INTRODUCTION

A structure is constructed by connecting various steel members such as beams and columns. The
steel structure must carry the design loads which commonly consist of the weight of the floors,
columns, beams, equipment, people, snow, and wind to the foundation of the structure safely.
Loads are transferred from one structural member to the next and eventually to the foundation
through the connections. It is the engineer's responsibility to make sure each element, including
the connections, along the load path is designed properly so that the loads are transferred safely
from where they are applied to where the foundation. As the result, steel connections are very
important and often considered as the glue that holds the members of a structure together. If a
connection fails, the entire structure or a section of it could collapse.

An introductory steel design course in an undergraduate civil engineering program is intended to

teach civil engineering students not only about the design of a structure's members but also about
the design of different connection types. Moreover, it is often difficult for students to visualize the
three dimensional nature of the connections. To overcome this shortcoming, a steel connection
sculpture was designed by Professor Duane S. Ellifritt at the University of Florida in 1985 [1].
This teaching tool helps students to visualize and better understand the three dimensional nature of
typical steel connections in standard constructions.

The next major development in steel connection design was done by Perry S. Green, Thomas
Sputo, and Patrick Veltri who wrote the Connections Toolkit – a teaching guide for the steel
sculpture [1]. The connections teaching toolkit allows students to better understand the limit states
(failure modes) of each connection, and how to solve for the strength of each connection. For
example in their toolkit, Perry S. Green, Thomas Sputo, and Patrick Veltri explain failure modes
for three types of bolted connections: axial, shear, and moment. The following definitions for limit
states are from AISC's Connections Teaching Toolkit (assuming the connecting members are sized
properly to support the load):

Axial connection (Figure 1) is one in

which loading will result in tension
along the length of a bolt.
Additionally, for this situation the
bolt(s) would fail within the threaded
portion of the bolt(s), through one of
the roots of the threads. This failure
mode coincides with the least cross-
sectional area of the bolts.

Figure 1 Axial connection and axial failure [1]

Page 1 of 21
A bolted shear
connection (Figure 2)
is one in which loading
will result in shearing
along the cross section
area of the bolt. The
failure of shear
connection could occur
at the bolt hole region
(bearing failure) or
within the bolt itself as Figure 2 Shear connection and shear failure [1]
shown in Figure 2.

A bolted moment connection (Figure

3) is one in which moment is
transferred as a couple at the top and
bottom flanges of the supported beam
to the supporting member. Moment
connections are assumed to have little
or no relative rotation between the
supporting member and the supported
members. Similar to the bolted shear
connection, the moment connection Figure 3 Moment connection [1]
can fail by shearing of the bolts or
bearing at the bolt holes.

FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

The results described above are based on experimental work. In recent years, many attempts have
been made to model the connections using finite element analysis. Finite element method [2] is a
numerical approach that can be used to solve many engineering problems including those that
involve stress analysis. The basic steps involved in any finite element analysis consist of the
following [2]:

1. We begin by creating and discretizing the solution domain into finite elements; that is, we
subdivide the problem into nodes and elements.
2. We assume a shape function to represent the physical behavior of an element; that is, we
assume a continuous function to represent the approximate behavior (solution) of an
element.

Page 2 of 21
 3. We develop a set of equations for an element.
4. We assemble the elements to present the entire problem. In other words, we construct the
global stiffness matrix.
5. Next, we apply boundary conditions, initial conditions, and loading.
6. Finally, we solve a set of linear or nonlinear algebraic equations simultaneously to obtain
results, such as displacement values at different nodes and stresses.

As mentioned previously, a structure is constructed by connecting various structural members such

as I-beams, columns, channels (c shapes), angles (L shapes), and hollow cylinders. In practice, to
connect these members bolts or welds are used. Moreover, depending on the design loading
requirements, a steel connection can be classified into three broad categories, namely, axial
connection, shear connection, and moment connection. The engineer has to calculate the
deformation and stress of every connection to make sure the connection is not subjected to values
that are greater than the design limits. In general, the analysis of bolted connection is complex. We
have used ANSYS, a well-known finite element program, to analyze bolted connections. Two
modeling approaches were taken: (i) modeling using non-contact elements, and (ii) modeling with
contact elements. For 3-D models, solid bolted model and contact pairs were created. The
advantage of modeling without the use of contact elements is the ease of modeling and quick
computational time. It takes only a few seconds to solve these types of models. On the other hand,
the 3-D modeling with contact elements is more complicated and results in a set of nonlinear
equations that requires much longer run time. In this presentation, the focus is placed on bolted
connections and their failure modes – such as web local yielding, bolt shear strength, tension
rupture, and flexural yielding.

