J. Construct.

Steel Research35 (1995)323-338

© 1995ElsevierScienceLimited
Printed in Malta. All rights reserved
0143-974X(94)00049-2 0143-974X/95/$9.50
ELSEVIER

Assessment of American Block Shear

Load Capacity Predictions

T.J. Cunningham
PA Dept of Transportation, Montoursville, PA 17701, USA

&
J. G. Orbison & R. D. Ziemian
Departraent of Civil Engineering, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA

(Received 15 April 1994; received in revised form 5 October 1994; accepted 5 October 1994)

ABSTRACT

Block shear is known to be a potential failure mode for several different types of
connections. In this study,failure loads determined by experimental block shear tests
performed in North America are compared with the corresponding capacities
predicted by the current American Institute of Steel Construction Load and
Resistance Factor Design and Allowable Stress Design Specifications. The two
different design procedures are shown to provide a reasonable level of accuracy,
although they both exhibit a fairly wide variation in experimental-to-predicted load
capaciJ:y ratios. In an effort to identify and in turn, attempt to quantify the influence
of additional connection parameters that may influence block shear behavior, several
failure load design equations are developed to fit the experimental data. It is shown
that ( I ) the variation in the capacity ratios can be significantly reduced by
incorporating the "aspect ratio' of the block and the in-plane load eccentricity
measured to the bolt line, and (2)failure loads can be predicted with equal accuracy
using either the material yield strength or the ultimate strength.

NOTATION

atg Gross area of tension plane

Atn Net area of tension plane
hvg Gross area of shear plane
Avn Net area of shear plane

323
324 T. J. Cunningham, J. G. Orbison, R. D. Ziemian

Ci Optimized coefficients
e~ In-plane shear eccentricity
et In-plane tension eccentricity
Fu Material ultimate stress
Fy Material yield stress
it, Gross length of tension plane
1,n Net length of tension plane
Iv, Gross length of shear plane
lw Net length of shear plane
Pexp Experimental failure load
Ppred Predicted load capacity
~scrv Service load capacity
Pult Ultimate load capacity
U Shear lag coefficient

Resistance factor

1 INTRODUCTION

A block shear failure can control the load capacity of several different
types of bolted connections, including shear connections at the ends of
coped beams, tension member connections and gusset plates. In all cases,
failure develops as yielding and/or rupture along two or more planes
bounding the connection. A typical block shear failure mechanism for a
single angle tension member is shown in Fig. 1. The 'block' of the

t P
Tension
Plane

~a
Pl__s

Fig. 1. Typicalblock shear failuremechanism.

 Block shear load capacity predictions 325

connected leg bounded by the fastener holes 'tears out' in this failure
mode; a net tensile force is developed along the upper edge of the block
(the tension plane) and a net shear force develops along the bolt line (the
shear pla:ae).
American provisions for determining design load capacities for this
failure mode first appeared in the American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC) Specification in 1978.1 Currently, both the Allowable Stress De-
sign 2 (ASD) and the Load and Resistance Factor Design 3 (LRFD)
Specifications contain methods for estimating block shear design loads.
Both are based on one or more equations that estimate the resistance as
the sum of the tensile plane and shear plane forces at failure.
Over tlhe past two decades, many important experimental block shear
tests have been conducted by several researchers at different laboratories
in North America. In the present study, test data were obtained from
studies including research done at the University of Arizona, 4'5 the
University of Connecticut, 6 the University of Texas at Austin, 7'8 the
University of Alberta, 9 the University of Toronto 1° and the Western Area
Power Administration.11 Using a total of 77 individual tests or specimen
geometries that are known to have failed in pure block shear, their
corresponding experimental failure loads are compared in this study with
those predicted by the current AISC ASD and LRFD procedures.
It is shown that although these two specification procedures provide
overall reasonable levels of accuracy, there tends to be a significant
amount of variation in the experimental-to-predicted load capacity ratios.
Because of this variation, the influence of additional geometric parameters,
suggestecl by Hardash and Bjorhovde s and Epstein, 6 on block shear load
capacities was further studied. In an attempt to quantify their relative
significa~Lce, several load capacity equations were developed using the
above experimental data. It was determined that incorporating geometric
parameters, such as in-plane load eccentricity and the 'aspect ratio' of the
block, into the design procedures provided a means for significantly
reducing the variability between experimental and predicted behavior.

