RISAConnection

Rapid Interactive Structural Analysis – Connection Design

Verification Problems

RISA Tech, Inc.

26632 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 210
Foothill Ranch, California 92610

(949) 951-5815
(949) 951-5848 (FAX)

risa.com
 Copyright © 2018 RISA Tech, Inc. All rights reserved. RISA is part of the Nemetschek
Group. No portion of the contents of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
any means without the express written permission of RISA Tech, Inc. RISA and the RISA
logo are registered trademarks of RISA Tech, Inc.

We have done our best to ensure that the material found in this publication is both useful
and accurate. However, please be aware that errors may exist in this publication, and that
RISA Tech, Inc. makes no guarantees concerning accuracy of the information found here or
in the use to which it may be put.
RISAConnection Verification Problems Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Verification Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Shear Connections:
Connections 1.1A & 1.1B- Slip Critical Bolts ................................................................................................. 4
Connection 1.2- Bolted Double Angle Shear ................................................................................................. 6
Connection 1.3- Bolt/Weld Double Angle Shear......................................................................................... 8
Connection 1.4-Welded Double Angle Shear.............................................................................................. 10
Connection 1.5- Bolted Coped Beam Shear................................................................................................. 12
Connection 1.6- Welded Coped Beam Shear .............................................................................................. 14
Connection 1.7- Coped Top Flange Shear .................................................................................................... 16
Connection 1.8- Coped Lat. Torsional Buckling ........................................................................................ 18
Connection 1.9- Bolted Shear End Plate Shear .......................................................................................... 19
Connection 1.10- Bolted Shear Tab Shear ................................................................................................... 21
Connection 1.11- Beam to Girder Shear Tab .............................................................................................. 23
Connection 1.12- Extended Shear Tab .......................................................................................................... 25
Connection 1.13- Bolted Beam Shear Splice ............................................................................................... 27
Connection 1.14- Bolt/Weld Beam Shear Splice....................................................................................... 29
Connection 1.15- Eccentrically Loaded Bolts (IC Method)................................................................... 31
Connection 1.16- Eccentrically Loaded Bolts (Elastic Method) ......................................................... 32
Connection 1.17- Bolted Single Angle Shear .............................................................................................. 34
Connection 1.18- Bolted/Welded Single Angle ......................................................................................... 36
Moment Connections:
Connection 2.1- Bolted Flange Plate Moment ............................................................................................ 38
Connection 2.2- Direct Weld Moment ........................................................................................................... 41
Connection 2.3- Four Bolt Unstiffened Extended End Plate Moment .............................................. 42
HSS Connections:
Connection 3.1- Double Angle to HSS Column ........................................................................................... 44
Connection 3.2- Shear Tab to HSS Column.................................................................................................. 45
Connection 3.3- Through-Plate Connection ............................................................................................... 47
Connection 3.4- Shear Tab to Round HSS Pipe .......................................................................................... 49
Connection 3.5- HSS Truss Connection ........................................................................................................ 50
Brace Connections:
Connection 4.1- HSS Chevron Brace .............................................................................................................. 51

i
RISAConnection Verification Problems Table of Contents

Base Plate Connections:

Connection 5.1- Base Plate Axial Only (4.1) .............................................................................................. 54
Connection 5.2- Base Plate Axial Only (4.2) ............................................................................................... 56
Connection 5.3- Anchor Bolt Tension............................................................................................................ 58
Connection 5.4- Base Plate Tension Uplift .................................................................................................. 59
Connection 5.5- Base Plate with Small Moment ....................................................................................... 60
Connection 5.6- Base Plate with Large Moment ....................................................................................... 62
Connection 5.7- Anchor Bolt Shear ................................................................................................................ 64
Connection 5.8- Anchor Bolt Combined Shear & Tension .................................................................... 65
Seismic Moment Connections:
Connection 6.1- OMF Extended End Plate ................................................................................................... 67

ii
RISAConnection Verification Problems Verification Overview

Verification Overview
Verification Methods
We at RISA maintain a library of dozens of test problems used to validate the computational aspects
of RISA programs. In this verification package we will compare RISAConnection to various design
examples provided by the AISC. Note that all the examples were done using ASD design unless
noted otherwise. Images reproduced in this document were taken from referenced example
documents. These include:
 AISC Design Examples Version 14.1(February 2013 Revision)
 AISC Design Guide 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod Design (2 nd Edition, 2nd Printing)
 AISC Design Guide 24, Hollow Structural Section Connections
 AISC Design Guide 29, Vertical Brace Connections- Analysis and Design
 AISC Seismic Design Manual (2010)
The input for these test problems was formulated to test the performance of RISAConnection, not
necessarily to show how certain structures should be modeled. The RISAConnection solutions for
each of these problems are compared to these AISC examples.

The data for each of these verification problems is provided. The RISAConnection example file is
called Verification Problems.rcn. This file is located in the C:\Program Files\RISA\Model
Files\Examples directory.

Verification Version
This document contains problems that have been verified in RISAConnection version 8.0.2.

3
Shear Verification Problems Connections 1.1A & 1.1B- Slip Critical Bolts

Connections 1.1A & 1.1B- Slip Critical Bolts

Slip-Critical Connection Bolt Capacities
This problem was adapted from example J4.A and example J4.B in the AISC Design Examples version
14.1 (February 2013 revision). The slip critical bolt capacities in RISAConnection are compared to
those from the published example.

Figure 1.1A – AISC Design Example J.4A Information

Figure 1.1B - AISC Design Example J.4B Information

4
Shear Verification Problems Connections 1.1A & 1.1B- Slip Critical Bolts

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example % Difference
37.27/6 = 6.21 12.7/2 = 6.35
Bolt Slip Critical – J.4A kips per bolt1,3 kips per bolt2 2.2
34.83/8 = 4.35 8.88/2 = 4.44
Bolt Slip Critical – J.4B kips per bolt1,3 kips per bolt2 1.94
Table 1.1 – Capacity Comparison
1 Inthe AISC example, the values are given on a per bolt basis.
2 The AISC example considers plates on both sides of the web. RISAConnection is using only a single
plate, thus the AISC capacity values are divided by two because of a single shear plane.
3 RISAConnection applies the bolt group eccentricity to the slip critical capacity. This value is 0.98

which results in a ~2% difference between the program and the AISC example.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations nearly match the design examples.
The only minor differences are due to bolt group eccentricity application.

5
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.2- Bolted Double Angle Shear

Connection 1.2- Bolted Double Angle Shear

Beam/Column Bolted Double-Angle Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.A-1 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity of an all bolted double angle connection in RISAConnection is
compared to that from the published example.

Figure 1.2- AISC Design Example II.A-1 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Min Value1 164.91 165 0.05
Bolt Bearing on
Beam 190.852 356 N/A
Bolt Bearing on
Column 190.852 665 N/A
Table 1.2a – Capacity Comparison
1Note that the Min Value here is the minimum limit state of clip angle bearing, clip angle shear
yielding, clip angle shear rupture and bolt shear. See the Table 1.2b below for this value.
2PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

6
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.2- Bolted Double Angle Shear

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Shear at Beam 190.85
Clip Angle Shear Yield 211.5
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Beam 179.44
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Column 179.44
Clip Angle Block Shear at Beam 164.91
Clip Angle Block Shear at Column 168.31
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Beam 189.931
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Column 189.931
Min Value 164.91
Table 1.2b – Capacities from RISAConnection
1PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example. There is one major difference due to the AISC 360-10 Section J3.10 user note.

