more studies for combination of dit > 10 and d/s < 0.15 be performed The 1968 AISI Specification’? equations for tensile strength were based on tests where washers were used under both the bolt head and nut. Chong and Matlock”, studied cold-formed bolted connections without washers and developed the following equation for tension in the net section: na = (0.60-0.66r + 2.92d/s)F, < Fy (Eq. 14) ‘Yu and Mosby" noted the following difference between Equation 13 and Equation 14 Equation 13 depended on the parameter "r" and "rd/s" and Equation 14 depended on "r" and "dis" Yu and Mosby” studied the effect of washers on the tensile capacity of bolted connections and developed the following allowable tensile stress equations: for double shear with washers, F,=(1.0-0.9r + 3.0rd/s)0.5F, < 0.5F, (Eq. 15)13 for single shear with washers, F,=(1.0-0.9r + 3.0rd/s)0.45F, < 0.45F, (Eq. 16) when washers are not used or when only one washer is used, F,=(1.0-r+ 2.5rd/s)0.45F, < 0.45F, (Eq. 17) Equations 15, 16 and 17 were included in the revised 1980 AISI Specification”. Yu and Mosby” noted a 13% strength increase in the 1980 AISI Specification” over the 1968 AISI Specification’? for the allowable tension stress. A study performed by LaBoube™demonstrated that the tensile stress in the net section is not influenced by the use of washers. In this study, LaBoube also showed that the ultimate tensile force, P,, can be predicted by Equation 18: P,= FA. (Eq. 18) where A, is the effective net area through the section, perpendicular to the line of force. LaBoube™ pointed out that the data used to derive the current AISI Specification" provisions for tension in the net section, Equations 15,16 and 17, was from tests that failed by tension in the net section or a combination of tension in the net section and bearing. Therefore, Equations 15, 16 and 17 estimate the combined bearing and tension in the net section limit state, in addition to the limit state of tension in the net section.14 A study by Macadam” indicated that a tensile failure will eventually occur in a test specimen, following excessive bearing deformation. Macadam agreed with LaBoube™ in that the failure mode of tension in the net section could be predicted by Equation 18, D. COMBINED BEARING AND TENSILE CAPACITY STUDIES A very limited amount of data was found on the combined failure mode of bearing and tension in the net section. As previously mentioned, LaBoube™ pointed out that Equations 15, 16 and 17 actually predicted the failure modes of tension in the net section. and the combination of tension in the net section and bearing. LaBoube™ studied the combined failure mode and developed the following equation for the combined stress condition’ f, = (3.41-0.0224F,)CF, (Eq, 19) where C is taken as 1.0 when no washers are used, or when washers are used under only the bolt head or nut. When washers are used under the bolt head and nut and the bolt diameter is greater than or equal to 3/4 inch, C is taken as 1.2, when the bolt diameter is less than 3/4 inch, C is taken as 1.5. LaBoube” concluded that the sheet tearing may be perpendicular or parallel to the direction of loading, E. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Internationally recognized design specifications, standards and reports have been reviewed and studied. These specifications are as follows1. AISI Specification’ 2. AISC Specification 3. ECCS Recommendations’ 4, British Standard* 5. Canadian Standard® 6. Zadanfarrokh's Method® A detail explanation of these documents is presented in Section III. 1sIll. EVALUATION OF EXISTING DATA A. GENERAL A compilation of the available test data” '""!®'6 "% 4 #27 is listed in the tables of Appendices A through G. This data represents the results of flat sheet connections as illustrated by Figure 2, Each table includes the following dimensions and test results for each test specimen 1. Dimensions a) Single or double shear connections b) Namber of bolts ©) Use of washers 4d) Bolt diameter, d ) Thickness of connected sheets, t f) Edge distance, g) Bolt spacing parallel to the direction of stress, el h) Bolt spacing normal to the direction of stress, i) Yield Stress, F, j) Tensile strength, F, k) eld, dit, d/s and EJF, ratios 2. Results a) Tested ultimate tensile force of the connection, Py,7 b) Calculated nominal capacity, which corresponds to the failure mode of each specimen. The nominal capacity was evaluated for the following: AISI Specification', AISC Specification’, ECCS Recommendations’, British Standard‘, Canadian Standard’ and Zadanfarrokh's method’ ©) The ratio Py/calculated nominal capacity 4d) The mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation of the ratio P,/calculated nominal capacity. The tables of Appendices A through G are organized according to failure mode, connection type (single or double shear), use of washers, bolt pattern and number of bolts per connection, Single shear and double shear connections, with and without washers, which failed by Type III failure mode, are listed in the tables in Appendix A. Single shear connections, with and without washers, which failed by Type II failure mode, are listed in the tables in Appendix B; no data was found for double shear connections failing by Type II failure mode. The tables in Appendix C are the results of single shear connections which failed by a combination of Type II and III failure modes; there was no data available for double shear connections failing by the combination of Type If and III failure modes. Appendix D tables list single shear and double shear connections, with and without washers, for the combination failure modes of Type I and TI Single shear and double shear connections with and without washers, which failed by the combination of Type I and II failure modes, are listed in the tables of Appendix E. The tables in Appendix F list single shear and double shear connections, with and without washers, which failed by the combination of failure Type II and V. Appendix G18 lists single shear connections which failed by the combination of Type I, II and IIT; for this combination of failure modes, no data on double shear connections was found, A summary of the statistical data, i.e. mean and coefficient of variation, from the tables in Appendices A through G is given in Subsection D. B. TENSILE CAPACITY EVALUATION The predicted nominal tensile capacity of the test specimens, identified as exhibiting a Type II failure mode, was computed using the AISI Specification’, AISC Specification?, ECCS Recommendations’, British Standard’ and Canadian Standard* The following discussion summarizes these standards and specifications. 1, AISI Specification’; For the AISI Specification’ , the nominal tensile force was calculated by first determining whether yielding or fracture controlled. The allowable yielding force, T,, is given in Section C2 as: T.=T/O, (Eq. 20) where, T.