RISAConnection

Rapid Interactive Structural Analysis – Connection Design

Verification Problems

RISA Tech, Inc.

27422 Portola Parkway, Suite 200
Foothill Ranch, California 92610

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

[Link]
 Copyright © 2026 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
RISACONNECTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................................................... i
Verification Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
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 ................................................................................................................ 11
Connection 1.6- Welded Coped Beam Shear .............................................................................................................. 13
Connection 1.7- Coped Top Flange Shear .................................................................................................................... 15
Connection 1.8- Coped Lat. Torsional Buckling ........................................................................................................ 17
Connection 1.9- Bolted Shear End Plate Shear.......................................................................................................... 18
Connection 1.10- Bolted Shear Tab Shear ................................................................................................................... 20
Connection 1.11- Beam to Girder Shear Tab .............................................................................................................. 22
Connection 1.12- Extended Shear Tab.......................................................................................................................... 24
Connection 1.13- Bolted Beam Shear Splice............................................................................................................... 26
Connection 1.14- Bolt/Weld Beam Shear Splice ...................................................................................................... 27
Connection 1.15- Eccentrically Loaded Bolts (IC Method) .................................................................................. 28
Connection 1.16- Eccentrically Loaded Bolts (Elastic Method) ......................................................................... 29
Connection 1.17- Bolted Single Angle Shear .............................................................................................................. 31
Connection 1.18- Bolted/Welded Single Angle ......................................................................................................... 33
Connection 2.1- Bolted Flange Plate Moment............................................................................................................ 35
Connection 2.2- Direct Weld Moment ........................................................................................................................... 37
Connection 3.1- Double Angle to HSS Column........................................................................................................... 38
Connection 3.2- Shear Tab to HSS Column ................................................................................................................. 39
Connection 3.3- Through-Plate Connection ............................................................................................................... 40
Connection 3.4- Shear Tab to Round HSS Pipe.......................................................................................................... 42
Connection 3.5- HSS Truss Connection ........................................................................................................................ 43
Connection 4.1- Base Plate Axial Only (4.1) ............................................................................................................... 44
Connection 4.2- Base Plate Axial Only (4.2) ............................................................................................................... 46
Connection 4.3- Anchor Bolt Tension ........................................................................................................................... 48
Connection 4.4- Base Plate Tension Uplift .................................................................................................................. 49

i
RISAConnection Verification Problems Table of Contents

Connection 4.5- Base Plate with Small Moment ....................................................................................................... 50

Connection 4.6- Base Plate with Large Moment ....................................................................................................... 52
Connection 4.7- Anchor Bolt Shear ................................................................................................................................ 54
Connection 4.8- Anchor Bolt Combined Shear & Tension .................................................................................... 55
Connection 5.1- OMF Extended End Plate................................................................................................................... 57

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 16
• AISC Design Guide 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod Design (2nd Edition, 2nd Printing)
• AISC Design Guide 24, Hollow Structural Section Connections (2nd Edition)
• 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 [Link]. This file is located in the C:\RISA User
Data\%username%\Model Files\Examples directory.

Verification Version
This document contains problems that have been verified in RISAConnection version 17.

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
16. 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
74.53/6 = 12.42 12.7 kips per
Bolt Slip Critical – J.4A kips per bolt1,2 bolt 2.3
69.66/8 = 8.71 8.88 kips per
Bolt Slip Critical – J.4B kips per bolt1,2 bolt 1.95
Table 1.1 – Capacity Comparison
1 In the AISC example, the values are given on a per bolt basis.
2RISAConnection applies the bolt group eccentricity to the slip critical capacity. This value is 0.98.

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-1A in the AISC Design Examples version 16. 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-1A Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Min Value-11 201.42 201 0.21
Min Value-2 2 187.59 187 0.32
Table 1.2a – Capacity Comparison
1Note that the Min Value-1 here is the minimum limit state of clip angle shear yielding, clip angle
shear rupture and block shear rupture of the angles. See Table 1.2b below for this value.
2Notethat the Min Value-2 here is the minimum limit state of bolt bearing checks. See Table 1.2c
below for this value.

