RISAConnection

Rapid Interactive Structural Analysis Connection

Verification Problems

26632 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 210

Foothill Ranch, California 92610
(949) 951-5815
(949) 951-5848 (FAX)
[Link]

Copyright 2013 by RISA Technologies, LLC. All rights reserved.

No portion of the contents of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any means
without the express written permission of RISA Technologies, LLC.
We have done our best to insure 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
Technologies, LLC makes no guarantees concerning accuracy of the information found here or in
the use to which it may be put.

Table of Contents
Verification Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
Slip Critical Bolt Example J.4A & J.4B .............................................................................................................................. 2
Bolted Double Angle Example II.A-1................................................................................................................................ 4
Bolted/Welded Double Angle Example II.A-2 ............................................................................................................. 6
Welded Double Angle Example II.A-3 ............................................................................................................................. 8
Bolted Coped Beam Example II.A-4 ............................................................................................................................... 10
Welded Coped Beam Example II.A-5 ............................................................................................................................. 12
Coped Beam Example II.A-6 .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Coped Beam Example II.A-7 .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Shear End Plate Example II.A-11 .................................................................................................................................... 17
Bolted Shear Tab Example II.A-17 .................................................................................................................................. 19
Shear Tab Example II.A-18 ................................................................................................................................................ 21
Shear Tab Example II.A-19 ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Bolted Beam Shear Splice Example II.A-20................................................................................................................. 25
Bolted/Welded Shear Splice Example II.A-21 ........................................................................................................... 26
Eccentrically Loaded Bolt Example II.A-24................................................................................................................. 28
Eccentrically Loaded Bolt Example II.A-25................................................................................................................. 29
Bolted Single Angle Shear Example II.A-28 ................................................................................................................ 30
Bolted/Welded Single Angle Example II.A-29 ........................................................................................................... 32
Bolted Flange Plate Moment Example II.B-1 .............................................................................................................. 34

Verification Overview
Verification Methods
We at RISA Technologies 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 the AISC 14th edition manual design examples provided by the AISC. Note that
all of the examples were done using ASD design. Images reproduced in this document were taken
from the AISC Design Examples Version 14.0 document.
The input for these test problems was formulated to test RISAConnections performance, not
necessarily to show how certain structures should be modeled. The RISAConnection solutions for
each of these problems are compared to these AISC 14th edition examples.
The data for each of these verification problems is provided. The file where the RISAConnection
connections are located is called Verification Problems. rcn. When you install RISAConnection this
data file is copied into the C:\RISA\Examples directory.

Verification Version
This document contains problems that have been verified in RISAConnection version 3.0.

Slip Critical Bolt Example J.4A & J.4B

Slip-Critical Connection Bolt Capacities
This problem provides a comparison of the slip critical bolt capacities of these connections between
the AISC values and RISAConnection values.

Figure 1 AISC Design Example J.4A Information

Figure 2 - AISC Design Example J.4B Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
Limit State
RISAConnection AISC Example % Difference
37.97/6 = 6.33 12.7/2 = 6.35
Bolt Slip Critical J.4A
0.31
kips per bolt1
kips per bolt1
35.48/8 = 4.435 8.88/2 = 4.44
Bolt Slip Critical J.4B
0.11
kips per bolt1
kips per bolt1
Table Capacity Comparison
1 In

this example the values are given on a per bolt basis. Also, the AISC example considers plates on
both sides of the web. RISAConnection allows only a single plate, thus the AISC capacity values are
divided by two because of a single shear plane.

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

Bolted Double Angle Example II.A-1

All-Bolted Double-Angle Connection
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity of this connection between the AISC
values and RISAConnection values.

Figure - 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
355.68
356
0.09
Column Bolt Bearing
664.56
665
0.07
Table 1 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 2 below for this value.