=AB, (kip) Q, = Factor of safety for tension = 1.67 A, = Net area of cross section (in.*) F, = Yield stress of material (ksi) The allowable tensile force corresponding to a fracture failure, P,, is given in Section E3.2 as. P,=P/Q, (Eq. 21)19 where, A, F, (kip) A, = Net area of the cross section (in.? ) Q, = Factor of Safety for tension on the net section = 2.0 for double shear with washers = 2.22 for double shear without washers = 2.22 for single shear with or without washers F, = Nominal tensile stress on the net section (ksi), and is determined as follows: When t < 3/16 inch and washers are provided under the bolt head and nut: F, = (1.0-0.9r+3rdis)F, < Fy (Eq. 22) When t < 3/16 inch and either washers are not provided under the bolt head and nut, or only one washer is provided under either the bolt head or nut: F,=(1.0-r42.5rd/s)F, < Fe (Eq, 23) In Equations 22 and 23 t= The thickness of the thinnest connected part (in.) Force transmitted by the bolt or bolts at the section considered, divided by the tension force in the member at that section. Ifr is less than 0.2, it may be taken equal to zero.d= Nominal bolt diameter (in.) s = Spacing of bolts perpendicular to the line of stress. In the case of a single bolt, s is taken as the width of the sheet (in.) F, = Tensile strength of connected part (ksi) To determine if fracture or yielding controls the allowable tensile force for design, Equations 20 and 21 were set equal A, F/1.67= A, F,/Q, (Eq. 24) The ratio of F/F, was determined using Equation 24, If yielding controls, the ratio of FJF, will be greater than 1.33 for single shear with or without washers, and double shear without washers; and greater than 1.20 for double shear with washers. The controlling calculated ultimate tensile force is listed in Appendix A corresponding to a Failure Type UL 2. AISC Specification: For the AISC Specification’, the nominal tensile force was also calculated by first determining whether fracture or yielding is the controlling failure mode. The allowable yielding force, T,, is given in Section D1 as: Eq. 25) where, A, = Gross cross-sectional area (in.”) F, = Yield stress of material (ksi)2 ‘The allowable fracture force, T,, given in Section D1 is: O.5AF, (Eq. 26) where, A, = The effective net cross section area, but is limited to 85% of the gross cross section area, for connections using flat sheets (in.*) ‘A, = UA, when the load is transmitted by bolts through some, but not all, of the cross-sectional elements A, = Net area of the member (in.2) € 0 Reduction coefficient Fa " Tensile strength of connected part (ksi) The critical failure mode is determined by setting the allowable yielding force equal to the allowable fracture force as follows: O.6A,F, =0.5AF, (Eq. 27) Using Equation 27, the ratio of AF/A.F, was computed. Ifit is less than 0.83, yielding controls the allowable design force. If the ratio is greater than 0.83, fracture controls the allowable design force. The controlling ultimate tensile force is also listed in Appendix A, for Type III failure mode.3. Canadian Standard*: The ultimate tensile force based on Section 6.3.1 of the Canadian Standard’ is determined similar to the AISC Specification’. The nominal yielding force, T,, is given as T,= A, Fy (Eq. 28) where, A, = Gross cross-sectional area (mm?) F, = Yield stress of material (KN/mm*) The nominal fracture force, T,, is given as a 0 AF, (Eq, 29) where, A, = Net cross-sectional area (mm*) F, = Tensile strength of connected part (KN/mm*) Similar to the AISC Specification’, it is assumed that if the ratio of A,F,/A, F, is less than 0.83, yielding controls the allowable design load. If the ratio is greater than 0.83, fracture controls. The controlling ultimate tensile force is also listed in Appendix B, for Type MI failure 4 mendations’: For the ECCS Recommendations’, the nominal tensile force is given as (Eq. 30)where, f 23 (1-0.9r+3rd/u)é, < f, (KN/mm’) Minimum of 2u, and u, (mm) Distance between edge and center of fastener perpendicular to the load direction (mm) Center-to-center spacing of fasteners perpendicular to the load direction (mm) Net cross-sectional area of the plate material (mm?) Nominal diameter of the bolt hole (mm) ‘The force transmitted by the bolt or bolts of the section considered, divided by the tension force in the member at that section. Yield strength of material (KN/mm?) 5. British Standard*: The nominal tensile force, T, is given in Section 8.2.6 of the British Standard‘ as the smaller of Equations 31 and 32: where, Py T=A,0.1+3d/s)p, (Eq. 31) T=Apy, (Eq. 32) Net cross-sectional area (mm?) Yield stress of material (KN/mm?) Nominal diameter of bolt (mm)= Spacing of bolts perpendicular to the line of stress. In the case of single bolt, s equals the width of the sheet (mm) 6, Comparison of Tested to Computed Capacity: The nominal tensile forces as calculated from the AISI Specification’, AISC Specification’, ECCS Recommendations’, British Standard* and Canadian Standard’ are listed in the tables in Appendices A, C, E and G. The ratio of the tested ultimate tensile force to the calculated nominal tensile force, along with the mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation is also listed in these tables. Cc. BE. ITY EVALUATION The predicted bearing capacity of the test specimens that manifested a Type II failure mode was computed using the AISI Specification’, AISC Specification’, ECCS Recommendations’, British Standard Canadian Standard’ and Zadanfarrokh's method® 1, AISI Specification'; The nominal bearing strength, P,, based on Section E3.3 of, the AISI Design Specification' is determined as (Eq. 33) where, u ‘Nominal bearing stress given in Tables I and II (ksi) a 0 Nominal bolt diameter (in.) Thickness of the thinnest connected sheet (in.)25 Table 1. Nominal Bearing Stress For Bolted Connections With Washers Under Both Bolt Head and Nut? FF, Nominal Thickness of Type of Joint Ratio of Bearing Connected Part Connected Stress, F, (in) Part > 1.15 333 F, Inside sheet of double 2 0.024 shear connection <115 3.00 F, but < 3/16 Single shear and outside sheet of double shear connections No limit 3.00F, 23/16 See AISC Specification* Table II. Nominal Bearing Stress For Bolted Connections Without Washers Under Both Bolt Head and Nut, or With Only One Washer! FJF, Ratio | Nominal Thickness of of Connected | Bearing Connected Part Type of Joint Part Stress, (in.) Fr, Inside sheet of double shear connection 21s 3.00 F, 2 0.036 Single shear and outside but < 3/16 sheets of double shear 211s 2.22F, connection 23/16 [ See AISC Specification? 