Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1120

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Block shear failure of gusset plates with welded connections

Cem Topkaya
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 06531, Turkey
Received 15 November 2005; received in revised form 3 April 2006; accepted 6 April 2006
Available online 30 May 2006

Abstract
The mechanics of block shear failure in bolted connections has been studied extensively in the past. Current literature, however, lacks
experimental evidence of the possibility of block shear failure in welded connection details. This study reports on the experimental testing of
11 welded gusset plate specimens which are subjected to tension. In the experimental program, the effects of connection geometry and weld group
configuration were investigated. Test results revealed that block shear is a potential failure mode for welded connection details. The accuracy
of the resistance equations provided by the design specifications were assessed on the basis of experimental findings. The experimental work is
supplemented by nonlinear finite element analysis to predict the failure load of tested specimens. The load capacities obtained from the resistance
equations and finite element analysis were all found to be conservative. The discrepancy between the test results and the predictions is explained
in light of the presence of stress triaxiality. Finally, design recommendations are given based on the experimental and numerical findings.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Structural steel; Welding; Block shear; Tension member; Gusset plate; Connections

1. Introduction and background

Block shear is a potential failure mode in gusset plates
supporting tension members. This failure mode combines
tensile strength on one plane and shear strength on one or
two planes. The American Institute of Steel Construction
- Allowable Stress Design AISC-ASD [1] specification
presents one equation (Eq. (1)) to predict the block shear
rupture strength (Rn ) while the American Institute of Steel
Construction - Load and Resistance Factor Design AISCLRFD [2] specification presents two equations (Eqs. (2) and
(3)).
Rn1 = Fu Ant + 0.6Fu Anv
Rn2 = Fu Ant + 0.6Fy A gv
Rn3 = Fy A gt + 0.6Fu Anv

(1)
(2)
(3)

where Anv is the net area subjected to shear; Ant is the net
area subjected to tension; A gv is the gross area subjected to
shear; A gt is the gross area subjected to tension; Fy is the
yield stress; and Fu is the ultimate tensile strength of steel.
Tel.: +90 312 210 5462; fax: +90 312 210 1193.

E-mail address: ctopkaya@metu.edu.tr.

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.04.003

Detailed descriptions of net and gross areas can be found in

the commentary of the AISC-LRFD [2] specification.
The AISC-ASD [1] specification allows for the rupture
resistance of the entire surface. Thus, tensile and shear fracture
terms on the net areas are used in the resistance equation (Rn1 ).
On the other hand, the AISC-LRFD [2] specification allows the
addition of yield strength and rupture strength on planes that
are perpendicular to each other. Therefore, two possible block
shear strengths can be calculated. In the first one (Rn2 ), rupture
strength on the net tension plane is accompanied by shear
yielding on the gross section of shear plane(s). In the second
one (Rn3 ), rupture strength on the net shear area(s) is combined
with yielding on the gross tensile area. The controlling equation
among Rn2 and Rn3 is the one that produces the larger rupture
force. In addition, an upper bound equation identical to Rn1 is
given. The nominal load capacity as per the AISC-LRFD [2]
specification is calculated as follows:
When Fu Ant 0.6Fu Anv
When Fu Ant < 0.6Fu Anv

Rn = Rn2 Rn1
Rn = Rn3 Rn1 .

(4)
(5)

In the Eurocode 3 [3] specification, equations presented for

block shear rupture strength are only for coped beams. No
explicit equation is presented for gusset plates. It is stated that
this mode of failure consists of tensile rupture accompanied by

12

C. Topkaya / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1120

gross section yielding. This implies that an equation similar to

Rn2 with a slight difference is
recommended. In Eurocode 3 [3]
a shear yield coefficient of 1/ 3 is used instead of 0.6.
The accuracy of the resistance equations offered by
the AISC-ASD [1] and the AISC-LRFD [2] specifications
have been compared with experimental findings by several
researchers [4,5]. It was found that the equations presented
in these specifications provide reasonable levels of accuracy
for the strength of gusset plates with bolted connections. The
commentary of the AISC-LRFD [2] specification suggests that
block shear failure should be checked for welded connection
details using Eqs. (4) and (5).
A review of the pertinent literature reveals that there exists
a plethora of studies on the broad categories of gusset plates,
welded connections, and block shear failure. Research reported
to date on these topics is summarized in the recent publications
by Driver et al. [6] and Jensen [7]. On the other hand, there
exists no study reported to date on the presence of block shear
failure of structural members with welded connections.
The mechanics of block shear failure of welded details is
expected to be different from the one for bolted connections.
First of all, in bolted connections load is transferred through
partitioning among a group of fasteners. In contrast, in welded
connections the weldment resistance is dependent upon the
direction of loading. Second, previous experiments on the block
shear failure of bolted details showed that the failure is triggered
by necking of the net tension plane. For bolted connections,
the net tension plane is free to neck in the through thickness
direction and in the direction perpendicular to the loading. In
the welded case, however, the plate material is only allowed
to neck in the through thickness direction. This additional
constraint on necking is also expected to produce a stress
triaxiality along the tension plane. Trixiality can be defined as
the ratio of the maximum principal stress to the von Mises stress
as in Eq. (6).
Triaxiality = q p
1
2