6
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.2- Bolted Double Angle Shear

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Clip Angle Shear Yield 294.22
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Beam 201.42
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Column 201.42
Clip Angle Block Shear at Beam 208.03
Clip Angle Block Shear at Column 211.84
Min Value-1 201.42
Table 1.2b – Capacities from RISAConnection

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Bearing on Column 190.85
Bolt Bearing on Beam 190.85
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Beam 187.59
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Column 187.59
Min Value-2 187.59
Table 1.2c – Capacities from RISAConnection

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example.

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-2A in the AISC Design Examples version 16. 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-2A Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Column Weld
Strength 181.091 212 17.07
Min Value-1 2 241.31 241 0.13
Min Value-23 190.85 190 0.45
Table 1.3a – Capacity Comparison

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

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.
2Notethat the Min Value-1 here is the minimum limit state of shear rupture and block shear
rupture of the angles. See Table 1.3b below for this value and reasoning for the differences.
3Note that the Min Value-2 here is the minimum limit state of bolt bearing. See Table 1.3c below
for this value and reasoning for the differences.

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Beam 241.31
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Column 343.69
Clip Angle Block Shear at Beam 249.23
Min Value 241.31
Table 1.3b – Capacities from RISAConnection

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Shear at Beam 190.85
Bolt Bearing on Beam 190.85
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Beam 190.85
Min Value 190.85
Table 1.3c – Capacities from RISAConnection

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example.

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 16. 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 172.701 171 0.99
Column Weld
Strength 148.911 153 2.7
Clip Angle Shear
Yield 300.48 300 0.16
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.

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.

10
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 16. 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 57.28 57.3 0.03
Min (Bolt Bearing on (53.22, 50.192)
Beam, Beam Block Shear) = 50.19 49.0 2.43
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle
at Girder 64.17 64.1 0.11
Coped Beam Local Web
Buckling 248.29 249 0.29
Beam Shear Yield 113.60 113 0.53
Beam Block Shear Rupture 50.19 45.8 9.59
Table 1.5a – Capacity Comparison
1Notethat the Min Value here is the minimum limit state of shear yielding of the angles, shear
rupture of the angles, and block shear rupture of the angles. See Table 1.5b below for this value and
reasoning for the differences.
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.

11
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.5- Bolted Coped Beam Shear

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Beam 64.17
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Girder 64.17
Clip Angle Shear Yield 85.0
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Beam 57.28
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Girder 57.28
Clip Angle Block Shear at Beam 62.56
Clip Angle Block Shear at Girder 75.60
Min Value 57.28
Table 1.5b – Capacities from RISAConnection

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example.

12
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 16.0. 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 64.17 64.1 0.27
Min Value1 57.28 57.3 0.03
Beam Shear Yield 113.60 113 0.53
Table 1.6a – Capacity Comparison
1Notethat the Min Value here is the minimum limit state of shear yielding of the angles, shear
rupture of the angles, and block shear rupture of the angles. See Table 1.6b below for these values.

13
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.6- Welded Coped Beam Shear

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Clip Angle Block Shear at Girder 70.69
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Beam 82.88
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Girder 57.28
Clip Angle Shear Yield 85.00
Min Value 57.28
Table 1.6b – Capacities from RISAConnection

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example.

14
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 16.0. 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 77.69 77.2 0.63
Beam Shear Yield 104.00 104 0.00
Beam Shear Rupture 101.40 102 0.59
Table 1.7a – Capacity Comparison

15
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.

16
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 16.0. 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 25.17 25.2 0.12
Table 1.8 – Capacity Comparison

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 1.9- 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-11A in the AISC Design Examples version 16.0. 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-11A Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State RISAConnection Example % Difference
Min Value-11 57.28 57.3 0.03
Min Value-2 2 45.24 45.2 0.09
Bolt Bearing on Plate
at Girder 64.17 64.1 0.11
Table 1.9a – Capacity Comparison
1Note that the Min Value-1 here is the minimum limit states of shear rupture of the end plate and
block shear rupture of the 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.

