Plastic Strength of Connection Elements

BO DOWSWELL

ABSTRACT
Many connection elements are modeled as rectangular members under various combinations of shear, flexural, torsional and axial loads.
Strength design is now used for steel members and connections; therefore, the traditional method of combining loads using beam theory
needs to be updated to comply with strength design philosophy. Due to the extensive research available on the plastic interaction of rectangular members, a review of existing equations forms the basis of this paper. In cases where existing research is unavailable, new derivations are provided. An interaction equation is developed for strength design of rectangular connection elements under any possible loading
combination.
Keywords: connections, plastic design, rectangular elements.

INTRODUCTION

or design, connections are divided into elements and

modeled as structural members with well-documented
and predictable behavior. Many connection elements can be
modeled as rectangular members under various combinations of shear, flexural, torsional and axial loads. Traditionally, loads have been combined using beam equations with
a first-yield criterion; however, a plastic strength approach
is more appropriate for connections designed to the AISC
Specification (AISC, 2010), which is based on a strength
design philosophy.
The purpose of this paper is to determine the strength of
rectangular connection elements subjected to various loads
acting simultaneously. An interaction equation is developed for strength design of rectangular connection elements
under any possible loading combination. Due to the extensive research available on the plastic interaction of rectangular members, a review of existing equations forms the basis
of this paper. In cases where existing research is unavailable,
new derivations are provided.
Rectangular Connection Elements
Figure 1a shows a moment connection, where the flange
plates are modeled as rectangular members under axial tension and compression loads. Although other loadssuch
as a portion of the beam shearwill transfer through the
flange plates, inelastic material behavior will allow load
redistribution in ductile connection elements. This redistribution of loads allows the flange plates to be designed based
on the simplified assumption of axial load only.

Bo Dowswell, P.E., Ph.D., Principal, ARC International, LLC, Birmingham, AL.

Email: bo@arcstructural.com

Figure 1b shows a single-plate connection, which is subjected to a constant shear load and a maximum moment at
the face of the column. In some cases, such as for drag strut
connections, these connections must also carry a substantial axial load. Because the moment, shear and axial loads
occur at the same location on the connection element, the
load interaction must be accounted for. Although typically
neglected in design, twisting deformations in tests by Moore
and Owens (1992), Sherman and Ghorbanpoor (2002) and
Goodrich (2005) have shown that torsional stresses are also
present.
The bracket, gusset and hanger connections in Figures 1c
through 1e are additional examples of rectangular connection elements subjected to strong-axis bending in addition to
shear and/or axial loads. Figure 1f shows the prying action
of a flange, which is a rectangular connection element in
weak-axis bending. In this case, the effect of the shear force
is usually small and is neglected in practice.
Von Mises Criterion
Several theories have been proposed to predict the behavior
of materials under multiaxial states of stress. Von Mises
criterion is considered the most accurate for predicting the
initiation of yield in ductile metals when loaded by various
combinations of normal and shear stresses. For plane stress,
von Mises equation reduces to

e = 2x + 2z x z + 32 

(1)

where
e = effective stress, ksi
x = normal stress in the x-direction, ksi
z = normal stress in the z-direction, ksi
= shear stress, ksi

Paper No. 2013-21

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015 / 47

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 47

12/17/14 11:06 AM



(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Fig. 1. Rectangular connection elements: (a) moment connection; (b) single-plate connection;
(c) bracket; (d) gusset plate; (e) hanger plate; (f) prying at flange.

48 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 48

12/17/14 11:07 AM

For elastic conditions, e is limited to the tension yield

strength of the steel, y.
The Need for Plastic Interaction Equations
Historically, rectangular connection elements have been
designed using beam theory. The normal and shear stresses
are calculated with Equations 2 and 3, respectively:
=

P Mc

A I 

(2)

VQ
It 

(3)

where
A = cross-sectional area, in.2
M = bending moment, in.-kips
P = axial force, kips
Q = first moment of area, in.3
V = shear force, kips
I = moment of inertia, in.4
c = distance to outermost fiber, in.
t = thickness of the member, in.
Because the maximum normal and shear stresses occur at
different locations on the cross-section, combining these
stresses is not required.
To predict the true first yield load in a member, the residual stresses must be estimated. Connection elements are subjected to a wide variety of operations during manufacture,
fabrication and erection. The edges have traditionally been
rolled (bars and UM plates), saw-cut, sheared or thermally
cut with an oxy-fuel torch. All of these operations produce

(a)

different residual stress patterns. Adding to the complexity,

the residual stress patterns produced by newer technologiessuch as plasma cutting and water-jet cuttingare also
different. Many of the cut edges are smoothed with an angle
grinder, which can alter the residual stress pattern, causing
a residual tension stress in most cases. A general assessment
of residual stresses that accounts for all of these factors is
impractical. However, because residual stresses have no
effect on the plastic strength of an element, knowledge of
the residual stresses are not required for strength design.
It is well known that beam theory is inaccurate at low
span-to-depth ratios. Research by Karr (1956), Shawki and
Hendry (1961) and Barry and Ainso (1983) generally agreed
that beam theory is accurate only for simple beams with
span-to-depth ratios of at least 1.5. Ahmed, Idris and Uddin
(1996) showed that fixed-end beams require a span-to-depth
ratio of at least 3 to get accurate results with beam theory.
Tests on gusset plates by Wyss (1923), Rust (1938), Perna
(1941), Sandel (1950), Whitmore (1952), Sheridan (1953),
Irvan (1957), Hardin (1958), Lavis (1967) and Vasarhelyi
(1971) showed that measured shear and normal stresses
deviated significantly from the theoretical stresses calculated with beam equations. This was confirmed by the finite
element models of Struik (1972) and White et al. (2013).
Beam theory leads to erroneous results for some plate
geometries. In Figure 2a, a simple hanger connection is
shown where, if a = b, the gusset plate is subjected to a uniform tension stress. Figure 2b shows a plot of the normalized
strength versus the b/a ratio. The normalized strength is
Pn
2 atFy 