(6)

(1 2 ) + (2 3 )2 + (1 3 )2
2

where i = ith principal stress at a point (i = 1, 2, and 3).

The objective of this work is to study the mechanics of
block shear failure in welded connection details in the light
of the discussions presented. For this purpose, the block shear
behavior of gusset plates with welded connections was studied
through physical testing and numerical simulations. In the
experimental program, tension tests were performed on gusset
plate specimens to obtain ultimate block shear resistance and
to observe the mechanics of failure. Based on the experimental
failure loads, the accuracy of the resistance equations presented
in the AISC-ASD [1] and the AISC-LRFD [2] specifications
was assessed and the discrepancies were identified. A numerical
study consisting of nonlinear finite element analyses was
conducted to investigate the effects of stress triaxiality on block
shear failure and to understand the causes of the observed
discrepancies. Design recommendations were developed in the
light of the experimental and numerical studies.

Fig. 1. Specimen configuration.

Fig. 2. Weld group configurations.

2. Experimental program
Gusset plates welded to flat bars were tested under tension
to study the mechanics of block shear failure. A total of 11
specimens were manufactured by a steel fabricator. The gusset
plate specimen configuration is given in Fig. 1. Connection
geometry and weld group configuration were the prime
variables of the testing program.
All gusset plates were 500 mm long and 750 mm wide and
were fabricated from the same 4 mm thick plate made out of St
37 steel [8]. Flat bars (15 mm thick and 150 mm wide) made out
of St 52 steel [8] were welded on both faces of the gusset plate.
The width of the flat bar was reduced at the ends for all of the
specimens according to the desired width of connection. Fillet
welds having a 7 mm leg thickness were specified. Specimens
were welded by certified welders by the gas metal arc welding
process and using SG2 electrodes (minimum specified strength
FE X X = 550 MPa) produced by Askaynak in accordance
with BS EN 440 [9]. During manufacturing of the specimens,
three tension coupons were extracted from the original gusset
plate material and tested in accordance with ASTM A37003a [10]. The average of the three coupon tests resulted in
a yield strength (Fy ) of 309 MPa and an ultimate strength
(Fu ) of 402 MPa. These values are used to present the design
resistances hereafter.
Two weld group configurations shown in Fig. 2 were used in
the testing program. The welds used for the type A specimens

13

C. Topkaya / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1120

Table 1
Dimensions of specimenstension and shear resistances at fracture
Specimen #

Type

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B

Ordered
After-Welded
Width Length Width
Length Thickness Fy
Fu
Design tensile
(mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm) (mm)
(MPa) (MPa) strength at
fracture
(Fu A gt ) (kN)

Design shear
strength at
fracture
(0.6Fu A gv ) (kN)

Tensile to shear strength ratio

40
40
60
60
80
80
80
130
130
40
80

96
184
190
290
95
185
289
91
185
195
288

1.01
0.50
0.66
0.43
1.67
0.85
0.56
2.63
1.29
0.47
0.55

40
90
90
140
40
90
140
40
90
100
150

60.3
57.5
77.5
78.6
98.8
97.8
99.9
148.8
148.2
56.4
98.2

50.0
95.3
98.3
150.3
49.3
96.0
150.0
47.3
96.0
101.3
149.3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

