Geometric Formulas for

Gusset Plate Design

JANICE J. CHAMBERS and TONY C. BARTLEY

T he Whitmore area is commonly employed to determine

the yield and buckling resistances of a gusset plate. The
Whitmore area is the product of the Whitmore width, Lw,
shown in Figure 1, and the thickness of the gusset plate, tp. If
the Whitmore width extends beyond the borders of the gus-
set plate, the design resistance area for yielding and buckling
needs to be revised. Hence, the lengths, yc (Figure 2a) or ycf
(Figure 2b) and yb (Figure 2a) or ybf (Figure 2b), must be
determined. The buckling resistance of gusset plates of test
specimens has been conservatively determined using what
shall be referred to herein as the “pseudo-column” approach.
The pseudo-column approach has also been referred to as
Fig. 1. Whitmore width [adapted from Fig. 9–1 of the Steel
“the equivalent strip method” and the “Thornton method” in
Construction manual (AISC, 2005)].
the literature. The pseudo-column approach utilizes global
buckling stress formulas for columns, the Whitmore area,
and several pseudo-column lengths and effective length fac-
tors. The average of the lengths shown in Figure 3, [in other
words, avg(L1, L2, L3)], the maximum of the lengths, [in other
words, max(L1, L2, L3)], or L2 have been used as pseudo-
column lengths. A variety of effective column length factors
have been used, ranging from 0.5 to 1.2. The accuracy of
this method has proven to be variable when compared to test
results, regardless of the pseudo-column length and effective
length factor chosen. However, this method has been con-
sistently conservative and has therefore been adopted by in-
dustry (Thornton, 1984; Chakrabarti, 1987; Yam and Cheng,
1993; Hu and Cheng, 1987; Rabinovitch, 1993; Walbridge,
Grondin, and Chen, 1998; Nast, Grondin, and Cheng, 1999;
Dowswell and Barber, 2004). In practice, the lengths, yc, ycf,
yb, ybf, L1, L2, and L3 are obtained by either drawing the details
of the gusset plate to scale and drafting the Whitmore width,
drafting the corresponding pseudo-columns, and requesting

Janice J. Chambers is associate professor, department of

civil & environmental engineering, University of Utah, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Tony C. Bartley is graduate student, professor, department
of civil & environmental engineering, University of Utah, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Fig. 2. Lengths needed to determine if Whitmore
width extends beyond gusset plate borders.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007 / 255

the digitized distance between pertinent points on the draw- shown in Table 1. That is, the corner edge of the gusset plate
ing; or by utilizing in-house computer programs, which are must be symmetric about and perpendicular to the centerline
essentially black boxes that perform numerical calculations of the bolt group. The above gusset plate geometric require-
based on the geometry of the gusset plate. For the first time, ments are generally true in practice. However, the compre-
this paper presents the derivation of the formulas for yc, ycf, yb, hensiveness of the derivation provided in this paper allows
ybf, L1, L2, and L3 for braces connected to orthogonal beams for easy adaptation to gusset plate geometries not considered
and columns and then expands them to nonorthogonal con- here.
nections. Finally, the formulas are validated.
Whitmore Width beyond Gusset Plate Borders
GUSSET PLATE GEOMETRY
From Figures 1 and 4 it can be seen that the Whitmore width,
Figure 4 presents geometric notation applied herein for a Lw, is equivalent to that value given in Table 1. To deter-
gusset plate used to connect two orthogonal members to a mine if the Whitmore width is contained within the gusset
brace. For notation purposes, one member is referred to as plate, the lengths, yc or ycf and yb or ybf (Figure 2), must be
“beam” and the other as “column.” The positive sense of known. A differentiation between yc and ycf and between
angles θB, θb, and θc are shown in Figure 4. The angles θB yb and ybf has been established because any portion of the
and θb are measured from a horizontal line, and the angle θc Whitmore area extending beyond a free edge is commonly
is measured from a vertical line. The possible ranges of the deducted from the Whitmore area. On the other hand, when
angles are any portion of the Whitmore area extends into the beam and/
0 < q B < 90 (1) or column, Thornton and Kane recommend computing the
Whitmore width using a weighted Whitmore width based
−q B ≤ qb ≤ 90 − q B (2) on the relative tFy of the gusset plate and the beam and/or
column, where t is the thickness of the gusset plate, beam
web, or column web, and Fy is the minimum specified yield
−q B ≤ qc ≤ 90 − q B (3)
strength of the materials (from Chapter 2 of Tamboli, 1999).
Table 1 presents formulas for the basic dimensions shown Williams and Richard (1986) also offer a conservative block
in Figures 1, and 5 through 7. These dimensions are needed shear resistance equation that is equivalent to a Whitmore
to determine yc, ycf, yb, ybf, L1, L2, and/or L3. Note that only yield resistance, that is:
the bolt rows farthest from the corner edge of the gusset plate
are shown in Figures 5 through 7. The formulas presented in t 2 ( L + Le ) 0.6 Fy + sFy 
this paper are only applicable to a brace angle, θB, equivalent (4)
to the formula shown in Table 1. The dimension c, shown ≈ t 2 L ( tan 30 ) Fy + sFy  = tLw Fy
in Figures 5 through 7, must also be equivalent to the value