(4)

(b)

Fig. 2. Hanger connection with axial load and moment: (a) connection geometry; (b) normalized strength versus b/a ratio.
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015 / 49

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 49

12/17/14 11:07 AM

where
Pn = nominal axial strength, kips
a = plate dimension as shown in Figure 2a, in.
= half plate width for concentrically loaded case
Fy = specified minimum yield strength, ksi
If a remains constant and b increases, it is intuitive that
that the strength of the gusset plate will increase; however,
the dashed line in Figure 2b shows that beam theory predicts a decrease in strength in the range 1 < b/a < 5. For
the case where b = 2a, the plate is 50% wider than if b = a,
but beam theory predicts only 75% of the strength. Plastic
interaction, shown in Figure 2b by the solid line, conforms
to the expected resultthe strength increases as the plate
width increases.
Strength design is now used for steel members and connections; therefore, the traditional method of combining
loads using beam theory needs to be updated to comply with
strength design philosophy. With difficulties in predicting the elastic stresses, the presence of discontinuities and
uncertainty concerning residual stresses, plastic interaction
equations are required to accurately predict the strength of
connection elements.

times the yield rotation is required. At four times the yield

rotation M = 0.98Mp.
Based on 14 splice plates tested in bending, Mohr and
Murray (2008) determined that the flexural strength can be
calculated based on the gross plastic modulus if deformation of the connection plates is not a consideration. The tests
showed that the location of the initial nonlinear part of the
moment-rotation curve can be accurately predicted using the
first yield moment
My = y S
where
S = gross section modulus, in.3
y = tension yield stress, ksi
The nominal plastic moment about the strong and weak
axes are calculated with Equations 7a and 7b, respectively:

Mpx = Fy Zx(7a)

Mpz = Fy Zz(7b)

The plastic moduli about the strong and weak axes are given
by Equations 8a and 8b, respectively:

BENDING
Due to a shape factor of 1.5, the benefit of using the plastic flexural strength of rectangular members is substantial.
For this strength to be realized, the element must have sufficient rotational capacity to allow the stresses to redistribute without rupture or buckling. Schreiner (1935) and Jensen
and Crispen (1938) tested cantilever plates in strong-axis
bending, welded to a fixed support. They determined that
the plates, which had maximum depth-to-thickness ratios of
10, can reach their plastic bending strength. More recently,
tests on single-plate connections by Patrick, Thomas and
Bennetts (1986) and Metzger (2006) revealed that the plastic
moment capacity of the plate can be used in design.
Assuming no residual stresses, the flexural stiffness is linear up to the yield moment, My, and then the curve becomes
nonlinear up to a maximum value of M = Mp = 1.5My, as
shown in Figure 3. The inelastic part of the curve, defined by
Equation 5, was derived by Nadai (1950) using linear elasticperfectly plastic material behavior:

(6)

Zx =

td 2
4 (8a)

Zz =

dt 2
4 (8b)

where
d = depth of the member, in.

M
1 y
= 1
Mp
3 

(5)

where
Mp = plastic bending moment, in.-kips
= flexural rotation
y = yield rotation
To develop 96% of the plastic strength, a rotation of three

Fig. 3. Normalized moment versus normalized angle of rotation.

50 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 50

12/17/14 11:07 AM

AXIAL
It is generally accepted that the compression yield strength is
the same as the tension yield strength for ductile steels. This
was verified by Seely and Putnam (1919), who showed that
the compression yield strengths for mild and medium steels
are about 5% greater than the tension yield strengths. The
nominal axial yield force for tension or compression loads is

Py = Fy A(9)

The rate of twist of an elastic member under uniform torsion is (Cook and Young, 1985)

For uniform members with constant torque along the length

of the member, the angle of twist is the rate of twist times
the member length.

SHEAR
Using the von Mises criterion, the shear yield stress is
y =

3
= 0.577 y

(10)

Seely and Putnam (1919) tested 21 solid circular specimens in torsion to determine the tension yield-to-shear yield
ratios. The specimens, between 2 in. and w in. in diameter,
showed that the shear yield strength for mild and medium
steels varied from 0.628 to 0.738 times the tension yield
strengths. Therefore, the von Mises criterion appears to be
conservative.
Based on three chevron gusset plate tests, Astaneh (1992)
recommended that the plastic stress distribution be used to
calculate the shear strength of gusset plates. Tests on fullscale truss bridge gusset plates by Ocel (2013) and finite
element models by White et al. (2013) confirmed Astanehs
recommendation. The shear strength, based on a plastic
stress distribution, is

= L
TL
=
GJ 

Generally, the torsional constant for a rectangular member is

J = dt3(15)

According to Seaburg and Carter (1997), = 3 0.2t/d

for d/t < 10 and = 3 for d/t 10. The results using these
simple equations are almost identical to the slightly more
complicated equations developed by Balaz and Kolekova
(2002). The torsional first yield moment is

Ty =

The elastic solution for a uniform member with constant

torque was solved by Saint Venant. Saint Venant torsion,
also known as uniform torsion, assumes the applied torque is
resisted by shear stresses distributed over the cross-section.
This section addresses uniform torsion only and neglects the
effects of warping and the Wagner effect, which causes second-order axial stresses resulting in an increased torsional
stiffness (Gregory, 1960).

yJ

(16)

t 

For d/t 10, which satisfies the geometry for most connection elements,

Vp = 0.60Fy A(12)
TORSION

(14)

where
G = shear modulus of elasticity = 11,200 ksi
J = torsional constant, in.4
L = length of the member, in.
T = torsional moment, in.-kips
x = distance along the length of the member, in.
= angle of twist

Vp = y A(11)