309
309
309
309
309
309
309
309
309
309
309

were longitudinal and transverse and those of the type B

specimens were only longitudinal.
Specimens were designed in accordance with the AISCLRFD [2] specification requirements (without the resistance
factor) except the prediction for the block shear failure load
which was performed in accordance with the AISC-ASD [1]
specification. All specimens were designed to fail in block
shear. The block shear failure load was estimated using the
resistance equation (Eq. (1)) provided by the AISC-ASD [1]
specification because this equation provides higher capacity
estimates when compared to the AISC-LRFD [2] specification
equations (Eqs. (4) and (5)). The fracture of the net section and
gross section yielding were considered during the dimensioning
of the gusset plate and flat bars. The chosen weld thickness
satisfies the minimum weld thickness provisions. In addition,
welds were designed such that the average shear stress on the
throat area does not exceed 50% of the strength of weld material
in shear (0.6 FE X X ). Local shear fracture of the base metal was
precluded by allowing lower stresses on the weldment and by
selecting an appropriate welding material. During the design of
the specimens, the width (W ) and length (L) of the connection
were taken as variables. These dimensions were changed in
such a way that all three resistance equations (Eqs. (1)(3))
could be examined based on the test results.
Before testing, the geometric properties of all specimens
were determined. The width and length of the connection
were measured using a caliper by considering the width of
the weldment. For example, in determining the width of the
connection, the distance between the toes (outside edges)
of two opposing weld segments was measured. For each
dimension, three measurements at different locations along
the weld length were taken and these values were averaged.
Table 1 presents the geometric properties of the specimens.
In this table, both the ordered and the after-welded connection
dimensions are provided. The after-welded dimensions are used
in this paper to calculate the resistance values provided by the
design specifications. In addition, the nominal tensile strength
at fracture (Fu A gt ) and the nominal shear strength at fracture
(0.6Fu A gv ) are given in Table 1, along with the ratios of the
two quantities. The ratios fall in the range between 0.43 and

402
402
402
402
402
402
402
402
402
402
402

97
92
125
126
159
157
161
239
238
91
158

Fig. 3. Test setup and a typical specimen.

2.63 indicating that specimens possess different tensile-to-shear

strength characteristics.
Specimens were tested in a 1500 kN tension test machine.
Bolted connections were used to fasten the specimen to the
special crossheads that were manufactured specifically for this
project. Grade 8.8 [11] high strength steel bolts were used for
the connections. Ten bolts having a diameter of 24 mm were
used for connecting the gusset plate to the bottom crosshead
while two bolts having a diameter of 36 mm were used to
connect the flat bars to the top cross head. All holes were drilled
to a diameter 2 mm larger than the bolt diameter. A general
view of the test setup and a specimen is given in Fig. 3. During
a typical test the total load and the displacement between the

14

C. Topkaya / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1120

crossheads were monitored. Load and displacement data were

collected every second using a data acquisition system.
3. Test results and assessment of specification equations
All of the specimens were tested under tension and the
mode of failure was block shear. A typical loaddisplacement
response is given in Fig. 4. The behavior of all specimens was
similar. During the early stages of loading, slip took place at
the bolted ends of the specimen. After the occurrence of slip,
the loaddisplacement response was linear until yielding was
observed at the welded connection region. The linear response
was followed by a long yield plateau until the ultimate load
was reached. Observations during the experiments showed that
crack nucleation occurred at the ultimate load. A single crack or
two symmetrical cracks nucleated 35 mm away from the toe of
the transverse weld segment at the corner(s) of the weld group.
A photo of crack nucleation captured for specimen 8 is given in
Fig. 5. The load suddenly dropped after the crack formation.
Crack(s) nucleating at the corner(s) propagated along the
tension plane. The crack propagation continued until the whole
tension plane ruptured. A photo of the tension plane rupture for
specimen 9 is given in Fig. 6. After the tension plane rupture, a
second strength plateau was reached on the loaddisplacement
behavior. This strength plateau corresponded to the capacity of
the shear planes alone. Testing was stopped after the second
plateau was reached for most of the specimens.
It is important to note that, regardless of the weld group
configuration, block shear was the mode of failure. For
specimens 10 and 11 with only longitudinal welds, block shear
failure was observed and the rupture of the tension plane
initiated failure. A photo of specimen 11 after rupture of the
tension plane is given in Fig. 7. In these specimens also, the
cracks did not form at the ends of the welds but at a location
4 mm away from the edge of the flat bar.
The tension plane profile of the ruptured specimens was
documented after testing. Three measurements, two at the ends
and one at the center, were taken along the tension plane. These
measurements corresponded to the distance between the toe
of the transverse weld segment and the edge of the ruptured
tension plane surface. For specimens 10 and 11, the distance
between the edge of the flat bar and ruptured surface was
measured. Experimental failure loads and measurements taken
from ruptured specimens are presented in Table 2.
Load capacities calculated by the resistance equations (Eqs.
(1)(5)) provided by the design specifications are compared
with the experimental failure loads in Figs. 8 and 9, and
Table 2. In Figs. 8 and 9 experimental failure loads are plotted
against capacities calculated according to the AISC-ASD [1]
and AISC-LRFD [2] specifications, respectively. Data points
appearing below the diagonal line indicate tests for which
the resistance equations are unconservative while data points
above the line indicate conservative load capacity predictions.
In Fig. 9 specimens are grouped into two according to the
equation that governs the design of these specimens per the
AISC-LRFD [2] specification. The predicted load capacities
according to Eqs. (1)(5) are given in Table 2. In addition,

Fig. 4. Typical loaddisplacement response.