2. AISC Specification” The nominal bearing strength based on Section J3.7 of the AISC Specification’, is given as follows if the deformation around the hole is not a design consideration and adequate spacing and edge distance are provided:(Eq. 34) where, d= Nominal bolt diameter (in.) t = Thickness of the thinnest connected sheet (in.) F, = Tensile strength of connected part (ksi) ‘When deformation around the hole is a design consideration, a lower ultimate bearing strength may be abtained as follows: P, = 2.4dtF, (Eq. 35) where d, t and F, are previously defined. For this study, the available test data was analyzed using Equation 34 3. Canadian Standard*: Based on Section 7.3.5 of the Canadian Standard’, the nominal bearing strength for a single fastener, B,, is determined as: B,~ etF, < CatF, (Eq. 36) where, Thickness of the thinnest connected sheet (mm) ae u Nominal diameter of the bolt (mm) F, = The tensile strength of the connected part (KN/mm?)e = The distance from the hole center to the edge toward which the force is directed (mm) C = The appropriate value from Table III Table III. Factor C, For Bearing Resistance Of Fasteners* Ratio of Fastener diameter to sheet thickness, d/t Cc dit < 10 3 10 Cd, replace e by Cd in the formula (mm) The diameter of the hole (mm) The value from Table LIT The thickness of the sheet (mm) The tensile strength of the connected part (KN/mm?) 'S Recor tions’: The nominal bearing strength, F,, according to the ECCS Recommendations’ is given as: where, y= afd Eq. 38) The yield strength of the connected part (KN/mm?) ‘Nominal diameter of the fastener (mm) The edge distance parallel to the direction of stress Thickness of the thinnest sheet (mm) @ is determined as follows:29 Forts Imm, @=2.1 For | mm6, e@=104+1 It For t2 3mmand e, /d, < 6, a=1.1+18in(e, /4,) For t>3 mm and e,/d,> 6, a=43 5. British Standard’: According to Section 8.2.5.2 of the British Standard‘, the nominal bearing strength for each bolt of a connection, with washers under both the bolt head and nut, P,,, is given as Fort s | mm: Py, = 2.1dtp, (Eq. 39) For 1 mm 3,30 P,, = (1.65 + 0.45t)dtp,, (Eq. 41) For 3 mm 3 Py, =3.0 dtp, (Eq. 43) where, t = Minimum thickness of the connected material (mm) d= Thenominal diameter of the bolt(mm) Py ‘The design strength (KN/mm?) 4d, = The distance from the center of the bolt to the end of the connected element in the direction of the bolt force (mm) For connections having only a single washer or no washers, the nominal bearing capacity shall be 75 % of the value determined for connections with a washer under both the bolt head and the nut. 6. Zadanfarrokh's Method: According to a recent study conducted by Zadanfarrokh’, the nominal bearing capacity can be determined as: Py =adtoy, (Eq. 44) where, Design ultimate stress of the sheet(N/mm*) 1 Thickness of the thinnest connected sheet (mm)31 ‘The distance from the center of the bolt to the end of the connected element in the direction of the bolt force (mm) d= The nominal bolt diameter (mm) = ey ky ky Ky Ky gy k, = (l6/d)"? k, is determined as follows: Forts3mm, — k,=(1.9+0.2t) For33mm, k, = 1.0 k, is determined as follows: When washers are provided on both the bolt head and nut, k= 10 ‘When one washer is provided under the bolt head or nut, k,=08 When no washers are provided k= 0.7 k, = The lesser of e/2.5d and 1, where e/d 2 1.532 k, is determined as follows When the shear plane occurs over the full shank diameter, k, = 1.15 Otherwise, k; = 1.0 7. Comparison of Tested to Computed Capacity: The nominal bearing capacity as specified by AISI Specification', AISC Specification’, ECCS Recommendations’, British Standard‘, Canadian Standard* and Zadanfarrokh's method® are listed in the tables in Appendices B, C, D, F and G, The ratio of the tested ultimate tensile force to the calculated nominal bearing force, the mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation are also listed in these tables, D. RESULTS The results of the analytical study are summarized in Tables IV through X. These tables are a compilation of the statistical data from the tables in Appendices A through G. Tables IV through X list the number of data points considered, the mean value of the ratio of the tested ultimate force to the calculated nominal force and the corresponding coefficient of variation Tables IV through X are separated according to failure mode. Table IV summarizes the tables in Appendix A for failure Type III; Table V summarizes the tables in Appendix B for Type II failure mode; Table VI summarizes the tables in Appendix C for the combination of Type II and III failure mode; Table VII summarizes the tables in Appendix D for the combination of Type I and II failure mode; Table VIII summarizes the tables in Appendix E for the combination failure mode Type I and II; Table IX33 summarizes the tables in Appendix F for the combination Type II and V failure mode; and Table X summarizes the table in Appendix G for the combination Type ¥ , II and IIT failure mode In reviewing the statistical data, the following observations are made regarding the AISI Specification! (a) Based on the safety index adopted by the AISI LRFD Specification”, the AISI Specification for allowable stress design’ is adequate for tension failure alone in bolted connections using one bolt with washers. This design provision is slightly conservative for some other cases. (b) The AISI Specification’ design provisions for bearing failure alone, in bolted connections using one bolt, may be slightly unconservative, considering the relatively large scatter of the test data. This design provision should also be further studied by considering serviceability (c) For the combination of two or more failure modes, the AISI Specification! may be unconservative for some cases, however, the AISI Specification! provided a better prediction than AISC and Canadian Specifications”, (d) In general, European design formulas® ‘ were found to be more conservative than the AISI Specification’ (e) In general, for Type III failures of single bolt configurations, the AISI Specification’ provides a better prediction of the failure load, than does the AISC Specification’ or Canadian Specifications’. For other bolt configurations, the AISI Specification’ is more conservative than the AISC Specification and the Canadian Specifications”?34 SEO0 8601 £00 BEI £00 B8El SEDO 8601 SEO sil 8 dI-OM-SS S010 8160 8910 SeOZ 9900 fSE1 POlO 7860 900 £ZI'I tL Tae-M-Sa 8210 LITT LINO S9St S200 FIFI §=8Z1'0 LITT = 9400981 ZL Taz-M-Sa £500 9601 00110 OIST 9600 6zFI 50:0 9601 E210 o€el Le dae-M-SG 610 Sh1 1400 IPO E800 68ST GIL SHI Z600— OFT €% ddz-M-Sa 9910 S680 HbTO EPFL @ZTO ISS1 F910 9680 OL10 60ET of = di-a-Sa 900 960 9600 LEIZ 0200 Off ZOO 6960 6100 £1 8 Tae-M-SS 8200 1060 1600 LIGI F200 6zE1 LOO $060 7200 LPI 8 Taz-M-SS 9200 7801 F100 GrZl LIOO I€Z1 9700 7801 8200 860 8 daf-MSS 6500 P60'l 1600 C6f1 90110 ZEIT 6500 PEOl 9910 LETT £1 ddZ-Mss €0C0 9€L0 TZTO WEL 1870 HETIL MEO sero OL10 1701 67 dI-M-SS VSO WS 0S65 0565 Sid INVD INVD SE Sd $OOd SOOM STV OSIV -ISIV ISTV = eq UoNduDs>q AOD WA AOD WIA ADD YW ADD YW AOD UPA jo ON 1dr. Y xipuaddy wosy apoyy asnyreg 111 ad4, 404 vIEG PonsHeAS JO ABULINS “AJ 2IqeL35 ssoysem NOW = OAL