2 ,CURRENT A M E R I C A N D E S I G N P R O C E D U R E S

The current AISC LRFD procedure postulates two block shear failure
mechanisms. In the first, it is assumed that the failure load is reached when
rupture occurs along the tension plane and full yield is developed along
the shear plane. The corresponding load capacity is given by

P~nt= A t n F u -I- 0"6AvgFy (1)

326 T. J. Cunningham, d. G. Orbison, R. D. Ziemian

The second failure mechanism assumes that the shear plane ruptures and
full yield is reached on the tension plane. In this case the load capacity is
given by

Pult = AtgFy + 0"6AvnFu (2)

In eqns (1) and (2), the following parameters appear:

Am, Atg = net and gross areas of the tension plane, respectively;
Aw, Avg= net and gross areas of the shear plane, respectively;
Fy, Fu = material yield and ultimate strengths, respectively.

The AISC LRFD procedure permits the use of the larger failure load
predicted by these two equations. In both cases it is important to note that
the gross area is employed in predicting the resistance of the fully yielded
plane. The AISC LRFD Specification Commentary notes that this pro-
cedure is consistent with that used for tension member design, although in
the authors' opinion only net areas physically exist on the block shear
failure planes.
The AISC ASD procedure for estimating block shear service load
capacity employs the following equation:

eserv = 0"5AtnFu + 0"3AvnFu (3)

This equation is intended to incorporate a factor of safety of 2.0. It should
be noted that in contrast to the AISC LRFD equations, the AISC ASD
equation only employs the net areas of the failure planes, and estimates
the failure load as that required to rupture both .the tension and shear
planes simultaneously. As such, this equation might be expected to
produce an upper bound on the experimental failure loads obtained.
However, this will later be shown to not always be the case.

3 C O M P A R I S O N O F AISC P R O C E D U R E S W I T H
EXPERIMENTAL DATA

The AISC LRFD procedure was first used to predict the block shear
capacities of the aforementioned experimental test specimens. Resistance
factors were not incorporated, as direct failure predictions were desired. In
accordance with the October 1992 draft of the AISC LRFD Specifica-
tion, 12 bolt hole sizes were taken as 1/16 in. greater than the nominal hole
diameter. In Fig. 2, the predicted ultimate loads are plotted against the
 Block shear load capacity predictions 327

350kips • uw.~,~tT,~ s a ~ •
v u=,=-=tx ,~ An=*= • •
D unh~-~ ~ Cean~t~t.
300kips • u~=r=tT =r e , * m = ~ t t ~ t /
~'='!''* 17 ] ~ k ~ I /

250kips
3 - - E = = ~
o 200kips
'~ A zPm

150kips

o. 100kips "S'~LRFD" Equations:

~,r. pu=AtnFu+O.6A Fy
50kips

0kips
0kips 50kips 100kips 150kips 200kips 250kips 300kips
Test Ultirnote Lood

Fig. 2. Experimental vs predicted failure loads (LRFD Procedure).

experimental failure loads. Data points appearing below the diagonal line
indicate tests for which the AISC LRFD procedure is conservative (that
is, the load capacity is underestimated), while points above the line
indicate unconservative load predictions.
In Fig. 3, the resistance factor of ~b=0.75 was applied to the AISC
LRFD equations. With this factor, the AISC LRFD procedure more
conservatively predicts block shear load capacities. It is interesting to note

300kips . . . . * . . . . . . . . u . . . . i . . . . n . . . .
• Unlwraat7 c~ A.Ib~r~ • / /
V U=tmr=tLX~ Art=on~ • /
o u=~.~t7ol e==,.=u=ut • /
BkPe,lt ~ 0==17
250klps • u=,=.=t, .~ c m . u . =
Z~ Un~perllty =l
0 Un~mrmty~' 1~.oaLo / "