Fig. 5. Photo of crack nucleation for specimen 8.

Fig. 6. Tension plane rupture for specimen 9.

Fig. 7. Tension plane rupture for specimen 11.

the percentage differences between the predicted capacity and

the observed capacity is provided for each specimen. Because
Eurocode 3 [3] does not provide an explicit equation for gusset
plates, an assessment of this specification is not included in this
paper.
Statistical analysis of the data shows that the AISC-ASD [1]
specification equation (Rn1 ) provides on average 8.7% lower
capacity estimates. The AISC-ASD [1] equation (Rn1 ) is the

15

C. Topkaya / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1120

Table 2
Test failure load and resistances provided by design specifications
Specimen Test
#
failure
load (kN)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

216
314
347
430
295
395
475
386
467
306
433

Distance between
the transverse weld
toe and ruptured
edge
End Center End
(mm) (mm)
(mm)

ASD
resistance
Rn1 (kN)

2.6
4.8
2.8
4.0
3.0
1.5
0.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
3.5

193
276
315
416
254
342
450
330
423
286
446

4.3
7.8
6.4
6.0
9.8
11.0
7.3
14.0
11.2
6.4
5.0

0.0
5.2
3.3
3.0
0.0
2.8
2.5
4.0
5.0
3.8
4.0

% Difference

Resistance % DifRn2
ference
(kN)

Resistance % Difference
Rn3
(kN)

LRFD

Governing Resistance % Differequation

(kN)
ence

Mean
Unbiased standard deviation
Maximum
Minimum

10.6
12.1
9.2
3.3
13.9
13.4
5.3
14.5
9.4
6.5
3.0
8.7
5.3
14.5
3.0

171
234
270
349
232
300
383
309
381
241
379

20.8
25.5
22.2
18.8
21.4
24.1
19.4
19.9
18.4
21.2
12.5
20.4
3.4
25.5
12.5

171
255
285
387
217
306
413
275
368
265
409

20.8
18.8
17.9
10.0
26.4
22.5
13.1
28.8
21.2
13.4
5.5
18.0
7.0
28.8
5.5

Rn2
Rn3
Rn3
Rn3
Rn2
Rn3
Rn3
Rn2
Rn2
Rn3
Rn3

171
255
285
387
232
306
413
309
381
265
409

20.8
18.8
17.9
10.0
21.4
22.5
13.1
19.9
18.4
13.4
5.5
16.5
5.3
22.5
5.5

The AISC-LRFD [2] specification equations Rn2 (Eq. (2))

and Rn3 (Eq. (3)) provide on average 20.4 and 18.0% lower
capacity estimates, respectively. When the governing equation
among Rn2 (Eq. (2)) and Rn3 (Eq. (3)) is considered, then
an average 16.5% underestimation of the capacity is obtained.
The equation (Rn3 ) that allowed for shear fracture governed
for 7 out of 11 specimens. However, in all the specimens,
fracture was initiated on the tension plane. It is observed
that the fracture location is independent of the tensile-to-shear
resistance characteristics of the specimen. Figs. 5 and 7 show
specimens with tensile-to-shear resistance ratio of 2.63 and
0.55, respectively. In both cases the crack nucleation occurred
on the tension plane.
Fig. 8. Comparison of ASD resistance with experimental findings.

4. Evaluation of tension and shear plane load carrying

capacities

Fig. 9. Comparison of LRFD resistance with experimental findings.

most accurate among the three equations (Rn1 , Rn2 , Rn3 ). Only
the capacity of specimen 11 is overpredicted by the AISCASD [1] specification equation. For this specimen, the failure
load is only 3% lower than the predicted capacity.