AISC Specification (AISC, 2010) Section J4.2 rounds the

0.577 factor up to 0.60, which results in a nominal shear
force of

d
(13)
dx
T
=
GJ 

Ty =

y dt 2

(17)

3 

When loaded beyond the yield point, the behavior of rectangular members in uniform torsion is similar to inelastic
flexural behavior. Smith and Sidebottom (1965) derived the
mathematical description of the inelastic part of the torsiontwist curve:

T 3
1
= (1 )
Ty 2
2 y

+
y

(18)


ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015 / 51

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 51

12/17/14 11:07 AM

where
= strain hardening modulus for pure shear
y = yield rotation
The accuracy of Equation 18 has been verified by the
inelastic finite element models of Shunsuke and Kajita
(1982) and May and Al-Shaarbaf (1989). The yield rotation
can be determined by substituting Equation 16 into Equation 14:
y =

yL

(19)

Gt 

Due to the torsional flexibility of rectangular members, it

is unlikely that they will strain beyond the yield plateau of
mild steel. Therefore, = 0 in the range of serviceable rotations, which gives the equation for linear elasticperfectly
plastic material behavior:
2

T
y
= 1.5 0.5

Ty

plastic strength, a rotation of three times the yield rotation is

required. At four times the yield rotation T = 0.98Tp.
The plastic torsion strength can also be derived using the
stress function. For any stress condition, the torsion strength
is twice the volume under the stress function, (Smith and
Sidebottom, 1965). Therefore, the plastic strength can be
determined with Equation 22:

(20)

The torsional stiffness is linear up to the yield moment, Ty,

and then the curve becomes nonlinear up to a maximum
value of T = Tp = 1.5Ty, as shown in Figure 4. Substituting
Tp= 1.5Ty into Equation 20 results in Equation 21, which was
derived independently by Billinghurst et al. (1992):

(22)

where
x, z = cross-sectional coordinates
The absolute value of the slope of everywhere on the
cross-section is y for fully plastic conditions. At the boundaries of the cross-section, must be zero, and the value of
at any point on the cross-section is y times the perpendicular distance to the boundary. This stress condition, known as
the sand heap analogy, is illustrated in Figure 5.
For rectangular members with high aspect (d/t) ratios,
the boundary effects parallel to the longest cross-sectional
dimension can be neglected. In this case, the stress function
is two-dimensional and the plastic strength is
Tp = 2 d y
= 4d y

T
1 y
= 1
3 
Tp

Tp = 2 dxdz


(21)

t 2
t 2
0
t 2

(23)

x dx
x dx

y dt 2
2

where
Tp = plastic torsional moment, in.-kips

By comparing Equation 17 to Equation 23, it can be seen

that Tp = 1.5Ty. The nominal torsion strength is

Equation 21 has the identical form of Equation 5, which

was derived for flexural rotation. To develop 96% of the

Tp = 0.3Fy dt 2(24)
INTERACTION

A review of the existing research indicated that plastic interaction equations for several loading combinations have been
available for decades. This section of the paper documents
the available research, compares the different interaction
equations, develops new equations where existing research

Fig. 4. Normalized torsion versus normalized angle of twist.

Fig. 5. Stress distribution for plastic torsional strength.

52 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 52

12/17/14 11:07 AM

is unavailable and compares the equations to test data where

available.
The derivations are based on assumed stress distributions, which complies with the lower-bound theorem of limit
analysis. According to the lower-bound theorem, a load calculated with an assumed distribution that satisfies equilibrium, with stresses nowhere exceeding the yield stress, will
be less than or equal to the true limit load. Where more than
one solution is available, the solution that gives the highest
strength is closest to the true strength. All interaction equations discussed in this paper assume perfectly plastic material behavior under plane stress conditions.

where
h = depth of the central region of the cross-section resisting the axial force, in.
The reduced flexural strength in the presence of an applied
axial load is defined by the nonshaded part of Figure 6:
M=

P = hty(25)

(26)

The axial strength ratio is

P ht y
=
Py dt y

Moment-Axial Interaction
Because axial and flexural loads both cause normal stresses
in the member, engineers may simply replace the section
modulus with the plastic modulus in the beam equation,
which results in a linear interaction. This is a conservative
assumption because the stresses can be combined using the
lower-bound theorem, which allows the axial stresses to be
placed at a location that is least detrimental to the flexural
strength.
Freudenthal (1950) derived the plastic interaction equation
for combined axial and flexural loads. Also see Seely and
Smith (1952), Vrouwenvelder (2003), Chen and Han (2007)
and Galambos and Surovek (2008) for similar approaches to
the derivation with identical results. The derivation is based
on the assumed stress blocks in Figure 6, which locates the
resistance to axial load at the center of the cross-section
because the outer stress blocks are most efficient for flexural resistance.
The reduced axial strength in the presence of an applied
moment is defined by the area of the shaded part of Figure 6:

td 2
th 2
y
y
4
4


h
d

(27)

The flexural strength ratio is

td 2
th 2
y
y
M
4
= 4
Mp
td 2
y
4
h 2
= 1
d


(28)

Combining Equations 27 and 28 results in Equation 29:

2

M P
= 1.0
+
M p Py


(29)

Equation 29 is plotted in Figure 7 along with the interaction

according to beam theory. For comparison, the interaction

Fig. 6. Stress blocks for moment-axial interaction.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015 / 53

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 53

12/17/14 11:07 AM

curves of AISC Specification Sections H1 and H2 are also

plotted in the figure.
The plastic interaction equations were verified by the
experiments of Sidebottom and Clark (1958), who tested
nine identical, mild steel rectangular members. The specimens had a yield stress of 30 ksi and a modulus of elasticity of 30,000 ksi. The cross-sectional dimensions were
0.900in. 1.15 in. An axial compression load was applied
with an eccentricity of 0.345 in. causing strong-axis moment.
Using Equation 29, the test-to-predicted ratio ranged from
0.926 to 1.12, with an average of 0.990.