Fig. 3. Pseudo-column lengths. Fig. 4. Gusset plate geometric notation.

256 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007

 Table 1. Basic Geometric Formulas
Parameter Equation Parameter Equation

1 b (cos q B ) + 2c + g
c
2
(W - a)2 + ( H - b)2 m
sin q B

b (cos q B ) - g
d LLe2 + c2 n
sin q B
sin f
d
e sin (q B + qc ) Lw 2L tan 30 + s

sin f
d LLe = L + Le
f cos (q B + q b ) LLe

Lw - 2c b (cos q B ) + c
g w
2 sin q B

a (sin qB ) + c Ê cˆ
cos -1 Á ˜
h φ Ë d¯
cos q B

a (sin q B ) + 2c + g Ê W - aˆ
tan-1 Á
j θB
cos q B Ë H - b ¯˜

a (sin q B ) - g
k
cos q B

Thus, one may reasonably assume that block shear has a DERIVATION OF FORMULAS
lower strength than the Whitmore tension yield load when
Derivation of yb, ybf, yc, and ycf
the Whitmore width extends beyond the gusset plate bor-
ders (Williams and Richard, 1986). The buckling resistance Referring to Figures 4, 5, and 6 and Table 1, formulas for yb,
should still be considered. ybf, yc and ycf can be derived as follows:

Fig. 5. Parameters needed to determine ybf and yb.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007 / 257

If e ≤ b/cosθc, the Whitmore width could extend beyond the Lw
beam-side free edge, and L3 = L2 − tan q B (10)
2
sin (f + q B + qc ) When W ≤ w and H ≥ j, L1 terminates at the column-gusset
ybf = d (5) interface, and
sin (q B + qc )
Lw
If e > b/cosθc, the Whitmore width could extend into the L1 = L2 + tan q B (11)
2
beam, and
When W ≤ w and H < j, L1 terminates at the beam-gusset
b + d cos (q B + f ) interface, and
yb = (6)
cos q B b − g (cosq B )
L1 = − LLe (12)
Similarly, for the column side: sinq B

a cos (q B + qb − f ) Thus, the pseudo-column buckling lengths for the geom-

If f ≤ , ycf = d
cos (q B + qb )
(7) etries shown in Figures 7a and 7b have been derived.
cos qb
When W > w, L2 terminates at the beam-gusset interface,
and
a a − d sin (f − q B )
If f > , yc = (8) w
cos qb sin q B L2 = q − c tan q B − LLe (13)
cos q B
Lw
Geometric Formulas for Pseudo-Column Lengths L1 = L2 − (14)
2 tan q B
Figure 7 presents the possible termini of pseudo-columns,
L1, L2, and L3. The pseudo-column length, L1, only exists if When W ≥ m, L3 terminates at the beam-gusset interface,
yb or ybf, where applicable, is greater than Lw/2, and L3 only and
exists if yc or ycf, where applicable, is greater than Lw /2. The Lw
L3 = L2 + (15)
formulas presented below for L1 and L3 are obviously ap- 2 tan q B
plicable only when they exist.
When W ≤ w, L2 terminates at the column-gusset inter- When W < m, L3 terminates at the column-gusset inter-
face, and face, and
W a − g (sin q B )
L2 = − c tan q B − LLe (9) L3 = − LLe (16)
cos q B cos q B

Fig. 6. Parameters needed to determine ycf and yc.