When tensile and shear resistances are combined according

to an ultimate tensile strength equal to Fu and an ultimate
shear strength equal to 0.6Fu for the material, the AISCASD [1] equation (Rn1 ) is obtained. It is interesting to note
that the experimental capacities are even higher than the loads
predicted by Rn1 (Eq. (1)). The reasons for this discrepancy
are explored in this section. Based on the observations, it
can be deduced that the load carried by the tension and/or
shear planes can be higher than the ones calculated based
on the ultimate resistances. In order to investigate the effects
of connection geometry on this discrepancy, Fig. 10 was
prepared. In this figure, the tensile-to-shear strength ratio
(Table 1) is plotted against the percentage difference between
the predicted capacity and observed capacity according to
Rn1 (Table 2) for every specimen except one. Specimen 11
is excluded from the figure because the prediction for this
specimen is unconservative. Examination of Fig. 10 shows that
the percentage difference increases with the tensile-to-shear

16

C. Topkaya / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1120

Fig. 11. Generic true-stresstrue-strain material response.

Fig. 10. Tensile-to-shear strength ratio versus percentage difference.

strength ratio. This observation suggests that for specimens

with higher tensile strength compared to shear strength, the
difference between the predicted and experimental capacity
is higher. Based on these discussions, an overstrength of the
tension plane is expected. The overstrength of the tension plane
can be attributed to the following reasons.
Fracture under combined stresses is much more complex
than fracture under uniaxial loading [12]. The presence of stress
triaxiality has an influence on the ultimate stress the material
can carry [13]. In a typical bolted connection, the net tension
plane is subjected primarily to stresses in the loading direction.
However, in a welded connection, the gross tension plane is
subjected to tensile stresses both in the directions parallel and
perpendicular to loading. The presence of tensile stresses in
the perpendicular direction has the influence of creating stress
triaxiality thereby increasing the ultimate tensile strength at
failure.
The base metal properties might have been altered during the
welding process. During welding the ultimate strength of the
base metal can increase in the vicinity of the welding location.
Examination of failure patterns revealed that the tensile plane
fractured away from the toe of the weld. This observation
suggests that failure occurred in a weaker plane which is distant
from the location of weld application.
The next section presents the finite element analysis
conducted to supplement the experimental findings and to
investigate the potential effects of stress triaxiality.
5. Numerical studies
Finite element models with differing complexities have
been employed in the past to study the behavior of structural
members subject to block shear failure. All of the numerical
studies performed so far focused on the behavior of bolted
connections. In early studies [14,15] analyses were performed
based on the either elastic or elasticperfectly plastic material
behavior assumption. Early studies focused on comparing the
block shear behavior of different connection details rather
than predicting the failure loads. On the other hand, in recent
studies [16,17] the finite element method was employed to
directly predict the failure loads of bolted connection details.
In this paper the numerical modeling approach presented by

Fig. 12. Typical finite element mesh.

Topkaya [17] is used to estimate the failure loads of the tested

specimens. The numerical modeling assumptions are explained
in the following section.
5.1. Numerical modeling details
A general-purpose finite element program ANSYS [18] was
used to perform the analyses. In the finite element analyses
specimens were modeled using a combination of 10-node
tetrahedral and 20-node hexahedral elements. The element
types used are capable of representing large deformation
geometric and material nonlinearities. In all analyses a generic
true-stresstrue-strain response given in Fig. 11 was used. In
this generic response material behaves elastically until yielding.
The elastic portion is followed by a yield plateau. Strain
hardening commences at a true strain value of 0.02 and varies
linearly until the true ultimate stress is reached. The true-strain
at true ultimate stress is assumed to be 0.1. After the true
ultimate stress is reached there is a constant stress plateau
until the material fails. Preliminary analyses revealed that the
ultimate load obtained is not sensitive to the selected true
strain value at true ultimate stress. The nonlinear stressstrain
behavior of steel was modeled using the von Mises yield
criterion with isotropic hardening.
Considering the symmetry axes, the half width and half
thickness of the specimens were modeled to reduce the
computational cost. Fig. 12 presents a typical finite element

17

C. Topkaya / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1120

Table 3
Finite element analysis results and resistances from the developed equation
Specimen
#

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Test failure load

(kN)

216
314
347
430
295
395
475
386
467
306
433

Mean
Unbiased standard deviation
Maximum
Minimum

Finite element analysis

Resistance equation Rn4

Ultimate load prediction

(kN)

%
Difference

Average tensile
stress/Fu

Average shear
stress/Fu

Resistance
(kN)