ssong JO 9Ur] YJ, UY YOR 9AM, = Tae SIOYSEN WEAN = AN ssaNg JO AUT YL UI SHOGOML = T8Z seays aiqnog = sd ssang JO our] ayy OL Iwjnoipuadiag syog ay, = dae seoys a8ug = SS SsoNg JO Our] aYL OL seMaIpuadiag SIOGOML, = dAZ uoneueA Jo warsIye0 = AOD woesuQ = aL ayqvouddy ION = VN 0L00 9960 Zio. szoz soo BPR £900 0160 £00 for pL 1d£-OM-SG COLO TOL ChlLO 96FI 1900 etEI cO10 701 yeoo 0271 6 ‘Id7-OM-SC 6£00 OLOLl 600 Sor! 9800 L8E1 6£0'0 0L0'l 6800 £951 Sb dae-OM-SA LyO'0 GOO'L IZ1'0 867 1400 9ET1 LO! GOO! 6EI0 -8ShI FIs daz-OM'S VN 0780 WN OfLt VN Oftt VN 0780 VN oCo 1 1 ‘Ta€-OM-SS brOO 8401 1910 L691 1400 Ozs'I brO0 8401 3r00 8871 S$ ‘T8Z-OM-SS L000 £560 L000 ZhII L000 ZI L000 £560 L000 L101 T ddt-OM-SS 700 F201 PZ00 r8ll F700 F811 e700 «PZ0'L 9200 StL T ddZ-OM-SS VSD VSD 0s6s Os6s ‘Sid /NWD /NVD sa sa sood soa OSI¥ SIV ISIV IsIV Bed uonduasoq, AOD YW ADD YW AOD URW AOD URW AOD ues J ‘ON ede Panunuod “AL 214836 SsONS JO dur] AY O, AeINoIpuadiog syog aay] = dae ssang JO 9u7 A4J 0], avjnorpuadiog syogom] = daz jog su = al suoyseAy MONA = OM SHOUSEA IM = MM says aiqnog = sd uonesapisuoy aways aug = §§ dV J0N S] 90H Hog a4Y punory uoNEWO}G = SISOMy, SyyouRyuapez uIZIeY = “ZA S8ONS JO UIT AY UI SOG 204, = TEE uoneueA JO Wwa!9yJe0D = AOD SSNS JO AU] AY UL SHO OML = Taz aiquoyddy ON = 'Y'N rl00 £460 F100 OrL0 F100 set roo § 6ZI1 roo OrLo loo 6660 7 dat-OM-SS WN O1€1 ‘WN OZ&l WN 0991 ‘VN O911 “VN 0990 “VN 0680 1 ddz-Ont-ss S910 EOL LSIO $660 F910 GSIT £910 96ST 9910 L260 9910 zSTL y dl-OM-ss pLio HLT1 SSTO L601 GOO IST SEO I8E1 Oz ZOOL Zz ZOOL 9% AI-M-SS VSO VSO 0665 —0S6S Sid Zi ZA INVO INVI SA SA SOF SIA «SIV .ISIV ISIV ISIV BEG —_UoNduDsaq AOD YW ADD YW ADD UPA ACD WA AOD UIA ACD —- HAW JO'ON 142 aq xtpuaddy wory apoyy asnrey 11 ad4 1 304 ered JeonsuEs JO AMUINg “A aIqRL37 uonesapisuoy uBisaq V ION S| 9[0H NO a4 punory uoNRUUO}I == ywouuQ = at suayseqy 1N0 = OM SHOYSEAN IAL = AN Jeays ayqnogd == Sa seays aug = SS SISO SHAOUJUOpeZ uA = “Zd UOHRUEA JO W9INJ909 = AOD poy anes = A €1€0 TOL S80 1840 Gero ISEL OOO $960 E270 9090 CIZ0 B7vO I VN WN L970 bSS°0 6L0°0 06:0 L600 8580 LTO PSS; FITO F160 I 9 GI-OM-SS ITO vel BETO PLO Z8ZO EPL EO ISEL GOZO 8160 {ZrO LZ0 HI VN WN ZrO S9SO0 LOfO 6£I1 10f0 9F01 9SP0 8990 S9ZTO F160 un of ‘ai-M-SS sd VSD VSO 0S6S OS6S * * veg Z4 ZA INVD INVD SA —-SA_-S9A SIDA ISIV JsIV ISIV ISIV JO wonduasaq AOD YEW AOD YW ACD YEW ACD YIN AOD YW ACD UAW Wi ON yar. 9 xipuaddy wory apoyy aunyeg {11 11 ad4 1, uoneUiquioS 104 BEG JRousHEIS JO AsBUNLUNG ¥/ aIqRL.38 aiqesyddy ON = WN seayg 2qn0q = Sd Ssang JO 9Ur] AY] O4, aeINoIpuadiag SOMOM, = dAZ seays ajiuig = SS ssang JO 9] AL OL skjnoIpuadsag soy amy, = dae SIsoy Suyourjuapez uy = ZT wog2uQ = al uonesapisuoy UaIsag y ION SIOySEAL INOW = OM S19]9H HoG BY], punosy uoNeULE}PgQ = SHOyseAL YA = MN uoneur, JO waIN1y20 = AOD LEO 180Z WHO BET PITO LOT reo Ih6l OLIO LIZTI 8910 EI of aI-OM-SG S100 9191 S100 1860 Sl0O ZLLI SIO0 REI SOO F590 SIO 880 7% dHE-OM-SS WN OIZL WN OF0 ‘WN 0191 WN 0911 WN 0fL0 “WN 0860 1 dZ-OM-SS IZLO €Lh 1 ZO $9810 9210 99PL Selo SOL 0070 1890 O0TO 1760 6 al-OM-—SS Ov £69 1610 BISl f6l0 18172 Lovo IIT 810 GSET Lovo g9¢71 69 = I-A S10 L9OTL E10 ISI 6970 O81 FOzO yeLT 1510 LOVL IS1O “LOL = ~~ I-SS sid VSI VSO 0S6S 0565 ered Za ZA INVO INVD SH SA SOOT SOA SIV 4OSIV ISIV ISIV JO uonduosaq AOD YW ADD YW ACD “YW ADI YW ADD UPA ADD URI ON a1aeL @ xpuaddy wosy apoyy sunjrey {1 79 [ dK uoneUIquIoS 404 Ie eS JO Arwuuuns 11 219%,39 ssong JO 2Ur] YL OL JeIMDIpUadeg SHOR aay] = aae SANS JO 3Ur'] BY] OL seINApuadiag SOY Om| = daz nogsuQ = al SHOyseAy NOMA, «= OM SuOYSeAN WAN = MN seays aignogd = Sd seayg ajfulg = SS uoneur, Jo waINyj90) = AOD 1r00 8960 0890 Orb | Ls00 OE T 100 8960 82400 f£ISI 8 dat-Om-Ssd 1010 tS8 0 bib d 871 ort 1010 qTS80 6710 LS9l tl ddz-OM-Sa 8L00 F660 1L00 BHI S90 ORET =D HHHD.-- 2600 L9ZI | dae-M-sa (210 SOD. OL LHI OE LSEL «LENO SOR] -OLTO EET 1 daz-M-sa Ore 0 BPs 0 19% 0 £97 1 ssz0 1 oreo 8rsO £070 9F60 L alasa "ZO SEO 6900 SBI ZLOD OL» SOTO Lbh/O- «1900 S980 6 ass VSI YS 0565065 sid INVD INV sa SA SO9d SI0I SIV SIV ISIV. ISIV. Fe —_uonduoseq AOD WW AOD WN AOD URN AOD HRA AOD HRA JOON 92h g xipuaddy wosy apoyy aunpeg 11] 27 [ adA, UOHRUIquOD Joy BIE JeoNSHEIS JO AMUN “IITA >1q2Luoneiap!suo3 ufisoq ¥ ION S[9]OH NOS ALL Punosy uoNeMO|PG == « I ywoueug = 4 SIayseM INOWAL «= OM SHOUSEAA UAL = MN says aiqnog. «= sd seays 9[8uls_ = = SS. sisoy] Syyouesuapez uzey = “ZA uoneueA Jo wanyeey = AOD 6hO0 E6P1 FOO BIZ 6FOO S9DT GOO GrSI 6r00 LLBO 6rOO 9480 Z al-om-sa 1600 LrrI 1600 65L0 1600 671 1600 7460 1600 9550 1600 zsL0 Ol Gl-OM-ss. Z910 0OT1 90TO LOL MIO SoFI 910 FSPI 6510 7060 6S10 7060 91 GI-AVSS. VSI YSI_ 0S65 OSS Sid Z4 74 INVD INV SB SA SQA SIO sOSIV .DSIV—ISIV. ISIY BG uonduasaq AO) weay AOD YAN ADI UR ADD «HEA ADDER AQ UAW JOON qe J xipuaddy wos apoyy auneg A 7 1] ad, uoneuquo, 404 Bed FeansHeS JO LUNs “XT A19241 Pais F-41940 287 aU], OF ang Ajqyssog ‘uoNBUEA JO WaIDYaCD ajquuosvauA = — 4 uOesapIsuo,) UBISIG] Y ION S] POH HOH MYL punosy uoneUUOa =, yo 2uQ = al S1OyseM TM = aeays aj3ulg = = SS sisayy syyouruapez urziey = 74 uOHeUeA Jo 1USINHJ20 = AOD apo ane, = Wa LEO PLL OLVO TPO 9800 S980 BOl0 LIBO 7910 81L0 407L0 rLLO IE VN VN 7OvO ShLO LITO 7160 SzIO 8980 ZOzO sheo zz10 sss0 II 9 EI-M-SS sid VSD ¥SI 0S6S Os6S wea Z4 Za INV INYO S@ SB SOOI SOOM OSIV .OSIV— ISTV ISIV Jo aduaseq AOD WwW AOD WIA ADD YW ADD we ACI UW ACD UAW WH ON are. 5 xipuaddy wory ainpiey 111 37 11 29 1 dK, woneurquio> 404 weq jPoNsHEIS JO AseWUNS x >1qeLIV. PRESENT EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION A. GENERAL To evaluate the effect of hole deformation on the load capacity of bolted connections, experimental work was conducted to investigate further the bearing strength and tensile strength of bolted connections made of thin flat sheets. The test specimens were designed such that joint failure would occur due to bearing (failure Type 1), fracture in the net section (failure Type 11), or a combination of bearing and fracture in the net section. The specimens were designed for the following parameters: (1) thickness of steel: 0,04 inches, 0.07 inches and 0.12 inches; (2) ratios of d/s: 0.12, 0.15 and 0.31, (3) 1/2 inch diameter A32ST bolts; (4) bolt pattern configurations, as shown in Figure 3; and (5) with and without washers, All tests were single shear connections and were performed using the 120,000 pound Tinius Olsen Universal Testing machine (Fig. 4) located in the Engineering Research Laboratory of the University of Missouri-Rolla. B. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF STEEL SHEETS Tensile coupon tests were conducted to obtain the mechanical properties of the steel sheets. Table XI shows the mechanical properties and thicknesses of the test specimens used in the investigation. The mechanical properties were determined by standard coupon tests per ASTM A370 procedures.ype D Type E Figure 3. Test Specimens Used In The Present Experimental Studies. C. PREPARATION OF TEST ASSEMBLIES (One hundred and two test assemblies were fabricated for this phase of the experimental investigation. This allowed for the testing of three identical tests of the thirty-four different bolted connections. Each assembly consisted of two identical flat sheet test specimens, bolted together (Figure 5). Figure 3 shows the various types of specimens tested. Type A is a one bolt, Type B is two bolts in the line of stress, Type C44 Figure 4. Photograph Of The Tinius Olsen Testing Machine is three bolts in the line of stress, Type D is two bolts perpendicular to the line of stress and Type E is two rows of two bolts perpendicular to the line of stress. The purpose of fabricating three identical test assemblies of the thirty-four different bolted connections was to provide consistent results in identical bolted connection tests Initially all three identical test assemblies were tested. As the testing program Proceeded, it became apparent that if the first and second tests gave consistent results, the third test was not providing any additional useful information. Therefore, in order to Provide for a more efficient testing program, it was decided that if the first and second tests gave consistent results, the third test would not be conducted. Of the 102 test45 Table XI. Material Properties And Thicknesses Of Steel Sheets Used In The Present Experimental Studies ‘Test Number t Fy F Elongation (in) (ksi) ksi) (%)* 18G2 0.042 35.83 $6.29 50 18G3 0.042 33.77 $5.39 50 Average = 35.80 55.84 14GL 0.073 31.89 52.40 50 14G2 0.071 31.72 $2.25 30 143 0.070 32.58 52.76 50 Average = 32.06 52.47 Gl 0.120 36.97 53.37 a4 11G2 0.120 36.38 53.32 a4 11G3 0.120 36.48 52.36 44 Average = 36.61 53.02 * Elongation was measured over a 2-in. gage length assemblies fabricated, it was only necessary to test seventy-five assemblies. Table XII lists the dimensions and mechanical properties of the seventy-five tests that were conducted. All tests used 1/2 inch diameter A32ST bolts with 9/16 inch diameter punched bolt holes Washers were used on some of the assemblies, but since it is more common in practice not to use washers under the head and nut ofa bolted connection, the majority of the tests did not include washers. Of the seventy-five assemblies tested, twenty-five were tested with washers as indicated in Table XII.46 —— = \ J ed OO pS eC Side View Front View Figure 5. Typical Test Assembly (Type A Specimens Shown). D. TESTING OF TEST ASSEMBLIES 1. Attachment of T bly to Testing Machine: Because most of the test specimens that were used were too wide to be gripped by the testing machine, specially designed grip plates were connected to each end of the test assembly to transmit the applied loads (Figure 6). Two different types of grip plates were required due to the wsuerent bolts configurations (Figure 7). Type 1 grip plate was used for Type A, B and C test specimens and Type 2 grip plate for Type D and E test specimens. The specimens were connected to the grip plates using 1/2 inch diameter A32ST bolts,47 oSl BSS BSE =— PSTD SOSTI. OHH STE VN 8661 THO S10 ©-ING 9ST = pBSS «CORSE = HST STIL 9GHE STE VN 8661 00 $0 e-zINd spl WOES «= «IE «= HTN OTH OHH GLO = COUT. « OT: «SGI SO TEEN Shl OES «= IDE =— PLT. OT HOH LOH = OOHT_-«s ODT -«swILD $0 ena, ShL WES = L9E = SZIO 9h HOO CLO VN woz ozo so TEENY Srl OS «= II9E STN LETH LOO ELOY VN loz sro $0 I-eeNV spl WOES «= I99E ESTO COLE 00H ONE ‘VN 000% «9110-0 z-ZENV spl 70'S IME ESTO LETH 00H NTE VN 00% «8110 $0 U-zenNv ost vBSS CORSE = SZIDPOETL «= 910 = 900'F_— BGT 800 bHO!D SO EEA OST PB'SS CORSE = STI BETTI’ LOO RST = LODZ SEO S10 TEIAG ost pB'SS CORSE = SZTO— SOBTE = 81's 100"F—S GET = GOD ZOD S10 rela rol kw zS OTE PRION LOO SOY VN zooz oL00 so f€ZAV rl LhTS OTE HTL tO LOY WN 9007 0400 So -€2AV vol LTS OTE ESTO EHNL BOGE OTE VN 6661 0100 $0 TUAW bol Ly7s 907E £s10 $h6 9 P86 £ 897 E WN w66 1 zL00 so ZAW cos (sa) Cur) (uy (un) (ur) saquinn, aya 4 sp wp pa s fe 2 1 Aiquassy sayjquiassy 3891, JO Sottiodory [PIIUEYDOLY PUY UOISUDWICT 1X 21948 9ST pRSS «= ORSE =—HSTO. = SETTIL. © ODF STE — ODDT_—«s EOD «ss EHO'D-S*0 I-ZINa ShL OES = IE ESTO LETH COOH CTE VN looz silo $0 w-tiNG Sh OES «IE ESTO LO COO gOE VN l00z ozo $0 I-zena Shl 20S = 199E_— HSC. HLTH = BODH=HSTE = ODT «ss HOOT-«CLLII.-« $0 w-CENE Spl OES = INE ESTO. LEZ = COOH OTE = N007Z_—«stoOT_-«sBIIO. 0 I-zen@ Lyzs 0ZE_— «SIO «HHI = BEHE = LOTE-— OD. «sHHT.«OLTDs-S'0 ETA Lyzs OTE -— «ESTO = EHTS COO'H Ss HOTE = HOTT.-««L0UT_—«sOLIDs- $0 TAR rol «Lbs TE = SIO | TOOLS HOOHSTE = OGL «ONTO S10 1-UAE OST bs'ss os'se PstO $06 IL 800 F eee 6661 O07 too so eTlAd OSL vBSS OSE = HSTO LITTLE = 900% = bE = L00Z_~—s€O0T_-—«s SHO! SO TUAR 9s'I b8Ss Os'se pst oO TIL S00 F OTE 9661 £007 sP0'0 so ITA 9s'L ps'ss O8'se bstO 8Z9 LL cr bee e VN 100% £b0'0 so TTIAV 9s BSS Os se pst 0 $06 IT 100% wee VN 100% wr00 so U-ZLAV OL Lyzs 907E €s10 TOL t66E BSTE VN 9661 1400 gO 7@?t7Nd rl Lys OE ESTO. HLL COOH CSTE VN [00% 0100 $0 I-zzna (sy) (sy) Cu (uy Cun) (uy (uy soquinn, wea a 4 sp wp pp s P a 1 P Arquiassy Panunwoy “TIX 9148149 rl Lez CUTE =— COED hhGD-OHHTE = BHT «= HOOT. «HHT LOD $0 CIZAR rol LpZS «UTE = POE PhD HH = EHO «= SOT « HHT. ZLOD S10 TIZAG vol — LpTS = UTE = POED-—sEHIL: RGU = OFT «= BODT_-«s HHT «LOD $0 “IZA 9ST "SS CORSE = OLED RED'TT «— GHEE = ZIT = OUT: SHH EHOD $0 eA OS F8'SS —OBSE = COLE HOETL «FOOTIE = ODT LOOT- ss bHO|D SO TAG 9S1 SSS BSE = TIED ~— SOG. 00H 809° c00% z00'r = tHODs SO FHAg pol LhtS UTE OED HOLDS VN 000% IL00 0 TIZAV vol LyTS OTE = OED ZHOL «= OSHEOFDTT VN S661 1400 $0 I-IZAV, 9S1 RSS BSE — TIE = SOBTL = ZOO LOTT VN 100% z00 $0 THA 9st bess O8'se 110 Soe TT 866 E O19T VN 6661 tr0 0 so I-LIAV Srl WES = IE ESTO LTH SHE CITE = SHH 86H LIL S10 TENA Shl OES «IE ESTO LETH HGH = tOTE = HHT. HHT. BIT SO 1-ceNa pol Lhzs WOE — STO HED = TO ESTE = OT_—s«sdOT:SsC LODO T-2ZNA rol LpzS OTE ESL | HOLY STE BUH. COO Sst SO 1-2zNa OSI 85S OB'SE = PSL'O BUTI. «= ZOOP «LSE = DD'T_—s«s«LOZ_~—«sehO!D SO TINA sy) (sy) (uy (uy (un (uy) (un) sequiny ais ‘I I sp yp pp s 12 2 1 P Aquiassy panunuoy “TIX A198.50 spl ZOES —«19E_— OED LOT” ~=—000_——ED'T 8661 000% ozo so TIEN rol Lees OTE = ESTO © ZHOL. «POOH MTE = SHG ZOT.