See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270344629

Compressive strength and behaviour of gusset

plate connections with single-sided splice
members

Article in Journal of Constructional Steel Research · March 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.12.009

CITATIONS READS

5 291

4 authors, including:

Michael C.H. Yam J.J. Roger Cheng

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University University of Alberta
75 PUBLICATIONS 654 CITATIONS 167 PUBLICATIONS 1,110 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yanyang Zhang
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
12 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Influence of Bourdon effect on pipe bends View project

Bond length of CFP on concrete surfaces View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yanyang Zhang on 08 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Compressive strength and behaviour of gusset plate connections with

single-sided splice members
Cheng Fang a,b,⁎, Michael C.H. Yam c, J.J. Roger Cheng d, Yanyang Zhang c
a
Department of Structural Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b
School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, United Kingdom
c
Department of Building & Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
d
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Due to the ease of fabrication and construction, gusset plate connections with single-sided splice members are a
Received 4 September 2014 popular connection type in building frames and light structures. However, this detail produces local out-of-plane
Accepted 6 December 2014 eccentricity, which can be detrimental to the ultimate strength of the connections. This paper presents
Available online xxxx
experimental, numerical, and analytical investigations of the compressive behaviour of eccentrically loaded
gusset plate connections. Three full-scale tests were conducted, including two specimens with unstiffened splice
Keywords:
Gusset plate connections
members and the remaining one with stiffened splice members. The ultimate loads of the three specimens were
Loading eccentricity found to be evidently less than the concentrically loaded specimen which has been earlier reported. Finite
Single-sided splice element (FE) models were then established, which were validated through comparisons against the test results.
Full-scale tests The sensitivity of the FE models to the initial imperfections was also studied. An extensive parametric study was
FE study subsequently performed, and the influences of varying gusset plate and splice member geometric configurations
Design recommendation were discussed in detail. Three key failure modes were identified for the eccentrically loaded gusset plate connec-
tions, namely, Gusset–Splice Interactive Plastic Failure (G–SIPF), Splice Plastic Failure (SPF), and Gusset Plate
Buckling (GPB). A set of design rules based on the nature of each failure mode was proposed accordingly,
where good agreements were observed between the FE and the design results in terms of both the ultimate
load and the governing failure mode. Worked examples were finally provided to clearly illustrate the proposed
design procedure.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Gusset plates are commonly used in building frames to connect the
bracing members to the framing elements; they are also widely
employed in bridges to link the truss members at member conjunctions.
There are various types of gusset plate connections, including double
gusset plate, dual gusset plate, gusset plate with double-sided splice
member, and gusset plate with single-sided splice member, as illustrat-
ed in Fig. 1. Prior to the 1990s, a considerable amount of research effort
had been made to investigate the tensile behaviour of gusset plate
connections, whereas only limited work on the compressive behaviour
of gusset plate connections had been conducted [1–3]. More work on
compressively loaded gusset plate connections was carried out since
the early 1990s [4–8], and a literature review on the design of gusset
plate connections in braced building frames was later reported by
Chambers and Ernst [9]. In 2007, the collapse of a large steel truss bridge
in Minnesota, where thirteen people were killed, shocked the general
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Structural Engineering, School of Civil
Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China. Tel.: +86 21 65983894.
E-mail addresses: chengfang@tongji.edu.cn, cheng.fang@ncl.ac.uk (C. Fang).
public. The subsequent investigation deduced that the collapse was
mainly attributed to overstressed and buckled gusset plates [10]. The
catastrophic event highlighted the importance of an appropriate design
of gusset plate connections, and since then a global attention on this
issue was raised. More tests and numerical studies were carried out
after the accident, where the connection details that are commonly
used in both building frames and truss bridges have been extensively
investigated [11–16].
However, most of the available research was focused on the connec-
tions with double/dual gusset plates or those with double-sided splice
members (Fig. 1(a)), whereas the ones with single-sided splice mem-
bers have received little attention. This gusset connection type is com-
monly considered in the situation that a tubular bracing member with
a slotted-in splice plate is connected to the gusset plate, where the splice
plate is normally shop welded into the slots of the tubular member and
then field bolted to the gusset plate [17]. Alternatively, a tee can be
welded to the end of the bracing member and then bolted to the gusset
plate. A continuous tube-splice solution without slotted-in welding
(also known as flattened end hollow section) is also commonly used.
At present, these gusset plate connection types are still quite popular,
especially in building frames and other lightly loaded structures, due

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.12.009
0143-974X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183
Fig. 1. Gusset plate connections: a) common connection types, and b) typical deformation
modes.
to the ease of fabrication and construction [18]. However, the connec-
tion details produce local out-of-plane eccentricity to the gusset plate
due to the offset of the line of action from the tubular bracing member
to the gusset plate by the eccentrically connected splice member. Hu
and Cheng [3] studied the elastic buckling strength of several gusset
plate connection types. Two specimens with single-sided splice mem-
bers were considered, and their main failure mode was yielding at the
splice plate near the gusset-to-splice conjunction. Compared with the
concentrically loaded specimens, a significant decrease of ultimate
loads for the two eccentrically loaded specimens was reported.
Kitipornchai et al. [19] studied the compressive behaviour of bracing
members eccentrically connected to cleat plates. A plastic collapse ap-
proach was employed to evaluate the ultimate strength of the speci-
mens, where a non-sway failure mechanism was assumed, as shown
167
in Fig. 1(b). The industry later warned that a sway failure mechanism
is more common for bracing cleat connections, and thus the design
method based on Kitipornchai et al. [19] may be unconservative. An ad-
visory note was subsequently issued [20], and possible revisions of the
design models for bracing cleat connections were attempted [21]. It
should be noted that the behaviour of cleat plates is different from
that of gusset plates because of the more complex geometric configura-
tions and boundary conditions for the latter case. More recently, a FE
parametric study on gusset plates under compression was performed
by Crosti and Duthinh [22], where the influence of loading eccentricity,
among other parameters, was discussed. It was assumed that the gusset
plate was connected by a single-sided I-section, which was found to ev-
idently decrease the loading capacity compared with the concentrically
loaded case. Since only one comparison set was considered in Crosti and
Duthinh [22], more data are required to confirm the effect of loading
eccentricity.
In view of the above, it can be seen that research works on gusset
plate connections with single-sided splice members are still insufficient.
To provide a better understanding of this gusset plate connection type,
three full-scale tests were conducted in this study, where single-sided
plate type (unstiffened) splice members were adopted in two speci-
mens, and stiffened splice members were employed in the remaining
one. A concentrically loaded case, which has been reported in Yam
and Cheng [8], was also included for discussion as a basis for compari-
son. The general nonlinear FE program ABAQUS [23] was then used to
simulate these specimens. Parametric studies were subsequently per-
formed to take an in-depth look into the strength and behaviour of
such connections, where a total of 48 models with varying gusset
plate/splice member geometric details and material properties were
analysed. Based on the parametric study, key failure modes of those gus-
set plate connections were identified, and design models were devel-
oped to predict their ultimate strengths and governing failure modes
accordingly. Illustrative design examples were finally given in order to
more clearly demonstrate the proposed design scheme. In the following
discussions, the gusset plate connections with single-sided splice mem-
bers are named as the ‘eccentrically loaded gusset plate connections’ for
consistency of terminology.
2. Test programme
2.1. Test specimens
Three eccentrically loaded gusset plate connections were tested,
which were designated as EP1, EP2, and EP3. The concentrically loaded
specimen was designated as GP1. A diagonal bracing angle of 45° was
considered, and the gusset plate thickness and the bolting details were
identical for all the four tests. For the three eccentrically loaded speci-
mens, the splice plate thickness and the types of splice member were
varied. The dimensions and arrangement of the splice members and
the gusset plate are shown in Fig. 2(a) and Table 1. For the unstiffened
splice members, two plate thicknesses were considered which were
9.5 mm (EP1) and 13.0 mm (EP2). For the stiffened splice members
(EP3), a WT 125 × 22.5 tee-section plus a splice plate of 9.5 mm thick
was employed. Eight ASTM A325-M22 bolts were used to connect the
splice member to the gusset plate. For specimen GP1, which was con-
centrically loaded, two tee-sections and two splice plates (2 × WT
125 × 22.5 and 2 × Plate 870 × 148 × 13.0) were connected concentri-
cally to the gusset plate. Further details of specimen GP1 can be found in
Yam and Cheng [8]. The material properties of the main structural com-
ponents were obtained based on tensile coupon tests and the results are
summarised in Table 2. It should be noted that originally CSA G40.21
300W steels were ordered for all the plates and the tee-section (WT),
but the yield strength for the 9.5 mm thick material is exceptionally
high. It is believed that a higher grade of steel might have been provided
by the supplier. Nevertheless, this set of material properties will be used
in analysing the test results and for conducting the FE studies.
168 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183