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State
Capacity
Bolt Shear at Beam
177.02
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
246.73
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Column
246.73
Min Value
164.91
Table 2 Capacities from RISAConnection

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

Bolted/Welded Double Angle Example II.A-2

Bolted/Welded Double-Angle Connection
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity of this connection between the AISC
values and RISAConnection values. The column weld capacity doesnt change between IC and the
Elastic method.

Figure - AISC Design Example II.A-2 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State
RISAConnection Example % Difference
Column Weld
186
2.64
Strength
181.091
2
Min Value
177.02
191
7.32
Bolt Bearing on
Beam
355.68
356
0.09

Table 1 Capacity Comparison

1The

difference 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.

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 2 below for this value and reasoning
for the differences.

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State
Capacity
Bolt Shear at Beam
177.023
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
296.07
Min Value
177.02
Table 2 Capacities from RISAConnection
3The

program is using a Bolt Group Eccentricity that is conservative to what the manual gives. The
manual allows you to ignore eccentricity for certain bolt configurations. In the program you will
see the bolt group eccentricity coefficient is listed as 0.93. If you take 177.02/0.93 = 190.34 kips,
this is nearly identical to the design example.

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

Welded Double Angle Example II.A-3

All-Welded Double-Angle Connection
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity (strictly welded) of this connection
between the AISC values and RISAConnection values. The beam weld results are compared to the
instantaneous center of rotation method and the column weld capacity doesnt change between IC
and the Elastic method.

Figure - 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
153
2.6
Strength
148.911
Clip Angle Shear
Yield
216.00
216
0.00

Table Capacity Comparison

1The

difference 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.

Bolted Coped Beam Example II.A-4

All-Bolt Double Angle Connection on Coped Beam

Figure AISC Design Example II.A-4 Information

This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity of this connection between the
AISC values and RISAConnection values.

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State
RISAConnection Example % Difference
Min Value1
50.06
50.9
1.65
Min (Bolt Bearing on
(53.22, 50.19) =
47.2
6.33
Beam, Beam Block Shear)
50.192
Bolt Bearing on Girder
140.40
140
0.28
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 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 2
below for this value and reasoning for the differences.
2AISC

Table 10-1 automatically subtracts from the Leh value when calculating block shear
capacity. If the Leh value is set to 1.5 instead of 1.75 then this value matches identically.

10

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State
Capacity
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Beam
66.88
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Girder
66.88
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
50.063
Bolt Shear at Girder
71.57
Min Value

50.06

Table 2 Capacities from RISAConnection

3The

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 0.70. If you take 50.06/0.70 = 71.51
kips. If this value was uses, then my next minimum value would be 51.11 kips and this is nearly
identical to the design example.

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

11

Welded Coped Beam Example II.A-5

Welded/Bolted Double-Angle Connection in a Coped Beam
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity (bolts and welds) of this connection
between the AISC values and RISAConnection values.

Figure 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
140.40
140
0.29
Min Value1
Beam Shear Yield
Beam Shear Rupture

51.11
113.60
110.76

50.9
113
111

0.41
0.53
0.22

Table 1 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 2 below for these values.

12

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State
Capacity
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle at Girder
66.88
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 2 Capacities from RISAConnection

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

13

Coped Beam Example II.A-6

Beam End Coped at the Top Flange Only
This problem provides a calculation of the shear capacity of this connection for parts A and B and
compares the results between the AISC values and RISAConnection values.

Figure 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
NA
Beam Shear Yield
104.00
104
0.00
Beam Shear Rupture
101.40
102
0.59

Table 1 Calculation Comparison

14

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

AISC
Limit State
RISAConnection Example % Difference
Snet, elastic modulus
21
0.43
of net section
20.911

Table 2 Calculation Comparison

1Note that you must 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.

15

Coped Beam Example II.A-7

Beam End Coped at the Top and Bottom Flanges
This problem provides a calculation of the coped beam capacity of this connection between the
AISC values and RISAConnection values.