.~ 150klps L~ ^

5
~ 100klps

5o~:~ps J ,=,~@¢"~" LRFD Equations:

vw- pu= 0.75(AtnFu+ 0.6A gFy)
PuT0.75(AI~IFy+0.6A,nFu)
Okips . . . . ' . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' ' , ,

0kips 50kips 100kips 150kips 200kips 250kips 300kips

Test U l t i r n o t e Lood

Fig. 3. Experimental vs predicted failure loads (LRFD Procedure with resistance factor
=0"75).
328 T. J. Cunningham, J. G. Orbison, R. D. Ziemian

that five of the eight cases that are unconservative (above the diagonal
line) consisted of coped beam shear connections with two rows of bolts.
For each experimental test, a professional factor, s Pe.p/Pp,ed, was
computed using the .experimental failure load, Pexp, and the predicted
AISC LRFD load capacity, Pp,ea. As such, perfect agreement between
predicted and experimental failure loads is indicated by a professional
factor of unity; factors less than unity indicate tests where the design
procedure overestimates the failure load (and is thus unconservative),
while factors greater than unity indicate conservative load estimates.
Statistical measures of the professional factors are given in Fig. 4 and
Table 1. The resistance factor of ~b= 0.75 was not used in computing these
professional factors. In Figs 2-4, Table 1 and subsequent figures and
tables where indicated, several additional specimens are included that were
reported by Epstein. 6 These tests failed predominantly in block shear
although they also exhibited a partial second failure mode, such as net
section rupture. These test results are included in the 'All Data' statistics,
but not in the 'Block Shear' results.
Figure 4 and Table 1 indicate that the AISC LRFD procedure produces
an impressive professional factor mean of 1.005. However, a considerable

24 i i i

LRFD Equations: Pu =AtnFu + 0.6AvgFy

22
Pu=AtgFy+O.6AvnFu
20

18

16

14

c
~2 77~

10 ~

//z
8 ,//,

6 !
~////~ z / / / .... ,//-/

0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 i2 1.4 1.6

Professlonol Foctor

Fig. 4. LRFD professional factor distribution and frequencies.

 Block shear load capacity predictions 329

TABLE 1
Professional Factor Statistics for AISC LRFD Procedure

AISC LRFD Professional factor

Statistic
Block shear All data
only

Mean 1.005 0.975

Standard deviation 0.183 0.174
Minimum 0.513 0-513
Maximum 1-371 1.371

amount of variability is observed, which includes a wide bi-modal distribu-

tion (Fig. 4) that has a standard deviation of 0-183. In addition, the AISC
LRFD taethod significantly overestimated failure loads (P.F.< 1.0) in
several cases. In one of the tests that included a coped beam with two lines
of bolts, the AISC LRFD procedure (without the resistance factor)
overestimates the load capacity by 48-7%. As shown in Fig. 4, conservative
failure load estimates were also frequently obtained.
Using a similar approach, the performance of the AISC ASD procedure
was also assessed. Multiplying eqn (3) by a factor of 2.0, predicted load
capacities were compared with experimental results. In accordance with
the AISC ASD Specification, hole sizes for both the tension and shear
planes were taken as the nominal hole diameter increased by 1/16 in. In
Fig. 5, tlhe predicted loads are plotted against the experimental failure

350kips
Unl'nmCLyof Albertt
V Unlver~ty of/u'lzoaa • •
Q tlnlvetmtty o~ connecu~t
300kips
• o.,~".",,,."7~.~" .... • S

x~ 250kips 0 °nifty o! Toronto

~* w e s t e r n e r Power ~tministraUon • m ~
.J
I-1 m
200kips
E o •m -zx
150kips o •

a. 100kips

50klps

()kips
Okips 50kips lOOkips 150kips 200kips 250kips 300kips
Test Ultimote Lood

Fig. 5. Experimental vs predicted failure loads (ASD Procedure).