-«sLLOD S10 €-7ZND rol Lvzs OTE ESTO YH = BOD NTE -— HHT. HOOT.» ZOD $0 @-ZNO rol Lets OTE = ESI'O--ZHOL «=U OTE = LUT = C00%_=—sLLO'TDs S10 I-2ZNO 91 — LhzS OTE — SOKO bh HE IHD LOH'T BHGHTT © ZLOD $0 ©1ZND rl — LvZS OTE =— SUED HGH = HHGE OFT HHT BOG LOD S10 12ND. rol LTS «= OTE = HOLD HOLS OGHE LOOT «9661 SHUT «ILD S10 1-IZNO OSL PBSS «OBE =—HST'O- BUTT = HOD ETE ©—QODZ_-«sOO'T:«sHOD $0 Z-ZIND 9S pB'SS OSE =— STO BZITTL = 8OOH=OPTE = LOST FOTOS S10 1-ZIND 951 yBSS = OBSE = OLED BATT «= HOO IDL = LOG ZOO'TSsHOTD S10 TINO OST BSS BSE =—OLETD-—«s BUDE = 000% = I'L = LOG OD0Z_—«skHO'Ds S10 I-LIND Sp zoe 19 9E Loe Lite brO6'E Ley s00'z L661 3110 go T-1ENd Shl WOES IVE LOTT BOHOL = COD:SCSHHT. SII $10 rena Shl WES «DE OED Le GHEE ELIT VN 8661 LITO $0 © 1ENV spl OES = «dI9E_-— OED OOIE Hs NHHE HDT VN 8661 9110 $0 TIENV (sy) (uy (u) (uy Cup) s9quuny a ‘4 sp vp pe s : Pp Aiquiassy Panunuoy “TIX 14851 rol LZS OTE = OED THOL 00H EDT VN 000% 1400 $0 T1ZNG rol LPS OTE = OED HHH OO EEO VN 100% 7400 SO 11zNa 9ST pBSS = OB'SE «= GUE SOGTI © GSE OO VN S661 too S10 T1ING ost pBSS OBE =— BOT SENZL OOH TOT VN 100% 100 SO I-1ING Spl WES IE LOLLY BRG'E OT 107 P6611 B10 $0 TENT, Srl OES dE = LOLOL RHHE LTT = HOUT: wHHT LIT S10 I-leNa rol «LTS «OTE = OED HS BHHE ETL = LOOT. 6HGTT. © TLDs S10 TIZNG, rl «LTS «= UTE =— OED HED SHE EDT = GODT «SHH © TLD S10 I2Na 9S1 -PR'SS «CORSE = OED» BTITIL «BBG =| ZEITT «= SOUT_—«sHHGHTT «HOD $0 THING, OSI pR'SS = ORSE = GOED POET «= UHH — BIT «= ZOOZ_—«s«HHTT. «HOD SO INa shL WOES «= 19E = LODO = OMY NEST ‘VN 000% 9110 SO z1ENG Shl WOES = 199E LOE LON’ «= ZO 8Z9'L VN 100% ozo $0 Tena Spl OES = 19E_ STO LOL «= OOH STE HHT ODT «OID $0 END Syl TOS 19 ESTO ZEN «= POO POTE = BEG.» ZOVZ_-—«sIZNO $0 I-2eND Shl WES —«dIHE_- OED ZEN «= BRE EDT «GGT hoH SITIO. $0 £1ENO (sy) sy) Cur) Cu (un Cu) (un) soquinn ‘ad aa I sp up PP s 1 a 1 P Aiquiassy WO} TIX 192.52 JoquunN S21 Cur Q00'b = € “UL OSZ’E = 7 “ULSZI'T = 1) Su :7 (CU Z1'0 = € “Ut LOO = Z “UL pO'0 =1) SSOUAONYL 199YS °Z (ON = N ‘S9X = A) SIOUSEM :A (40 ‘9 ‘a ‘V) adKI, voupads -y 1-CZAV aiqeouddy 10N = “WN PanunuoD TEX S142Figure 6. Photograph Of Grip Plates Attached To The Test Assembly And Testing Machine (Type 1 Shown). 2. Installation of Bolts: ‘Two identical test specimens were bolted together to form a (est assembly. The bolts were snugged tight to simulate the bolt tightening procedure in practice. To insure the approximate same bolt tightness between test assemblies, the same individual tightened the bolts for the test assemblies. 33sare dup JO [eed ~¢ aandey zZ adhy ° ee eo o 3 | SLEBL ne pe, a +| SEE ng fect wm sa |st . « | pom sll seth ie | S3]0H a’ b a . N wSZ9S0-—\_ 1 1 o Td .sz'0 db od }- ou ——— = 5 & g a Id .S2'O etd ho (eb35 Slippage between the two identical flat sheet test specimens was acceptable, but slippage between the test specimens and the grip plates was not, Therefore, the ends of the specimens, which were to be attached to the grip plates, were roughened using sandpaper. The test assembly was bolted to the grip plates using, 1/2 inch diameter A325T bolts with washers, These bolts were tightened to achieve a tightness much greater than snug, to aid in preventing slippage between the test specimens and the grip plates 3, Measurement of Load and Elongation: The elongation of the bolted connections was measured using a LVDT attached to the test assembly as shown in Figure 8. A detail of the attachment is shown in Figure 9. The applied load and elongation readings of the connection were recorded at one second intervals, using a computer data acquisition system. Typical load deflection curves are given in Appendix H. The failure load, Pw, ‘was recorded for each test assembly and is given in Section V. The failure load per bolt can be computed by dividing Py, by the number of bolts in the connection.Figure 8 Photograph OF LVDT Attached To A Typical Test Assembly (Type A Specimens Shown),37 — Specimen ———__f — 0.3125 Die. Threaded Rod 17/16" x 1 7/16" x 3/16" Angle 2” x 0.25 PL. Nut / Top Fixture. Ty — 0.6875" Dio x 1,375" Steel B | Rod oO os" Typical 3 ine LwoT oF] = Nut cm L- At =P : — Bottom Fixture ———— = — LVDT 0.625" 7, Typical: Specimen | =p 9.28" Side View Front View Figure 9. Detail OfLVDT Attached To A Typical Test Assembly (Type A ‘Specimens Shown).58 V. TEST RESULTS AND EVALUATION OF DATA A. GENERAL The results of the recent connection tests are summarized in Table XIII, Table XIII lists the assembly number, failure type, tested ultimate tensile force, Py, and the tested tensile force at 0.25 in, connection elongation, P’. This data is classified by failure type and is presented in Subsections B and C. A comparison of Py, to the current AISI Specification'and AISC Specification’ is also discussed. The evaluation of test data was divided into two parts. The first part focused on bearing capacity and the development of a hole deformation or serviceability limit. The second part focused on determining if the AISI Specification‘ or the AISC Specification? ‘was a better predictor of the nominal tensile capacity for fracture in the net section. B. BEARING CAPACITY EVALUATION 1, Comparison of Design Specifications: The nominal bearing capacity according to the AISI Specification’ and AISC Specification’, defined in Section II as Equations 33 and 34, respectively, were reviewed and compared to the test results (Tables XIV through XVII). Tables XIV through XVII compare the test results with the AISI Specification’ and the AISC Specification’ for the assemblies which failed by Type II failure mode, or a combination failure mode that included Type II. Each table lists the tested ultimate force, P,y; the calculated nominal capacity corresponding to the failure mode; the ratio of Py to the calculated nominal capacity and the statistical data for the ratio of Py to the calculated nominal capacityTable XIII. Test Results Assembly Number AY22-1 AY22-2 AY23-1 AY23-3 BYI3-1 BY13-2 BY13-3 AN32-1 AN32-2 AN33-1 AN33-2 BN33-1 BN33-2 DNI12-2 DN12-3 DN22-1 DN22-2 AY12-1 AY12-2 BY12-1 BY12-2 BY12-3 BY22-1 BY22-2 BY22-3 BN32-1 Failure Type u 1 0 rit i 0 1 1 I 1 0 I I a Ti I a n& Ul n& i 1&0 né& 1 & u& Ul n& il W& tl U& il (Kips) 5.80 5.73 5.96 6.00 485 5.08 4.79 8,09 8.20 9.00 8.95 14,60 14.38 4.74 474 8.43 8.50 2.45 2.42 $37 5.13 5.33 9.63 9.53 9.53 14.46 (kips) 3.90 3.87 3.85 412 482 4.24 4.00 7.09 7.62 7.29 7.10 12.62 12.82 371 3.95 TAT 7.00 2.32 217 443 417 4.03 6.82 6.79 7:58 13.74 39Table XIII. Continued Assembly Number BN32-2 DN32-1 DN32-2 EN12-1 ENI2-2 EN22-1 EN22-2 EN32-1 EN32-2 AYII-1 AYLI-2 AY21-1 AY21-2 BYLI-i BY11-2 BY1I-3 BY21-1 BY21-2 BY21-3 AN31-2 AN31-3 BN31-1 BN31-2 CNI1-1 CNII-2 CNI2-1 Failure Type uém n&v nev n&Vv n&Vv u&Vv nev nev M&V m m m M1 1 a sie im mL ml mm im ul mm m m ml (kips) 14.69 15.75 16,08 8.65 8.70 18.77 15.74 28.83 29.00 2.42 227 3.86 4.03 2.44 2.64 2.33 41 4.12 4.26 6.58 6.54 6.60 6.60 2.29 233 5.74 (kips) 13.68 13.42 13.17 733 TAT 12.59 12.77 23.17 22.17 2.10 2.15 3.47 3.37 2.04 2.56 2.17 3.56 3.92 4.14 5.58 5.77 6.54 2.26 2.26 4.85 60‘Table XII. Continued Assembly Failure Pu P Number Type (kips) (kips) (CN12-2 mW 5.74 4.70 CN21-1 Il 4.09 3.94 (CN23-2 pig 4.06 3.92 (CN21-3 stig 4.03 3.96 N22-1 ml 9.60 8.45 N22-2 att 9.63 8.11 (CN22-3 Tl 9.63 8.15 CN31-2 ml 6.92 6.87 CN31-3 i 6.75 = CN32-1 uy 16.00 14.54 (CN32-2 TL 15.83 14.42 DN3I1-1 il 12.40 10.87 DN31-2 mm 12.00 10.27 ENII-1 mi 481 4.45 ENI1-2 Il 4.83 445 EN21-1 Wm 841 7.64 EN21-2 TL 8.41 7.55 EN3I-1 atte 13.23 13.23 EN31-2 mm 13.84 13.54 DNII-1 m& Vv 407 352 DNI1-2 Mev 421 3.35 DN21-1 THheV 719 5.92 DN21-2 mé&V 7.08 5.75 * Py, Reached Before 0.25-in. Connection Elongation62 Table XIV. Comparison Of Test Results With AISI Specification! And AISC Specifications’ For Failure Type IT AISI Pal AISI Eq. 33 Py! AISI Eq.33 No AISC AISE. §—Eg.33 Py Assembly Py Washers Washers Eq.34 Eq. 33 No AISC Number (Kips) (kips) _(kips) (Kips) Washers Washers. Eq. 34 AY22-1 5.80 5.667 NA 5.667 1.024 NA 1.024 AY22-2 5.73 5.509 NA. 5.509 1.040 NA 1.040 AY23-1 5.96 5.509 NA 5.509 1.082 NA 1.082 AY23-3. 