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING USING NON-CONTACT

ELEMENTS
As we mention previously, the steel sculpture is constructed
from many types of structural elements including I-beams.
Since I-beams are used in many branches of the sculpture, we
will study it first. Figure 4 shows the finite element (FE)
model of cross sectional area of an I-beam for which the lower
flange is fixed, and the load is applied to the upper portion of
the flange. Depending on the way the load is applied and cross-
sectional characteristics of the beam, several modes of failure
including web local yielding, local web buckling, web
compression buckling, or web crippling could result.
Figure 4 A two-dimensional
FE model of an

Page 3 of 21
Web local yielding (Figure 5 (left)) is caused by
compressive force acting on the beam
perpendicular to the beam flange. This
compressive force causes the web to develop a
stress greater than or equal to the yield limit of the
material and results in compressive crushing of the
beam’s web. Local web buckling (Figure 5 (right))
occurs when a member is slender and not stable
enough to properly support the loading and as the
result it will buckle. Because of this failure mode,
the slenderness ratio must be checked. Web
compression buckling occurs when a concentrated Figure 5 Web local yielding (left)
and local web buckling (right) [1]
force, distributed through a bearing plate to lower
the applied stress, becomes too large for the web of
the beam. This causes the beam to buckle out-of-plane similar to local web buckling. Web
crippling occurs due to concentrated compressive force acting on both flanges in line with the
web. When the compressive force is large enough, the web of the beam will buckle similarly to
local web buckling. We will model the web local yielding in ANSY next.

FE Model –The PLANE183 element of ANSYS, which is a higher order 2-D, 8 node plane
element with quadratic displacement behavior, was used to model a W16 x 36 wide flange. The
material properties used for this model are: modulus of elasticity = 29 x 10 3 ksi and Poisson’s ratio
= 0.32. The lower flange of the W-beam was fixed, and a uniform load of 10,000 psi was applied
along the thickness of the web. The mesh size was set at level 2 (fine mesh) using the smart size
control of ANSYS. This yielded a model with 915 elements and 3,280 nodes.

Solution - Displacement solution had a maximum value of 0.005315 in. (Figure 6). The stress
solution in Y direction is shown in Figure 7. Stresses in elements along the web portion of W-
beam have value of 10,000 psi (SY = -10,000), consistent with the applied compressive load of
10,000 lb.

Page 4 of 21
 Figure 6 Deflection of the beam Figure 7 Y-component of the stresses

The W16 x 36 beam is considered as a compact cross-sectional shape with web local yielding as
a failure mode.

Flange Local Bending

Flange local bending is caused by a tensile force acting perpendicular to a beams flange which
caused increased stress in the beam flange (Figure 8).

FE Model – Two different sizes of wide flange beams were used to model this problem (Figure
9). The beam on the left is a W14 x 90, whereas, the beam on the right side is W10 x 15. The
SOLID187 element was used in this model. Element SOLID187 is a higher order 3-D, 10-node
element with a quadratic displacement behavior. The element is defined by 10 nodes having three
degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal X, Y, and Z directions. A modulus of
elasticity of 29 x 10 3 ksi and a Poisson’s ration of 0.32 were used for both beams. The boundary
condition for the beam on left side (W14 x 90) was defined by setting the displacement field
equal to zero at its fixed area. A load of 10,000 psi was then applied to the second beam (W10 x
15) on the right side. The pressure load was applied on the cross section area of the W10 x 15
beam. Again, the mesh size was set at level 2 (fine mesh) using smart size control of ANSYS.
This resulted in a model with 15,210 elements and 28,704 nodes.