Because the maximum shear and normal stresses act at the

same location on the cross-section, the flexural strength can
be reduced in the presence of shear loading. In contrast to
moment-axial interaction, which has a unique solution, several solutions are available for moment-shear interaction.
Derivations and assumed stress distributions are provided
only where they relate to later parts of this paper.
An elliptical interaction equation can be derived, based
on von Mises criterion with a constant shear stress assumed
over the cross-section. For normal stress in one direction
combined with shear, von Mises criterion reduces to
y = 2 + 3 2 

M=

(30)

where
= normal stress, ksi

td 2
4 

(31)

V = td(32)

The plastic flexural strength with no shear is

td 2
4 

Mp = y

Moment-Shear Interaction

The moment and shear loads acting on the cross-section are

given by Equations 31 and 32, respectively:

(33)

The plastic shear strength with no moment is

Vp =

y
3

td

(34)

Solving Equations 31 and 32 for and , respectively,

substituting into Equation 30 and combining with Equations
33 and 34 results in Equation 35:
2

V
M
M + V = 1.0

(35)

Paltchevskiy (1948) (see translation in Mrazik, Skaloud

and Tochacek, 1987) assumed rectangular stress blocks for
shear and flexural stresses as shown in Figure 8a. Based on
this, the flexural strength is

h 2
M = M p 1
d 

(36)

where
h = depth of the central region of the cross-section resisting the shear force, in.
The shear strength is

h
V = Vp
d 

(37)

Solving Equation 37 for h/d and substituting into Equation 36 results in Equation 38:
2

Fig. 7. Interaction of flexural and axial loads.

M V
= 1.0
+
M p Vp


(38)

By considering equilibrium of the shear and flexural

loads in the plastic zone of a rectangular beam, Horne (1951)
derived Equation 39, which is valid for V/Vp 0.792. The
shear yield strength was based on the Tresca criterion, which
results in a shear yield stress of y/ 2:

54 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 54

12/17/14 11:07 AM

V
M
+ 0.444 = 1.0
Mp
Vp


(39)

Substituting a shear yield stress of 0.6y changes the constant to 0.592 and the range of validity to V/ Vp 0.686:
2

V
M
+ 0.592 = 1.0
Mp
Vp


(40)

Broude (1953) (see translation in Mrazik et al., 1987)

developed a solution, based on the differential equations of
equilibrium, that he solved for several discrete values. He
determined a close curve fit to the discrete values, which is
almost identical to the elliptical equation derived from the
von Mises criterion:
2

V
M V
M
M + V 0.0074 M V = 1.0 (41)
p
p
p p


Based on equilibrium of rectangular and triangular blocks

for flexural stresses and a parabolic block for shear stresses,
Neal (1963) (also see Chakrabarty, 2006) derived Equation
44. The assumed cross-sectional stresses are shown in Figure 8b. Based on equilibrium of the stress blocks, the flexural and shear strengths are given by Equations 42 and 43,
respectively:

M=

y t 2 h2
d
4
3
V=

2
y th
3


Solving Equation 43 for y, substituting into Equation 42 and

combining with Equations 33 and 34 results in Equation 44:

(42)

(43)

(a)

M 3 V
= 1.0
+
M p 4 Vp


(44)

Because h d, Equation 44 is valid for the range V/ Vp q.

Drucker (1956) derived upper- and lower-bound solutions
based on limit analysis theorems. Equation 45 was proposed
as an approximation that nearly coincides with a lower
bound and is not too far from possible upper bounds:
4

M V
= 1.0
+
M p Vp


(45)

Johnson, Chitkara and Ranshi (1974) derived the plastic

collapse strength using slip line fields. Their derivation was
based on plane stress conditions using the von Mises yield
criterion. Due to the complicated nature of the solution, it
cannot be expressed as an interaction equation. Figure 9
shows the available solutions for moment-shear interaction. Because the curve defined by the slip line solution of
Johnson et al. (1974) is the least conservative, it is closest to
the true solution. Observation of the interaction equations
reveals that the elliptical interaction defined by Equation 35
is more accurate at low values of M/Mp and Equation 45,
developed by Drucker (1956), is more accurate at high values of M/Mp. Equations 35 and 45 are equal at M/Mp = 0.618
and V/Vp = 0.786. The solid data points are from tests on
full-size gusset plates by Ocel (2013) and the hollow data
points are from inelastic finite element models by White et
al. (2013).

(b)

Fig. 8. Assumed stress blocks for moment-shear interaction: (a) Paltchevskiy (1948); (b) Neal (1963).
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015 / 55

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 55

12/17/14 11:07 AM

Moment-Shear-Axial Interaction

Biaxial Bending

Neal (1961) derived upper- and lower-bound solutions for

rectangular beams subjected to combined moment, shear
and axial loads based on limit analysis theorems. Equation
46 was proposed as a good approximation to the lowerbound interaction relation. He noted that the equation is
exact for V/Vp = 0 and the discrepancy from the lower-bound
solution never exceeds 5% for the full range of values:

Using the lower-bound theorem of limit analysis, Harrison

(1963) derived Equations 48a and b, which define a two-part
interaction curve for biaxial bending.
When Mx/ Mpx q and Mz / Mpz < q,

M P
+
+
M p Py

V
V
p

P
1
Py

(48a)

When Mx/ Mpx < q and Mz / Mpz q,

2

= 1.0

(46)


V
M P
+ + 1.0
M p Py
Vp


Astaneh (1998) summarized the previous research and relevant code provisions for the seismic design of gusset plates.
He removed second-order interaction on the shear term of
Equation 46 and recommended Equation 47 for design:
2

Mx 3 Mz
= 1.0
+
M px 4 M pz


(47)

Mz
3 Mx
+
= 1.0

M pz
4 M px


(48b)

where
Mpx = plastic bending moment about the x-axis, in.-kips
Mpz = plastic bending moment about the z-axis, in.-kips
Mx = bending moment about the x-axis, in.-kips
Mz = bending moment about the z-axis, in.-kips
Harrison (1963) tested six mild steel rectangular members
in biaxial bending. The cross-sectional dimensions were
0.300in. 0.500in., and the yield strength was 36.6 ksi. The

Fig. 9. Moment-shear interaction curves.