6.00 $509 NA. 5.509 1.089 NA. 1.089 BYI3-1 485 7.036 NA. 7.036 0.689 NA 0.689 BYI3-2 $08 7.203 NA. 7.203 0.705 NAL 0.705 BYI3-3. 479 7371 NA. 7371 0.650 NA 0.650 AN32-1 8.09 NA. 6945 9385 NA 1.165 0.862 AN32-2 820 NA. 6827 9.226 NA. 1.201 0.889 AN33-1 9.00 NA 6945 9385 NA 1.296 0.959 AN33-2. 8.95 NAA. 7063 (9.544 NA 1.267 0.938 BN33-1 14.60 NA 14.007 18.929 NA 1,042 0.771 BN33-2. 1438 NA 14.007 18929 NA 1.027 0.760 DNI2-2 474 NA. 5331 7203 NA 0.889 0.658 DNI2-3. 4.74 NA. $207 7.036 NA. 0.910 0.674 DN22-1 843 NA 8154 11.019 NA. 1.034 0.765 DN22-2 850 NA 8270 11.176 NA 1.028 0.761 Mean’ 1.008 0.842 Std. Dev. 0.184 0.150 cov 0.182 0.178 N.A.= Not Applicable63 uoneue, Jo wayyy = AOD $600 L9V0 AOD uoneinaq paepueig = “Aaq ‘PIS £100 Le10 ‘89d PIS aiqvoyddy 10N = VN 1940 zze'0 wea. 6810 190° VN 11981 ZLL'EL WN orl Z-tENG oLe0 1r0'l VN oLL'a1 068'€1 WN ovrl I-zena s98'0 WN s98'0 610 VN 610 ll £5°6 eZAd soso VN soso 610 VN 6101 £5°6 ZTAR z98'0 WN z98'0 SLL vN LVI £96 I-tzAd 8sL'0 vN 8sL'0 9€0L VN EOL £e's ETA 1890 VN 189°0 ESL VN OES L ars TTA zL0 VN ziL0 6ES'L WN 6fS'L Les 21a z9°0 VN 790 zoo" VN Z09'€ we TZIAY 969°0 VN 969°0 gist WN aise spt I-Z1AV reba siayseay ON ssayse a (sdey) (sdey) (sd) (sdry) sequin OsIV ee bg fe bg pe bg SIBYSEM ON, SIByse "d Aiquiassy_ rd IsIV IsIv Osi ce by eg by id rd IsIv IsIv (Guueag) [1] pur [1 2d4 aunyiey UONBUIQWIOD 104 ,vOHRYIIIdS JSTY PUY ,uONRYID9dg [STV YUM s’Nsay 189], JO UOsUedWOD AX >192L64 UL-9I/1 Stid RIG 9]OH Hog jemoy o4 Jenby v1 ao} YoR Bunwnssy paunwayaq vasy \eUONDag-sso1y = @ vary [PuONIag-SS01.) JNO, feNby Rasy [eUOHDag-Ss01) = i) uoHeUeA Jo Wwe!) = — AOD L970 1970 1070 AOD uoneinag puepurig = “A9q PIS £170 807°0 vivo 88 PIS aiqeatiddy 10N = VN LoL 0 6LL0 v90'1 ura 1060 088°0 uel VN cIe9l OL 91 asst VN 69¢1 T-TENG 9180 9580 LETT VN 30891 668 91 L891 VN 9b bl I-ZENE 7860 6560 VN Of OLS 6H VN arLL £56 E-UZAR £860 0960 WN fT1 86916 -—BZHG VN ULL £6 UUCAR 8160 ss60 VN StZI 8hB6 «18001 VN 6582 £96 Itza 0180 6r8'0 VN L801 619 LD VN oer ees eZIAG 180 £940 VN 9160 -L9S9— PEL’ VN sts I'S TTA 8180 6640 VN €ol = 7989 6IL'9 VN wsvs Les Iti seo 910 VN 6990-0879. VN 9I9E TZ TIA o0r'0 06£0 VN 690 E19. BLT'D VN €€SE ShT IZIAV (@osiv (OSV sHYyseM ON — J9yseM (sd) (sd) (sd) (sdiy)_ (sd) JoquiNN snd sind IsIV ISIV (ZOSIV (I)OSIV — S194SEMON SHBYSeA, HIN Aiquiassy pra aime Islv—ISIV (uonsag tN ay YBnoryy aumovsy ‘UoIsua,,) TH puy 11 ad&z asnjeg uoneuiquio; 104 ,uoHeoy!oadg JgTY Puy YONVOY!oadg ISTY YA SINSPY 39, JO UOSULdWO 1AX 219265 uoneueA Jo wae = AOD uonRiAag psepueig = “aq ‘pis aiqeoddy ON = = WN zo zo AOD 6800 ozo = “oa PIS 6tL0 S860 ues 6LLO €S0T Teele bbs Le 00 6z TENE 89L°0 8E0'1 orsue 6LL' Lt £8°87 I-ena 690 8660 L992 LLL vest z-2Na 900 £60 wet Iys'9l LLst 1-2Na +090 9180 Lov'bl 19901 o's ZINE 009'0 1180 Lorbl 19901 so8 V-ZINa Ls8'0 8st oLe'8t o68'et 80°91 tzeNG S780 SIV 88061 stl'bl ssl I-zena pe by suoyse ON (sda) (sdry) saquiny, osIv ec ‘bg ve ba ‘s194se\ ON A\quiassy id IsTy OsIV eg ba rd IsIV (Buuwag) A pue 1] adky ainjiey uonemquiog 104 Monvoyloads Q$Ty pue uoneayroads [SIV YA SINSDY 9], JO VOsuAWOD “TAX 142166 Table XIV lists the test assemblies, with and without washers, which failed by Type 1 failure mode (Figure 10). Considering all the data in Table XIV, the ratio of Py, to the calculated nominal bearing capacity varied from 0,650 to 1.296 for the AISI Specification’ and from 0.650 to 1.089 for the AISC Specification’. Comparing the statistical data for the ratio Py, to the calculated nominal bearing capacity for all the data, showed that the AISI Specification’ correlates slightly better with Py than does the AISC Specification” for this data. The mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation was 1.008, 0.184 and 0.182, respectively for the AISI Specification! and 0.842, 0,150 and 0.178 respectively, for the AISC Specification’, Tables XV and XVI list the test assemblies which failed by a combination of Type Mand IIl failure modes (Figure 11). Table XV compares the test results against the AISI Specification! and AISC Specification? calculated nominal bearing capacity; Table XVI compares the test results with the AISI Specification’ and AISC Specification? calculated nominal tensile capacity for fracture in the net section. The ratio of Py, to the calculated nominal bearing capacity varied from 0.672 to 1.067 and from 0.672 to 0.865 for the AISI Specification’ and AISC Specification’, respectively. The AISI Specification’ ratio of Py. to the calculated nominal tensile force ranged from 0.669 to 1.271. The ratio of Py to the calculated nominal tensile capacity for the AISC Specification? (1) varied from 0.376 to 0.960; for AISC Specification? (2) the ratio varied from 0.385 to 0.983, The low values are for single bolt connections having failed by a combined failure mode, which is not covered in the AISC Specification’. This type of connection is not typical for hot-rolled construction. For tests conducted in this study, both the AISI Specification’ and the AISC Specification? calculated nominal67 Figure 11 Photograph Of A Typical Test Assembly Failing By Combination Type II And Il Failure Mode (Type B Specimens Shown).68 tensile capacities provided better correlation to the ultimate tested load, Py, than did the nominal bearing capacities; this can be seen by observing the statistical data for the ratio of Py, to the calculated nominal capacities. The AISI Specification! mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation for the ratio Py, to the calculated nominal capacity was 0,822, 0.137 and 0.167 respectively for bearing and 1.064, 0.214 and 0.201 respectively for tension. The AISC Specification? mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation for the ratio of Py, to the calculated nominal bearing capacity was 0.767, 0.073 and 0.095, respectively; the AISC Specification? mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation of the ratio of Py, to the calculated nominal tensile capacity was 0.779, 0,208 and 0.267, respectively for (1) and 0.797, 0.213 and 0.267 for (2) Table XVI lists the assemblies which failed by the combination failure Type II and V (Figure 12), The ratio of the tested ultimate tensile force, P,,, to the calculated nominal bearing capacity varied from 0.811 to 1.158 for the AISI Specification’ and from 0.600 to 0.857 for the AISC Specification’. For this data, the AISI Specification! showed