7
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.3- Bolt/Weld Double Angle Shear

Connection 1.3- Bolt/Weld Double Angle Shear

Beam/Column Bolted/Welded Double-Angle Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.A-2 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity of a double angle, bolted at the beam web and welded to the
supporting column, in RISAConnection is compared to that from the published example.

Figure 1.3 - AISC Design Example II.A-2 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Column Weld
Strength 181.091 186 2.64
Min Value 190.85 2 191 0.08
Bolt Bearing on
Beam 190.853 356 N/A
Table 1.3a – Capacity Comparison

1The difference here is based on the eccentricity “e”. The AISC uses the width of the leg of the
connection angle. This is found on P10-11 of the AISC 14th edition manual. RISA is conservatively
using the width of the leg of connection angle + beam web width/2.

8
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.3- Bolt/Weld Double Angle Shear

2Note that the Min Value here is the minimum limit state of clip angle bearing, clip angle shear
yielding, clip angle shear rupture and bolt shear. See the Table 1.3b below for this value and
reasoning for the differences.
3PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Shear at Beam 190.85
Clip Angle Shear Yield 253.80
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Beam 215.32
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Column 306.67
Clip Angle Block Shear at Beam 197.90
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Beam 190.851
Min Value 190.85
Table 1.3b – Capacities from RISAConnection
1PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example. There is one major difference due to the AISC 360-10 Section J3.10 user note.

9
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.4-Welded Double Angle Shear

Connection 1.4-Welded Double Angle Shear

Beam/Column Welded Double-Angle Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.A-3 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The welded shear capacity in RISAConnection is compared to that from the
published example. The beam weld results are also compared to the instantaneous center of
rotation method and the column weld capacity doesn’t change between IC and the Elastic method.

Figure 1.4 - AISC Design Example II.A-3 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Beam Weld Strength 166.591 171 2.6
Column Weld
Strength 148.911 153 2.6
Clip Angle Shear
Yield 216.00 216 0.00
Table 1.4 – Capacity Comparison
1Thedifference here is based on the eccentricity “e”. The AISC uses the width of the leg of the
connection angle. However, RISA is conservatively using the width of the leg of connection angle +
beam web width/2.

10
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.4-Welded Double Angle Shear

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations for the most part match the design
examples. The differences are due to small differences in the assumptions made.

11
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.5- Bolted Coped Beam Shear

Connection 1.5- Bolted Coped Beam Shear

Beam/Girder Bolted Double Angle Connection on Coped Beam
This problem was adapted from example II.A-4 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity in RISAConnection is compared to that from the published
example.

Figure 1.5 – AISC Design Example II.A-4 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Min Value1 51.11 50.9 0.41
Min (Bolt Bearing on (62.32, 50.19 )
2

Beam, Beam Block Shear) = 50.19 47.2 6.34

Bolt Bearing on Girder 71.57 3 140 N/A
Coped Beam Local Web
Buckling 155.61 156 0.25
Beam Shear Yield 113.60 113 0.50
Beam Shear Rupture 92.59 92.5 0.10
Table 1.5a – Capacity Comparison
1Note that the Min Value here is the minimum limit state of clip angle bearing, clip angle shear
yielding, clip angle shear rupture, block shear rupture on the angles, and bolt shear. See Table 1.5b
below for this value and reasoning for the differences.

12
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.5- Bolted Coped Beam Shear

2AISC Table 10-1 automatically subtracts ¼“ from the Leh value when calculating block shear
capacity, per a discussion on P10-9. If the Leh value is set to 1.5” instead of 1.75” then this value
matches identically.
3PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Beam 66.061
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Girder 66.061
Clip Angle Shear Yield 61.20
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Beam 51.11
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Girder 51.11
Clip Angle Block Shear at Beam 58.18
Clip Angle Block Shear at Girder 58.18
Bolt Shear at Beam 71.57
Bolt Shear at Girder 71.57
Min Value 51.11
Table 1.5b – Capacities from RISAConnection
1PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example. There is one major difference due to the AISC 360-10 Section J3.10 user note.

13
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.6- Welded Coped Beam Shear

Connection 1.6- Welded Coped Beam Shear

Beam/Girder Welded/Bolted Double-Angle Connection on a Coped Beam
This problem was adapted from example II.A-5 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity of bolts and welds in RISAConnection are compared to those
from the published example.

Figure 1.6 – AISC Design Example II.A-5 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Beam Weld Strength 75.77 73.5 3.09
Bolt Bearing on
Girder 71.572 140 N/A
Min Value1 51.11 50.9 0.41
Beam Shear Yield 113.60 113 0.53
Beam Shear Rupture 110.76 111 0.22
Table 1.6a – Capacity Comparison
1Note that the Min Value here is the minimum limit state of bearing, shear and block shear for bolts
and angles. See Table 1.6b below for these values.
2PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

14
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.6- Welded Coped Beam Shear

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Girder 66.061
Clip Angle Block Shear at Girder 58.18
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Beam 73.95
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Girder 51.11
Clip Angle Shear Yield 61.20
Bolt Shear at Girder 71.57
Min Value 51.11
Table 1.6b – Capacities from RISAConnection
1PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example. There is one major difference due to the AISC 360-10 Section J3.10 user note.

15
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.7- Coped Top Flange Shear

Connection 1.7- Coped Top Flange Shear

Beam/girder Beam End Coped at the Top Flange Only
This problem was adapted from example II.A-6 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity in RISAConnection is compared to that from parts A and B of the
published example.

Figure 1.7 – AISC Design Example II.A-6 Information

Calculation and Comparison

Part A. Capacity Comparison of W21x62 (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Coped Beam Local
Web Buckling 56.29 56.1 0.34
Beam Shear Yield 104.00 104 0.00
Beam Shear Rupture 101.40 102 0.59
Table 1.7a – Capacity Comparison

16
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.7- Coped Top Flange Shear

Part B. Calculation Comparison of W21x73 (All Results Shown in in3)

AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Snet, elastic modulus of
net section 20.911 21 0.43
Table 1.7b – Calculation Comparison
1Youmust change the section from a W21x62 to a W21x73 and look at the Coped Beam Local Web
Buckling section to confirm the Snet value.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design examples. The
only minor differences are due to rounding.

17
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.8- Coped Lat. Torsional Buckling

Connection 1.8- Coped Lat. Torsional Buckling

Beam/Girder Beam End Coped at the Top and Bottom Flanges
This problem was adapted from example II.A-7 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The Lateral Torsional Buckling limit state capacity in RISAConnection is compared
to that from of the published example.