Page 5 of 21
 Figure 8 Flange local bending [1] Figure 9 FE modeling of Flange local bending

Solutions – The deformed shape for this model is shown in Figure 10 with a maximum
deformation of 0.020465 in. The stress solutions have a maximum value of 47,974 psi and a
minimum stress of 0.182962 psi at the positions as shown in Figure 11. Gupta [3] in his book
entitled Principles of structural design, wood, steel, and concrete discusses non-compact flange
sections and reports results that are similar to the solution given here. Also note from the
deformation solution shown in Figure 10 that the right flange of the W14 x 90 beam (on left side)
is bent.

Figure 10 Deflection for the flange Figure 11 Von Mises Stresses for flange
local bending local bending

Finite Element Modeling with Contact Elements

Next, a FE model for Connection 1 of the Steel Sculpture, which consists of C (channel) and L
(angle) shape members with three 3/4 inch bolts, is created. Note that for this connection, the C
channel will carry the design load. The bolted connections were modeled with contact elements
between the bolts and the flange. The solid model of the C channel was created first (Figure 12),

Page 6 of 21
followed by three holes that were drilled for the bolts. Next the L shape member was created
(Figure 13) next to C channel and finally the three bolts were created to connect the two
members. For this model we used a C12 x 20.7 designation channel. To simplify the model and to
focus on the contact surface areas between structural members the threaded sections of bolt and
nut were ignored. Furthermore, when bolt and nut are fastened, the bolts and nuts were modeled
as if they fit together like they are the same piece. In other words, we modeled the bolts and nut as
rivets (Figure 14). Also, note that there are 3 bolts and nuts (3 rivets) in Connection number 1 of
the Steel Sculpture. After each piece for Connection 1 was modeled, they were assembled as shown
in Figure 15.

Figure 12 The solid model of C Figure 13 The solid model of L shape

channel in ANSYS member in ANSYS

Figure 14 The solid model of a bolt Figure 15 The solid model of the
in ANSYS Connection 1 in ANSYS

The SOLID187 of ANSYS was used to model this connection. The SOLID187 element is defined
by 10 nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal X, Y, and Z
directions. The material properties used for this model also consisted of modulus of elasticity of
29.0 x103 ksi and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.32. The base of the L shape member was fixed to the main

Page 7 of 21
beam. A pressure load of 100 psi was applied to the top surface of the C channel. We used smaller
load value and level 10 of size control (coarse) to keep the model size reasonable so that it could
be run on the computer and yield results in reasonable amount of time (Figure 16).

Contact Pairs – Connection number 1 consists of five solid pieces (a C channel, a L shape
member, and three 3/4 inch bolts). To avoid the penetration between solid pieces when they are
deformed, contact pairs were set up between the C channel and the 3 bolts (rivets in this model)
and the L shape member and the bolts. TARGET 170 and CONTA 174 elements were used in this
analysis. This model resulted in 123,954 nonlinear equations and took approximately 10 minutes
for the solution to converge.

Solutions – For the given model, the maximum deformation occurred at the front tip of the C
channel (Figures 16 and 17). Also note that the C channel experienced torsion as the result of
applied load.

Figure 16 Deflection of the Figure 17 Deflection of the

Connection 1 (isometric view) Connection 1 (side view)

For this model the Von Mises stresses were also computed as shown in Figures 18 and 19.

Page 8 of 21
 Figure 18 Von Mises Stresses (front Figure 19 Von Mises Stresses (back view)
view)

The X , Y , a n d Z components of the stresses are shown in Figures 20 through 25.

Next we will examine Prying Action using a finite element model.

Page 9 of 21
 Figure 20 The X-component of Figure 21 The X-component of stresses
stresses (front view) (back view)

Figure 22 The Y-component of Figure 23 The Y-component of

stresses (front view) stresses (back view)

Figure 24 The z-component of Figure 25 The z-component of

stresses (front view) stresses (back view)

Page 10 of 21
Prying Action

Prying action (Figure 26) is a phenomenon in which additional tension forces are induced in the
bolts due to the deformation of the connection near the bolt. Flexibility of the connected parts
within the grip of the bolts creates these additional tension forces.