% Difference

206
274
319
402
271
352
442
350
440
286
438

4.6
12.7
8.1
6.5
8.1
10.9
6.9
9.3
5.8
6.5
1.2

1.125
1.098
1.111
1.106
1.098
1.092
1.096
1.078
1.079
1.127
1.116

0.593
0.557
0.568
0.540
0.600
0.583
0.551
0.601
0.595
0.532
0.534

214
293
338
437
290
375
479
387
476
301
475

0.9
6.7
2.6
1.6
1.7
5.1
0.8
0.3
1.9
1.6
9.7

7.1
3.6
12.7
1.2

1.102
0.016
1.127
1.078

0.569
0.027
0.601
0.532

0.39
4.3
6.7
9.7

A typical loaddisplacement response obtained from a finite

element analysis is given in Fig. 13.
5.2. Finite element analysis predictions

Fig. 13. Generic loaddisplacement response from finite element analysis

(specimen 7).

mesh adopted. The nodes that lie on the end of the gusset
plate were prevented against movement in the loading direction.
Symmetry boundary conditions were applied to the nodes
that lie on the symmetry axis. A longitudinal displacement
boundary condition was applied to the end of the flat bar.
Two types of models were used based on the weld group
configurations. For cases with longitudinal and transverse
welds, the elements of the flat bar and the gusset plate share
the same nodes throughout the overlapping area. Welding was
not directly modeled but was included in the total width. On the
other hand, for cases with only longitudinal welds, the welded
portion was directly modeled and the elements of the weld
and the gusset plate shared the same nodes. For the rest of
the unconnected tension plane, elements of the flat bar and the
gusset plate possessed different nodes. A contact surface was
defined on the overlapping area. Target elements were used on
the surface of the gusset plate and contact elements were used
on the surface of the flat bar. The contact algorithm prevented
any kind of node penetration.
Throughout the analysis the NewtonRaphson method was
used to trace the entire nonlinear loaddeflection response.

A finite element mesh similar to that shown in Fig. 12

was prepared for all the tested specimens and the analysis
was performed based on the procedure explained earlier. In
all analyses the observed mode of failure was block shear.
A significant amount of necking was observed through the
thickness direction in the tension plane. When the tension plane
necks the applied load reaches a maximum and then descends.
During a typical analysis the applied load and the deflection
were monitored and the maximum load attained was considered
as the failure load for the analyzed specimen. The failure loads
obtained through finite element analyses are given in Table 3
together with the percent differences between the numerical
and experimental findings. The comparison of the finite element
analysis predictions and the experimental findings is presented
in Fig. 14. It is evident from Fig. 14 and Table 3 that finite
element analysis provides excellent load capacity estimations.
Finite element analysis provides an underestimate of the load
capacity of all specimens except for specimen 11 where the
overprediction is close to 1%. Specimens exhibited on average
7.1% higher strength when compared with the finite element
analysis predictions. As expected, the finite element models
have a higher initial stiffness compared to the experimental
specimens. This is due to the neglect of deformations around
the bolt holes in the finite element models.
In order to understand the mechanics of block shear failure
in welded connection details the shear and tension plane loads
were monitored during finite element analysis. These load
values were obtained by taking sectional cuts through the finite
element mesh. The finite element mesh was constructed in such
a way that it could be separated into simple geometric shapes.
As a procedure, for a typical cut, either through the tension
or shear plane, the nodes that lie on this plane were selected

18

C. Topkaya / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1120

Fig. 14. Comparison of finite element analysis predictions with experimental

findings.

and the nodal forces created by the elements on only one side
of the cut were integrated. The integration of the nodal forces
then gives the total force resisted by either the tension or the
shear plane. Tension and shear plane loads were monitored
throughout the displacement history and the loads that were
obtained at the time of ultimate load were recorded. These
loads were converted to average stresses by considering the
area of application. The average stresses were normalized with
the ultimate strength (Fu ) of the material and are reported in
Table 3 for all the analyzed specimens.
Based on finite element analysis the average shear stress
on the shear plane is 0.57Fu for the analyzed cases. It
is worthwhile to note that average shear stress decreases
as the length of the connection increases. This observation
was pointed out earlier by Hardash and Bjorhovde [19] for
specimens with bolted connections.
According to the analysis results, the tension plane carries
an average tensile stress of 1.1Fu which corresponds to an
increase of 10% beyond the ultimate strength of the material.
These findings revealed that the triaxiality in the tension plane
region is taken into account to a certain extent by the isotropic
hardening rule adopted for the analyses.
In general fracture under multiaxial state of stress requires
the correct definition of a three-dimensional fracture surface.
Defining a fracture surface is more difficult than the definition
of a yield surface. The yield surface is generally unique and
its center remains fixed in stress space for monotonic loading.
On the other hand, the fracture surface evolves in the stress
space by changing shape and location depending on the stress
and strain history [12]. The fracture surface is therefore very
sensitive to prior plastic straining history.
Schafer et al. [13] recommended bounds for principal stress
at fracture as a function of triaxiality. A point along the tension
plane is subjected to tensile stresses in directions parallel
and perpendicular to loading. Finite element analysis provides
longitudinal and transverse stress distributions along the tension
plane. Representative stress distributions for specimens 7 and 8
are given in Fig. 15. In this figure, longitudinal and transverse
stresses occurring at the ultimate load are plotted against the
normalized distance measured from the center of the tension
plane. Based on the stress distribution at ultimate load, it can