Figure 1.8 – AISC Design Example II.A-7 Information

Calculation and Comparison

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Coped Beam Lateral
Torsional Buckling 12.52 15.51 19.22
Table 1.8 – Capacity Comparison
1The AISC example properly assumes the top of the coped beam is in compression and the bottom
in tension. Thus, they provide a local buckling check for the top of the coped beam and a flexural
yielding check for the bottom of the coped beam. In RISAConnection we do not know the direction
of the shear force and do not know whether the extreme fibers are in compression or tension.
Because of this we use the worst case cope (11 ½” in this case) and provide both a buckling and a
yielding check for the connection. Because the worst case in RISAConnection was for local buckling
of the bottom of the coped beam the program is being conservative compared to the design
example.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations are conservative compared to the
design examples.

18
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.9- Bolted Shear End Plate Shear

Connection 1.9- Bolted Shear End Plate Shear

Beam/Girder Bolted End-Plate Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.A-11 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity of a beam to girder end plate shear connection in
RISAConnection is compared to that from of the published example.

Figure 1.9 – AISC Design Example II.A-11 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Min Value-11 50.93 50.9 0.06
Min Value-2 2 45.24 45.2 0.09
Bolt Bearing on
Girder 71.573 140 N/A
Table 1.9a – Capacity Comparison
1Note that the Min Value-1 here is the minimum limit state of bolt shear, bolt bearing, shear
yielding, shear rupture, and block shear rupture of end-plate. See Table 1.9b below for these values.
2Notethat the Min Value-2 here is the minimum limit state of weld shear and beam web shear
rupture. See Table 1.9c below for these values.
3PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

19
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.9- Bolted Shear End Plate Shear

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Shear at Girder 71.57
Bolt Bearing on Girder 71.573
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Girder 66.063
Beam Shear Yield 113.60
Plate Shear Yield 61.20
Beam Shear Rupture 110.76
Plate Shear Rupture at Girder 51.11
Plate Block Shear at Girder 50.93
Min Value 50.93
Table 1.9b – Capacities from RISAConnection
3PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Beam Weld Strength 45.24
Beam Shear Rupture 110.76
Min Value 45.24
Table 1.9c – Capacities from RISAConnection

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example. There is one major difference due to the AISC 360-10 Section J3.10 user note.

20
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.10- Bolted Shear Tab Shear

Connection 1.10- Bolted Shear Tab Shear

Beam/Column Bolted Shear Tab Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.A-17 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity in RISAConnection is compared to that from of the published
example.

Figure 1.10 – AISC Design Example II.A-17 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Min Value 1 34.8 34.8 0.00
Bolt Bearing on
Beam 47.712 88.9 N/A
Table 1.10a – Capacity Comparison
1Note that the Min Value here is the minimum limit state of bolt shear, weld shear, bolt bearing,
shear yielding, shear rupture, and block shear rupture of the plate. See Table 1.10b below for these
values.
2PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

21
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.10- Bolted Shear Tab Shear

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Shear at Beam 42.421
Column Weld Strength 44.01
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Beam 44.962
Beam Shear Yield 123.88
Plate Shear Yield 41.40
Beam Shear Rupture 94.85
Plate Shear Rupture at Beam 34.80
Plate Block Shear at Beam 35.38
Min Value 34.80
Table 1.10b – Capacities from RISAConnection
1The program is using a Bolt Group Eccentricity that is conservative to what the manual gives. The
manual allows you to ignore the eccentricity for certain bolt configurations. In the program you
will see that the bolt group eccentricity coefficient is listed as 0.89. If you take 42.42/0.89 = 47.66
kips.
2PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example. There is one major difference due to the AISC 360-10 Section J3.10 user note.

22
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.11- Beam to Girder Shear Tab

Connection 1.11- Beam to Girder Shear Tab

Beam/Girder Bolted Shear Plate Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.A-18 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity in RISAConnection is compared to that from of the published
example.

Figure 1.11 – AISC Design Example II.A-18 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Min Value-11 34.8 34.8 0.00
Min Value-2 2 47.71 54.0 N/A
Table 1.11a – Capacity Comparison
1Note that the Min Value-1 here is the minimum limit state of bolt shear, weld shear, bolt bearing,
shear yielding, shear rupture, and block shear rupture of the plate. See Table 1.11b below for these
values.
2Note that the Min Value-2 here is the minimum limit state of bolt bearing and block shear rupture
for beam web. See Table 1.11c below for these values.

23
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.11- Beam to Girder Shear Tab

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Shear at Beam 42.421
Girder Weld Strength 44.012
Bolt Bearing on Beam 47.713
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Beam 44.963
Beam Shear Yield 94.20
Plate Shear Yield 41.40
Beam Shear Rupture 71.37
Plate Shear Rupture at Beam 34.80
Plate Block Shear at Beam 35.38
Min Value 34.8
Table 1.11b – Capacities from RISAConnection
1The program is using a Bolt Group Eccentricity that is conservative to what the manual gives. The
manual allows you to ignore the eccentricity for certain bolt configurations. In the program you
will see that the bolt group eccentricity coefficient is listed as 0.89. If you take 42.42/0.89 = 47.66
kips.
2The AISC 14th edition Table 10-4 assumes an effective weld length equal to the end plate minus
twice the weld size. RISAConnection uses the full length of the plate. This value does not control
here but if you subtract 2*(3/16”) = 3/8” from the weld length then it would match AISC
assumptions.
3PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Bearing on Beam 47.711
Beam Block Shear 63.622
Min Value 47.71
Table 1.11c – Capacities from RISAConnection
1PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.
2Forany Leh greater than 1.75, the AISC conservatively uses the value for 1.75 (including a ¼”
decrease due to possible beam over-run). In this problem the Leh = 2.5”, so our calculations are
based on this 2.5”, thus our Beam Block Shear capacity is much higher.

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example. There is one major difference due to the AISC 360-10 Section J3.10 user note.

24
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.12- Extended Shear Tab

Connection 1.12- Extended Shear Tab

Beam/Column Web Extended Shear Tab Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.A-19 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity in RISAConnection is compared to that from of the published
example.

Figure 1.12 – AISC Design Example II.A-19 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in kips unless noted otherwise)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Bolt Bearing on Beam (single
bolt) 95.432/8 =11.93 17.3 N/A
Bolt Shear at Beam (Strength
of the Bolt Group) 27.64 27.7 0.22
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Beam
(single bolt) 38.06/2 = 19.031 19.0 0.16
Plate Shear Yield 86.40 86.4 0.00
Plate Shear Rupture at Beam 73.95 74.0 0.07
Plate Block Shear 78.00 77.8 0.26
Plate Flexural Yielding 388.02 k-in 388 k-in 0.01
Plate Flexural Rupture 369.75 k-in 371 k-in 0.34
Table 1.12 – Capacity Comparison
1The AISC example takes the worst case capacity between edge tear-out and bearing and compares
a single bolt demand to that value. In the RISAConnection output the R n-edge-tearout capacity controls
between these values and is reported as 38.06 kips.

25
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.12- Extended Shear Tab

2PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example. There is one major difference due to the AISC 360-10 Section J3.10 user note.