258 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007

 Hence, the pseudo-column buckling lengths shown in Fig- the Whitmore width could extend beyond the beam-side free
ures 7c and 7d have been derived. edge, and ybf is given by Equation 5.
b sin qbb
Geometric Formulas for Nonorthogonal Column-Gusset If e > +
cos qc cos (qbb − qc )
(W − b tan qc ) ,
and Beam-Gusset Interfaces
the Whitmore width could extend into the beam and, after
The geometric formulas derived above, yb, ybf, yc, ycf, L1,
referring to Figures 4, 5, and 8, the expansion of Equation 6
L2, and L3, for orthogonal column-gusset and beam-gusset
to nonorthogonal interfaces is
interfaces may be expanded to gusset plate connections for
nonorthogonal interfaces by introducing additional terms, θcc b + d cos (q B + f )
and θbb (Figure 8), to describe the nonorthogonality of the yb =
connection. The positive definitions of θcc and θbb are shown cos q B
(17)
in Figure 8, and the limits on these angles are between –θB sin qbb  sin f 
+ W + b ( tan q B ) − d 
and 90°. cos (q B + qbb )  cos q B 
b sin qbb
If e ≤ +
cos qc cos (qbb − qc )
(W − b tan qc ) , a sin qcc
If f ≤ +
cos qb cos (qb + qcc )
( H + a tan qb ) ,

Fig. 7. Pseudo-column lengths.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007 / 259

the Whitmore width could extend beyond the column-side
Lw  sin qcc 
free edge, and ycf is given by Equation 7. L1 = L2 +  tan q B − 
cos q B cos (q B − qcc ) 
(21)
a sin qcc 2 
If f > +
cos qb cos (qb + qcc )
( H + a tan qb ) ,
When W ≤ w and H < j, L1 terminates at the beam-
gusset interface, and the expansion of Equation 12 to non-
the Whitmore width could extend into the column and, after
orthogonal interfaces is
referring to Figures 4, 6, and 8, the expansion of Equation 8
to nonorthogonal interfaces is b − g (cos q B ) sin qbb
L1 = + (W − n) − LLe (22)
sin q B sin (q B + qbb )
a − d sin (f − q B )
yc =
sin q B When W > w, L2 terminates at the beam-gusset interface,
(18)
sin qcc  a sin f  and the expansions of Equations 13 and 14 to non-orthogonal
+  H+ −d interfaces are
sin (q B − qcc )  tan q B sin q B 
w sin qbb
The formulas for the pseudo-column lengths of gusset
L2 = +
cos q B sin (qbb + q B )
(W − w) (23)
plate connections to nonorthogonal interfaces can be derived
−c tan q B − LLe
by examining Figures 4, 7, and 8, and appending Equations
9 through 16.
sin qbb L
When W ≤ w, L2 terminates at the column-gusset interface, L1 = L2 + (w − n) − 2 tanwq
and the expansions of Equations 9 and 10 to nonorthogonal sin (q B + qbb ) B
(24)
interfaces are
W sin qcc
L2 = +
cos q B cos (qcc − q B )
( H − h) − c tan q B − LLe (19) When W ≥ m, L3 terminates at the beam-gusset interface,
and the expansion of Equation 15 to non-orthogonal inter-
faces is
Lw  sin qcc 
L3 = L2 +  − tan q B  (20)
 cos q B cos (q B − qcc )
Lw sin qbb
2  L3 = L2 + +
2 tan q B sin (q B + qbb )
(w − m ) (25)
When W ≤ w and H ≥ j, L1 terminates at the column-gusset
interface, and the expansion of Equation 11 to nonorthogo-
nal interfaces is

Fig. 8. Gusset plates with non-orthogonal column-gusset and beam-gusset interfaces.