Fig. 15. Longitudinal and transverse stress distributions along the tension
plane.

Fig. 16. Longitudinal strain distribution along the tension plane.

be deduced that stresses in the transverse direction can reach

50% of the stresses in the longitudinal direction. Therefore, for
a typical state of stress given in Eq. (7), a triaxiality value of
1.15 is obtained.
1 =

2 = 0.5

3 = 0.

(7)

For this triaxiality value, Schafer et al. [13] recommended an

increase between 10% and 30% in the maximum principal
stress. Therefore, stresses up to 1.3 Fu could be expected to
form in the tension plane zone.
In addition to the stress distributions, the longitudinal
strain distribution along the tension plane was investigated.
Representative strain distributions along the tension plane at
ultimate load for specimens 7 and 8 are given in Fig. 16.
According to this figure, strain concentrations occur at the
ends of the tension plane. The location of strain concentration
coincides with the location of observed crack nucleation.
6. Design recommendations
The experimental and numerical studies explained earlier
revealed that the block shear failure behavior is different for
welded details when compared with the bolted details. For the
welded connections due to the presence of stress triaxiality

C. Topkaya / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1120

the respective load shares of the tension and shear plane are
different when compared with the case of bolted details. In
the welded case, it was observed through experiments and
calculated numerically that the tension plane can develop
stresses in excess of the ultimate tensile strength. Increases
up to 30% in the tension plane capacity could be expected.
For design purposes taking this increase into account is not
necessary. The overall increase in strength of the connection
will be on the order of 10%. Therefore, the overstrength of
the tension plane can be safely neglected by assuming that the
tension plane reaches the ultimate tensile strength of the plate
material at the time of failure.
A second assumption needs to be made with regard to the
tension plane capacity. Finite element analysis results revealed
that the shear plane develops an average shear stress between
0.53 and 0.60 Fu . The shear capacity is influenced mostly by
the connection length. Although an effective shear stress value
could be found as a function of connection length, considering
a single value will yield a much simpler design equation. If
an average shear stress of 0.6 Fu is assumed then the AISCASD [1] equation (Eq. (1)) can be used to predict the capacity
of the welded connection details. An effective shear stress less
than 0.6 Fu can be developed in a shear plane. Considering
a higher shear stress at failure does not cause an overall
unconservative load capacity prediction. The higher actual
strength possessed by the tension plane compensates for the
discrepancy between the actual and assumed shear stress. The
(Eq. (1)) presented in the AISC-ASD [1] code is recommended
for design purposes.
In addition, a more accurate resistance equation (Rn4 ) is
developed for the block shear failure of gusset plates with
welded connections based on the experimental and numerical
findings.
Fu
Rn4 = 1.25Fu A gt + A gv .
3

(8)

In the development of this equation, it is assumed that the gross

tension plane develops 25% higher stresses in excess of Fu .
The resistance values offered by this equation (Rn4 ) are given
in Table 3 along with the statistical measures. The average
percentage difference between the predicted and observed
capacity is 0.39%. The standard deviation of the percentage
differences is comparable to the ones provided by other
equations (Rn1 , Rn2 , Rn3 ). This equation (Rn4 ) significantly
overpredicts the capacity of specimen 11. This is also observed
with the AISC-ASD [1] equation (Rn1 ). Finally, for new
designs the use of AISC-ASD [1] equation (Rn1 ) is sufficient.
On the other hand, for evaluations of structural connections that
require a more elaborate treatment, Eq. (8) is recommended.
7. Future research needs
Several factors that were not considered in this study require
further investigation. These can be summarized as follows:
This study focused on block shear failure of gusset plates
with two welded shear planes. Further research is needed to
investigate the behavior of cases with a single shear plane.