26
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.13- Bolted Beam Shear Splice

Connection 1.13- Bolted Beam Shear Splice

Bolted Single-Plate Beam Shear Splice
This problem was adapted from example II.A-20 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity in RISAConnection is compared to that from of the published
example.

Figure 1.13 – AISC Design Example II.A-20 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
Bolt Shear (single bolt) 49.761/4 = 12.44 16.2 23.21
Bolt Bearing on Plate 26.92/2 = 13.46 2 13.5 0.29
Plate Flexural Yielding 291.02 kip-in 291 kip-in 0.01
Plate Flexural Rupture 261.00 kip-in 261 kip-in 0.00
Plate Shear Yielding 64.80 64.8 0.00
Plate Shear Rupture 52.20 52.2 0.00
Plate Block Shear 53.40 53.3 0.19
Table 1.13 – Capacity Comparison
1InRISAConnection the connection eccentricity is accounted for on the bolt group. This does not
occur in the AISC design example. From the RISAConnection output we can see that C = 0.77, which
accounts for the 23% difference.

2The AISC example takes the worst case capacity between edge tear-out and bearing and compares
a single bolt demand to that value. In the RISAConnection output, the controlling capacity is the R n-
edge-tearout capacity, listed as 26.92 kips.

27
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.13- Bolted Beam Shear Splice

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design examples. The
only minor differences are due to rounding.

28
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.14- Bolt/Weld Beam Shear Splice

Connection 1.14- Bolt/Weld Beam Shear Splice

Bolted/Welded Single-Plate Beam Shear Splice
This problem was adapted from example II.A-21 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity in RISAConnection is compared to that from of the published
example.

Figure 1.14 – AISC Design Example II.A-21 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in kips)
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
Bolt Shear (single bolt) 21.06 /4 = 5.265
1 11.9 55.76
Bolt Bearing on Plate 28.55/2 = (37/29.4)*11.0
(single bolt) 14.2752 = 13.8753 2.88
Plate Flexural Yielding 291.02 kip-in 291 kip-in 0.01
Plate Shear Yielding 64.8 64.8 0.00
Plate Shear Rupture 55.46 55.5 0.07
Plate Block Shear 54.08 53.9 0.33
Table 1.14 – Capacity Comparison
1InRISAConnection the connection eccentricity is accounted for on the bolt group. This does not
occur in the AISC design example. From the RISAConnection output we can see that C = 0.44, which
accounts for the 56% difference.

2The AISC example takes the worst case capacity between edge tear-out and bearing and compares
a single bolt demand to that value. In the RISAConnection output, the controlling capacity is the R n-
edge-tearout capacity, listed as 28.55 kips.

3The AISC example uses a conservative Le = 1.25”. The actual Le = 1.5” is the one used in the
program. In the table above the AISC value has been factored up by a ratio of 37/29.4. The 37
kips/in is the interpolated value from Table 7-5 of the AISC 14th edition manual.

29
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.14- Bolt/Weld Beam Shear Splice

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design examples closely.
There are minor differences due to rounding and a difference due to the L e value.

30
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.15- Eccentrically Loaded Bolts (IC Method)

Connection 1.15- Eccentrically Loaded Bolts (IC

Method)
Eccentrically Loaded Bolt Group (IC Method)
This problem was adapted from example II.A-24 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The eccentric force (per the Instantaneous Center of Rotation method) and shear
capacity in RISAConnection are compared to that from of part A of the published example.

Figure 1.15 – AISC Design Example II.A-24 Information

Comparison (Solution A: θ = 0°)

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in kips)
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
Bolt Shear at Beam 57.69 57.5 0.10
Eccentric Coefficient1 3.5535 3.55 0.10
Table 1.15 – Capacity Comparison
1Note that in RISAConnection the eccentricity coefficient is obtained from multiplying the
eccentricity coefficient (C=0.2961) by the number of bolts (Nbolt = 12).

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design examples closely.

31
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.16- Eccentrically Loaded Bolts (Elastic Method)

Connection 1.16- Eccentrically Loaded Bolts

(Elastic Method)
Eccentrically Loaded Bolt Group (Elastic Method)
This problem was adapted from example II.A-25 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The eccentric force (per the Elastic method) and shear capacity in RISAConnection
are compared to that from the published example.
Note: To match the results below, go to the (Global) Project Settings– Solution tab and choose
Elastic for the “Bolt Group Analysis Method”.

Figure 1.16 – AISC Design Example II.A-25 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
Bolt Shear 46.06 45.9 0.35
2.837 1/.353 = 0.14
Eccentricity Coefficient1 2.8332
Table 1.16 – Capacity Comparison
1Note that in RISAConnection the eccentricity coefficient is obtained from multiplying the
eccentricity coefficient (C=0.2364) by the number of bolts (Nbolt=12).
2The values between RISAConnection and the AISC examples are the inverse of one another. The
eccentricity coefficient listed here from RISAConnection is equal to C multiplied by the number of
bolts.

32
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.16- Eccentrically Loaded Bolts (Elastic Method)

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design examples closely.

33
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.17- Bolted Single Angle Shear

Connection 1.17- Bolted Single Angle Shear

Beam/Girder Bolted Single-Angle Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.A-28 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity in RISAConnection is compared to that from the published
example.

Figure 1.17 – AISC Design Example II.A-28 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
Bolt Shear at Girder (single 40.19/4 =
bolt) 10.051 11.9 15.5
Bolt Shear at Beam (single
bolt) 35.05/4 = 8.762 11.9 26.4
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle
(single bolt) 22.02/2 = 113 11.0 0.00
Clip Angle Shear Yield 62.10 62.1 0.00
Clip Angle Shear Rupture 52.20 52.0 0.38
Clip Angle Block Shear 50.35 50.5 0.29
Flexural Yielding/Rupture 267 kip-in/
of Support-Leg of Angle NA4 245 kip-in NA
Min Value-1 5 45.667 51.3 11.0
Table 1.17a – Capacity Comparison
1The program is using a Bolt Group Eccentricity that is conservative to what the manual gives. The
manual allows you to ignore the eccentricity for certain bolt configurations. In the program you
will see that the bolt group eccentricity coefficient is listed as 0.80. If you take 10.05/0.84 = 11.96
kips which nearly matches the AISC example.

34
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.17- Bolted Single Angle Shear

2The program is using a Bolt Group Eccentricity that is conservative to what the manual gives. The
manual allows you to ignore the eccentricity for certain bolt configurations. In the program you
will see that the bolt group eccentricity coefficient is listed as 0.73. If you take 8.76/0.73 = 12.0 kips
which nearly matches the AISC example.
3The AISC example takes the worst case capacity between edge tear-out and bearing and compares
a single bolt demand to that value. In the RISAConnection output, the controlling capacity is the R n-
edge-tearout capacity, listed as 22.02 kips.

4Because of the eccentricity of the single angle there is flexure in the leg attached to the column. At
this time RISAConnection does not check the single angle for these failure modes.

5The Min Value is the minimum limit state of bolt bearing on beam and beam block shear rupture.
See Table 1.17b below for these values.