Fig. 2. Test programme: a) details of test specimens and instrumentations, and b) test principle and setup.
 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183
Table 1
Specimen geometric properties and test/FE results.
Specimen Gusset plate size (mm) Splice member
EP1 500 × 400 × 13.3 9.5 mm plate
EP2 500 × 400 × 13.3 13.0 mm plate
EP3 500 × 400 × 13.3 WT125 × 22.5 + 9.5 mm plate
GP1 500 × 400 × 13.3 2 × WT125 × 22.5 + 2 × 13.0 mm plate
Note: IMP represents ‘initial imperfection’.
2.2. Test setup, instrumentation and test procedure
The test setup is shown schematically in Fig. 2(b). The original con-
cept of the test frame was proposed by Hu and Cheng [3] and later
adopted by Yam and Cheng [7]. The main idea of the testing frame is
that the same out-of-plane displacement mode of the gusset plate can
be achieved by allowing the beam and column base to sway out-of-
plane instead of the bracing member as in a real frame. This test ar-
rangement can well reflect the ‘sway’ deformation mode of the speci-
mens, and is more compatible with common testing machines where
the loading head is normally fixed horizontally. A more detailed de-
scription of the concept of the test frame can be found in [3,7,8]. Two
W310 × 129 sections were used as the stub beam and column members,
and the diagonal bracing member (W250 × 67) was fixed in place by
lateral supports at the top and bottom of the bracing member. Fourteen
ASTM A325-M22 bolts were used to connect the splice member to the
diagonal bracing member. The stub beam and column were bolted to
a distributing beam, which sat on rollers to allow for out-of-plane move-
ments. Two channel sections were bolted to the distributing beam to
provide lateral stability for the test frame. Linear Variable Displacement
Transformers (LVDTs) were used to measure the out-of-plane displace-
ment of the gusset plate free edges. The LVDTs were also located on the
splice members, which were expected to be the critical region for these
specimens as shown in Fig. 2(a). Two additional LVDTs were attached to
the beam and column to record the out-of-plane displacement of the
test frame. Strain gauges and rosettes were used to measure the strain
distribution of the specimens, as shown in Fig. 2(a). All the strain gauges
and rosettes were mounted on both sides of the specimen in order to
confirm the readings and to detect possible bending behaviour. The
load was applied to the specimens by a MTS testing machine, and stroke
control was used for all the tests. A data acquisition system was used to
collect all the test data and to record the MTS load and stroke. White-
wash was applied to all the specimens to detect material yielding.
As specimens EP1 and EP2 were mainly used to examine the failure re-
sponse of the splice plates (i.e. no or minor yielding was expected in the
gusset plate), only one gusset plate (500 mm × 400 mm × 13.3 mm)
was used to conduct all the three tests. In order to avoid excessive dam-
age to the gusset plate, the specimens with the 9.5 mm thick splice plate
was tested first, followed by that with the 13.0 mm thick splice plate,
using the same gusset plate specimen. Any minor permanent deforma-
tion of the gusset plate after each test was corrected (i.e. pushed back to
straight) before performing the next test. Since it was expected that
using the tee-section splice member would result in a higher ultimate
load, test EP3 was conducted last. Another gusset plate with the same
Table 2
Specimen material properties.
Material Static yield Ultimate
strength strength
(MPa) (MPa)
13.3 mm gusset plate 295 501
13.0 mm splice plate 285 510
9.5 mm splice plate 435 540
13.0 mm flange of 284 503
tee-section splice
169
PTest (kN) PFE (kN) PFE (kN) PFE (kN) PFE (kN)
(no IMP) (IMP = 0.1 mm) (IMP = 0.5 mm) (IMP = 2.0 mm)
297.8 292.1 292.0 288.9 280.3
322.2 310.6 310.5 308.4 302.7
856.3 852.6 852.4 847.6 836.0
1869.1 1975.3 1791.8 1718.9 1598.7
geometric dimensions was used for specimen GP1. It should be noted
that since the ultimate failure mode was expected to be the combined
bending and compression on the splice members for tests EP1 and
EP2, any slight yielding developed in the gusset plate after test EP1
would not affect the test result for EP2 as failure of the specimens
occurred in the splice member only (as will be discussed later). For
specimen EP3, the reuse of the gusset plate would also have negligible
influence on the ultimate load. This is because the gusset plate was
pushed back to a straight position after each test, and therefore the gus-
set plate would behave elastically when reloaded. The only issue would
be the reduced ductility of the steel material after being re-used; how-
ever, negligible influence on specimen EP3 was expected, as the failure
mode was mainly governed by significant yielding in the splice member
combined with yielding of the gusset plate (again this will be confirmed
later), where material ductility was not a critical issue. In view of this, it
was believed that repeatedly using one gusset plate for the three tests
can well reflect the failure modes and ultimate loads of the specimens,
and is therefore acceptable for the current study.
2.3. Test results and discussions
In general, all the eccentrically loaded specimens failed by significant
yielding in the splice member at the area of gusset-to-bracing conjunc-
tion as indicated by the strain gauge readings and the visible yield lines.
Yielding at the gusset plate in the vicinity of the corner of the stub beam
and column was also observed, and the significance of yielding varied
with different specimens. For specimen EP3 in particular, extensive
yielding was observed at the gusset plate underneath the splice mem-
ber close to the beam boundary. The yield line originated from the
end of the splice member and extended towards the ends of the free
edges. For specimens EP1 and EP2, yield lines were also recorded near
the beam boundary close to the short side free edge. Fig. 3(a) illustrates
the yield lines observed in specimen EP1 on the gusset plate.
The static load vs. vertical displacement and the static load vs. out-
of-plane displacement curves for the three specimens are shown in
Fig. 4(a) and (b), respectively. The deflections started to be accumulated
at the beginning of the loading stage. This was mainly due to the out-of-
plane movement of the gusset plate caused by the loading eccentricity.
For specimens EP1 and EP2, the vertical displacement at ultimate load
was around 2 mm, while a 4 mm vertical displacement was achieved
for specimen EP3 at ultimate load. The load vs. out-of-plane displace-
ment curves showed that an evident amount of out-of-plane displace-
ment prior to ultimate load could be sustained. Specimens EP1 and
EP2 reached their ultimate loads at an out-of-plane displacement of
about 20 mm. For specimen EP3, the ultimate load was attained at a
reduced out-of-plane displacement of about 10 mm. This clearly illus-
trated the stiffening effect of using a stiffened splice member.
Selected strain gauge readings are shown in Fig. 5. As the strain
gauge results for specimens EP1 and EP2 were quite similar, the results
Modulus of
elasticity for specimen EP2 were discussed as follows. For this specimen, which
(MPa) used a 13.3 mm-thick splice plate, yielding was first recorded at the
207,600 gusset-to-splice conjunction at an applied load of 220 kN. The plot of
199,960 strain gauges #19 and #20, which were located on two opposite sides
201,500 of the splice plate at the conjunction, indicated a bending behaviour
197,800 from the beginning of loading. The curve for strain gauge #24, which
was located very close to the first row of bolts from the end of the
170 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183

(a)

(b)
Fig. 3. Yielding patterns: a) general yielding behaviour of test specimen EP1, and b) yielding conditions of gusset plate at ultimate deformation for tests EP1 and EP2.

bracing member, showed a significant compressive strain at the ulti- this echoed the corresponding strain gauge results (not shown in
mate load. At a load level of 260 kN, flaking of the whitewash was ob- Fig. 5) that yielding occurred at the same load level. With the applied
served at the back side of the splice member at the conjunction, and load further approaching the ultimate load, minor yield lines were
 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183
Fig. 4. Load–deformation responses of test specimens: a) load–vertical displacement curves, and b) load–horizontal out-of-displacement displacement curves.