260 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007

 When W < m, L3 terminates at the column-gusset inter- all cases the formulas matched those generated electroni-
face, and the expansion of Equation 16 to nonorthogonal cally, accurate to 0.001 in.
interfaces is
CONCLUSION
a − g sin q B sin qcc
L3 = − ( H − k ) − LLe (26)
cos q B cos (q B − qcc ) Common approaches to compute the yield and buckling re-
sistances of gusset plates require knowledge of the lengths
yc, ycf , yb, ybf, L1, L2, and L3, (Figures 2 and 7). While numeri-
GENERAL ALGORITHM AND VALIDATION cal values for these resistances have been presented in the
Figure 9 presents the general algorithm to compute yb, ybf, literature, formulas for yc, ycf , yb, ybf, L1, L2, and L3 have not
yc, ycf, L1, L2, and L3. It is applicable to both orthogonal and been published. This paper presents the derivation and vali-
nonorthogonal beams and columns. Figure 10 presents the dation of equations to compute these lengths. The equations
algorithm to compute y b, y bf, y c, y cf, L 1, L 2, and L 3 when are summarized in flow charts that can be incorporated into
θ bb = θcc = 0. The algorithm was validated for the twelve software for practical applications. The formulas provided
gusset plates shown in Table 2. The parameters obtained us- for yc, ycf, yb, ybf, L1, L2, and L3 enable optimization of gusset
ing the algorithm of Figure 9 were compared to the digitized plate design.
lengths obtained from computer-aided drawing software. In

Fig. 9. General algorithm to compute yc, ycf, yb, ybf, L1, L2, and L3.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007 / 261

 REFERENCES Hu, S.Z. and Cheng, J.J.R. (1987), Compressive Behav-
ior of Gusset Plate Connections, University of Alberta
American Institute of Steel Construction (2005), Steel Con-
Department of Civil Engineering Structural Engineering
struction Manual, 13th Ed., Chicago, IL
Report No. 153.
Chakrabarti, S.K. (1987), “Inelastic Buckling of Gusset
Nast, T.E., Grondin, G.Y., and Cheng, R.J.J. (1999), Cy-
Plates,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona.
clic Behavior of Stiffened Gusset Plate-Brace Member
Dowswell, B. and Barber, S. (2004), “Buckling of Gusset Assemblies, University of Alberta Department of Civil
Plates: A Comparison of Design Equations to Test Data,” Engineering, Structural Engineering Report No. 229.
Proceedings of the Annual Stability Conference, Struc-
Rabinovitch, J.S. (1993), Cyclic Behavior of Steel Gusset
tural Stability Research Council, Rolla, MO.
Plate Connections, University of Alberta Department of
Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering Report No. 153.

Fig. 9 (cont’d). General algorithm to compute yc, ycf, yb, ybf, L1, L2, and L3.

262 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007

Tamboli, A.R., ed. (1999), Handbook of Structural Steel Williams, G.C. and Richard, R.M. (1986), Steel Connection
Connection Design and Details, McGraw-Hill. Designs Based on Inelastic Finite Element Analysis, De-
Thornton, W.A. (1984), “Bracing Connections for Heavy partment of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechan-
Construction,” Engineering Journal, American Institute ics, University of Arizona.
of Steel Construction, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 139–148. Yam, M.C.H. and Cheng, J.J.R. (1993), Experimental In-
Walbridge, S.S., Grondin, G.Y., and Chen, R.J.J. (1998), vestigation of the Compressive Behavior of Gusset Plate
An Analysis of the Cyclic Behavior of Steel Gusset Plate Connections, University of Alberta Department of Civil
Connections, University of Alberta Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Structural Engineering
Engineering, Structural Engineering Report No. 225. Report No. 194.