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Bearing on Beam 45.667
Beam Block Shear 52.416
Min Value 45.66
Table 1.17b – Capacities from RISAConnection
6The AISC example uses a conservative Leh = 1.25”. The actual Leh = 1.5” is the one used in the
program. This is why the RISAConnection value is slightly larger than the example
7PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations for the most part match the design
examples. There are minor differences are due to rounding, eccentricity assumptions and a
difference in the Leh value used. There is also a difference based on the AISC 360-15 Section J3.10
user note.

35
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.18- Bolted/Welded Single Angle

Connection 1.18- Bolted/Welded Single Angle

Beam/Column Bolted/Welded Single Angle Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.A-29 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The shear capacity in RISAConnection is compared to that from the published
example.

Figure 1.18 – AISC Design Example II.A-29 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
Min Value 1 35.05 47.6 26.4
Column Weld Strength 37.93 37.8 0.34
Bolt Bearing on Beam 47.71 2 88.9 N/A
Table 1.18a – Capacity Comparison
1Note that the Min Value here is the minimum limit state of, shear yielding, shear rupture, bolt
bearing, block shear and bolt shear. See Table 1.18b below for these values.
2PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

36
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.18- Bolted/Welded Single Angle

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Clip Angle Shear Yield 62.10
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Beam 52.20
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Column 75.04
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Beam 46.801
Clip Angle Block Shear at Beam 50.35
Bolt Shear 35.052
Min Value 35.05
Table 1.18b – Capacities from RISAConnection
1PerSection J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.
2The program is using a Bolt Group Eccentricity that is conservative to what the manual gives. The
manual allows you to ignore the eccentricity for certain bolt configurations. In the program you
will see that the bolt group eccentricity coefficient is listed as 0.73. If you take 35.05/0.73 = 48.01
kips which nearly matches the AISC example.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations mostly match the design examples.
The only minor differences are due to rounding and eccentricity assumptions, as well as the AISC
360-15 Section J3.10 user note.

37
Moment Verification Problems Connection 2.1- Bolted Flange Plate Moment

Connection 2.1- Bolted Flange Plate Moment

Beam/Column Flange Bolted Flange Plate Moment Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.B-1 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those from the published
example.

Figure2.1- AISC Design Example II.B-1 Information

38
Moment Verification Problems Connection 2.1- Bolted Flange Plate Moment

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips unless otherwise noted)
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
Beam Flexural
Rupture/Strength 2537 kip-in 2532 kip-in 0.20
Bolt Shear at Beam Web
(single bolt) 48.71/3 = 16.23 16.2 0.19
Bolt Bearing at Vert. Plate
at Top and Bottom Bolts 26.92/2 = 13.461 13.4 0.45
Bolt Bearing Strength at
Vert. Plate at Middle Bolt 45.68/2 = 22.841 22.8 0.18
Vert. Plate Shear Yielding 48.6 48.6 0.00
Vert. Plate Shear Rupture 39.15 39.2 0.13
Vert. Plate Block Shear 46.69 46.7 0.00
Web Weld Strength 58.792 66.8 12.0
Bolt Bearing at Beam 32.47/2 =
Flange (single bolt) 16.2353 17.4 6.18
Bolt Bearing at Flange 32.47/2 = 20.4 kips per
Plate (single bolt) 16.2353 bolt 20.4
Flange Plate Tension Yield 113.17 113 0.15
Flange Plate Tension
Rupture 108.75 109 0.23
Flange Plate Block Shear 213.6 4 213 0.28
Beam Flange Block Shear 201.92 5 197 2.50
Flange Plate Compression 113.17 113 0.15
Column Flange Local
Bending 113.85 114 0.13
Column Web Yielding 135.8 6 124 9.52
Column Web Crippling 166.01 6 155 7.10
Table 2.1 – Capacity Comparison
1InRISAConnection the bolt bearing strength at vertical plate at top and bottom bolts value comes
from the Rn-edge-tearout/Ω value. The bolt bearing strength at vertical plate at middle bolt value comes
from the Rn-bearing/Ω value.
2In RISAConnection the program checks the strength of the weld material against the strength of
the base material. If the weld material is stronger than the base material the base material will then
control the design. To account for this a Base Material Proration Factor is used to reduce the weld
strength to the base material strength. This makes this both a weld material and a base material
check. In this example this factor is 0.88. If the AISC value is multiplied by this value then the
capacities are identical.
3The AISC example takes the worst case capacity between edge tear-out and bearing and compares
a single bolt demand to that value. In the RISAConnection output, the controlling capacity is the R n-
bolt capacity, listed as 32.47 kips. Per Section J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of
both bolt bearing and bolt shear on an individual bolt and uses that value.

39
Moment Verification Problems Connection 2.1- Bolted Flange Plate Moment

4The AISC shows 3 cases and does calculations for Case 1 and Case 3. RISAConnection only
considers Case 1 and our value matches the AISC value.
5Theprogram uses a conservative Le = 1.25”. The actual Le = 1.5” (to center of bolt).
RISAConnection uses the actual values and give slightly higher capacities than the AISC.
6The difference between RISAConnection and the AISC example is the bearing length, N. The
example assumes it is the thickness of the flange plate (0.75”). RISAConnection assumes it is equal
to the thickness of the flange plate + the double fillet leg size (0.75” + 0.375” + 0.375” = 1.5”). If you
substitute 1.5” in the AISC equation you will get an identical result.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations mostly match the design examples.
There are differences due to rounding and many different assumptions made.

40
Moment Verification Problems Connection 2.2- Direct Weld Moment

Connection 2.2- Direct Weld Moment

Beam/Column Direct Weld Moment Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.B-3 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The moment weld capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those from
the published example.

Figure 2.2- AISC Design Example II.B-3

Comparison
Results Comparison
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example
Beam Web Shear Yield Pass Pass (by inspection)
Beam Web Shear Rupture Pass Pass (by inspection)
Beam Block Shear Pass Pass (by inspection)
Flange Weld Strength Pass Pass

Table 2.2 – Capacity Comparison

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the results of the design
example.

41
Moment Verification Problems Connection 2.3- Four Bolt Unstiffened Extended End Plate Moment

Connection 2.3- Four Bolt Unstiffened

Extended End Plate Moment
Beam/Column Bolted Unsymmetrical Flange Plate Moment Connection
This problem was adapted from example II.B-4 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The geometry and capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those from
the published example.

Figure 2.3- AISC Design Example II.B-4 Information

42
Moment Verification Problems Connection 2.3- Four Bolt Unstiffened Extended End Plate Moment

Comparison
Results Comparison
AISC Example %
Limit State/Variable RISAConnection
(solution a) Difference
h0 (per End Plate Flexural Yielding limit state) 19.2 in 19.2 in 0.00
h1 (per End Plate Flexural Yielding limit state) 15.6 in 15.6 in 0.00
Yp (per End Plate Flexural Yielding limit state) 140 in 140 in 0.00
End Plate Bending Strength
173 kips 156 kips1 n/a2
(per End Plate Flexural Yielding limit state)
Required Flange Force
116 kips 116 kips 0.00
(per End Plate Flexural Yielding limit state)
End Plate Shear Yielding 108 kips 97 kips n/a3
End Plate Shear Rupture 91.4 kips 91.4 kips 0.00
Bolt Shear Strength 42.4 kips 42.4 kips 0.00
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Column 42.4 kips 69.6 kips n/a4
Bolt Bearing on Column 42.4 kips 60.8 kips n/a5

Table 2.3 – Capacity and Calculation Comparisons

1The example compares the moment (Mpl/Ω = 2720 kip-in) whereas RISAConnection converts this
to a flange force by dividing by the moment arm between flanges.
2The example includes the 1.11 factor in the denominator to account for thin plate bending,

however, RISAConnection omits this because it confirms thick plate behavior in the Verify Bolt
Prying Assumption check.
3The example uses an omega of 1.5, but this is not stated explicitly in the design guide. Therefore

RISAConnection uses omega =1.5 per AISC 360-10 section J4.2.