171
172 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183
Fig. 5. Strain gauge reading results.
found on the gusset plate right underneath the splice plate. The speci-
men finally failed showing significant yielding in the splice member
near the first row of bolts from the end of the bracing member. For spec-
imen EP3, yield lines were first observed at the gusset plate in the vicin-
ity of the corner of the beam and column boundary at an applied load of
around 550 kN. At this loading level, the strain gauges on the splice plate
located at the gusset-to-splice conjunction also showed yielding, but no
visible yield lines were detected. A plot of load versus strain readings re-
corded at the web of the tee-section and on the front side of the splice
plate is shown in Fig. 5. Due to the significant bending behaviour, the
strain reading of the web of the tee showed tension yielding, while com-
pression yielding was shown for the strain gauge at the splice plate.
The ultimate loads of the test specimens are given in Table 1. The ef-
fects of using single-sided splice members on the compressive strength
of gusset plate connections were clearly demonstrated by comparing the
test results of EP specimens to that of specimen GP1, where the ultimate
loads of the former were significantly lower than that of the latter. The
test results also showed that although the thickness of the splice plate
for specimen EP2 was increased by approximately 40% compared with
that for specimen EP1, the ultimate load was not significantly increased.
The main reason was that the yield strength for the 13.0 mm thick splice
plate in specimen EP2 (285 MPa) was significantly lower than that of the
9.5 mm thick splice plate in specimen EP1 (435 MPa). Concurrently,
the increase of the splice plate thickness for EP2 also led to an increase
of the loading eccentricity, which could further decrease the ultimate
load. This indicated that the ultimate loads of the EP test specimens
were determined by the combined effects of the loading eccentricity,
splice member material strength, and splice member thickness.
When a tee-section was applied as the additional splice member for
specimen EP3, the ultimate load was increased to about 2.9 times of that
of specimen EP1, noting that the tee-section provided an increase to
the splice member in terms of both the cross-sectional strength and
bending rigidity. However, the splice arrangement for EP3 also created
a larger loading eccentricity. Again, the final increase of the ultimate
load was a combined effect of the increasing of the splice stiffness
(beneficial) and the increasing of eccentricity (detrimental). Neverthe-
less, the ultimate load of specimen EP3 was still much less than that of
the concentrically loaded specimen GP1.
3. FE modelling of test specimens
3.1. Modelling strategy
The general nonlinear FE analysis package ABAQUS [23], which is
capable of considering both material and geometric nonlinearities,
was used to simulate the test specimens. 8-node linear brick elements
with reduced integration and hourglass control, namely, C3D8R in
ABAQUS nomenclature, were employed for the structural components,
including the gusset plate, splice member, bracing member, supporting
beam/column, and high-strength bolts. Two layers of elements were
employed over the thickness of the gusset plate and splice members,
and this meshing scheme has been found to be sufficient to capture
the bending and instability behaviour of the plates [14]. ‘Hard contact’
behaviour with no penetration in the normal direction was assumed
for all contact faces. A Coulomb friction model was used with a coeffi-
cient of friction of 0.2, which corresponds to the Class D slip factor for
untreated hot roll steel [24]. ‘Tie’ interactions were employed to simu-
late all fillet welds. A rigid plate was created to simulate the loading
head, and its reference point, which was located in the centroid, was
used for applying the vertical load. The model was applied with bound-
ary conditions reflecting the test setup: the base plate for the supporting
beam and column was free to move out-of-plane, and the lateral trans-
lational degrees of freedom of the reference point of the ‘loading head
plate’ were constrained. The out-of-plane movement of the entire brac-
ing member was also prohibited in order to reflect the presence of the
lateral supports. A representative finite element model (EP1) is shown
Fig. 6(a).
The material of steel was simulated by the isotropic hardening model
with the von Mises yield criterion. The key material properties, e.g.
Young's modulus, yield strength, and ultimate strength, were obtained
from the tensile coupon test results. The engineering stress and strain re-
lationships (trilinear) for the material were converted to true stress and
strain. Two analysis steps were adopted for the FE study. The first step
was eigenvalue analysis (buckling analysis) which was mainly used for
the consideration of the initial imperfection in the nonlinear analysis.
The second step was nonlinear analysis (Riks's arc-length analysis)
which was used to obtain the nonlinear responses of the specimens
under the applied load. The initial geometric imperfections were
 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183
incorporated into the ABAQUS nonlinear analysis by automatically
inputting an initial deformed configuration through the a priori defini-
tion of a buckling mode in the first step. Due to the lack of the data for
the imperfection measurement, an initial imperfection amplitude of
0.1 mm using the first buckling mode was considered for all the models.
The first buckling mode of model EP1 obtained from the eigenvalue anal-
ysis is shown in Fig. 6(a). A sensitivity study on the influence of imperfec-
tion amplitude was also performed, and is discussed in the following
section.
3.2. Model validation
The failure modes and the von Mises stress distributions of models
EP1 and EP3 are shown in Fig. 6(b), noting that the behaviour of
model EP2 is similar to that of model EP1. The FE results show that the
specimens generally fail by significant yielding in the splice member,
which is in line with the test observations. For model EP1, an evident
bending deformation of the splice member is shown, and excessive
yielding is featured in the splice member at the gusset-to-splice con-
junction. When the ultimate load is achieved, minor yielding occurs in
the gusset plate, as confirmed by the equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ)
contour shown in Fig. 3(a). The pattern of this yield line is in good agree-
ment with the test results. For model EP3, the bending action of the plate
splice is less significant than that of EP1 due to the presence of the
additional stiffened splice member (tee-section). However, significant
yielding is still observed in the splice plate and the web of the tee-
section due to the out-of-plane bending action, and yielding of the
gusset plate is also observed. For comparison, the behaviour of the con-
centrically loaded specimen GP1 was also studied by FE analysis, as
shown in Fig. 6(c). A different governing failure mode, i.e. inelastic
buckling of the gusset plate, is observed. No failure occurs in the splice
members. The FE predicted failure mode for specimen GP1 is the same
as that observed in the test, as detailed in Yam and Cheng [8].
As mentioned previously, it was assumed that no or minor yielding
was expected in the gusset plate for specimens EP1 and EP2 which
were mainly used to examine the failure response of the splice plates.
Therefore, only one gusset plate was used to conduct all the three EP
tests. The conditions of the gusset plate after tests EP1 and EP2 can be
shown via the FE results. The equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) contours
of the gusset plate at ultimate out-of-plane displacement are given in
Fig. 3(b). It should be noted that the ultimate out-of-plane displacement
is the stage beyond the ultimate load, and at this displacement, the most
extensive yielding occurred in the gusset plate for each test. The values
of these displacements can be found according to Fig. 4(b). The PEEQ
contours confirm that yielding could be developed in the gusset plate
after tests EP1 and EP2, but the level of yielding was minor. According
to the FE results, the level of equivalent plastic strain is generally less
than 0.6% at ultimate displacement after test EP2.
The load vs. deflection responses of the three specimens obtained
from the test and FE analysis are compared in Fig. 4, where both vertical
and horizontal out-of-plane displacements are shown. For the three
models, the predicted ultimate loads are in good agreement with the
test results. The load vs. vertical displacement curves are predicted
reasonably by the FE models, although the initial stiffness of the FE curves
is slightly higher than the test results. This could be due to the minor
sources of vertical displacement (e.g. bolt slippage and possible deforma-
tion of the supporting members) that were not considered in the FE
models. For the load vs. horizontal out-of-plane displacement response,
the FE models also provide reasonable predictions, but the initial out-of-
plane displacement seems to be slightly overestimated. This might be re-
sulted from the omission of the possible restraining effects in the out-of-
plane direction, e.g. slight friction caused by the roller supports. Neverthe-
less, the general trend of the load–deflection response is well captured.
The strain gauge readings obtained from the tests are compared with
the FE predictions as shown in Fig. 5. Good agreements are generally
shown, especially in the elastic range. After the occurrence of yielding,
173
a small level of discrepancy is observed, but the trend and the magni-
tude of the strains are still well predicted. It is noted that for specimen
EP2, the test result of strain gauge #20 shows the development of ten-
sile strain at the splice member surface (front side), but this is not
reflected in the FE model. The test result of this strain gauge shows
that the tensile strain caused by the bending action (due to the out-of-
plane eccentricity) is larger than the compressive strain that is directly
induced by the applied load; in other words, the algebraic sum of the
strains caused by the two actions (bending and compression) is positive
(tension). However, the FE result gives a small negative (compressive)
strain developed at this location, indicating a less significant bending ac-
tion. This discrepancy might be due to the initial local imperfections
(those other than the first buckling mode) of the specimen which was
difficult to be fully incorporated into the FE model. In spite of this, the
bending action of the splice member is sufficiently reflected by the evi-
dent difference between the FE results of SG#19 and SG#20 locating at
the two opposite sides.
The ultimate loads of the specimens predicted by the FE analyses, PFE
(initial imperfection, IMP = 0.1 mm), are summarised in Table 1. In
order to examine their sensitivity to initial imperfections, three levels
of imperfection amplitude were considered, namely, no imperfection,
0.5 mm, and 2.0 mm. It can be seen that the ultimate loads for the
three eccentrically loaded gusset plate connection models are not very
sensitive to initial imperfections as shown in the table. Compared with
the ‘no imperfection’ cases, the decreasing rates of the ultimate loads
are less than 5% when a maximum imperfection of 2.0 mm is consid-
ered. The non-sensitivity of the specimens to the initial imperfection is
because of the presence of eccentricity which results in out-of-plane
deformations at the very beginning of the loading process. As found in
the load vs. out-of-plane displacement curves shown in Fig. 4(b), the
out-of-plane displacement could achieve 20 mm at ultimate load; there-
fore, the initial imperfection plays a non-critical role. On the other hand,
model GP1, which is concentrically loaded, is more sensitive to initial im-
perfections, as shown in Table 1. When an imperfection of 0.1 mm is con-
sidered, the ultimate load decreases from 1975.3 kN for the case of no
imperfection to 1791.8 kN (decreasing rate = 9.3%), further increasing
the initial imperfection to 2 mm leads to a ultimate load of 1598.7 kN (de-
creasing rate = 19.1% compared with the no imperfection case). The im-
perfection sensitive characteristic of model GP1 is due to the fact that the
model is a symmetrical system, and buckling of the gusset plate is the
governing failure mode. Comparing PFE with PTest, it is observed that as-
suming an imperfection of 0.1 mm can lead to reasonable predictions
(slightly on the conservative side) of the ultimate loads for both GP and
EP typed models. Therefore, an imperfection of 0.1 mm is consistently
employed for the parametric studies discussed in the next section.
4. Parametric studies and discussions
4.1. Parameter matrix
Following the validation study discussed above, a parametric study
was performed to take an in-depth look into the compressive strength
and behaviour of eccentrically loaded gusset plate connections. A total
of 48 models were analysed, covering variations of gusset plate size,
splice member configuration, and material property. In order to repre-
sent a common type of gusset plate connection used in modern con-
struction, a square tubular bracing member (instead of the I-section
used in the test programme) with a splice member welded to its end
(via a cover plate) was considered, and the splice member was then
bolted to the gusset plate. The FE modelling strategies were the same
as those employed in the previous validation study. Detailed geometric
configurations of the gusset plate connections are illustrated in Fig. 7(a).
The parameter matrix was selected to represent typical configura-
tions of gusset plate connections in practice. Two gusset plate sizes
were considered, which are shown in Fig. 7(a). Three thicknesses
were considered for each gusset plate type, namely, 4 mm, 8 mm, and
174 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 6. FE modelling of test specimens: a) typical mesh and eigenvalue analysis result, b) failure behaviour of eccentrically loaded connections, and c) failure behaviour of concentrically
loaded connection.