Fig. 10. Algorithm to compute yc, ycf, yb, ybf, L1, L2, and L3 when θbb = θcc = 0.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007 / 263

 Table 2. Validation of Formulasa

Ex. Gusset Plate Inputb Output

H = 20.0
W = 21.5
yb = 11.406
a = 19.7
yc = 10.291
b = 14.5
1 L1 = 9.462
θb = 15.0
L2 = 5.046
θc = 30.0
L3 = 0.630
θbb = –10.0
θcc = –8.0

H = 22.0
W = 20.4
ybf = 14.464
a = 18.0
ycf = 11.012
b = 16.3
2 L1 = 9.743
θb = 5.0
L2 = 6.846
θc = 30.0
L3 = 3.948
θbb = 8.0
θcc = 5.0

H = 20.0
W = 22.5
yb = 13.875
a = 20.7
ycf = 10.374
b = 11.8
3 L1 = 8.914
θb = 10.0
L2 = 6.095
θc = 40.0
L3 = 3.276
θbb = 5.0
θcc = –5.0

All units are in inches (in.) and radians; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
a

L = 13 in., Le = 2 in., and s = 3 in. for all gusset plates.

b

264 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007

 Table 2 (cont’d). Validation of Formulasa

Ex. Gusset Plate Inputb Output

H = 25.0
W = 18.9
ybf = 10.825
a = 13.1
yc = 15.149
b = 23.7
4 L1 = 3.818
θb = –35.0
L2 = 7.758
θc = –15.0
L3 = 11.699
θbb = –11.0
θcc = –9.0

H = 19.4
W = 25.8
yb = 13.539
a = 20.4
ycf = 10.877
b = 15.9
5 L1 = 2.405
θb = –30.0
L2 = 7.184
θc = –5.0
L3 = 11.962
θbb = 5.0
θcc = 5.0

H = 24.0
W = 27.5
yb = 13.489
a = 15.5
yc = 14.513
b = 19.0
6 L1 = 2.346
θb = –30.0
L2 = 7.058
θc = –6.0
L3 = 11.770
θbb = –5.0
θcc = –10.0

All units are in inches (in.) and radians; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
a

L = 13 in., Le = 2 in., and s = 3 in. for all gusset plates.

b

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007 / 265

 Table 2 (cont’d). Validation of Formulasa

Ex. Gusset Plate Inputb Output

H = 18.8
W = 19.9
yb = 11.563
a = 17.3
yc = 15.176
b = 15.3
7 L1 = 2.880
θb = 8.0
L2 = 8.624
θc = 12.0
L3 = 3.506
θbb = 5.0
θcc = 7.0

H = 23.0
W = 20.6
ybf = 14.556
a = 18.5
yc = 13.912
b = 19.4
8 L1 = 12.030
θb = 8.0
L2 = 9.446
θc = 20.0
L3 = 6.123
θbb = 15.0
θcc = 10.0

H = 23.0
W = 27.5
yb = 13.073
a = 25.0
yc = 13.370
b = 19.5
9 L1 = 6.895
θb = 8.0
L2 = 16.241
θc = 5.0
L3 = 5.301
θbb = –5.0
θcc = –15.0

All units are in inches (in.) and radians; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
a

L = 13 in., Le = 2 in., and s = 3 in. for all gusset plates.

b

266 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007

 Table 2 (cont’d). Validation of Formulasa

Ex. Gusset Plate Inputb Output

H = 24.4
W = 21.5
yb = 12.644
a = 16.0
yc = 14.736
b = 20.4
10 L1 = 3.517
θb = –7.0
L2 = 12.222
θc = –5.0
L3 = 6.358
θbb = –8.0
θcc = 6.0

H = 20.0
W = 21.5
yb = 13.679
a = 15.3
ycf = 11.211
b = 14.2
11 L1 = 3.045
θb = –22.0
L2 = 8.914
θc = 10.0
L3 = 4.205
θbb = 10.0
θcc = 8.0

H = 22.5
W = 25.0
yb = 18.445
a = 14.5
yc = 13.099
b = 18.5
12 L1 = 5.678
θb = –15.0
L2 = 11.095
θc = –10.0
L3 = 8.382
θbb = 5.0
θcc = –10.0

All units are in inches (in.) and radians; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
a

L = 13 in., Le = 2 in., and s = 3 in. for all gusset plates.

b

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2007 / 267