56 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 56

12/17/14 11:07 AM

span was 18 in. with concentrated loads at 3 points, loading

each principal axis. The ends were fixed against rotation in
both directions. The interaction curve is in good agreement
with the experimental results, with the greatest discrepancy
being 4%. Figure 10 shows the experimental results plotted
with the interaction curve defined by Equations 48a and b.
Axial Load Combined with Biaxial Bending
Santathadaporn and Chen (1970) (also see Chen and Atsuta,
1977) extended Equations 48a and b to include the effect of
axial load. They presented the solution as a three-part interaction curve, defined by Equations 49a, b and c:
When Mx/ Mpx (q)(1 P/Py) and Mz / Mpz < (q)(1 P/Py)
2

P
Mx 3 M z
P + M + 4 M = 1.0
px
y
pz


(49a)

When Mx/ Mpx < (q)(1 P/Py) and Mz/Mpz (q)(1 P/Py)
2

2
M M
P
z
x
P + M + M
px
y
pz

= 1.0

(50)


Because the exponent, , is not necessarily accurate for

rectangular members, a new equation was developed by
curve fitting the three-part curve. A numerical value of
was determined for each increment of P/Py , which gave the
best fit for that value of P/Py. Equation 51 was determined
by curve fitting all values of :

(49b)

When Mx/ Mpx (q)(1 P/Py) and Mz/ Mpz (q)(1 P/Py)

Because these equations are cumbersome for design use,

a single interaction equation can be developed as a best fit to
the three-part curve. The continuous interaction curve developed by Duan and Chen (1989) for wide flange members is

P 3 Mx
Mz
P + 4 M + M = 1.0
pz
y
px


P
Mz
Mx
9

= 1.0
+

1
1

P
4 2 1 P Py 2 1 P Py
y

(49c)

1 P P 2
= 1.7 1 +
4 Py Py

(51)

The family of curves defined by Equations 50 and 51 are

shown in Figure 11a. To simplify the equations, it may be
beneficial to use a constant value of . Figure 11b shows
the family of curves defined by Equation 50 with = 1.7.
This solution appears to be adequate for design use, with
the greatest discrepancies being conservative, at high
P/Py ratios.
Torsion-Shear Interaction
The interaction between torsion and shear loads is analogous to moment-axial interaction. The stresses in the central
region of the cross-section are assigned to resist the shear
force, and the torsional moment is resisted by the areas on
the cross-section farthest from the shear center. The reduced
shear strength in the presence of an applied torsional moment
is defined by the area of the shaded part of Figure 12a:

V = bdy(52)

where
b = width of the central region of the cross-section resisting the shear force, in.
The reduced torsional strength in the presence of an
applied shear load is defined by the nonshaded part of Figure 12a. From the diagram in Figure 12b,

Fig. 10. Interaction curve for biaxial bending.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015 / 57

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 57

12/17/14 11:07 AM

T = 2 dxdz
= 4d y
=

yd
2

b 2
t 2

Combining Equations 54 and 55 results in Equation 56.

(53)

(t 2 b2 )

V bd y
=
Vp td y

b
t

Moment-Axial-Torsion Interaction

(54)

Hill and Siebel (1953) (also see Chakrabarty, 2006) derived

a lower-bound approximation for the interaction of axial,
flexure and torsional loads:

The torsional strength ratio is

y d

t 2 b2
T
2
=
Tp
y dt 2

P
T
T
M
P + T + M 1 T = 1.0
p
y
p
p


(57)

Calladine (1969) (also see Mrazik et al., 1987) recommended the following lower-bound interaction equations for
use with all cross-sectional shapes. Calladine (1969) noted
that with information on the cross-sectional shape, the equations could be refined and become less conservative:

(55)

2
b 2
= 1
t

(56)

Equation 56 is plotted in Figure 13 along with the interaction

according to elastic theory.

The shear strength ratio is

T V
=1
+
Tp Vp


x dx

Solid lines defined by Equations 1

Dashed lines defined by Equations 49 and 50

Solid lines defined by Equations 1

Dashed defined by Equation 49 with = 1.7

(a)

(b)

Fig. 11. Interaction curves for axial load and biaxial bending: (a) variable ; (b) constant .
58 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 58

12/17/14 11:07 AM

P
T
T + P = 1.0
p
y


(58)

M
T
T + M = 1.0
p
p


(59)

Equation 58 is equal to Equation 57 when M = 0, and Equation 59 is equal to Equation 57 when P = 0. Steele (1954)
used the finite difference method to verify the accuracy
of Equation 59. The equation was shown to give accurate
lower-bound estimates of the interaction. Gill and Boucher
(1964) tested 18 square and rectangular specimens in combined bending and torsion. The specimens were s-in.
s-in. and a-in. s-in. cross-sections with a 12w-in. span.
The results are shown in Figure 14 along with Equation 59,
which is clearly a lower bound to the test data.
Morris and Fenves (1969) derived a lower-bound solution
for rectangular members under axial load, biaxial bending
and torsion. The von Mises yield criterion was used to show
that the reduced effective yield strength is
Fy = Fy

(60)

The yield strength reduction factor is

2

T
= 1
Tp 

( P Py ) +
2
1 ( T Tp )

1 T Tp

= 1.0

(62)

If each side of the equation is multiplied by 1 (T/Tp)2, it

can be seen that Equation 62 is identical to Equation 57;
therefore, the equations by Hill and Siebel (1952), Calladine
(1969) and Morris and Fenves (1969) give identical results.
Using the theory of Morris and Fenves, the interaction equation can be expanded to cover biaxial moments:

2
2
2
M M
P
T
T
z
x

+
+
+
1

P
T

M
T = 1.0
M px
pz
y
p

(63)

DESIGN
To develop a single interaction equation that accounts for
all loading possibilities, Equation 63 can be combined with
Equation 45. This will account for all load interactions
except torsion-shear. The reduction in shear strength due to
torsional loading can be determined by rearranging Equation 56, which results in Equation 64:

(61)

As a general rule, interaction equations can be developed

by multiplying any resisting load that produces a normal
stress on the cross-section by . For moment-axial-torsion
interaction, this gives

M Mp

V
V
p
= 1.0
T
1
Tp


(64)

Combining Equations 63, 45 and 64 results in Equation 65.