19

For the single shear plane case the constraint on the necking
of the tension plane might be reduced due to the presence of
a free edge. The applicability of the recommended equations
(Rn1 , Rn4 ) to these cases needs further investigation.
Only one type of steel was used in this study. The steel used
in this study had an ultimate-to-yield strength ratio of 1.3 and
the elongation at failure was 30%. Future research should
consider the effects of using high strength steel and steels
with different ultimate-to-yield strength ratios and ductility
properties.
The hardening rules for the plasticity model used in the finite
element analysis can be extended to include fracture process
under combined stresses.
The effects of stress triaxiality on the connection ductility
need to be investigated.
8. Conclusions
Experimental and numerical studies on block shear failure of
welded gusset plates were presented. A total of 11 gusset plate
specimens were tested in tension as a part of the experimental
program. Two different weld group configurations were
examined. The failure loads obtained from the experiments
were compared with the predictions of resistance equations
that are presented by the design codes. Finally, finite element
analyses were conducted to predict the failure loads of the
specimens and the respective load-carrying capacities of the
shear and tension planes.
The following can be concluded from this study:
Block shear is a potential failure mode for welded
connection details and must be taken into account in design.
Block shear failure can be observed for connection details
with and without welded tension planes.
The mechanics of block shear failure for welded details is
different when compared with the bolted details. The tension
plane in the welded connection details could develop stresses
in excess of the ultimate tensile strength due to the presence
of stress triaxiality.
The resistance equations presented in the AISC-ASD [1]
and AISC-LRFD [2] specifications provide conservative
estimates. The equation presented by the AISC-ASD [1]
specification is recommended for design. In addition, a more
accurate equation is developed and can be used for more
elaborate investigations of structural connections.
Nonlinear finite element analysis can be used to predict the
block shear failure load of welded connection details. Finite
element analyses are observed to provide accurate estimates
of the load-carrying capacity. According to the finite element
analysis results the average stress on the tension plane
at ultimate load is 1.1 Fu . Locations of maximum strain
obtained from the numerical analysis match with the fracture
initiation locations observed during experiments.
Acknowledgments
The study presented herein was made possible through the
funds (BAP-2004-03-03-03) from the College of Engineering

20

C. Topkaya / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1120

of the Middle East Technical University. The help of MIM

Engineering Ltd. in fabricating the specimens is greatly
appreciated.
References
[1] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Allowable stress design
specification for structural steel buildings. 9th ed. (AISC-ASD). Chicago
(IL); 1989.
[2] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Load and resistance
factor design specification for structural steel buildings. 3rd ed. (AISCLRFD). Chicago (IL); 2001.
[3] Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. ENV 1993-1-1. Brussels:
European Committee for Standardization; 1992.
[4] Cunningham TJ, Orbison JG, Ziemian RD. Assessment of American
block shear load capacity predictions. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 1995;35:32338.
[5] Kulak GL, Grondin GY. AISC LRFD rules for block shear in bolted
connectionsa review. AISC Engineering Journal 2001;38(4):199203.
[6] Driver RG, Grondin GY, Kulak GL. Unified block shear equation for
achieving consistent reliability. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2006;63(3):21022.
[7] Jensen AP. Limit analysis of gusset plates in steel single-member welded
connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2006;62(12):
14450.

[8] EN 10025. Hot rolled products of non-alloy structural steel. CEN.

Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 1994.
[9] BS EN 440. Welding consumables. Wire electrodes and deposits for gas
shielded metal arc welding of non alloy and fine grain steels. London:
British Standards Institute; 1995.
[10] ASTM. Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical testing of
steel products. A370-03a, West Conshohocken (PA); 2003.
[11] BS 3692. Specification for iso-metric precision hexagon bolts, screws and
nuts. London: British Standards Institute; 2001.
[12] Dieter GE. Mechanical metallurgy. Mc-Graw Hill; 1961.
[13] Schafer BW, Ojdrovic RP, Zarghamee MS. Triaxiality and fracture of
steel moment connections. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 2000;
126(10):11319.
[14] Ricles JM, Yura JA. Strength of double-row bolted-web connections.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1983;109(1):12642.
[15] Epstein HI, Chamarajanagar R. Finite element studies for correlation with
block shear tests. Computers and Structures 1996;61(5):96774.
[16] Barth KE, Orbison JG, Nukala R. Behavior of steel tension members
subjected to uniaxial loading. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2002;58:110320.
[17] Topkaya C. A finite element parametric study on block shear failure of
steel tension members. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60:
161535.
[18] ANSYS. Version 6.1 on-line users manual; 2001.
[19] Hardash SG, Bjorhovde R. New design criteria for gusset plates in tension.
AISC Engineering Journal 1985;22(2):7794.