better correlation with Py than did the AISC Specification’. This is shown by comparing the statistical data for the ratio Py to the calculated nominal bearing capacity. ‘The mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation was 0.985, 0.120 and 0.122 respectively, for the AISI Specification’ and 0.729, 0.089 and 0.122 respectively, for the AISC Specification’ 2. Development of Deformation or Serviceability Limit: The results of the tests which failed in bearing (Type II failure mode) or any combination that included bearing were considered for the serviceability evaluation. The results of the test assemblies whose failure mode included bearing are listed in Tables XVIII. Table XVIII also lists69 Figure 12. Photograph Of A Typical Test Assembly Failing By Combination Type II And V Failure Mode (Type E Specimens Shown). the ratio of the tested ultimate tensile force at 0.25 in. connection elongation, P’, to Equation 35. Equation 35, as defined in Section III, is AISC's nominal bearing capacity when deformation around the bolt hole is a design consideration. As indicated by the statistical data for the ratio P/Eq. 35, Equation 35 is a poor predictor of a deformation limit for cold-formed steel connections; the mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation were 0.805, 0.102 and 0.127, respectively. The intent of this investigation was to develop an equation for the nominal bearing capacity, P,, of a bolted connection that would limit the amount of deformation around a bolt hole to an acceptable limit. For consistency with the AISC Specification®, aTable XVIII. Evaluation Of Test Results For Deformation Limit Assembly Number AY22-1 AY22-2 AY23-1 AY23-3 BY13-1 BY13-2 BY13-3 AN32-1 AN32-2 AN33-1 AN33-2 BN33-1 BN33-2 DNI2-2 DN12-3 DN22-1 DN22-2 AYI2-1 AY12-2 BY12-1 BY12-2 BY12-3 BY22-1 BY22-2 Pp (kips) 3.90 3.87 3.85 412 4.82 4.24 4.00 7.09 7.62 7.29 7.10 12.62 12.52 371 3.95 717 700 232 247 443 4l7 4.03 6.82 6.79 0.860 0.878 0.874 0.935 0.856 0.736 0.678 0.944 1.032 0.971 0.930 0.833 0.827 0.644 0.702 0.813 0.783 0.824 0.753 0.735 0.691 0.716 0.763 0.770 © Eq. 46 2.065 2.107 2.096 2.243 2.055 1.766 1.628 2.266 2.478 2.330 2.232 2.000 1.984 1.545 1.684 1.952 1.879 1.978 1.807 1.763 1.659 1718 1.831 1.849 1.070 1,092 1.086 1.162 1.065 0.915 0.844 1.174 1.284 1.207 1.156 1.036 1,028 0.801 0.873 1.011 0.974 1.025 0.937 0.913 0.860 0.890 0.949 0.958 701 Table XVIII. Continued Assembly P' PY c PY Number (kips) «Eg.35 Bg. 46 Eq. 47 BY22-3 758 0.860 2.064 1.069 BN32-1 13.74 0.915 2.196 1.138 BN32-2 13.68 0,919 2,205 1143 DN32-1 13.42 0.879 2.109 1,093 DN32-2 13.17 0.877 2.105 1.091 ENI2-1 7.33 0.636 1.526 0.791 ENI2-2, 77 0.622 1.493, 0.774 EN22-1 1259 0.704 1,690 0.876 EN22-2 1277 0.704 1,690 0.876 EN32-1 217 0.772 1.852 0.959 EN32-2 22.17 0.745 1.787 0.926 Mean 0.805 1.930 1,001 Std. Dev. 0,102 0.127 cov. 0.127 0.127 deformation limit of 0.25 inches was selected as an acceptable limit. To be consistent with existing design expressions, it was desired to have an equation in the form of P, = cdtF, (Eq. 45) where, ¢ = Constant recognizing serviceability limit d= Nominal bolt diameter (in.)72 t Thickness of the thinnest connected sheet (in,) F, = Tensile strength of connected part (ksi) ‘The constant c for each test was determined using Equation 46 and is shown in Table XVIII (Eq.46) where, P' = Tested tensile load at 0.25 in. connection deformation (kips) d= Nominal bolt diameter (in.) t= Thickness of the thinnest connected sheet (in.) F, = Tensile strength of connected part (ksi) n, = Number of bolts The constant c varied from 1.493 to 2.478 for the different connections shown in Table XVIIL. However, the mean, considering all the tests in Table XVIII, was found to be 1.93. Therefore, a proposed bearing strength equation that would limit the deformation around the bolt hole to approximately 0.25 in. is given as follows: P,= 1.934, (Eq. 47) where d, t and F, are defined for Equation 46, The accuracy of Equation 47 to provide a 0.25 inch deformation limit is indicated by the ratio of P’ to Equation 47 (Table XVIII); the ratio ranged from 0.774 to 1.284, with a mean of 1.001, a standard deviation of 0.127 and a coefficient of variation of 0.127.3 C. TENSILE CAPACITY EVALUATION 1. Comparison of Design Specifications: The nominal tensile capacity for fracture in the net section, as defined in Section II, was evaluated for both the AISI Specification’ and AISC Specification’ and compared to the test results. Tables XIX and XXX separate the specimens with and without washers which failed by failure Type III (Figure 13) and the combination of Type III and V failure modes (Figure 14). Tables XIX and XX list the ratio of the ultimate tested tensile load, Py, to the AISI Specification’ and AISC Specification’ calculated nominal tensile capacity for fracture in the net section, along with the corresponding mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation Table XIX summarizes the results of the test assemblies tested with washers. The ratio of Py, to the calculated nominal tensile capacity ranged from 0.957 to 1.037 for both the AISI Specification’ and the AISC Specification’ (1). For the AISC Specification? (2), the ratio ranged from 0.987 to 1.101 Table XX lists the results for those assemblies without washers. The ratio of Py, to the calculated nominal tensile capacity varied from 0.984 to 1.302 for the AISI Specification’. This ratio ranged from 0.842 to 1.039 and for AISC Specification? (1) and from 0.895 to 1.104 for the AISC Specification’ (2). 2. Correlation of Design Specifications with Test Results: The statistical data for the AISI Specification! and the AISC Specification’, given in Tables XIX and XX, show good correlation between the existing design models and the test results. The statistical data for the assemblies with washers was approximately the same for both the AISI Specification’ and the AISC Specification, The mean, standard deviation and74 UEOI/1 SN]d “RIC 2/9 Hog feMDY OL enby “vIC eH Hog TuuNssy paumuaiag vary [euoNDag-sso1) aly [BUOHHAg-Ss019 19N OY, eNby waxy JeUON}IAS-SSO1) @ oO 0 nf woneue, Jo wsINj209 = AOD 600 600 6£0'0 A09 uoneinag puepuels = A0q) ‘PIS 1100 6£00 600 © A0q “PIS £s0'l 166°0 1660 wea lor LE0'1 LE0'l ous'€ Lore Lol’b 9b mM GIZAM 1L01 6001 6001 8r8'¢ P80" P80 zp mo Ica $60'L ze01 ze01 wet 186° — 186°€ Vy Mo IZA 9860 L260 L760 p9ET vist Ibs" eT mM Glia 1601 920" 920" 6lvz ust sz $97 mA 6501 966°0 9660 voez Ish IshZ we Mm tLAd tO 6001 6001 loL€ b66 £ bO6'E £0'b tm TIZAV sol 1560 Ls60 zos'e seor —Se0'r oe Ml trizav 186°0 8760 8760 o0ez Spyz bbz Lez Ml HAV 6r0'1 986'0 986'0 LOez she Sh T we Mm tay @ostv (IOSTY —sHoyseA (sdry) (sd) (dry) (sdiy) adky —_ soquiny fina ning Ist¥ (@OsI¥. (I) STV ssOyseM und aaney — Ayquuassy pina IsIV (vonsas FN ay YBNOMY aimoeI4) SIOYSEAY YUUAA ANDEdeD ajisuay painduiog so, syNsaY{ Saf Jo UONEN|eAT “XIX 148.