4Per Section J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt

shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.
5Per Section J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt

shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the results of the design
example.

43
HSS Verification Problems Connection 3.1- Double Angle to HSS Column

Connection 3.1- Double Angle to HSS Column

Beam/ Rectangular HSS Column Bolted Double Angle
This problem was adapted from example K.3 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The bolt and weld capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those from
the published example.
Note: RISAConnection does not allow the user to cope the beam in this example.

Figure 3.1- AISC Design Example K.3 Information

Comparison

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
Bolt Bearing Strength 190.85 191 0.08
Column Weld Strength 186.14 186 0.08
Beam Web Strength 355.68 1 356 0.09
Table 3.1 – Capacity Comparisons
1RISAConnection compares the bolt bearing on beam to the beam web strength in the AISC
example. This is calculated by multiplying the bearing strength (88.92k) by the number of bolts (8)
and dividing by Ω (2).

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the values in the design
example.

44
HSS Verification Problems Connection 3.2- Shear Tab to HSS Column

Connection 3.2- Shear Tab to HSS Column

Beam/ Rectangular HSS Column Bolted Shear Tab
This problem was adapted from example K.6 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those from the published
example.

Figure 3.2- AISC Design Example K.6 Information

Comparison

Capacity Comparison
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
HSS Wall Slenderness 14.19 in 14.2 in 0.07
Material Strength 46 ksi 46 ksi 0.0
Ductility Unity Check 0.793 0.793 0.0
Single-Plate Connection Strength
per the Bolt Shear at Beam check 29.6 kips 28.8 kips 2.78
Beam Web Bearing Strength 52.7 kips 1 52.8 kips 0.28
Table 3.2 – Capacity Comparisons
1RISAConnection compares the bolt bearing on beam to the beam web strength in the AISC
example. This is calculated by multiplying the bearing strength (35.1k) by the number of bolts (3)
and dividing by Ω (2).

45
HSS Verification Problems Connection 3.2- Shear Tab to HSS Column

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example; with
exception of the Single-Plate Connection Strength limit state which requires adjustments to the
model to match the value.

46
HSS Verification Problems Connection 3.3- Through-Plate Connection

Connection 3.3- Through-Plate Connection

Beam/ Rectangular HSS Column Through-Plate Connection (Modified)
This problem was adapted from example K.7 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those from the published
example.

Figure 3.3- AISC Design Example K.7 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
Plate Shear Rupture at Beam 25.56 kips 25.6 kips 0.16
Weld at Column (Near) Unity
Check 0.491 0.486 0.0
Required Weld Strength 23.1 kips 23.1 kips 0.0
HSS Shear Rupture Strength 34.35 kips 2,3 34.3 kips 0.15
Beam Web Bearing Strength 35.7 kips 4 52.8 kips N/A
Table 3.3 – Capacity Comparisons
1AISC calculates this value by dividing Dreq’d, (1.46) by Dactual, (3.0). This value is compared to the
unity check in the weld at column limit state section in RISAConnection. If you take away the base
material proration factor of 0.73 to only consider the weld, then the required capacity will become
16.86k (=23.1*0.73). Dividing this value by the available capacity gives a unity check value of 0.49.

47
HSS Verification Problems Connection 3.3- Through-Plate Connection

2The AISC HSS shear rupture strength is compared to RISAConnection weld strength because of the
base material proration factor.
3RISAConnection does not check HSS shear yielding strength because it is always more conservative

than the HSS shear rupture strength limit state.

4RISAConnection calculates a different value for beam web strength because the AISC example fails

to account for fact that bearing strength is not allowed to exceed the bolt shear strength.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example with
exception of the beam web bearing strength.

48
HSS Verification Problems Connection 3.4- Shear Tab to Round HSS Pipe

Connection 3.4- Shear Tab to Round HSS Pipe

Beam/ Round HSS Column Welded Shear Tab
This problem was adapted from example K.9 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those from the published
example.

Figure 3.4- AISC Design Example K.9 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
HSS Transverse
Plastification 19.66 kips 19.6 kips 0.31
HSS Wall Slenderness 17.19 17.2 0.06
Material Strength 42 ksi 42 ksi 0.0
Ductility Unity Check 0.724 0.724 0.0
Table 3.4 – Capacity Comparisons

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the AISC design example.

49
HSS Verification Problems Connection 3.5- HSS Truss Connection

Connection 3.5- HSS Truss Connection

HSS Branch to HSS Chord Truss Connection
This problem was adapted from example 9.2 in the AISC Design Guide 24 (Hollow Structural Section
Connections). The capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those from the published
example.

Figure 3.7- AISC Design Guide 24 Example 9.2 Information

Comparison
Results Comparison
AISC Design %
Limit State RISAConnection
Guide Example Difference
Chord Slenderness B/t (HSS Limitations) 12.9 12.9 0.00
Branch Slenderness Bb/tb (HSS Limitations) 20.6 20.6 0.00
Branch Axial Local Yielding 194 kips 194 kips 0.00
Chord Sidewall Local Yielding 494 kips 494 kips 0.00
Branch Flexural Local Yielding 396 kips 369 kips 0.00
Table 3.7 – Capacity Comparisons

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the AISC design guide
example exactly.

50
Vertical Brace Verification Problems Connection 4.1- HSS Chevron Brace

Connection 4.1- HSS Chevron Brace

Rectangular HSS Tube Chevron Brace
This problem was adapted from example II.C-5 in the AISC Design Examples version 14.1 (February
2013 revision). The load distribution and capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those
from the published example.