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

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Plate Shear Rupture at Girder 57.28
Plate Block Shear at Girder 62.56
Min Value 57.28
Table 1.9b – Capacities from 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.

19
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 16.

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 Value1 39.00 38.9 0.26
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.

20
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 56.28
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Beam 43.13
Beam Shear Yield 123.88
Plate Shear Yield 41.40
Beam Shear Rupture 94.85
Plate Shear Rupture at Beam 39.00
Plate Block Shear at Beam 43.67
Min Value 39.00
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.

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example.

21
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 16.0. 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 Value1 39.0 39.0 0.00
Beam Block Shear 63.62 58.7 8.38
Table 1.11a – 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 1.11b below for these
values.

22
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 56.28
Bolt Bearing on Beam 47.71
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Beam 44.01
Beam Shear Yield 94.20
Plate Shear Yield 57.50
Beam Shear Rupture 71.37
Plate Shear Rupture at Beam 39.00
Plate Block Shear at Beam 43.67
Min Value 39.00
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.

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example.

23
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 16.0. 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) 42.66/2 = 21.331 21.3 0.14
Plate Shear Yield 120.0 120.0 0.00
Plate Shear Rupture at Beam 82.8 83.0 0.24
Plate Block Shear 96.38 96.5 0.12
Plate Flexural Yielding 538.92 k-in 539 k-in 0.01
Plate Flexural Rupture 414.38 k-in 416 k-in 0.39
Column Web Flexural Yielding 193.54 k-in N/A2 N/A
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 Rn-edge-tearout capacity controls
between these values and is reported as 42.66 kips.

24
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.12- Extended Shear Tab

2The AISC V16.0 Design Guide Example II.A-19A notes "all dimensional limitations are satisfied"
without explicitly showing this calculation. RISAConnection performs the column web flexural
yielding check per AISC 16th Manual Eq. 9-47 (yield line analysis), which is required for single-plate
connections to column webs per Manual Part 9. This check is not shown in the design guide
example but is not omitted from the code. This is an additional required check that RISAConnection
correctly implements.

Conclusion
In this example many of the calculations are very similar between RISAConnection and the AISC
example with the exception of Column Web Flexural Yielding requirements.

25
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 16.0. 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 30.23
Bolt Bearing on Plate 30.16/2 = 15.08 2 15.1 0.13
Plate Flexural Yielding 404.19 kip-in 404 kip-in 0.05
Plate Flexural Rupture 292.50 kip-in 293 kip-in 0.17
Plate Shear Yielding 90.0 90.0 0.00
Plate Shear Rupture 58.5 58.5 0.00
Plate Block Shear 63.38 63.6 0.35
Table 1.13 – Capacity Comparison
1In RISAConnection 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 30% 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 Rn-
edge-tearout capacity, listed as 30.16 kips.

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

26
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 16.0. 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
(single bolt) 47.71/2 = 23.86 22.0 8.45
Plate Flexural Yielding 404.19 kip-in 404 kip-in 0.05
Plate Shear Yielding 90.0 90.0 0.00
Plate Shear Rupture 62.16 62.0 0.26
Plate Block Shear 67.34 67.3 0.06
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.

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

27
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 16.0. 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 3.60 3.55 1.41
Table 1.15 – Capacity Comparison
1Note that in RISAConnection the eccentricity coefficient is obtained from multiplying the
eccentricity coefficient (C=0.30) by the number of bolts (Nbolt = 12).

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

28
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 16.0. 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 46.0 0.13
Eccentricity Coefficient1 2.88 1/0.352 = 1.41
2.842
Table 1.16 – Capacity Comparison

29
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.16- Eccentrically Loaded Bolts (Elastic Method)

1Note that in RISAConnection the eccentricity coefficient is obtained from multiplying the
eccentricity coefficient (C=0.24) 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.