FE Modeling – An example from Principles of Structural design, Wood, Steel, and Concrete by
Gupta [3] was chosen to develop a finite element model for prying action. A non-compact
section, the W12 x 65 wide flange beam was chosen for this example. The beam has a total
height of 12-1/8 inch, and the lower and upper flanges are both 12 inch long, with flange and web
thicknesses of 5/8 inch each. A full cross section for a W12 x 65 beam was modeled to be the main
part (the upper part). The T- portion of cross sectional area was modeled to be the part that carries
the applied load (the lower part). These two parts were then connected by two 3/4 inch-nominal-
diameter bolts (Figure 27). The SOLID187 element with modulus of elasticity of 29 x 103 ksi and a
Poisson’s ration of 0.32 were used. For this model, a deformation similar to Figure 26 was sought.
Therefore, we fixed the upper beam and applied a tension load of 10,000 psi to the web of lower
beam. The model was meshed into 44,342 elements. Three pairs of contacts were included in the
analysis: contact between the lower beam and the bolts, the upper beam and the bolts, and the
lower and the upper beams. Coefficient of friction was set at 0.57.

Figure 26 Prying Action [1] Figure 27 A FE model for Prying Action

Solutions – This model resulted in a maximum deformation of 0.080464 in. The Von Mises
stresses are shown in Figures 28 and 29.

Page 11 of 21
 Figure 28 FE solutions for Prying Action Figure 29 FE solutions for Prying Action
(close-up view)

Bolt Shear Strength

Bolt Shear Strength (Figure 30) is applicable to each bolted ply of a connection that is
subjected to shear. The shear strength of a bolt is directly proportional to the number of interfaces
(shear planes) between the plies within the grip of the bolt that a single shear force is transmitted
through. Single shear occurs when the individual shear force is transmitted through bolts that
have two plies within the grip of the bolt. Additional plies further distribute the shear force.
Three plies of material represent two shear planes thus the bolt or bolt group is in double shear
and has effectively twice the strength as single shear.

FE Modeling – The finite element used to demonstrate this phenomenon consisted of two plates
and two bolts. Let the left plate be denoted as plate number one, and the right plate be plate
number two (Figure 31). Also, the left bolt is designated as bolt number one, and the right bolt is
bolt number two. Plates are 8 inch long and 4 inch wide, with a thickness of 0.5 inch. Two holes
were drilled through both plates and 3/4 inch diameter bolts were added. The SOLID187 element
was used in this model. Material properties are similar to the previous cases. The fixed boundary
condition was defined at the left end of first plate by setting the displacement field be zero. Pressure
load was applied at the right end of second plate as shown in Figure 31. The area on the right edge
of the second plate was subjected to a pressure load of 1,000 psi. After mashing, the model had
48,033 elements. There are three pairs of contacts. They are the contact pairs between plate
number two and both bolts, both bolts and plate number one, and plate number two and plate
number one. Coefficient of friction was set at 0.57.

Page 12 of 21
 Figure 30 Bolt shear strength [1] Figure 31 FE model of bolt shear modeling

Solutions – As shown in Figure 32 the model is bent downward in the Y-direction and the
deflection along the X-axis is not as visible. The solution to this problem yielded a maximum
deformation of 0.2944 inch; and maximum and minimum Von Mises stresses of 25,640 psi and
0.642634 psi at positions shown in Figures 32 and 33.

Figure 32 Deflection of bolt shear Figure 33 Von Mises stresses for the FE
strength model model of bolt shear

The solutions for each plate and bolt are shown in Figures 34, 35, 36, and 37. From stress
solutions, the lower plate experiences a maximum stress value of 14,376 psi at hole number
one as shown. The maximum stress for the entire system was 25,640 psi for the tension load
of 10,000 psi.

Page 13 of 21
 Figure 34 Von Mises stresses in lower Figure 35 Von Mises stresses in the upper
plate plate

Figure 36 Von Mises stresses in the Figure 37 Von Mises stresses in the
first bolt second bolt

Another example of bolted connection is one in

which a set of bolts connect two members. Figure
38 is the example of two plates that are connected
by a set of bolts. In the example shown in Figure
38, six bolts, connect two plates. The bigger plate
on the left (plate 1), will be fixed on the left edge.
The smaller rectangle plate on the right (plate 2) is
loaded by a tension load on the right edge. This
type of bolted connection may experience several
types of failures.