Vr
V
p

Pr
Tr
P + T +
2
P 2
y
p
Tr
r
1 1
Tp
Py

(a)

(b)

Fig. 12. Torsion-shear interaction:

(a) cross-section; (b) torsion diagram.

M M
rz
rx

+
+

M pz
M px

(65)

Tr
1 = 1.0
Tp

where
Mrx = required x-axis bending moment, in.-kips
Mrz = required z-axis bending moment, in.-kips
Pr = required axial force, kips
Tr = required torsional moment, in.-kips
Vr = required shear force, kips
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015 / 59

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 59

12/17/14 11:07 AM

For biaxial shear, the transverse forces are combined vectorially, according to Equation 66:
Vr = Vrx2 + Vrz2 

(66)

where
Vrx = required x-axis shear force, in.-kips
Vrz = required z-axis shear force, in.-kips
Because the torsion strength can be greatly underestimated by neglecting the effects of warping and the Wagner
effect, the detrimental effect of the second-order shear-torsion interaction term and the beneficial effect of the secondorder moment-torsion interaction term can be neglected.
Because the shear interaction term is conservative, based
on the true limit load defined by Johnson et al. (1974), the
second-order shear-axial interaction term can be neglected.
Substituting a constant value of 1.7 for and neglecting the
second-order interaction terms for each independent load
ratio results in Equation 67, which is proposed for design:

Fig. 13. Interaction of torsion and shear loads.

2
2
4
M 1.7 M 1.7
Pr
Tr
Vr
rz
rx
P + T + V + M + M
px
y
p
p
pz

0.59

= 1.0
(67)

CONCLUSIONS
In design, many connection elements are modeled as rectangular members under various combinations of shear,
flexural, torsional and axial loads. This paper shows that
beam theory, and other design models using a first-yield criterion, severely underestimates the strength of rectangular
connection elements. Existing research and new derivations
were used to develop a plastic interaction equation, which
has been proposed for design of rectangular elements subjected to any possible combination of loads. Experimental
results are available for four load interaction cases: axialflexure, shear-flexure, torsion-flexure and biaxial flexure.
For these cases, the proposed interaction equation compares
well with the experimental results. However, future testing may be needed to validate the equation for other load
interactioncases.

Fig. 14. Combined bending and torsion.

60 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 60

12/17/14 11:07 AM

DESIGN EXAMPLE
In the vertical brace connection shown in Figure 15, the gusset yielding strength at the gusset-to-beam interface will be checked
against the following loads, which were calculated with the uniform force method. The plate is w in. thick and the material
isASTM A36.
LRFD

ASD

Hb = 562 kips
Vb = 64.0 kips
Mb = 4,590 kip-in.

Hb = 375 kips
Vb = 42.7 kips
Mb = 3,060 kip-in.

Because only shear, moment and axial loads are present, Equation 67 reduces to
2

Vr
M r Pr
+ + = 1.0
M p Py
Vp
For design, the interaction equations are
LRFD
2

ASD
4

Pr
Vr
Mr
+
+
1.0
b M n t Pn
vVn

vVr
b M r t Pr
+
1.0
+
Mn
Pn
Vn

The flexural strength is calculated with AISC Specification Equation F11-1:

Z=

( 0.75 in.)( 47 in.)2

4
3

= 414 in.
Mn = Fy Z

= ( 36 ksi ) 414 in.3

= 14,900 kip-in.

Fig. 15. Vertical brace connection.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015 / 61

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 61

12/17/14 11:07 AM

LRFD

ASD

t Pn = ( 0.9 ) (14,900 kip-in.)

Pn 14,900 kip-in.
=
1.67
t
= 8,920 kip-in.

= 13,400 kip-in.
The tension yielding strength per AISC Specification Equation J4-1 is
Pn = Fy Ag
= (36 ksi ) ( 0.75 in.) ( 47 in.)
= 1,270 kips
LRFD

ASD
Pn

t Pn = ( 0.9 ) (1,270 kips )

= 1,140 kips

1,270 kips
1.67
= 760 kips
=

The shear strength per AISC Specification Equation J4-3 is

Vn = 0.60 Fy Agv
= ( 0.6 ) ( 36 ksi ) ( 0.75 in.)( 47 in.)
= 761 kips
LRFD

ASD

vVn = (1.0 )( 761 kips )

Vn 761 kips
=
v
1.50
= 507 kips

= 761 kips
Using the interaction equations,
LRFD

ASD
2

64.0 kips
562 kips
4,590 kip - in.
+
+

761 kips
13,400 kip - in. 1,140 kips
= 0.643 < 1.0 o.k.

3,060 kip - in. 42.7 kips

375 kips
+
+
507 kips
8,920 kip - in. 760 kips
= 0.646 < 1.0 o.k.

Therefore, the gusset-to-beam interface is adequate for the limit state of gusset plate yielding.

62 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 62

12/17/14 11:07 AM

SYMBOLS
A

= cross-sectional area, in.

x = distance along the length of the member, in.