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

30
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 16.0. 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 24.68/2 =
(single bolt) 12.343 12.3 0.33
Clip Angle Shear Yield 86.25 86.0 0.29
Clip Angle Shear Rupture 58.5 58.5 0.00
Clip Angle Block Shear 62.46 62.4 0.10
Flexural Yielding/Rupture 371 kip-in/
of Support-Leg of Angle NA4 275 kip-in NA
Min Value-15 45.66 53.9 18.0
Table 1.17a – Capacity Comparison
1Theprogram 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

31
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.17- Bolted Single Angle Shear

will see that the bolt group eccentricity coefficient is listed as 0.84. If you take 10.05/0.84 = 11.96
kips which nearly matches the AISC example.
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 Rn-
edge-tearout capacity, listed as 24.68 kips.

4Because of the eccentricity of the single angle there is flexure in the leg attached to the column.
Currently 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 45.66
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

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.

32
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 16.0. 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 58.5 66.9
Column Weld Strength 37.93 37.8 0.34
Bolt Bearing on Beam 47.71 47.6 0.23
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.

33
Shear Verification Problems Connection 1.18- Bolted/Welded Single Angle

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State Capacity
Clip Angle Shear Yield 86.25
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Beam 58.50
Clip Angle Shear Rupture at Column 84.09
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Beam 47.71
Clip Angle Block Shear at Beam 62.46
Bolt Shear 35.051
Min Value 35.05
Table 1.18b – 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 0.73. 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 difference is due to eccentricity assumptions.

34
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 16.0. The
capacity values in RISAConnection are compared to those from the published example.

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

35
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 211.4 kip-in 211 kip-ft 0.19
Bolt Shear at Beam Web
(single bolt) 48.71/3 = 16.23 16.2 0.19
Bolt Bearing Strength at
Vert. Plate at Middle Bolt 51.19/2 = 25.601 22.9 11.80
Vert. Plate Shear Yielding 67.5 67.3 0.30
Vert. Plate Shear Rupture 43.88 43.9 0.13
Plate Block Shear at Beam 46.69 54.9 0.05
Shear Plate Weld Strength
at Column 66.82 66.8 0.03
Flange Plate Tensile Yield 157.19 157 0.12
Flange Plate Tensile
Rupture 121.88 122 0.10
Flange Plate Block Shear 253.50 2 254 0.20
Beam Flange Block Shear 201.92 3 197 2.50
Flange Plate Compression 157.19 157 0.12
Column Flange Bending 113.85 114 0.13
Column Web Yielding 135.84 124 9.52
Column Web Crippling 166.014 155 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.
2The 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.
3Theprogram 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.
4The 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.

36
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 16.0. 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.

37
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 16.0. 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 190.85 190 0.45
Column Weld Strength 186.14 212 13.90
Clip Angle Shear Rupture 248.62 241 3.16
Table 3.1 – Capacity Comparisons

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

38
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 16.0. 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 0.08
Material Strength 46 ksi 46 ksi 0.0
Governing Plate Strength
(Rupture) 35.8 35.8 0.0
Bolt Eccentricity coefficient 0.83 0.823 0.85
Single-Plate Connection Strength
per the Bolt Shear at Beam check 29.60 kips 28.1 kips 5.34
Table 3.2 – Capacity Comparisons

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

39
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 16.0. 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 28.64 kips 28.6 kips 0.14
Weld at Column (Near) Unity
Check 0.4851 0.486 0.21
Required Weld Strength 23.1 kips 23.1 kips 0.0
HSS Shear Rupture Strength 34.31 kips2,3 36.7 kips 0.15
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 0.72 to only consider the weld, then the required capacity will become
16.63k (=23.1*0.72). Dividing this value by the available capacity gives a unity check value of 0.485.
2The AISC HSS shear rupture strength is compared to RISAConnection weld strength because of the

base material proration factor.