Figure AISC Design Example II.A-7 Information

These are the values that the AISC example is giving:
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State
RISAConnection
Example % Difference
Coped Beam Lateral
19.22
Torsional Buckling
12.52
15.51
Table Capacities from AISC
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 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.

16

Shear End Plate Example II.A-11

Shear End-Plate Connection (Beam to Girder Web)
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity of this connection between the AISC
values and RISAConnection values.

Figure 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
2
3
Min Value-2
47.33
45.2
4.71
Bolt Bearing on
Girder
140.40
140
0.28
Table 1 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 2 below for these values.
2Note

that the Min Value-2 here is the minimum limit state of weld shear and beam web shear
rupture. See Table 3 below for these values

3The

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. If you subtract 2*(3/16) =
3/8 from the weld length then it matches the AISC example and Table 10-4 exactly.

17

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State
Capacity
Bolt Shear at Girder
71.57
Bolt Bearing on Girder
140.40
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Girder
66.88
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 2 Capacities from RISAConnection

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State
Capacity
Beam Weld Strength
47.33
Beam Shear Rupture
110.76
Min Value

47.33

Table 3 Capacities from RISAConnection

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations for the most part match the design
examples. The only minor difference is due to a difference in the assumption made.

18

Bolted Shear Tab Example II.A-17

Shear Tab Connection (Beam to Column Flange)
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity of this connection between the AISC
values and RISAConnection values.

Figure AISC Design Example II.A-17 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State
RISAConnection
Example % Difference
Min Value1
33.56
34.8
3.56
Bolt Bearing on
Beam
88.92
88.9
0.00

Table 1 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 2 below for these
values.

19

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State
Capacity
Bolt Shear at Beam
33.562
Column Weld Strength
44.01
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Beam
46.49
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

33.56

Table 2 Capacities from 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 0.70. If you take 33.56/0.70 = 47.94
kips. If this value was uses, then my next minimum value would be 34.8 kips and this is nearly
identical to the design example.

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations match the design examples. The
only minor difference is due to the eccentricity assumption.

20

Shear Tab Example II.A-18

Single Plate Connection (Beam to Girder)
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity of this connection between the AISC
values and RISAConnection values.

Figure AISC Design Example II.A-18 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
AISC
Limit State
RISAConnection
Example % Difference
Min Value-11
33.56
34.8
3.56
2
Min Value-2
63.62
54.0
17.8
Table 1 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 2 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 3 below for these values.

21

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State
Capacity
Bolt Shear at Beam
33.563
Girder Weld Strength
44.014
Bolt Bearing on Beam
65.45
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Beam
46.49
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
33.56
Table 2 Capacities from RISAConnection

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State
Capacity
Bolt Bearing on Beam
65.45
Beam Block Shear
63.625
Min Value
63.62
Table 3 Capacities from RISAConnection
3The

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 0.70. If you take 33.56/0.7 = 47.94
kips. This modifies the Min Value to 34.8 kips which matches the design example.

4The

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.
5For

any Leh greater than 1.75, the AISC conservatively uses the value for 1.75 (including a
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 it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations for the most part match the design
examples. The only differences are due to assumptions made in the AISC tables.

22

Shear Tab Example II.A-19

Extended Shear Tab Connection (Beam to Column Web)
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity of this connection between the AISC
values and RISAConnection values.

Figure 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)
138.06/8 =17.26
17.3
0.23
Bolt Shear at Beam (Strength
of the Bolt Group)
27.64
27.7
0.22
Bolt Bearing on Plate at Beam
19.0
0.16
(single bolt)
38.06/2 = 19.031
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 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 controlling capacity is the Rnedge-tearout capacity, listed as 38.06 kips.

23

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

24

Bolted Beam Shear Splice Example II.A-20

All-Bolted Single-Plate Beam Shear Splice
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity of this connection between the AISC
values and RISAConnection values.