Figure 4.2a- AISC Design Example II.C-5 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
Axial (section a-a)1 0.0 k 0.0 0.0
Shear (section a-a)1 156.06 k 156 0.04
Moment (section a-a)1 1381.13 k-in 1380 k-in 0.08
Axial (section b-b)2 0.0 k 0.0 0.0
Shear (section b-b)2,7 23.17 k 7.57 NA
Moment (section b-b)2 0.0 k-in 0.0 k-in 0.0
Brace Tensile Yield 268.29 k 268 0.11
Brace Tensile Rupture 161.79 k 162 0.13
Brace Weld Strength UC3 0.94 0.943 0.31

51
Vertical Brace Verification Problems Connection 4.1- HSS Chevron Brace

Gusset Plate Tensile Yield 209.02 k 208 0.49

Plate Flexural Yield
(section a-a) UC4 0.176 0.176 0.0
Plate Shear Yield (section
a-a) UC5 0.33 0.328 0.6
Beam Weld Strength UC 6 0.850 0.843 0.79
Table 4.2 – Capacity Comparisons

1Axial,Shear, and Moment for section a-a are found in Plate Flexural Yield (section a-a)
2Axial,Shear, and Moment for section b-b are found in Plate Flexural Yield (section b-b)
3This unity check is comparing the Brace Weld Strength in RISAConnection with the Brace Shear

Rupture check found in the AISC example. Because the example bases this capacity on weld length,
our value is compared with the demand weld length divided by the design weld length (5.66/6.00 =
0.943).
4The unity check in RISAConnection is found in Plate Flexural Yield (section a-a). RISAConnection

uses a combined shear and moment unity check, however. To mirror the AISC example dividing the
Calculated Moment over the Available Moment (note that the axial force is zero and the interaction
equation is ignored) will give a similar result (1381.13 k-in/7825.15 k-in = 0.176). AISC calculates
this value by dividing the available stress over the allowable stress (3.80 ksi/21.6 ksi = 0.176).
5The unity check in RISAConnection is found in Plate Shear Yield (section a-a) and is calculated by

dividing the demand force divided by the allowable force. AISC calculates this value by dividing the
available stress over the allowable stress (4.73 ksi/ 14.4 ksi = 0.328).
6The unity check in RISAConnection is found in the Beam Weld Strength section. This value is

compared to AISC by dividing the Dreq’d by the D of the fillet weld used (2.53/3 = 0.843).
7The AISC calculation procedure for this value could not be verified. In RISAConnection, the shear

value is calculated as V’ from figure 4.4b below:

Figure 4.2b- RISAConnection Chevron Brace Force Distribution

52
Vertical Brace Verification Problems Connection 4.1- HSS Chevron Brace

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example, with
the exception of the shear force demand calculation at Section b-b.

53
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.1- Base Plate Axial Only (4.1)

Connection 5.1- Base Plate Axial Only (4.1)

Base Plate with Concentric Compressive Load (No Concrete Confinement)
This problem was adapted from example 4.1 in the AISC Design Guide 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod
Design (2nd Edition, 2nd Printing). The geometry and capacity values in RISAConnection are
compared to those from the published example.

Figure 5.1- AISC Design Guide 1 Example 4.1 Information

Comparison
Results Comparison
AISC Design
Limit State/Variable RISAConnection % Difference
Guide Example
A1 (per Concrete Bearing) 440 in2 440 in2 0.00
Concrete Bearing 529 kips 449 kips n/a1, 2, 3
m (per Plate Flexural Yielding) 4.97 in 4.97 in 0.00
n (per Plate Flexural Yielding) 5.12 in 5.12 in 0.00
X (per Plate Flexural Yielding) 0.81 0.96 n/a4
λ (per Plate Flexural Yielding) 1.00 1.00 0.00
λn' (per Plate Flexural Yielding) 3.11 in 3.11 in 0.00
Table 5.1 – Capacity and Geometry Comparisons

54
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.1- Base Plate Axial Only (4.1)

1The axial compressive strength of the concrete can be calculated as the available bearing stress
(output in RISAConnection) multiplied by the area A1 = 1.2043 ksi * 440 in2 = 529 kips.
2The Design Guide uses Ω = 2.5, however RISAConnection uses Ω = 2.31 which comes directly from

AISC 360-10 section J8.

3The Design Guide makes the assumption that A =A while RISAConnection calculates A a bit
1 2 2
higher based on the ratio of the support length to the plate length.
4The X variable is calculated based on the unity check from the Concrete Bearing limit state.

Therefore the differences in footnotes 1 & 2 above also apply to X.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example very
closely.

55
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.2- Base Plate Axial Only (4.2)

Connection 5.2- Base Plate Axial Only (4.2)

Base Plate with Concrete Confinement
This problem was adapted from example 4.2 in the AISC Design Guide 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod
Design (2nd Edition, 2nd Printing). The geometry and capacity values in RISAConnection are
compared to those from the published example.

Figure 5.2- AISC Design Guide 1 Example 4.2 Information

Comparison
Results Comparison
Limit State/Variable RISAConnection AISC Design Guide Example % Difference
A1 (per Concrete Bearing) 360 in2 360 in2 0.00
A2 (per Concrete Bearing) 518 in2 518 in2 0.00
Concrete Bearing 477 kips 440 kips n/a1,2
m (per Plate Flexural Yielding) 3.97 in 3.97 in 0.00
n (per Plate Flexural Yielding) 4.12 in 4.12 in 0.00
X (per Plate Flexural Yielding) 0.9 0.98 n/a3
λ (per Plate Flexural Yielding) 1.00 1.00 0.00
λn' (per Plate Flexural Yielding) 3.11 in 3.11 in 0.00
Table 5.2 – Capacity and Geometry Comparisons

56
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.2- Base Plate Axial Only (4.2)

1The axial compressive strength of the concrete can be calculated as the available bearing stress
(output in RISAConnection) multiplied by the area A1 = 1.3247 ksi * 360 in2 = 477 kips.
2The Design Guide uses Ω = 2.5, however RISAConnection uses Ω = 2.31 which comes directly from

AISC 360-10 section J8.

3The X variable is calculated based on the unity check from the Concrete Bearing limit state.

Therefore the differences in footnotes 1 & 2 above also apply to X.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example very
closely.

57
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.3- Anchor Bolt Tension

Connection 5.3- Anchor Bolt Tension

Base Plate Anchor Bolt Tension
This problem was adapted from example 4.3 in the AISC Design Guide 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod
Design (2nd Edition, 2nd Printing). The capacity value in RISAConnection is compared to that from
the published example.

Comparison
Results Comparison
AISC Design Guide
Limit State/Variable RISAConnection % Difference
Example
Anchor Bolt Tension 9.61 kips 9.60 kips 0.10
Table 5.3 – Capacity Comparison

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example very
closely.

58
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.4- Base Plate Tension Uplift

Connection 5.4- Base Plate Tension Uplift

Base Plate with Column Anchorage for Tensile Loads
This problem was adapted from example 4.5 in the AISC Design Guide 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod
Design (2nd Edition, 2nd Printing). The capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those
from the published example.

Figure 5.4- AISC Design Guide 1 Example 4.5 Information

Comparison
Results Comparison
AISC Design Guide %
Limit State/Variable RISAConnection
Example Difference
Anchor Bolt Tension 10.7 kips/rod 10.7 kips/rod 0.00
Plate Flexural Yielding (Tension)
21.4 kip-in 19.5 kip-in n/a1
Required Strength
Column Web Weld Required Strength 2.86 kips/in 2.93 kips/in n/a 2
Table 5.4 – Capacity Comparisons
1The Design Guide example calculates the tension bolt moment arm to the face of the column web
whereas RISAConnection conservatively takes the moment arm as the distance to the column web
centerline.
2The Design Guide example uses a slightly different method to determine the effective width of the

column web weld. RISAConnection simplifies this to T/(2*(d-kdet)).