330 T. J. Cunningham, J. G. Orbison, R. D. Ziemian

24 i i i J i

ASD Equation: Pu=AtnFu+O.6AvnFu

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Professional Factor

Fig. ~ ASD professional factor distribution and frequencies.

TABLE 2
Professional Factor Statistics for AISC ASD Procedure

AISC ASD Professional factor

Statistic
Block shear All data
only

Mean 1"075 1.029

Standard deviation 0.201 0-197
Minimum 0"587 0"587
Maximum 1"458 1.458

loads. As in Figs 2 and 3, data points appearing above the diagonal line
indicate unconservative load predictions.
Professional factors were also computed using the AISC ASD procedure
to calculate Ppr=d (the factor of 2"0 was included). Statistical measures of
the AISC ASD professional factors are provided in Fig. 6 and Table 2. A
mean of 1.075 and a standard deviation of 0.201 were obtained. Similar to
the AISC LRFD procedure, the histogram (Fig. 6) has a fairly wide
distribution. The AISC ASD procedure was also shown to significantly
 Block shear load capacity predictions 331

overestirrtate failure loads in several cases (P.F. < 1.0) and in one particular
case overestimates the load capacity by 41.3%. Relatively conservative
load capacities were also frequently obtained.

4 ADDITIONAL FACTORS INFLUENCING BLOCK

SHEAR BEHAVIOR

Given the performance characteristics of the two current procedures, the

influence of several geometric and material parameters on predicting block
shear load capacities was further studied. In an attempt to quantify the
relative significance of these parameters, several load capacity equations
were developed using the experimental data obtained.
Geometric and material parameters that were investigated included:

Tension plane gross area, Atg
Tension plane gross length, Its
Tension plane net area, Atn
Tension plane net length, ltn
Tensile yield strength, Fy
Shear plane gross area, A,~
Shear plane gross length, lvs
Shear plane net area, Avn
Shear plane net length, l~n
Ultimate tensile strength, Fu

Several other parameters were also studied. For example, the effects of
in-plane shear eccentricity, es and tension eccentricity, e,, were considered.
As shown in Fig. 7, these eccentricities are defined as the in-plane distance
from the line of action of the resultant shear or tensile force developed on

~ P

Sheor
Eccentricity, es
Tension
I Eccentricity, et

Fig. 7. ;hear and tension plane eccentricities.

332 T. J. Cunninoham,J. G.Orbison,R. D.Ziemian
the applicable plane(s) to the applied load line. Other parameters inves-
tigated included the aspect ratios of the block; these include the gross
length aspect ratio (l,g/Itg)and the net length aspect ratio (l,,Jlt,).
Various equation forms were considered. In all cases, the basic form of
each equation was similar to that of the AISC equations. That is, it
consisted of the sum of a tensile force term and a shear force term. Each
of these force terms, however, comprised either the net or gross area of the
relevant plane, the yield or ultimate strength of the steel, and additional
factors that may be a function of one or more geometric parameters being
studied. In computing net lengths and areas, hole sizes were determined
using the AISC procedure described previously.
An example of the general form of one equation that provided much
insight into this investigation is:

Co+C1 ~ C~+c3ec" AtnFu I C5+ C6~_~.)c~+/t\__ Caec~] A,,,,Fy

(4)

An optimization procedure was employed to determine the coefficients

Co, C1, ..., C9. Using the experimental data obtained, the objective of the
procedure was to minimize the standard deviation of the professional
factors while maintaining a professional factor mean within 2% of unity.
The relative importance of each term within the two predicted force
components was then assessed. It was determined during the study that
the use of gross areas and gross plane lengths produced predictions with
equivalent accuracy to those obtained with net areas and lengths; as the
latter models the actual planes, they were employed throughout.
The first equation developed employed only the net areas of the two
failure planes and the ultimate tensile strength of the steel:

Ppr~d= 0"75AtnF~ + 0"75Av,,F~ (5)

Similar to the AISC ASD equation, this equation assumes rupture on both
planes at the ultimate load. Professional factors from eqn (5) had a
standard deviation of 0"178, a range from 0"557 to 1.394 and a mean of
1.016. As such, this equation does not provide any more insight into
reducing variability than either of the current AISC procedures.
A similar equation was then developed using the yield strength in the
shear term:

Pored 0"65AtnFu + l'15AvnFy

= (6)
 Block shear load capacity predictions 333

This equation produced professional factors with a standard deviation of

0.158, which is slightly better than the first equation. As a vast majority
of the experimental tests exhibited at least partial rupture on the tension
plane and yield on the shear plane, the use of the ultimate strength in the
tension term and the yield strength in the shear term was assumed to
better model the actual connection behavior.
It should be noted that in both eqns (5) and (6) the optimization
procedure resulted in a relatively high shear term constant and a corre-
spondingly low tension term constant. One rationale for this is as follows:
even though most of the experimental test connections exhibited tensile
rupture, ~Lherupture frequently developed as a crack propagating across
the tension plane away from the bolt hole. In such instances, use of the
full tension net area would not be warranted and a tension term constant
less than unity does seem reasonable. The shear term constant in both
equation,; (0.75 and 1"15) is significantly higher than the accepted value of
0.60; this could explain why Fig. 4 shows that the AISC ASD equation
does not produce an upper bound when predicting all of the experimental
block shear failure loads. Because the load contribution of the tension
term cannot reasonably exceed that given by the AISC ASD equation
(with a tension term constant of 1.0), the corresponding shear term must,
in certain cases, be underestimating the load contribution from the shear
plane; a coefficient greater than 0.6 (in at least some cases) would then
seem rea,+onable.
A third equation, eqn (7), was then developed that incorporates an
'aspect ratio', defined as the ratio of the shear plane net length to the
tension plane net length, in both terms.

Ppred = 0"35(lt,/lv.)At.F, + (1"6 -- 0"l(lv,/lt.))Av.Fy (7)

Professional factors from this equation produced a standard deviation of

0.116, a range from 0.632 to 1.266, and a mean of 0.994. Clearly, use of the
aspect r~Ltio had a significant effect on increasing the accuracy of the
predicted block shear load capacities; the overall range decreased slightly,
while the standard deviation decreased substantially.
Equation 7 was then modified by raising the aspect ratios to exponents
that were also optimized. The resulting equation is

epred 0"35(ltn/Ivn) 1"75AtnFu + (6"6-5"O(lvn/ltn)°'°S)AvnFy

= (8)

In this case, the professional factors have a standard deviation of 0.110, a

range from 0.646 to 1-244, and a similar mean of 0.992. In this case, it
334 T. J. Cunningham, J. G. Orbison, R. D. Ziemian

appears that load prediction accuracy is not enhanced by raising the

aspect ratio to a power.
However, when the in-plane shear eccentricity, es (as defined above), is
included in eqn (8), the resulting equation, eqn (9), indicates that a
significant improvement in load prediction accuracy is achieved.

Ppred = [0"6--O'05(ltn/Ivn)l"6]At.Fu + [ 6 " 5 5 - 5"l(lvn/ltn) °'°5 --O'les]Av.Fy (9)

This equation produces professional factors that have a standard devi-

ation of 0.067, a range from 0"828 to 1-177 and a mean of 0"996. Further
research indicated that the use of either the tension eccentricity or the
shear eccentricity in the tension term produced virtually identical results.
In an attempt to simplify eqn (9), the following equation of similar form
and accuracy was developed:

Ppred = 0"55Ztn Fu Jr (l'55(lvn/Itn)- 0.2 s _ O" les)Av.Fy (10)

Equation 10 results in professional factors that have a standard deviation

of 0.067, a range from 0.837 to 1.160, which is identical to eqn (9), and a
mean of 0.997. It should be noted that the aspect ratio is included in the
shear term only. In Fig. 8, ultimate loads predicted by eqn (10) are plotted
against the experimental failure loads. A histogram, similar to those shown
in Figs 4 and 6, is shown in Fig. 9. This figure indicates that eqn (10)
produces a relatively narrow, well defined normal distribution.