Figure AISC Design Example II.A-20 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
Limit State
Bolt Shear (single bolt)
Bolt Bearing on Plate
Plate Flexural Yielding
Plate Flexural Rupture
Plate Shear Yielding
Plate Shear Rupture
Plate Block Shear

RISAConnection
64.94/4 = 16.23
26.92/2 = 13.461
291.02 kip-in
261.00 kip-in
64.80
52.20
53.40

AISC Example
16.2
13.5
291 kip-in
261 kip-in
64.8
52.2
53.3

%
Difference
0.18
0.29
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19

Table 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 controlling capacity is the Rnedge-tearout capacity, listed as 26.92 kips.

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

25

Bolted/Welded Shear Splice Example II.A-21

Bolted/Welded Single-Plate Shear Splice
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity of this connection between the AISC
values and RISAConnection values.

Figure AISC Design Example II.A-21 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in kips)
Limit State
Bolt Shear (single bolt)
Bolt Bearing on Plate
(single bolt)
Plate Flexural Yielding
Plate Shear Yielding
Plate Shear Rupture
Plate Block Shear

RISAConnection
47.71/4 =11.93
28.55/2 =
14.2751
291.02 kip-in
64.8
55.46
54.08

AISC Example
11.9
(37/29.4)*11.0
= 13.8752
291 kip-in
64.8
55.5
53.9

%
Difference
0.25
2.88
0.01
0.00
0.07
0.33

Table 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 controlling capacity is the Rnedge-tearout capacity, listed as 28.55 kips.
2The AISC example uses a conservative L = 1.25. The actual L = 1.5 is the one used in the
e
e
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.

26

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 Le value.

27

Eccentrically Loaded Bolt Example II.A-24

Eccentrically Loaded Bolt Group (IC Method)
This problem provides a comparison of the largest eccentric force (IC Method) supported by the
shear strength of the bolts of this connection between the AISC values and RISAConnection values.

Figure AISC Design Example II.A-24 Information

Comparison (Solution A: = 0)
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in kips)
Limit State
Bolt Shear at Beam
Eccentric Force1

RISAConnection AISC Example

57.69
57.5
3.5535
3.55
Table Capacity Comparison

%
Difference
0.10
0.10

1Note that in RISAConnection the eccentric force is obtained from multiplying the eccentricity
coefficient (C) by the number of bolts (Nbolt).

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

28

Eccentrically Loaded Bolt Example II.A-25

Eccentrically Loaded Bolt Group (Elastic Method)
This problem provides a comparison of the largest eccentric force (Elastic Method) supported by
the shear strength of the bolts of this connection between the AISC values and RISAConnection
values.
Note that you will need to go to the Global Parameters Solution tab and choose Elastic for the
Bolt Group Analysis Method.

Figure AISC Design Example II.A-25 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
Limit State
Bolt Shear

RISAConnection
46.06
2.837

AISC Example
45.9
1/.353 =
Eccentricity Coefficient
2.8331
Table Capacity Comparison

%
Difference
0.35
0.14

1The

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.

29

Bolted Single Angle Shear Example II.A-28

All-Bolted Single-Angle Connection (Beam-to-Girder Web)
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity of this connection between the AISC
values and RISAConnection values.

Figure AISC Design Example II.A-28 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
Limit State
RISAConnection AISC Example
Bolt Shear at Girder (single
40.19/4 =
11.9
bolt)
10.051
Bolt Shear at Beam (single
11.9
bolt)
35.05/4 = 8.762
Bolt Bearing on Clip Angle
11.0
(single bolt)
22.02/2 = 113
Clip Angle Shear Yield
62.10
62.1
Clip Angle Shear Rupture
52.20
52.0
Clip Angle Block Shear
Rupture
50.35
50.5
267 kip-in/
Flexural Yielding/Rupture
245 kip-in
of Support-Leg of Angle
NA4
Min Value-15
52.416
51.3
Table 1 Capacity Comparison

%
Difference
15.5
26.4
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.29
NA
2.16

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 0.84. If you take 10.05/0.84 = 11.96
kips which nearly matches the AISC example.