= strain hardening modulus for pure shear

Fy = specified minimum yield strength, ksi

= shear stress, ksi

G = shear modulus of elasticity = 11,200 ksi

= angle of twist

= moment of inertia, in.

= flexural rotation

J = torsional constant, in

y = yield rotation

L = length of the member, in.

= normal stress, ksi

M = bending moment, in.-kips

e = effective stress, ksi

Mp = plastic bending moment, in.-kips

x = normal stress in the x-direction, ksi

Mpx = plastic bending moment about the x-axis, in.-kips

y = tension yield stress, ksi

Mpz = plastic bending moment about the z-axis, in.-kips

z = normal stress in the z-direction, ksi

Mrx = required x-axis bending moment, in.-kips

Mrz = required z-axis bending moment, in.-kips
Mx = bending moment about the x-axis, in.-kips
Mz = bending moment about the z-axis, in.-kips
P = axial force, kips
Pn = nominal axial strength, kips
Pr = required axial force, kips
Q = first moment of area, in.3
S = gross section modulus, in.3
T = torsional moment, in-kips
Tp = plastic torsional moment, in.-kips
Tr = required torsional moment, in.-kips
V = shear force, kips
Vr = required shear force, kips
Vrx = required x-axis shear force, in.-kips
Vrz = required z-axis shear force, in.-kips
a

= plate dimension as shown in Figure 2a, in.

b = width of the central region of the cross-section

resisting the shear force, in.
c = distance to outermost fiber, in.
d = depth of the member, in.
h = depth of the central region of the cross-section
resisting the shear force, in.
h = depth of the central region of the cross-section
resisting the axial force, in.
t

REFERENCES
AISC (2010), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
Ahmed, S.R., Idris, A.B.M. and Uddin, M.W. (1996),
Numerical Solution of Both Ends Fixed Deep Beams,
Computers and Structures, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 2129.
Astaneh, A. (1992), Cyclic Behavior of Gusset Plate Connections in V-Braced Steel Frames, Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures under Cyclic Loading, Fukomoto,
Y. and Lee, G. C., eds., CRC Press, Ann Arbor, MI,
pp.6384.
Astaneh, A. (1998), Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset
Plates, Steel Tips, Structural Steel Educational Council,
December.
Balaz, I. and Kolekova, Y. (2002), Warping, Stability and
Ductility of Steel Structures, Proceedings, Otto Halasz
Memorial Session, Ivanyi, M. and Akademiai Kiado, eds.,
Budapest.
Barry, J.E. and Ainso, H. (1983), Single-Span Deep
Beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol.109, No.3, pp. 646663.
Billinghurst, A., Williams, J.R.L., Chen, G. and Trahair,
N.S. (1992), Inelastic Torsion of Steel Members, Computers and Structures, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 887894.
Broude, B.M. (1953), The Limit States of Steel Girders, Moscow/Leningrad (in Russian).
Calladine, C.R. (1969), Engineering Plasticity, Pergamon
Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Chakrabarty, J. (2006), Theory of Plasticity, 3rd ed.,
Elsevier.

= thickness of the member, in.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015 / 63

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 63

12/17/14 11:07 AM

Chen, W.F. and Atsuta, T. (1977), Theory of Beam-Columns,

Volume 2, Space Behavior and Design, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Chen, W.F. and Han, D.J. (2007), Plasticity for Structural
Engineers, J. Ross Publishing, Plantation, FL.
Cook, R.D. and Young, W.C. (1985), Advanced Mechanics of Materials, Macmillan Publishing Company, New
York, NY.
Drucker, D.C. (1956), The Effect of Shear on the Plastic Bending of Beams, Journal of Applied Mechanics,
December, pp. 509514.
Duan, L. and Chen, W.F. (1989), Design Interaction Equation for Steel Beam-Columns, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 5, pp. 12251243.
Freudenthal, A.M. (1950), The Inelastic Behavior of Engineering Materials and Structures, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
Galambos, T.V. and Surovek, A.E. (2008), Structural Stability of Steel, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Gill, S.S. and Boucher, J.K.G. (1964), An Experimental
Investigation of Plastic Collapse of Structural Members
under Combined Bending and Torsion, The Structural
Engineer, Vol. 42, No. 12, pp. 423428.
Goodrich, W. (2005), Behavior of Extended Shear Tabs in
Stiffened Beam-to-Column Connections, Masters Thesis, Vanderbilt University.
Gregory, M. (1960), The Bending and Shortening Effect
of Pure Torque, Australian Journal of Applied Science,
March, pp. 209216.
Hardin, B.O. (1958), Experimental Investigation of the Primary Stress Distribution in the Gusset Plates of a Double
Plane Pratt Truss Joint with Chord Splice at the Joint,
University of Kentucky Engineering Experiment Station,
Bulletin No. 49, September.
Harrison, H.B. (1963), The Plastic Behavior of Mild Steel
Beams of Rectangular Section Bent About Both Principal Axes, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 41, No. 7,
pp.231237.
Hill, R. and Siebel, M.P.L. (1953), On the Plastic Distortion of Solid Bars by Combined Bending and Twisting,
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 1,
pp. 207214.
Horne, M.R. (1951), The Plastic Theory of Bending of
Mild Steel Beams with Particular Reference to the Effect
of Shear Forces, Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences,
Vol. 207, No. 1089, pp. 216228.