350kips . . . . , . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . , . . . . ~ . . . .
• Unlve~ityol Alberta
V e.~ver,Jty a ~:*n, • • •

[ ] Um~r~L7 of Co~Ucut
300kips mockm, , ~ ~i~,
P~domtn~uymockSh~r
/k UalV~lity of T|I~
250kips Q um~ty of Toronto
~es~rn~ Power Admmis~aUon
8
J

200klps
E

150klps

100kips

50kips uation I0
p u = 0,55AtnFu+ [ 1.55(ltn/lvn)0.25_ O, 1 es]AvnFy
Oklps . . . . L . . . . , . . . . , , , , , I , , i , I , i , ,

Okips 50kips 100kips 150kips 200kips 250kips 300kips

Test Ultimate Load

Fig. 8. Experimental vs predicted failure loads for eqn 10.

 Block shear load capacity predictions 335

24 1" "1" 1 T r

Equation 10: Pu=0.55AtnFu+[1.55(ltn/lvn)0"25-0.1es]hvnFy

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

4 -

0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Professionol Foctor

Fig. 9. Professionalfactor distribution and frequenciesfrom eqn 10.

As indicated previously, a review of the experimental results revealed

that most of the tests exhibited, at failure, rupture along the tension plane
and plastic deformation (but not rupture) of the shear plane. This suggests
that the equations developed above are required to incorporate a tensile
force term using the ultimate tensile strength of the steel, and a shear force
term using the tensile yield strength. To investigate this requirement, the
following three optimized equations were obtained using different material
strength combinations:
(a) Tension and shear yield:

Ppred l'05AtnFy + [l'45(l,,n/ltn) - ° 2 5

= -O'les]A,,nFy (11)

(b) Tension ultimate strength and shear ultimate strength:

Ppred = 0"7Atn Fu + [(lvn/Itn)- 0.2 __ 0"08es]Av. Fu (12)

(c) Tension yield and shear ultimate strength:

Pp,ed = A t . F y + [(Iv.lit.)- 0.2 _ O'08esJAvnFu (13)

336 T. J. Cunningham, J. G. Orbison, R. D. Ziemian

TABLE 3
Professional Factor Statistics for all Developed Equations (Block Shear Data Only)

Equation No. Professional factor

Mean Standard Minimum Maximum

deviation

Equation 5 1.016 0.178 0-557 1.394

Equation 6 0.987 0.158 0-584 1.364
Equation 7 0.994 0.116 0-632 1.266
Equation 8 0"992 0"110 0'646 1.244
Equation 9 0.996 0.067 0-828 1-177
Equation 10 0.997 0.067 0-837 1.160
Equation 11 1-000 0.067 0.853 1' 164
Equation 12 1.004 0.069 0.833 1.180
Equation 13 1.007 0.067 0-840 1-177

Table 3 summarizes the professional factor statistics for the 'Block

Shear' data only obtained from the equations presented. It can be seen
that the statistics for eqns (10)-(13) are essentially identical. This would
indicate that failure loads can be predicted with the same accuracy using
either the material yield strength, the ultimate strength, or combinations
thereof. The statistics for the 'All Data' set are similar.

5 CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of one connection having two rows of bolts, the
current AISC LRFD procedure, with resistance factors included, reason-
ably predicts block shear load capacities when compared with previously-
published experimental results. As the professional factor mean, range and
standard deviation from the AISC ASD procedure are similar to those
from the AISC LRFD procedure, the same conclusion can be extended to
the AISC ASD procedure. However, considerable variation in the profes-
sional factors from the two approaches is apparent.
The present study indicates that both the aspect ratio of the block and
the in-plane shear eccentricity may have a significant influence on the
block shear load contribution from the shear plane. Conversely, these
parameters appear to have no influence on the tension plane load
contribution. With respect to out-of-plane eccentricity, Epstein 6 suggests
applying the shear lag coefficient,3 U, to the tension plane area with angles
to approximately account for this affect. The statistical data observed in
 Block shear load capacity predictions 337