40
HSS Verification Problems Connection 3.3- Through-Plate Connection

3RISAConnection does not check HSS shear yielding strength because it is always more conservative
than the HSS shear rupture strength limit state.

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

41
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.8 in the AISC Design Examples version 16.0. The capacity
values in RISAConnection are compared to those from the published example.

Figure 3.4- AISC Design Example K.8 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison
%
Limit State RISAConnection AISC Example Difference
HSS Transverse
Plastification 21.53 kips 23.4 kips 8.69
HSS Wall Slenderness 17.19 17.2 0.06
Material Strength 50 ksi 50 ksi 0.0
Table 3.4 – Capacity Comparisons

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

42
Vertical Brace 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 396 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.

43
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.1- Base Plate Axial Only (4.1)

Connection 4.1- 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 4.1- 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 532 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 4.1 – Capacity and Geometry Comparisons

44
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.1- 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 = 1.209 ksi * 440 in2 = 532 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.

45
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.2- Base Plate Axial Only (4.2)

Connection 4.2- 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 4.2- 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) 528 in2 518 in2 1.93
Concrete Bearing 482 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) 0.89 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 4.2 – Capacity and Geometry Comparisons

46
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.2- 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 = 1.34 ksi * 360 in2 = 482 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.

47
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.3- Anchor Bolt Tension

Connection 4.3- 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 4.3 – Capacity Comparison

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

48
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.4- Base Plate Tension Uplift

Connection 4.4- 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 4.4- 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)
21.56 kip-in 19.5 kip-in n/a1
Required Strength
Column Web Weld Required Strength 2.86 kips/in 2.93 kips/in n/a2
Table 4.4 – 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.

49
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.5- Base Plate with Small Moment

Connection 4.5- 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 4.5- 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) 0.72 ksi 0.977 ksi 26.31
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 4.5 – 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.

50
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.5- 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.

51
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.6- Base Plate with Large Moment

Connection 4.6- 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 4.6- 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 4.6 – Capacity and Geometry Comparisons
1ecrit
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.

52
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.6- 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.

53
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.7- Anchor Bolt Shear

Connection 4.7- 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 360-22 (16th 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 4.7 – 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.

54
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.8- Anchor Bolt Combined Shear & Tension

Connection 4.8- 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 4.8 – 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 ksi 43.5 ksi 0.00
Fnv (per Anchor Bolt Bending) 26.1 ksi 23.2 ksi 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 360-22 (16th edition) code which calculates Fnv =
0.45*Fu.
2Anchor Bolt Bending depends on the Fnv bolt shear strength. Therefore the discrepancies of note 1

apply to this check as well.

55
Base Plate Verification Problems Connection 4.8- 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.

56
Seismic Verification Problems Connection 5.1- OMF Extended End Plate

Connection 5.1- 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 5.1 – AISC Seismic Design Manual Example 4.2.4 Information

Comparison
Results Comparison
AISC Design %
Limit State/Variable RISAConnection
Example Difference
4,740 / 1.5 =
Mpr (per Seismic Moment at Face of Column) 3162.13 kip-in 0.07
3,160 kip-in
Yp (per End Plate Flexural Yielding) 110.71 in 110 in 0.65
Bolt Shear Strength 84.82 kips 84.8 kips 0.02
Yc (per Column Flexural Yielding) 194.32 in 194 in 0.16
137.16 kip x
Rcf/Ω (per Column Flexural Yielding) 1 17.38 in = 2,380 kip-in 0.16
2,383.8 kip-in
91.05 kips x
Column Panel Zone Shear 1.67 x 1.1 x 1.1 = 184 kips 0.0
184 kips

Table 6.1 – Capacity and Geometry Comparisons

57
Seismic Verification Problems Connection 5.1- OMF Extended End Plate

1The design example presents the strength as a moment. The RISAConnection force is multiplied by
the moment arm to compare the value to the AISC Design Example.

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

58