12 mm. For each gusset plate, four different types of splice member
were considered. The reference case was a plate type splice member
with a thickness of 10 mm, and the other three cases used for compar-
isons were: 1) reduced gap length of the gusset-to-bracing member
conjunction (designated as ‘L’ as shown in Fig. 7(a)); 2) double thick-
ness of the splice member (20 mm); and 3) stiffened splice member
with a 15 mm-thick stiffener. Through considering the above parame-
ters, a practical range of gusset and splice sizes can be covered. For the
material properties, two steel grades, S355 (M1) and S690 (M2), were
considered, which represent the classes of normal-strength and high-
strength steels, respectively. Tri-linear stress–strain relationships were
assumed for the material models, as illustrated in Fig. 7(b). The assumed
yield and ultimate strengths are typical for the considered steel grades
[25]. Based on the considered parameters, each model was designated
with a code for easy identification, as shown in Table 3. For example,
M1G500T4L70 represents: steel grades = S355 (M1), the length of
the longer side of gusset plate = 500 mm (G500), gusset plate thick-
ness = 4 mm (T4), and the gusset-to-bracing member conjunction
gap = 70 mm (L70). For some models, the last letters ‘D’ and ‘S’ repre-
sent double splice thickness (20 mm) and stiffened splice member,
respectively.
4.2. General results
The ultimate load PFE, the out-of-plane displacement at ultimate load
ΔFE, and the failure mode for all the FE models are summarised in
 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183 175

Table 3. A considerable variation of ultimate load, ranging from 84.9 kN
to 928.5 kN, is observed. In general, the ultimate load increases with
increasing gusset/splice member thickness. The stiffeners also greatly
increase the ultimate load of the models. The influences of various
parameters on ultimate load are discussed later in detail. The out-of-
plane displacement at ultimate load also varies significantly with differ-
ent connection types, and it can be seen that the presence of splice
stiffeners evidently reduces the out-of-plane displacement.
Importantly, three distinct failure modes are observed for the con-
sidered models. For those with plate type (unstiffened) splice members,
the most common failure mode is Gusset–Splice Interactive Plastic
Failure (G–SIPF). This failure mechanism is characterized by the forma-
tion of two evident yield lines, one developed in the splice member near
the end of the bracing member, and the other one developed in the gus-
set plate near the bottom of the splice member, as shown in Fig. 7(c).
When this failure mode happens, the gusset plate is mainly subjected
to out-of-plane bending, and no obvious buckling behaviour is ob-
served. Another failure mode observed in the models with unstiffened
splice members is Splice Plastic Failure (SPF). This failure mechanism,
which is only found in models with the 12 mm-thick gusset plate, is
featured by two yield lines developed in the splice member, as shown
in Fig. 7(c). It is worth mentioning that test specimens EP1 and EP2

(a)

(b)

Yield lines Yield areas Yield lines

(c)
Fig. 7. Parametric study results: a) geometric configurations, b) material properties, and c) typical failure modes.
176 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183

Table 3
Summary of parametric study and design results.

FE results Design results

Model PFE ΔFE Failure mode PFHWA PG–SIPF PSPF PGPB Ratio of PFE/min Ratio of PFE/min Governing
(kN) (mm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (PG–SIPF, PSPF) (PG–SIPF, PGPB) failure mode

M1G500T4L70 84.9 26.7 G–SIPF 242.7 77.7 226.5 265.0 1.09 – G–SIPF
M1G500T4L30 94.0 19.0 G–SIPF 242.7 83.1 270.0 265.0 1.13 – G–SIPF
M1G500T4L70D 194.3 19.5 G–SIPF 242.7 195.3 669.0 265.0 1.00 – G–SIPF
M1G500T4L70S 306.7 14.7 GPB 242.7 396.4 – 265.0 – 1.15 GPB
M2G500T4L70 112.9 46.2 G–SIPF 270.1 107.6 320.4 441.5 1.05 – G–SIPF
M2G500T4L30 129.2 32.7 G–SIPF 270.1 116.6 398.1 441.5 1.11 – G–SIPF
M2G500T4L70D 278.9 34.8 G–SIPF 270.1 292.9 1048.4 441.5 0.95 – G–SIPF
M2G500T4L70S 471.6 23.9 GPB 270.1 747.4 – 441.5 – 1.07 GPB
M1G500T8L70 153.8 21.4 G–SIPF 759.5 144.9 232.9 776.6 1.06 – G–SIPF
M1G500T8L30 166.5 20.6 G–SIPF 759.5 153.8 276.9 776.6 1.08 – G–SIPF
M1G500T8L70D 268.4 14.4 G–SIPF 759.5 245.3 683.7 776.6 1.09 – G–SIPF
M1G500T8L70S 501.9 8.0 G–SIPF 759.5 425.2 – 776.6 – 1.18 G–SIPF
M2G500T8L70 210.8 36.1 G–SIPF 1282.4 207.8 332.0 1451.6 1.01 – G–SIPF
M2G500T8L30 231.5 35.0 G–SIPF 1282.4 223.5 410.8 1451.6 1.04 – G–SIPF
M2G500T8L70D 393.0 28.5 G–SIPF 1282.4 377.9 1079.1 1451.6 1.04 – G–SIPF
M2G500T8L70S 878.4 12.3 G–SIPF 1282.4 812.4 – 1451.6 – 1.08 G–SIPF
M1G500T12L70 252.3 21.3 SPF 1236.9 248.5 240.1 1250.0 1.05 – SPF
M1G500T12L30 288.0 22.1 G–SIPF 1236.9 261.9 284.2 1250.0 1.10 – G–SIPF
M1G500T12L70D 383.6 15.5 G–SIPF 1236.9 328.5 699.0 1250.0 1.16 – G–SIPF
M1G500T12L70S 538.7 7.4 G–SIPF 1236.9 481.3 – 1250.0 – 1.12 G–SIPF
M2G500T12L70 335.5 27.9 SPF 2259.9 367.5 344.4 2387.9 0.97 – SPF
M2G500T12L30 388.4 38.1 G–SIPF 2259.9 392.7 424.4 2387.9 0.99 – G–SIPF
M2G500T12L70D 566.6 25.3 G–SIPF 2259.9 518.3 1111.7 2387.9 1.09 – G–SIPF
M2G500T12L70S 928.5 10.3 G–SIPF 2259.9 931.0 – 2387.9 – 1.00 G–SIPF
M1G650T4L70 73.1 39.4 G–SIPF 321.1 69.8 216.0 358.2 1.05 – G–SIPF
M1G650T4L30 78.1 33.6 G–SIPF 321.1 73.7 258.6 358.2 1.06 – G–SIPF
M1G650T4L70D 160.8 30.1 G–SIPF 321.1 172.9 649.3 358.2 0.93 – G–SIPF
M1G650T4L70S 366.3 27.5 GPB 321.1 394.5 – 358.2 – 1.02 GPB
M2G650T4L70 95.1 65.2 G–SIPF 333.1 93.6 303.4 574.2 1.02 – G–SIPF
M2G650T4L30 104.7 52.9 G–SIPF 333.1 99.7 377.2 574.2 1.05 – G–SIPF
M2G650T4L70D 216.5 52.8 G–SIPF 333.1 249.7 1007.8 574.2 0.87 – G–SIPF
M2G650T4L70S 571.7 35.8 GPB 333.1 736.4 – 574.2 – 1.00 GPB
M1G650T8L70 131.1 37.7 G–SIPF 1115.7 145.5 222.7 1146.5 0.90 – G–SIPF
M1G650T8L30 141.5 36.1 G–SIPF 1115.7 152.9 265.4 1146.5 0.93 – G–SIPF
M1G650T8L70D 227.4 23.9 G–SIPF 1115.7 235.7 664.3 1146.5 0.97 – G–SIPF
M1G650T8L70S 480.3 10.2 G–SIPF 1115.7 440.2 – 1146.5 – 1.09 G–SIPF
M2G650T8L70 173.0 53.4 G–SIPF 1822.7 201.4 314.6 2123.6 0.86 – G–SIPF
M2G650T8L30 190.3 51.8 G–SIPF 1822.7 213.4 389.7 2123.6 0.90 – G–SIPF
M2G650T8L70D 329.2 37.8 G–SIPF 1822.7 349.2 1038.6 2123.6 0.95 – G–SIPF
M2G650T8L70S 778.6 21.5 G–SIPF 1822.7 836.2 – 2123.6 – 0.93 G–SIPF
M1G650T12L70 219.3 37.3 SPF 1853.5 264.3 229.8 1876.2 0.96 – SPF
M1G650T12L30 256.0 41.0 G–SIPF 1853.5 276.3 272.7 1876.2 0.94 – SPF
M1G650T12L70D 339.9 28.2 G–SIPF 1853.5 338.0 679.9 1876.2 1.01 – G–SIPF
M1G650T12L70S 515.9 9.5 G–SIPF 1853.5 521.6 – 1876.2 – 0.99 G–SIPF
M2G650T12L70 279.5 46.4 SPF 3335.2 376.5 326.6 3569.5 0.86 – SPF
M2G650T12L30 357.5 51.6 G–SIPF 3335.2 397.3 403.0 3569.5 0.90 – G–SIPF
M2G650T12L70D 499.0 36.9 G–SIPF 3335.2 513.2 1071.3 3569.5 0.97 – G–SIPF
M2G650T12L70S 871.7 15.5 G–SIPF 3335.2 1007.2 – 3569.5 – 0.87 G–SIPF
Mean = 1.00 Mean = 1.04 CoV = 8.6%
CoV = 7.9%