the present study indicate that the load contribution of the shear plane is
affected by the bending moments being applied to that plane through load
eccentricity, and other factors that may be influential with relatively wide,
short connection blocks.
Numerical comparisons with the AISC LRFD and ASD procedures on
hypothetJLcal connections having aspect ratios in excess of 5.0 indicate the
equation:; developed to quantify the significance of the above effects may
be substantially conservative relative to the current procedures. The
authors note that three tests on coped beam simple connections having
block aspect ratios ranging from 16.1 to 17-9 are reported by Yura. s While
none of the connections failed in pure block shear, both the AISC LRFD
and ASD, block shear procedures predict failure loads within 16% of the
experimental failure loads, while the equations used in this study under-
estimatedL these loads by as much as a factor of two. Hence, the aspect
ratio and shear eccentricity may have no influence on the block shear load
capacity of connections with large aspect ratios.
It shotdd be noted that the experimental data obtained had net aspect
ratios (lvn/ltn) ranging from less than 1.0 to a maximum of slightly less than
5.0; no experimental pure block shear failure data was found that exceeded
this range. While actual connection aspect ratios smaller than those
included in the test data would probably be rare, aspect ratios greater than
5.0 can be obtained with relatively common connection geometries,
particularly in heavier coped beam shear connections. As this study has
been based upon the available experimental results, its conclusions,
particularly with respect to the aspect ratio and in-plane shear eccentricity,
cannot reasonably be applied to connections whose aspect ratios exceed
the experimental range. Regardless, the authors recommend that tests on
connections having large aspect ratios resulting in block shear failures be
conducted.
This study also indicates that the accepted 'shear rupture' constant of
0.6 may not accurately predict the shear plane load contribution. How-
ever, tests of bolted connections to verify this directly have not been found.
It has also been shown that various combinations of yield strength and
ultimate tensile strength in the tension and shear terms produce results of
similar accuracy. Use of the ultimate strength in the tension term and yield
strength JLnthe shear term would, however, appear to best reflect the actual
experimental behavior of the connections. In further regard to material
properties, it was also found that all of the experimental tests available
employed steel having yield strengths below 45 ksi, with the exception of
one, single, cold-rolled, high-strength gusset plate having a yield strength
of 49"5ksi. 5 The authors also recommend that block shear tests be
338 T. J. Cunninghara, J. G. Orbison, R. D. Ziemian

conducted on high-strength structural steel to ensure the adequacy of the

current block shear design provisions in these applications.

REFERENCES

1. AISC, Specifications for the Desion, Fabrication and Erection of Structural

Steel for Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois,
1978.
2. AISC, Allowable Stress Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Ninth Edition, Chicago, Illinois,
1989.
3. AISC, Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, 1st edn., Chicago, Illinois,
1986.
4. Bjorhovde, R. and Chakrabarti, S. K., Tests of Full-Size Gusset Plate
Connections, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. ST3,
March, 1985 (pp. 667-684).
5. Hardash, S. (3. & Bjorhovde, R., New design criteria for gusset plates in
tension. AISC Engng J., 22 (1985) 77-94.
6. Epstein, H. I., An experimental study of block shear failure of angles in
tension. AISC Engng J., 29 (1992) 75-84.
7. Ricles, J. M. & Yura, J. A., Strength of double-row bolted web connections.
J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 109(ST1) (1983) 126-142.
8. Yura, J. A., Birkemoe, P. C. & Ricles, J. M., Beam web shear connections: an
experimental study. J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 108(ST2) (1982) 311-325.
9. Madugula, K. S. & Mohan, S., Angles in eccentric tensions. J. Struct. Div.
ASCE, ll4(ST10) (1988) 2387-2386.
10. Birkemoe, P. C. & Gilmor, M. I., Behavior of bearing critical double-angle
beam connections. AISC Enong J. 15 (1978) 109-115.
11. Barthel, R. J., Peabody, M. T. & Cash, U. M., Structural steel transmission
tower angle and rectangular coupon tension testing. Western Area Power
Administration Report, Department of Energy, 1987.
12. AISC, Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Draft, 2nd edn, October,
Chicago, Illinois, 1992.