Irvan, W.G. (1957), Experimental Study of Primary

Stresses in Gusset Plates of a Double Plane Pratt Truss,
University of Kentucky Engineering Research Station,
Bulletin No. 46, December.
Jensen, C.D. and Crispen, R.E. (1938), Stress Distribution
in Welds Subject to Bending, Welding Research Supplement, American Welding Society, October.
Johnson, W., Chitkara, N.R. and Ranshi, A.S. (1974),
Plane-Stress Yielding of Cantilevers in Bending Due
to Combined Shear and Axial Load, Journal of Strain
Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 6777.
Karr, P.H. (1956), Stresses in Centrally Loaded Deep
Beams, SESA Proceedings, Vol. XV, No. 1, Society for
Experimental Stress Analysis, pp. 7784.
Lavis, C.S. (1967), Computer Analysis of the Stresses in a
Gusset Plate, Masters Thesis, University of Washington.
May, I.M. and Al-Shaarbaf, I.A.S. (1989), Elasto-Plastic
Analysis of Torsion Using a Three-Dimensional Finite
Element Model, Computers and Structures, Vol. 33,
No.3, pp. 667-678.
Metzger, K.A.B. (2006), Experimental Verification of a
New Single Plate Shear Connection Design Model, Masters Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, May 4.
Mohr, B.A. and Murray, T.M. (2008), Bending Strength of
Steel Bracket and Splice Plates, Engineering Journal,
AISC, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 97106.
Moore, D.B. and Owens, G.W. (1992), Verification of
Design Methods for Finplate Connections, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 70, No. 3/4, February.
Morris, G.A. and Fenves, S.J. (1969), Approximate Yield
Surface Equations, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. EM4, pp. 937954.
Mrazik, A., Skaloud, M. and Tochacek, M. (1987), Plastic
Design of Steel Structures, Ellis Horwood Series, Engineering Science, Halsted Press, New York, NY.
Nadai, A. (1950), Theory of Flow and Fracture of Solids,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Neal, B. G. (1961), The Effect of Shear and Normal Forces
on the Fully Plastic Moment of a Beam of Rectangular
Cross Section, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 28,
pp. 269274.
Neal, B.G. (1963), The Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Ocel, J.M. (2013), Guidelines for the Load and Resistance
Factor Design and Rating of Riveted and Bolted GussetPlate Connections for Steel Bridges, Contractors Final
Report for NCHRP Project 12-84, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, February.

64 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 64

12/17/14 11:07 AM

Paltchevskiy, S.A. (1948), Determination of Load-Carrying

Capacity of Steel Bars for Some Cases of Complex State
of Stress (in Russian).
Patrick, M., Thomas, I.R. and Bennets, I.D. (1986), Testing of Web Side Plate Connection, Proceedings of the
Pacific Structural Steel Conference, Vol. 2, New Zealand
Heavy Engineering Research Association, pp. 95116.
Perna, F.J. (1941), Photoelastic Stress Analysis, with Special Reference to Stresses in Gusset Plates, Masters Thesis, University of Tennessee.
Rust, T.H. (1938), Specification and Design of Steel Gussett-Plates, Proceedings, ASCE, November, pp. 142167.
Sanatthadaporn, S. and Chen, W.F. (1970), Interaction
Curves for Sections Under Combined Biaxial Bending and Axial Force, WRC Bulletin No. 148, Welding
Research Council, New York, pp. 111.
Sandel, J.A. (1950), Photoelastic Analysis of Gusset Plates,
Masters Thesis, University of Tennessee, December.
Schreiner, N.G. (1935), Behavior of Fillet Welds When
Subjected to Bending Stresses, Welding Journal, American Welding Society, September.
Seaburg, P.A. and Carter, C.J. (1997), Torsional Analysis
of Structural Steel Members, Design Guide 9, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
Seely, F.B. and Putnam, W.K. (1919), The Relation Between
the Elastic Strengths of Steel in Tension, Compression and
Shear, Bulletin No. 115, Engineering Experiment Station, Vol. 17, No. 11, University of Illinois, November 10.
Seely, F.B. and Smith, J.O. (1952), Advanced Mechanics of
Materials, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Shawki, S. and Hendry, A.W. (1961), Stresses in a Deep
Beam with a Central Concentrated Load, Experimental
Mechanics, June, pp. 192198.
Sheridan, M.L. (1953), An Experimental Study of the Stress
and Strain Distribution in Steel Gusset Plates, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Sherman, D.R. and Ghorbanpoor, A. (2002), Design of

Extended Shear Tabs, Final Report, American Institute
of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, October.
Shunsuke, B. and Kajita, T. (1982), Plastic Analysis of
Torsion of a Prismatic Beam, International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 18, pp. 927944.
Sidebottom, O.M. and Clark, M.E. (1958), Theoretical and
Experimental Analysis of Members Loaded Eccentrically
and Inelastically, Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 447, University of Illinois, March.
Smith, J.O. and Sidebottom, O.M. (1965), Inelastic Behavior
of Load-Carrying Members, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, NY.
Steele, M.C. (1954), The Plastic Bending and Twisting of
Square Section Members, Journal of the Mechanics and
Physics of Solids, Vol. 3, pp. 156166.
Struik, J.H.A. (1972), Applications of Finite Element Analysis to Non-linear Plane Stress Problems, Ph.D. Dissertation, Lehigh University.
Vasarhelyi, D.D. (1971), Tests of Gusset Plate Models. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE Vol. 97,
No. fST2, pp. 665679.
Vrouwenvelder, A.C.W.M. (2003), The Plastic Behavior and
the Calculation of Beams and Frames Subjected to Bending, Technical University Delft, March.
White, D.W., Leon, R.T., Kim, Y.D., Mentes, Y. and Bhuiyan, M.T.R. (2013), Finite Element Simulation and
Assessment of the Strength Behavior of Rivited and
Bolted Gusset-Plate Connections in Steel Truss Bridges,
Final Report Prepared for Federal Highway Administration and NCHRP Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, March.
Whitmore, R.E. (1952), Experimental Investigation of
Stresses in Gusset Plates, University of Tennessee Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 16, May.
Wyss, T. (1923), Die Kraftfelder in Festen Elastischen
Korpern und ihre Praktischen Anwendungen, Berlin,
Germany.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015 / 65

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 65

12/17/14 11:07 AM

66 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / FIRST QUARTER / 2015

047-066_EJ1Q15_2013-21.indd 66

12/17/14 11:07 AM