Note: G–SIPF = Gusset–Splice Interactive Plastic Failure, SPF = Splice Plastic Failure, GPB = Gusset Plate Buckling.

also mainly failed in this manner. Both the G–SIPF and SPF modes are
caused by the out-of-plane bending action induced by the loading
eccentricity. When a relatively thick gusset plate is employed, the
SPF mode tends to occur prior to the G–SIPF mode due to the weaker
out-of-plane bending resistance of the splice member compared to
that of the gusset plate.
For the models with a stiffened splice member, G–SIPF is also a
possible governing failure mode for those with 8 mm-thick and
12 mm-thick gusset plates, as shown in Fig. 7(c). Significant plastic de-
formation is developed over the stiffened splice member cross-section
at the gusset-to-bracing member conjunction area. The unstiffened
part of the stiffened splice member (i.e. the flange of the tee) experi-
ences compressive yielding, whereas the tip of the stiffener experiences
tensile yielding. This is in line with the stress distribution observed in
test specimen EP3. In addition, a yield line is also exhibited in the gusset
plate, indicating an out-of-plane bending action in the gusset plate as
well. When the thickness of the gusset plate is reduced to 4 mm, a
Gusset Plate Buckling (GPB) failure mode is induced, as shown in
Fig. 7(c). This failure mode has been commonly found in concentrically
loaded gusset plate connections [8]. No yielding is observed in the stiff-
ened splice member, whereas the gusset plate is buckled as indicated by
the typical out-of-plane bowing of its two free edges. The area of yield-
ing is widely spread in the gusset plate (particularly underneath the
splice member) as shown by the PEEQ contour. Based on each observed
failure mode discussed above, design recommendations can be pro-
posed accordingly, which is further discussed in Section 5.
4.3. Influence of gusset plate thickness
The ultimate loads Pu of the models with varied gusset plate thick-
nesses are shown in Fig. 8(a). The results are presented by normalised
ultimate load ratios, i.e. the ratio of Pu of the models with 8 mm-thick
 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183
or 12 mm-thick gusset plates (PT8 or PT12) over that of the 4 mm-thick
gusset plates (PT4). Since it is difficult to only discuss the influence of
gusset plate thickness without simultaneously considering other
parameters, a sub-categorisation using various symbols and zones is
made along the abscissa in order to maximize the available information
in the figure. In general, depending on different splice member types,
doubling the gusset plate thickness can increase the ultimate load
by 30% to 100%, and tripling the gusset plate thickness can achieve a
50% to 250% increase of the ultimate load. When the 20 mm-thick
unstiffened splice member is considered, the increasing rate of the ulti-
mate load due to the increase of gusset plate thickness becomes less ev-
ident. This implies that the splice member with increasing thicknesses
starts to dominate the ultimate load, and thus the influence of gusset
plate thickness becomes less obvious. A similar range of increasing
rate is observed for the models with the stiffened splice members, but
the increase of ultimate load when the gusset plate thickness increases
from 8 mm to 12 mm is not very significant. Again, this is due to a more
dominating role taken by the stiffened splice member in determining
the ultimate load.
Apart from the ultimate load, a clear trend in the failure mode is also
observed with varying gusset plate thicknesses. When a thin gusset
plate (4 mm) is considered, the governing failure modes are G–SIPF
and GPB for the models with the unstiffened and stiffened splice
members, respectively. As the gusset plate thickness increases to
(a)
(c)
Fig. 8. Influences of varying parameters: a) influence of gusset plate thickness, b) influence of splice member thickness, c) influence of gusset-to-bracing member gap distance, and
d) influence of splice member stiffener.
177
8 mm, G–SIPF becomes the governing failure mode for both unstiffened
and stiffened splice member cases. When the gusset plate thickness
increases to 12 mm, the SPF mode occurs prior to the G–SIPF mode for
the models with the 10 mm-thick unstiffened splice members and
gusset-to-bracing gap length L = 70 mm. As discussed previously, this
is due to the stronger out-of-plane bending resistance of the gusset
plate which forces both yield lines to occur in the splice member. For
the out-of-plane displacement at ultimate load, no obvious tendency
is observed for the models with varying gusset plate thicknesses.
4.4. Influence of splice member thickness
The ratios of the ultimate loads for the models with the 20 mm-thick
splice members (P20 mm) over those with the 10 mm-thick splice mem-
bers (P10 mm) are shown in Fig. 8(b). It can be seen that doubling
the splice member thickness can lead to an increase of ultimate load
by 50% to 150%. Due to the increased bending stiffness of the splice
member, the out-of-plane displacement at ultimate load is decreased,
as can be seen in Table 3. More obvious increase of ultimate load is
observed in the specimens with a thin gusset plate. For the failure
mode, SPF happens in the cases where the thickness of the splice
member is smaller than that of the gusset plate. Increasing the splice
thickness can avoid this failure mode, resulting in a G–SIPF failure
mode instead. It is worth noting that even if the splice member
(b)
(d)
178 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183
thickness is five times that of the gusset plate thickness (e.g. for the case
of 20 mm-thick splice and 4 mm-thickness gusset plate), G–SIPF still
governs the failure mode with no obvious sign of Gusset Plate Buckling
(GPB). This is because the out-of-plane deformation starts to be accu-
mulated at the very beginning of the loading stage due to the initial
loading eccentricity, and when the ultimate load is being approached,
a considerable out-of-plane deformation has been developed, which
leads to a bending type failure of the gusset plate (i.e. G–SIPF) rather
than compressive buckling. This phenomenon also alerts that the
current GPB-based design recommendations for concentrically loaded
gusset plate connections may not be applicable to the eccentrically load-
ed cases.
4.5. Influence of gusset-to-bracing member gap distance
The influence of gusset-to-bracing member gap distance L (shown in
Fig. 7(a)) is studied by considering two values of L, namely, 70 mm and
30 mm. The ratios of the ultimate loads for the models with L = 30 mm
(PL30) over those with L = 70 mm (PL70) are shown in Fig. 8(c). It can be
seen that reducing this gap is beneficial for the ultimate load, and the in-
creasing rate of ultimate load ranges from 6% to 21%. It is believed that
the increase of ultimate load is due to the decreased distance between
the two yield lines formed at the ultimate state, where for the G–SIPF
failure mode as shown in Fig. 7(c), one yield line is developed in the
splice member and the other one is developed in the gusset plate; for
the SPF failure mode, both yield lines are developed in the splice mem-
ber. For most models, the decreased distance between the two yield
lines could decrease the out-of-plane displacement at ultimate load
(as confirmed by Table 3), and thus a less significant out-of-plane
bending effect is induced, leading to an increased ultimate load. Howev-
er, an opposite trend is observed for the models with the 12 mm-thick
gusset plate (i.e. decreasing the distance of L increases the out-of-
plane displacement at ultimate load as shown in Table 3). This is due
to the fact that the decrease of L changes the failure mode from SPF to
G–SIPF, where the latter case enables a higher level of out-of-plane
displacement sustained at ultimate load. Notwithstanding, the ultimate
load is increased with the changing of the failure mode due to the great-
er bending resistance provided by the gusset plate.
4.6. Influence of splice member stiffener
The ratios of the ultimate loads for the models with stiffened splice
members (PS) over those with unstiffened splice members (PUS,
where PUS = P10 mm) are shown in Fig. 8(d). The results show a signif-
icant increase of ultimate load due to the presence of the stiffeners,
and the ultimate loads of the specimens with stiffener can be up to six
times those without stiffener. The highest ultimate load increasing
rate is found in the models with the 4 mm-thick gusset plates, in
which case the governing failure mode changes from G–SIPF for the
models without splice member stiffeners to GPB when the stiffeners
are applied. This is because the stiffeners tend to decrease the out-of-
plane displacement (as confirmed in Table 3), and as a result, the bend-
ing type failure (i.e. G–SIPF) is significantly delayed, which makes the
compressive buckling of the gusset plate occur first. For the remaining
cases, although a similar failure mode (i.e. G–SIPF) is observed for the
models with and without splice member stiffeners, the ultimate load
is greatly increased due to the increased bending resistance of the
stiffened splice member. Moreover, the influence of the stiffeners on
ultimate load becomes less significant when thicker gusset plates are
employed (the reason is similar to that discussed in Subsection 4.3).
Notwithstanding, the increasing rate is at least over 100% for all the con-
sidered cases, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of splice member
stiffeners in increasing the ultimate load of eccentrically loaded gusset
plate connections.
5. Design considerations
5.1. Current design guidelines
After the failure of the truss bridge in Minnesota, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued a consistent design guide-
line [26] for gusset plate connections based on the existing test database
and past design practice [16]. It is assumed in the FHWA guideline
that the compressive strength of a gusset plate is treated as that of an
equivalent column with the cross-section of gusset plate thickness ×
Whitmore effective width. The Whitmore effective width [27] is
determined by the intersections of the last bolt line with two other
lines originating from the ends of the first row of bolts and extending
towards to the last bolt line at an angle of 30°, as illustrated in
Fig. 1(a). Based on the work of Thornton [28], the length of the column
L is determined as the average of three lengths L1, L2, and L3. The Euler
buckling strength fE of the column is expressed as:

πr 2
fE ¼ E ð1Þ
KL
where E = Young's modulus, r = radius of gyration of the equivalent
column, and K = effective length factor which is taken as 0.65. Using
the ratio of the yield strength fy over the Euler buckling strength fE (as
expressed by λ = fy/fE), the unfactored design compressive strength fd
can be obtained from:


λ
f d ¼ f y 0:66 for λ ≤ 2:25 ðinelastic bucklingÞ ð2Þ
f d ¼ 0:88f E for λ N 2:25 ðelastic bucklingÞ: ð3Þ
The ultimate loads predicted by the FHWA guideline, PFHWA, for all
the FE models are listed in Table 3. A high level of discrepancy is
shown when comparing PFE with PFHWA, which indicates that the current
FHWA guideline is not suited to the case of eccentrically loaded gusset
plate connections. The main reason is that the FHWA guideline is
based on the bucking response (either elastic or inelastic) of gusset
plate connections, but this type of failure is not common for the connec-
tions considered in this study. Therefore, a more rational design meth-
od, which can sufficiently reflect the actual failure mechanism of those
gusset plate connections, is required.
5.2. Proposed design approaches
Based on the three observed failure modes, the following prelimi-
nary design approaches are proposed accordingly. In the following dis-
cussion, the eccentricity e for the unstiffened splice member cases is
defined as the distance between the centroids of the gusset plate and
the splice member, i.e. e = (tG + tS) ∕ 2, where tG and tS are the thick-
nesses of gusset plate and splice, respectively. For the stiffened splice
member cases, the eccentricity e is the distance between the centroids
of the gusset plate and the tee. The definition of eccentricity e is illustrat-
ed in Fig. 7(a).
• Design for Gusset–Splice Interactive Plastic Failure (G–SIPF)
It is indicated from the experimental and FE studies that the
eccentrically loaded gusset plate connections are very susceptible to
the G–SIPF failure mode, cases which are featured by the formation of
two clear yield lines acting like plastic hinges. Since a failure mechanism
was developed by these plastic hinges, considering a rigid-plastic
analogy of the connections may provide a good direction for developing
new design approaches. It is noted that Kitipornchai et al. [19] also
employed rigid plastic collapse analysis to evaluate the ultimate
strength of the eccentrically loaded cleat plates.
 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183 179

A simplified plastic collapse model is considered in this study to
predict the ultimate load of the eccentrically loaded gusset plate
connections failed by the G–SIPF mode. The free body diagram of the
mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 9(a). The two plastic hinges are assumed
to be located at the splice plate and the gusset plate, as mentioned
above. For simplicity of design, the plastic hinge in the gusset plate is as-
sumed to be a horizontal straight line crossing the gusset plate beneath
the bottom end of the splice member (marked as ‘hinge for design’).
Although the actual pattern of the plastic hinge observed in the test
specimens and FE models (marked as ‘actual hinge’) can be more com-
plex, the assumed plastic hinge offers a simple evaluation of the plastic
moment capacity of the gusset plate. Compared with the actual hinge,
the simplified hinge tends to be conservative because a decreased plas-
tic hinge length is considered. With this rigid-plastic failure mechanism
identified, an equilibrium approach can be used to derive the equation
of the rigid-plastic unloading line of the gusset plate connection. It is as-
sumed that full plastic moment capacities were achieved in both plastic
hinges. The plastic moment capacity may need to be reduced due to the
interaction between the axial load and applied moment. Therefore, in
order to achieve an equilibrium state of the free body diagram, the
sum of the reduced plastic moment for the gusset plate MpG − r and
the reduced plastic moment for the splice member MpS − r should be

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 9. Design considerations: a) free body diagram for G–SIPF and SPF, b) comparisons between design and FE results, and c) given properties for illustrative design examples.
180 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183
balanced by the moment caused by the applied load P multiplied by the
initial eccentricity e plus the out-of-plane deflection Δ (see Fig. 9(a)), as
expressed by:
P ðe þ ΔÞ ¼ MpS−r þ M pG−r :
In order to consider the reduced plastic moment capacity MpS − r and
MpG − r, the simplified axial force and moment interaction equation pro-
posed in AISC [29] is employed, as given in Eq. (5). This equation
assumes that the reduced plastic moment capacity Mp − r may be ob-
tained by multiplying the plastic moment capacity Mp by a reduction
factor related to P and Py, where P is the applied axial load and Py is
the axial yield load of the considered member.
!
9 P
Mp−r ¼ 1:0− M p ≤Mp
8 Py
Therefore, Eq. (4) can be re-expressed by:
! !
9 P 9 P
P ðe þ ΔÞ ¼ 1:0− M pS þ 1:0− M pG
8 P yS 8 P yG
where MpS and MpG are the plastic moment capacities of the cross-
sections of the splice member and the gusset plate, respectively.
Rearranging the above equation, the applied load can be given by:
9

MpS þ MpG
P¼ 8 :
9 MpS 9 M pG
eþΔþ þ
8 P yS 8 P yG
This rigid-plastic equation provides an unloading line (with increas-
ing Δ) which represents the changes of the plastic collapse load due to
the change of the deformed state [30]. The ultimate load can be evaluat-
ed by determining the out-of-plane displacement at ultimate load Δu
and then solve for P from Eq. (7). In this study, an analytical equation,
which is based on curve fitting of the parametric study results, is devel-
oped for calculating Δu. The first step for calculating Δu is to choose an
appropriate equation format with a few number of constants (the con-
stants will be determined later via curve fitting). It can be observed from
Table 3 that Δu (symbol ΔFE is used in Table 3) increases with increasing
distances of the two plastic hinges Lsg, and thus it may be reasonable to
assume that Δu can be expressed in terms of Δu = θu × Lsg, where θu is
the inclined angle at ultimate load and Lsg is the distance between the
two plastic hinges, as shown in Fig. 9(a). According to the FE results
(checking the trend of ΔFE/Lsg), θu tends to decrease with increasing ec-
centricity. A further decrease of θu is observed when the stiffeners are
considered. The FE results also clearly show that θu for the models
using the higher steel grade (S690) is evidently larger than those
using S355 steel. In view of the above, the inclined angle θu may be ob-
tained using the following form of equation:
 
f y C3
θu ¼ ðC 1 −C 2 eÞ
355
where the previously discussed trends related to eccentricity e and ma-
terial properties can be well reflected in this equation. The constants C1,
C2, and C3 are then determined in order to provide a good fit to the FE
results. Through trial-and-error, and making the average FE-to-
predicted ratio close to unity, it is found that the following equation
can provide good agreements with the FE results in terms of ultimate
load:
 