Figure 38 A set of bolts connecting

two plates

Page 14 of 21
Block Shear Rupture – Block Shear Rupture (Figure 39) is a limit state in which the failure
path includes an area subject to shear and an area subject to tension. This limit state is so
named because the associated failure path tears out a block of material [1]

Bolt Bearing Strength – Bolt Bearing Strength (Figure 40) is concerned with the deformation of
material at the loaded edge of the bolt holes. Bearing capacity of the connection is influenced by
the proximity of the bolt to the loaded edge or the spacing between two bolt holes [1].
Tension Rupture – Tension Rupture (Figure 41) is a function of the effective net area. The net
area is the reduced gross area due to bolt holes or notches. This net area is further reduced to
account for the effects of shear lag. Shear lag occurs when the tension force is not evenly
distributed through the cross sectional area of a member. When the section has a stress greater of
equal to the ultimate stress of the material it is made of, tension rupture is said to have occurred [1].
Tension Yielding – Tension Yielding (Figure 42) is a function of the gross cross-sectional area
of the member subjected to tension load. When the section has a stress greater or equal to the
yield stress of the material it is made of, tension yielding is said to have occurred [1].

Figure 39 Block Shear Rupture [1] Figure 40 Bolt Bearing Strength [1]

Figure 41 Tension Rupture Figure 42 Tension Yielding

FE Model –The finite element model used to demonstrate the above phenomena consists of 2
plates and 6 bolts (Figure 43). The SOLID187 element was used to model this problem.
Material properties similar to previous cases were used, that is a modulus of elasticity equal to 29
x 103 ksi and a Poison's ratio of 0.32. The left edge of the plate number one was fixed as shown in
Figure 43. A Tension force of 10,000 psi was applied on the right edge of the second plate. The

Page 15 of 21
model was then meshed into 40,126 elements. Contact pairs were created for three pairs. They
were the contact pairs of the second plate (plate on right) and all bolts, the contact pair of all bolts
and the first plate (plate on left), and the contact pair of right plate and left plate. The coefficient
of friction was set equal to 0.57 again.

Figure 43 The FE model of the plates Figure 44 The deflection of the plates and
and the bolts the bolts

Solutions – The run time for this model was approximately 15 minutes. The deformation result
shows a maximum deformation of 0.185546 inch. The front view does not show much
deformation, however when viewed from the bottom direction, the model is bent as shown in
Figure 44. The Von Mises stresses are shown in Figures 45, 46, 47, and 48. The maximum
stress occurs at the holes on left side.The von Mises stress for plate number one (the left plate) is
shown in Figure 46. The maximum stress occurs at the upper and lower portion of the holes. The
Von Mises stress for plate number two (the left plate) is shown in Figure 47. The Von Mises
stress for the bolt on the upper left connection is shown in Figure 48.

Page 16 of 21
 Figure 45 Von Mises stresses Figure 46 Von Mises stresses for plate
number one

Figure 47 Von Mises stresses for plate Figure 48 Von Mises stresses for the
number 2 bolt on the upper left connection

Next using a FE model (Figure 49) we will

demonstrate shear rupture and shear
yielding phenomena. In this example a L
shape (angle) bracket is used to connect two
wide flange beams by four bolts as shown in
Figure 49. This connection's primary
function is to transfer shear from one beam
to the other. Due to the double coping
(removal of the flanges and part of the web
at both ends), the moment of the inertia of
the coped beam is reduced. Hence, it is
necessary to verify that the coped beam can Figure 49 A FE model for shear load
connection

Page 17 of 21
 support the moment in the reduced cross section region.

Shear Rupture – Shear Rupture (Figure 50) is a function of the effective net area. The net area is
the reduced gross area due to bolt holes or notches. When the section has a stress greater or equal
to the ultimate stress of the material, shear rupture would occur.