30

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 Rnedge-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.

5Note

that the Min Value is the minimum limit state of bolt bearing on beam and beam block shear
rupture. See Table 2 below for these values.
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

Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)

Limit State
Capacity
Bolt Bearing on Beam
62.52
Beam Block Shear
52.41
Min Value
52.41
Table 2 Capacities from RISAConnection

Conclusion
In this example it is shown that the RISAConnection calculations for the most part match the design
examples. The only minor differences are due to rounding, eccentricity assumptions and a
difference in the Leh value used.

31

Bolted/Welded Single Angle Example II.A-29

Bolted/Welded Single Angle Connection (Beam-to-Column Flange)
This problem provides a comparison of the shear capacity of this connection between the AISC
values and RISAConnection values.

Figure AISC Design Example II.A-29 Information

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
Limit State
Min Value1
Column Weld Strength
Bolt Bearing on Beam

RISAConnection
35.05
37.93
88.92

AISC Example
47.6
37.8
88.9

%
Difference
26.4
0.34
0.02

Table 1 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 2 below for these values.

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
69.74
Clip Angle Block Shear at Beam
50.35
Bolt Shear
35.052
Min Value
32.10
Table 2 Capacities from RISAConnection

32

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.

33

Bolted Flange Plate Moment Example II.B-1

Bolted Flange Plate Moment Connection (Beam to Column Flange)
This problem provides a comparison of the capacity of multiple limit states of this connection
between the AISC values and RISAConnection values.

Figure AISC Design Example II.B-1 Information

34

Comparison
Capacity Comparison (All Results Shown in Kips)
Limit State
Beam Flexural Strength
Bolt Shear at Beam Web
(single bolt)
Bolt Bearing at Vert. Plate
at Top and Bottom Bolts
Bolt Bearing Strength at
Vert. Plate at Middle Bolt
Vert. Plate Shear Yielding
Vert. Plate Shear Rupture
Vert. Plate Block Shear
Web Weld Strength
Bolt Bearing at Beam
Flange (single bolt)
Bolt Bearing at Flange
Plate (single bolt)
Flange Plate Tension Yield
Flange Plate Tension
Rupture
Flange Plate Block Shear
Beam Flange Block Shear
Compression Flange Plate
Column Flange Local
Bending
Column Web Yielding
Column Web Crippling

RISAConnection
NA1

AISC Example
211 kip-ft

%
Difference
NA

48.71/3 = 16.23

16.2

0.19

26.92/2 = 13.462

13.4

0.45

45.68/2 = 22.842
48.6
39.15
46.69
58.793
45.85/2 =
22.9254
53.83/2 =
26.9154
113.17

22.8
48.6
39.2
46.7
66.8

0.18
0.00
0.13
0.00
12.0

17.4
20.4 kips per
bolt
113

31.7
31.9
0.15

108.75
213.65
201.926
NA7

109
213
197
113

0.23
0.28
2.50
NA

113.85
135.88
166.018

114
124
155

0.13
9.52
7.10

Table Capacity Comparison

1RISA

does not currently check the reduced beam section for flexure.

2Note

that in RISAConnection the bolt bearing strength at vertical plate at top and bottom bolts
value comes from the Rn-edge/ value. The bolt bearing strength at vertical plate at middle bolt
value comes from the Rn-spacing/ value.
3In

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.
4The

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 Rnedge-tearout capacity, listed as 45.85 kips. The AISC example assumes a conservative Le = 1.25 while
RISAConnection uses the actual Le = 1.5. This is why the RISAConnection value is higher.
35

5The

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.
6The

program 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.
7RISAConnection

does not do a specific calculation for the Flange Plate Compression capacity. As
long as KL/r <= 25 then this will yield an identical value to the Flange Plate Tension Yield and is
thus unnecessary.
8The 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 minor differences due to rounding and many different assumptions made.

36