f y 0:75
θu ¼ ð0:056−0:0012eÞ for unstiffened cases
355
 
f y 0:75
θu ¼ ð0:034−0:0012eÞ for stiffened cases: ð10Þ
355
ð4Þ Eqs. (9) and (10) are developed to be applicable to the unstiffened and
stiffened splice member cases failed by G–SIPF. Employing the two
equations, and considering Δu = θu × Lsg, Eq. (7) can be finally used to
predict the ultimate load Pu, noting that for the stiffened splice member
cases the calculation of MpS, PyS and e should be based on a tee section.
• Design for Splice Plastic Failure (SPF)
The same design concept can be used for the SPF failure mode, as
shown in Fig. 9(a). In this case, the distance Lsg should be replaced by
Ls, where Ls is the distance between the bottom end of the bracing
ð5Þ member and the top bolt row of the gusset plate (near which the two
yield lines are developed). With the free body diagram identified in
Fig. 9(a), the same equilibrium approach as the G–SIPF mode can be
used to derive the equation of the rigid-plastic unloading line of the gus-
set plate connection, as given by:
ð6Þ
9
M
P¼ 4 pS : ð11Þ
9 MpS
Δþ
4 P yS
As G–SIPF and SPF share a similar failure mechanism (i.e. out-of-
plane bending), the form of Eq. (9) can also be used to consider the
ð7Þ inclined angle at ultimate load for the SPF mode:
   
f y 0:75 Lsg 0:25
θu ¼ ð0:056−0:0012eÞ : ð12Þ
355 Ls
Similarly, the ultimate load Pu of the connections with the SPF failure
mode can be obtained by incorporating Δu = θu × Ls for Δ in Eq. (11). It
should be noted that although the gusset plate behaviour is not directly
relevant to the SPF failure mode (which only involves the behaviour of
the splice plate), it is indicated in Table 3 that a larger value of Lsg of
the gusset plate can lead to a decreased ultimate load (e.g. comparing
G500 and G650 connections failed by SPF). Therefore, the additional fac-
tor (Lsg/Ls)0.25 in Eq. (12) is used to consider this effect. As the SPF failure
mode is not likely to happen in stiffened splice members, Eqs. (11) and
(12) are only used for the connections with unstiffened splice members.
• Design for Gusset Plate Buckling (GPB)
Finally, it is noted that there are four models (with stiffened splice
members) failed by the GPB mode. Their ultimate loads PFHWA predicted
by the FHWA guideline, which is based on the previously mentioned
column buckling approach, are found to be quite conservative, especial-
ly for the models with S690 steel. The conservatism of the column buck-
ling design philosophy has also been reported in other investigations on
concentrically loaded gusset plate connections [5,8]. This suggests that
ð8Þ the current guideline for predicting the GPB strength of gusset plate
connections, especially for the case of high strength steel, may need to
be re-visited. Currently, there is no research data on eccentrically loaded
gusset plate connections using high strength steel, a preliminary design
approach is proposed in this study based on the limited FE results. Ac-
cording to Table 3, the mean PFE/PFHWA ratio for the two S355 models
failed by GPB is approximately 1.20, while that for the two S690 models
is around 1.73. Considering this, a modified effective length factor K is
proposed, as given by:
!0:3
355
K ¼ 0:6 : ð13Þ
ð9Þ fy
 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183 181

Compared with the recommendations in FHWA (2009), the basic
value of K is slightly decreased from 0.65 to 0.6 in order to better fit
the FE results for normal steel conditions. The effect of increased steel
grade is also considered by introducing a fy related factor. Eq. (13) can
be preliminarily used to overcome the conservatism of the current
FHWA guideline; however, it needs to be further validated when more
test or numerical data are available, but this is beyond the scope of
this paper. The investigation of the buckling behaviour of a high
strength steel gusset plate is currently underway, which will be report-
ed in future publications.
5.4. Illustrative design examples
To illustrate the proposed design schemes, two models,
M1G500T4L70 and M1G500T4L70S, were selected as design examples,
representing the unstiffened and stiffened splice member cases, respec-
tively. The key dimensions and the required geometric properties of the
models are given in Fig. 9(c).
5.4.1. Design Example 1 — gusset plate connections with unstiffened
splice member

5.3. Discussion on design results 5.4.1.1. Check for S–GIPF. The initial eccentricity can be obtained as: e =
(tS + tG)/2 = (10 + 4)/2 = 7 mm, and for the gusset plate and splice
Employing the above design approaches, the design ultimate loads member:
based on the failure modes of G–SIPF, SPF, and GPB are listed in
Table 3, as denoted by PG–SIPF, PSPF, and PGPB, respectively. Since the gus- M pG ¼ Z pG f y ¼ 1896  355 ¼ 673; 080 N  mm;
set plate connections with unstiffened and stiffened splice members are P yG ¼ AG f y ¼ 1896  355 ¼ 673; 080 N
found to behave differently, the following design schemes for the two
M pS ¼ Z pS f y ¼ 3750  355 ¼ 1; 331; 250 N  mm;
cases are recommended:
P yS ¼ AS f y ¼ 1500  355 ¼ 532; 500 N:
• Gusset plate connections with unstiffened splice members — only the G–
SIPF and SPF failure modes need to be checked, and the lower value of The out-of-plane displacement at ultimate load is:
PG–SIPF and PSPF governs the design ultimate load. The GPB mode is
unlikely to occur in this case, and thus it can be neglected.  
• Gusset plate connections with stiffened splice members — only the G– f y 0:75
Δu ¼ Lsg ð0:056−0:0012eÞ
SIPF and GPB failure modes need to be checked, and the lower value 355
 
of PG–SIPF and PGPB governs the design ultimate load. The SPF mode is 355 0:75
¼ 380  ð0:056−0:0012  7Þ ¼ 18:1 mm
unlikely to occur in this case, and thus it can be neglected. 355

and the ultimate load is:

Based on the above design strategy, the predicted ultimate loads for
all the considered FE models are obtained, as given in Table 3. For the 9

models with unstiffened splice members, the FE-to-predicted ratios MpS þ MpG
P S–GIPF ¼ 8
(i.e. PFE/min (PSPF, PG–SIPF)) vary from 0.86 to 1.16. The mean value of 9 MpS 9 M pG
the FE-to-predicted ratios is 1.00, and the coefficient of variation eþΔþ þ
8 P yS 8 P yG
(CoV) is 7.9%. Similar results are observed for the models with stiffened 9
splice members, where the FE-to-predicted ratios (i.e. PFE/min (PG–SIPF, ð1; 331; 250 þ 673; 080Þ
¼ 8 ¼ 77; 654 Ν ¼ 77:7 kN:
PGPB)) range from 0.87 to 1.18. The mean value of the FE-to-predicted 9 1; 331; 250 9 673; 080
7 þ 18:1 þ þ
ratios is 1.04, and the CoV is 8.6%. In order to more clearly show the 8 532; 500 8 673; 080
comparisons between the FE and design results, the FE-to-predicted ra-
tios for all the considered models are reproduced in Fig. 9(b) along with
the 10% and 15% FE-to-predicted discrepancy lines. It is shown that the
5.4.1.2. Check for SPF.
discrepancies are within 10% for most models, although the maximum
observed discrepancy is 18% (on the conservative side). Importantly,    
as shown in Table 3, the predicted design failure modes agree very f y 0:75 Lsg 0:25
Δu ¼ Ls ð0:056−0:0012eÞ
well with the FE results for the considered models, and this further val- 355 Ls
   
idates the rationale behind the proposed design approaches in terms of 355 0:75 380 0:25
both ultimate load and failure mode. The only exception is model ¼ 120  ð0:056−0:0012  7Þ ¼ 7:6 mm
355 120
M1G650T12L30, where the predicted failure mode is SPF but the FE re- 9 9
MpS 1; 331; 250
sult shows a G–SIPF mode. However, it should be noted that the predict- P SPC ¼ 4 ¼ 4 ¼ 226; 489 N ¼ 226:5 kN:
ed PG–SIPF and PSPF are quite close for this model. 9 MpS 9 1; 331; 250
Δþ 7:6 þ
Finally, the proposed design method is used to predict the ultimate 4 P yS 4 532; 500
loads Pu of the three test specimens. The predicted failure mode for
both specimens EP1 and EP2 is SPF, which agrees with the test results.
Therefore, the ultimate strength P = min (PS–GIPF, PSPC) = min
The predicted ultimate loads are 249.3 kN and 327.5 kN, respectively,
(77.7 kN, 226.5 kN) = 77.7 kN, which is governed by S–GIPF.
as compared with the test and FE results in Fig. 4. The test-to-
predicted ratios for the two specimens are 1.18 and 0.98, respectively.
5.4.2. Design Example 2 — gusset plate connections with stiffened
While the predictions of Pu for specimens EP1 and EP2 are quite
splice member
straightforward, simplifications are required in order to apply the pro-
posed method to specimen EP3 because of its special splice-bracing
5.4.2.1. Check for S-GIPF. As already obtained from Design Example 1,
member combination. In order to use the current design method, it
MpG = 673,080 N·mm, PyG = 673,080 N.
has to be assumed that the total thickness of the flange of the stiffened
For the stiffened splice:
splice member is the sum of the thicknesses of the tee, gap plate, and
splice plate. Adopting this simplification, the predicted ultimate load is
MpS ¼ Z pS f y ¼ 44; 000  355 ¼ 15; 620; 000 N  mm;
791.9 kN with a test-to-predicted ratio of 1.08. The predicted failure
mode is G–SIPF, which agrees well with the test observation. P yS ¼ AS f y ¼ 2550  355 ¼ 905; 250 N:
182 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183