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example very
closely with a few exceptions based on differing assumptions.

59
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.5- Base Plate with Small Moment

Connection 5.5- Base Plate with Small Moment

Base Plate with Small Moment
This problem was adapted from example 4.6 in the AISC Design Guide 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod
Design (2nd Edition, 2nd Printing). The geometry and capacity values in RISAConnection are
compared to those from the published example.

Figure 5.5- AISC Design Guide 1 Example 4.6 Information

Comparison
Results Comparison
AISC Design
%
Limit State/Variable RISAConnection Guide
Difference
Example
e (per Load Distribution Strong Axis) 2.5 in 2.5 in 0.00
ecrit (per Load Distribution Strong Axis) 4.85 in 4.46 in n/a1
Yz (per Load Distribution Strong Axis) 14 in 14 in 0.00
fpz (per Concrete Bearing) 0.977 ksi 0.977 ksi 0.00
m (per Plate Flexural Yielding Strong Axis) 3.47 in 3.47 in 0.00
n (per Plate Flexural Yielding Strong Axis) 4.62 in 4.62 in 0.00
Table 5.5 – Capacity and Geometry Comparisons
1e
crit is calculated using qmax with depends on the Concrete Bearing unity check value. The Design
Guide assumes Ω = 2.5 for Concrete Bearing, but RISAConnection uses Ω = 2.31 which comes from
AISC 360-10 section J8.

60
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.5- Base Plate with Small Moment

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example very
closely with a few exceptions based on differing assumptions.

61
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.6- Base Plate with Large Moment

Connection 5.6- Base Plate with Large Moment

Base Plate with Large Moment
This problem was adapted from example 4.7 in the AISC Design Guide 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod
Design (2nd Edition, 2nd Printing). The geometry and capacity values in RISAConnection are
compared to those from the published example.

Figure 5.6- AISC Design Guide 1 Example 4.7 Information

Comparison
Results Comparison
AISC Design
%
Limit State/Variable RISAConnection Guide
Difference
Example
e (per Load Distribution Strong Axis) 9.62 in 9.62 in 0.00
ecrit (per Load Distribution Strong Axis) 6.99 in 6.65 in 5.111
n (per Plate Flexural Yielding Strong Axis) 6.12 in 6.12 in 0.00
Table 5.6 – Capacity and Geometry Comparisons
1e is calculated using qmax with depends on the Concrete Bearing unity check value. The Design
crit
Guide assumes Ω = 2.5 for Concrete Bearing, but RISAConnection uses Ω = 2.31 which comes from
AISC 360-10 section J8.

62
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.6- Base Plate with Large Moment

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example very
closely with a few exceptions based on differing assumptions.

63
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.7- Anchor Bolt Shear

Connection 5.7- Anchor Bolt Shear

Base Plate Anchor Bolts in Shear
This problem was adapted from example 4.10 in the AISC Design Guide 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod
Design (2nd Edition, 2nd Printing). The capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those
from the published example.
Note: You must change the design code to “AISC 360-10 (14th Edition) – LRFD to match the results
below.

Comparison
Results Comparison
AISC Design Guide
Limit State/Variable RISAConnection % Difference
Example
Anchor Bolt Shear 30.75/4 = 7.69 kips1 7.69 kips 0.002,
Table 5.7 – Capacity Comparison
1Thisis a strength level (LRFD) result.
2The Design Guide calculates the shear strength as the sum of shear strength for all four bolts.
RISAConnection conservatively assumes that only two bolts resist the shear. This suggestion comes
from section 3.5.3 of the Design Guide.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example very
closely with a few exceptions based on differing assumptions.

64
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.8- Anchor Bolt Combined Shear & Tension

Connection 5.8- Anchor Bolt Combined Shear

& Tension
Base Plate Anchor Bolts in Combined Shear and Tension
This problem was adapted from example 4.11 in the AISC Design Guide 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod
Design (2nd Edition, 2nd Printing). The geometry and capacity values in RISAConnection are
compared to those from the published example.

Figure 5.8 – AISC Design Guide 1 Example 4.11 Information

Comparison
Results Comparison
AISC Design
Limit State/Variable RISAConnection % Difference
Guide Example
ftb (per Anchor Bolt Bending) 18.2 ksi 18.2 ksi 0.00
frt (per Anchor Bolt Bending) 10.8 ksi 10.8 ksi 0.00
Fnt (per Anchor Bolt Bending 43.5 kips 43.5 kips 0.00
Fnv (per Anchor Bolt Bending 26.1 kips 23.2 kips n/a1
Anchor Bolt Bending 18.63 ksi 17.4 ksi n/a2
Table 5.8 – Capacity Comparisons
1The Design Guide calculates Fnv = 0.4*Fu. The 0.4 factor comes from the AISC 360-05 (13th edition)
code. RISAConnection defaults to use the AISC 360-10 (14th edition) code which calculates Fnv =
0.45*Fu.
2Anchor Bolt Bending depends on the F bolt shear strength. Therefore the discrepancies of note 1
nv
apply to this check as well.

65
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 5.8- Anchor Bolt Combined Shear & Tension

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example very
closely with a few exceptions based on differing assumptions.

66
Seismic Verification Problems Connection 6.1- OMF Extended End Plate

Connection 6.1- OMF Extended End Plate

Ordinary Moment Frame Extended End Plate Seismic Connection
This problem was adapted from example 4.2.4 in the AISC Seismic Design Manual (2010). The
geometry and capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those from the published
example.

Figure 6.1 – AISC Seismic Design Manual Example 4.2.4 Information

Comparison
Results Comparison
AISC Design %
Limit State/Variable RISAConnection
Example Difference
Mpr (per Seismic Moment at Face of Column) 3162 kip-in 3100 kip-in 1.96
Yp (per End Plate Flexural Yielding) 232 in 232 in 0.00
Bolt Shear Strength 95.4 kips 95.5 kips 0.10
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Column 95.4 kips 233 kips n/a1
Yc (per Column Flexural Yielding) 239 in 239 in 0.00
Rcf/Ω (per Column Flexural Yielding) 111.35 kips 111.08 kips2 0.24
Column Web Yielding 67.0 kips 74.7 kips n/a3
Column Web Crippling 68 kips 60 kips n/a4

Table 6.1 – Capacity and Geometry Comparisons

67
Seismic Verification Problems Connection 6.1- OMF Extended End Plate

1Per Section J3.10 user note, RISAConnection takes the minimum of both bolt bearing and bolt
shear on an individual bolt and uses that value. The AISC design example only uses the bolt bearing
value. Because bolt shear controls for many bolts this value is much less in RISAConnection.

2The design example presents the strength as a moment. This is converted into a force by dividing
by the moment arm in order to compare to RISAConnection.

3The design example uses fillet welds but RISAConnection only offers CJP welds at the beam flange
to end plate. Therefore the bearing length is different.

4The design example uses a bearing length equal to the beam flange thickness. RISAConnection uses
a longer projected bearing length for the column web which results in a higher capacity.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design example very
closely with a few exceptions based on program assumptions

68