Shear Yielding – Shear Yielding (Figure 51) is a function of the gross cross-sectional area of the
member subjected to a shear load. When the section has a stress greater or equal to the yield
stress of the material, shear yielding could occur.

Figure 50 Shear rupture [1] Figure 51 Shear yielding [1]

As shown in Figure 52, two wide flange beams W16 x 36 were connected with a L shape
(angle) bracket. The beam on the right is designated as beam number one, and the beam on the
left is beam number two. Four holes with diameter of 3/4 in. were drilled and bolts were added.
The SOLID187 element was used to model this situation. Similar material properties were used
again; that is a modulus of elasticity of 29 x 103 ksi and a Poisson ratio of 0.32. The areas of upper
and lower flanges of the beam number one were fixed and a pressure load of 1,000 psi was
applied. The model was meshed into 71,443 elements. Contact pairs were created for 6 pairs: the
beam number two and two bolts on right side, the two bolts on the right side and L-shape bracket,
the beam number two and the L-shape bracket, the L-shape bracket and the two bolts on left side,
the two bolts on the left side and beam number one, and the L-shape bracket and beam number
one. Coefficient of friction was set at 0.57.

Solutions – The run time for this model was approximately 20 minutes. The deformed shape is
shown in Figure 53; and the maximum deformation is 0.030932 in. The maximum Von Mises
stress is 15,537.1 psi at the position shown in Figure 54. The von Mises stress of L-shape bracket
is shown in Figure 55. The maximum stress on L-shape bracket is 12,683.3 psi at the position
shown in Figure 55.

Page 18 of 21
 Figure 52 A FE model for shear Figure 53 The deflection of beams and the
rupture connecting bracket

Figure 54 The Von Mises stresses Figure 55 The Von Mises stresses for the L-
shaped bracket

Next, a pressure load of 100 psi was applied at

the lower flange of beam number two (Figure
56) to simulate a moment loading to show
flexural rupture and flexural yielding.
Flexural Rupture – Flexural Rupture (Figure
5 7 ) occurs in moment connections where
the connection must be designed to carry an
applied moment. Rupture occurs when the

Figure 56 A FE model for moment

load connection
Page 19 of 21
 stress caused by the applied moment is greater than or equal to the rupture strength of the material
[1].

Figure 57 Flexure rupture [1] Figure 58 Flexural yielding

Flexural Yielding – Flexural Yielding (Figure 58) needs to be checked for situations wherein a
beam is coped. This is necessary because the reduced section modulus of the remaining beam
cross section may significantly reduce the flexural strength of the member. Flexural yielding
can also occur in moment connections where the connection must be designed to carry an
applied moment. Yielding occurs when the stress caused by the applied moment is greater than or
equal to the yield strength of the material [1]. Similar procedures as previously discussed were used
for modeling, meshing, and contact pairs of moment load.

Solutions – The run time for this model was also

about 20 minutes. As expected the load created a
counter-clockwise moment that made the model
bent upward (Figure 59) with a maximum
deformation of 0.466602 inch as shown. The
maximum Von Mises stress is 177,904 psi (Figure
60). The Von Mises stress of beam number two is
62,927.2 psi (Figure 61).

Figure 59 A FE model for moment

load connection

Page 20 of 21
 Figure 60 The Von Mises stresses for Figure 61 The Von Mises stresses for I-
the entire system beam number 2

Closing Remarks

The finite element models used in this study are primarily intended as an additional visual tool to
enhance understanding of local deformations and stresses in connections. Also, note that the
models without the contact elements required fewer elements and nodes and had much shorter
runtime, whereas, the models with bolts with contact elements required much longer runtime.

REFERENCES
1. Green, Perry S., Sputo, Thomas, and Veltri, Patrick Connections Teaching Toolkit, A
Teaching Guide for Structural Steel Connections, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Inc.

2. Moaveni, Saeed (2008), Finite Element Analysis, Theory and Application with ANSYS,
Third edition, Pearson Prentice Hall.

3. Gupta, Ram S. (2011), Principles Of Structural Design, Wood, Steel, and Concrete, CRC
Press.

Page 21 of 21