It is calculated that the eccentricity e = 23.5, and therefore plate and splice member thicknesses, respectively. Another beneficial
method was to reduce the gap between the end of the bracing member
 
f y 0:75 and the gusset plate, and the increasing rate of ultimate load varied from
Δu ¼ Lsg ð0:034−0:0012eÞ
355   6% to 21% when the gap decreased from 70 mm to 30 mm.
355 0:75 Importantly, it was found that the FHWA guideline was not able to
¼ 380  ð0:034−0:0012  23:5Þ ¼ 2:2 mm
355 predict the ultimate loads of the connections since the equations in
9

the guidelines were based on Gusset Plate Buckling. Based on the find-
MpS þ MpG
P S–GIPF ¼ 8 ings from the test programme and the subsequent parametric study, a
9 MpS 9 M pG set of design schemes have been proposed, which were then validated
eþΔþ þ
8 P yS 8 P yG through comparisons with the FE results. Good correlations were ob-
9 served between the FE and design results in terms of both ultimate
ð15; 620; 000 þ 673; 080Þ
¼ 8 load and governing failure mode. While the maximum discrepancy of
9 15; 620; 000 9 673; 080 ultimate load was 18% (on the conservative side), the discrepancies
23:5 þ 2:2 þ þ
8 905; 250 8 673; 080 for most cases were within 10%. The mean values of the FE-to-
¼ 396; 432 N ¼ 396:4 kN: predicted ratios for the unstiffened and stiffened splice cases were
1.00 and 1.04, respectively, and the corresponding CoVs were 7.9% and
8.6%, respectively. Design examples were subsequently provided to il-
5.4.2.2. Check for GPB. lustrate the proposed design procedure. Finally, it is worth noting that
based on the considered gusset plate types, the current design scheme
L ¼ ðL1 þ L2 þ L3 Þ=3 ¼ ð203:4 þ 216:6 þ 62:0Þ=3 ¼ 160:7 mm; K may be limited to the cases of rectangular gusset plate. For those beyond

0:3
¼ 0:6 355=f y ¼ 0:6 this limit, further studies may be required.

 πr 2
pffiffiffiffi 
Acknowledgements
π4= 12 2
the Euler buckling strength f E ¼ E KL ¼ 205; 000 0:6160:7 ¼
289:9 MPa , λ = fy/fE = 355/289.9 = 1.225 b 2.25, and thus fd = Support of this work has been provided by the Natural Sciences and
fy(0.66λ) = 355(0.661.225) = 213.4 MPa, Engineering Research Council of Canada under grant No. A4727.

P GPB ¼ f d t G W e ¼ 213:4  4  310:5 ¼ 265; 043 N ¼ 265:0 kN:

Therefore, the ultimate strength P = min (PS–GIPF, PGPB) = min
(396.4 kN, 265.0 kN) = 265.0 kN, which is governed by GPB.
6. Summary and conclusions
This paper reports a comprehensive study on the compressive
strength and behaviour of eccentrically loaded gusset plate connections.
Three tests have been conducted to observe the basic failure character-
istics, and the test results indicated that the loading eccentricity signifi-
cantly reduced the compressive strength. A stiffened splice member led
to a better performance but its ultimate load was still much less than
that of the concentrically loaded specimen. The basic failure mode of
the test specimens was featured by evident yielding at the splice mem-
ber near the area of the gusset-to-bracing member conjunction. Varied
significance of yielding was also observed in the gusset plate. These
yield regions introduced a collapse mechanism to the connections at
the ultimate state.
The test specimens were then simulated using the general nonlinear
FE analysis package ABAQUS [23]. The predictions of the load–deflection
behaviour of the specimens were, in general, in good agreement with
the test results. For the strain gauge readings, good agreements were
also shown, although some minor discrepancies were observed for
some cases. It was believed that the discrepancy was due to the local im-
perfections and other minor test uncertainties that were not reflected in
the FE model. The FE study also showed that the ultimate loads for the
eccentrically loaded gusset plate connection models were not sensitive
to initial imperfections, but the concentrically loaded connection was
more sensitive to initial imperfections. A parametric study was per-
formed following the validation study. Three typical failure modes
have been identified for the eccentrically loaded gusset plate connec-
tions, namely, Gusset–Splice Interactive Plastic Failure (G–SIPF), Splice
Plastic Failure (SPF), and Gusset Plate Buckling (GPB). The parametric
study also showed that adding a stiffener on the splice member can be
very effective in increasing the ultimate load (by up to 500% compared
with the unstiffened case). Increasing the gusset plate and splice mem-
ber thicknesses were also effective, where 30% to 100% and 50% to 150%
increases of the ultimate load were observed when doubling the gusset
References
[1] Brown VLS. Stability of gusseted connections in steel structures. University of
Delaware; 1988.
[2] Yamamoto K, Akiyama N, Okumura T. Buckling strengths of gusseted truss joints. J
Struct Eng 1988;114:575–90.
[3] Hu SZ, Cheng JJR. Compressive behavior of gusset plate connections 1987. Structural
engineering report no. 153; 1987.
[4] Cheng JJR, Yam MCH, Hu SZ. Elastic buckling strength of gusset plate connections. J
Struct Eng 1994;120:538–59.
[5] Gross JL. Experimental study of gusseted connections. Eng J 1990;27:89–97.
[6] Chakrabarti SK, Richard RM. Inelastic buckling of gusset plates. Struct Eng Rev 1990;
12–29.
[7] Yam MCH, Cheng JJR. Experimental investigation of the compressive behavior of
gusset plate connections 1994. Structural engineering report no. 194; 1994.
[8] Yam MCH, Cheng JJR. Behavior and design of gusset plate connections in compres-
sion. J Constr Steel Res 2002;58:1143–59.
[9] Chambers J, Ernst CJ. Brace frame gusset plate research—phase I literature review.
American Institute of Steel Construction; 2005.
[10] Berman JW, Wang BS, Olson A, Roeder CW, Lehman DE. Simple check for yielding in
truss bridge gusset plate connections. Structures Congress 2011ASCE; 2011
1027–35.
[11] Lehman DE, Roeder CW, Herman D, Johnson S, Kotulka B. Improved seismic
performance of gusset plate connections. J Struct Eng 2008;134:890–901.
[12] Martinez-Saucedo G, Packer JA, Christopoulos C. Gusset plate connections to circular
hollow section braces under inelastic cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 2008;134:1252–8.
[13] Chou CC, Chen PJ. Compressive behavior of central gusset plate connections for a
buckling-restrained braced frame. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:1138–48.
[14] Liao M, Okazaki T, Ballarini R, Schultz AE, Galambos TV. Nonlinear finite-element
analysis of critical gusset plates in the I-35W bridge in Minnesota. J Struct Eng
2011;137:59–68.
[15] Chou CC, Liou GS, Yu JC. Compressive behavior of dual-gusset-plate connections for
buckling-restrained braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 2012;76:54–67.
[16] Higgins C, Hafner A, Turan OT, Schumacher T. Experimental tests of truss bridge
gusset plate connections with sway-buckling response. J Bridge Eng 2013;18:
980–91.
[17] Packer JA, Henderson JE. Hollow structural section connections and trusses: a design
guide. Willowdale, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Institute of Steel Construction; 1992.
[18] Gebremeskel A. Lapped joints in compression. Steel construction. South Afr Inst Steel
Constr 2013;37:38–9.
[19] Kitipornchai S, Al-Bermani FGA, Murray NR. Eccentrically connected cleat plates in
compression. J Struct Eng 1993;119:767–81.
[20] Munter S. Advisory note, design method for eccentrically loaded cleats not to be
used. Steel construction. Australian Steel Institute; 2005. p. 16.
[21] Khoo XE, Perera M, Albermani F. Design of eccentrically connected cleat plates in
connections. Int J of Adv Steel Constr 2010;6:678–87.
[22] Crosti C, Duthinh D. Instability of steel gusset plates in compression. Struct
Infrastruct Eng 2014;10(8):1038–48.
[23] Simulia DCS. ABAQUS analysis user's manual. Providence, RI, USA: Dassault Systèmes
Simulia Corp; 2010.
 C. Fang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 106 (2015) 166–183
[24] EN 1993-1-8. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures. Part 1-8: design of joints.
Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization; 2005.
[25] Moze P, Beg D, Lopatic J. Net cross-section design resistance and local ductility of
elements made of high strength steel. J Constr Steel Res 2007;63:1431–41.
[26] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Load rating guidance and examples for
bolted and riveted gusset plates in truss bridges 2009. FHWA-IF-09-014; 2009.
[27] Whitmore RE. Experimental investigation of stresses in gusset plates: Engineering
Experiment Station. Knoxville: University of Tennessee; 1952.
View publication stats
183
[28] Thornton WA. Bracing connections for heavy construction. Eng J 1984;21:139–48.
[29] AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago, IL, USA: American Institute
of Steel Construction; 2010.
[30] Korol RM, Sherbourne AN. Strength predictions of plates in uniaxial compression. J
Struct Div 1972;98:1965–86.