Thesis Jake Montgomery Final
Thesis Jake Montgomery Final
Jacob R. Montgomery for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering presented
on December 18, 2017
Title: New Rating Methods for Pin and Hanger Assemblies in Steel Bridges
Pin and hanger assemblies are a common type of connection used in past
engineering practice for steel girder bridges. The connection consists of pins, hanger
plates, and girder ends. The connection detail was used widely between 1930 and 1980.
The connections are considered fracture critical and nonredundant because connection
failure can lead to collapse of the bridge. One instance of such a failure was the 1983
collapse of the Mianus River Bridge in Connecticut. Despite the critical nature of these
used in bridge rating and design. In this thesis a literature review is conducted to identify
the available knowledge and experimental data for the elements that comprise pin and
hanger connections. Relevant past experimental data are only identified for the hangers
plates. The experimental data identified for hanger plates are compared against in-service
hangers and found to be of smaller scale but to have similar proportions. The data are
used to check the sufficiency of existing evaluation methods and new resistance factors
are calibrated for prediction methods consistent with LRFR methods. Recommendations
are made in the form of specification changes to improve rating methods for hanger
plates and knowledge gaps for the remaining connection components are discussed.
©Copyright by Jacob R. Montgomery
December 18, 2017
All Rights Reserved
New Rating Methods for Pin and Hanger Assemblies in Steel Bridges
by
Jacob R. Montgomery
A THESIS
submitted to
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
APPROVED:
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State
University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader
upon request.
Firstly, I would like to thank Caltrans for funding this project. Thank you, Dr.
Higgins, for giving me the opportunity to work on this project and realize my academic
goals. Thank you, Dr. Liu, for your generous open-door policy and thoughtful insight. I
would like to extend my gratitude to both Dr. Higgins and Dr. Liu for their guidance
throughout this project extensive time commitment. I would like to thank Pavan Patel for
his early work on the investigating and implementing the calibration process. I would like
would like to thank my wife, Adrienne, for encouraging me to go back to school and
Page
Page
Page
References ........................................................................................................................150
Appendices .......................................................................................................................155
Figure Page
2-18: Accuracy of hanger plate strength predictions (Duerr and Pincus, 1985). .............. 65
Figure Page
2-24: Example local web buckling (Yam and Chung, 2012)............................................ 80
2-28: Coped end reinforcement methods (Cheng et al., 1984). ........................................ 84
3-1: Thickness of Caltrans’ hanger inventory with experimental data. ............................ 96
3-2: Edge distance behind the pin of Caltrans’ hanger inventory with experimental data.
........................................................................................................................................... 97
3-3: Effective width of Caltrans’ hanger inventory with experimental data. ................... 97
3-4: Pin Diameter of Caltrans’ hanger inventory with experimental data. ....................... 98
3-5: Ratio of to of Caltrans’ hanger inventory with experimental data. .................. 99
3-6: Ratio of to of Caltrans’ hanger inventory with experimental data. ................ 99
3-8: Yield stress of Caltrans’ hanger inventory with experimental data. ....................... 101
Figure Page
3-10: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for Caltrans LFR methods across all
specimens. ....................................................................................................................... 106
3-11: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for Caltrans’ LFR method with non-
dishing specimens. .......................................................................................................... 107
3-12: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for Caltrans’ LRFR methods across all
specimens. ....................................................................................................................... 108
3-13: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for Caltrans LRFR methods with non-
dishing specimens. .......................................................................................................... 109
3-14: Splitting verses shear failure example (Luley, 1942). ........................................... 111
3-15: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for failure behind the pin prediction
methods. .......................................................................................................................... 114
3-16: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for fracture on net section prediction
methods ........................................................................................................................... 116
3-17: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for dishing prediction analysis. ........... 120
3-18: Effective width to thickness ratios compared to bearing stresses. ........................ 122
3-19: Dimension behind the pin to plate thickness ratios compared to bearing stresses. 123
3-20: Normalized dimension behind pin from Duerr (2006) with bearing stress. .......... 124
4-3: Example calibration probability plot using 20,000 simulations. ............................. 140
4-4: Example of best-fit line using lower 10% of data from Monte Carlo simulations.. 141
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-2: Allowable stresses for carbon steel (AASHO, 1935). ............................................... 10
2-9: Minimum yield stress of pins by year (AASHTO MBE, 2014). ............................... 24
3-1: Range of data for hanger tests corresponding to AAHTO pin hole dimensional
tolerances. ......................................................................................................................... 95
3-2: Range of Caltrans’ reported hanger plate inventory................................................ 101
3-5: Example of similarity between splitting and shear failure behind the pin hole (Luley,
1942). .............................................................................................................................. 111
3-6: Splitting specimens compared against splitting and tear out prediction methods. .. 112
3-7: Tear out specimens compared against splitting and tear out prediction methods. .. 112
3-8: Statistics for failure behind the pin prediction methods. ......................................... 114
Table Page
3-10: Relative performance of specimen DP 1-A for alternate rating methods. ............ 118
4-1: HL-93 statistical live load parameters (Kulicki et al., 2007). ................................. 130
4-4: Calibrated resistance factors for failure behind the pin. .......................................... 142
4-5: Calibrated resistance factors for fracture on net section. ........................................ 142
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.1 Background
Between the 1930’s and the early 1980’s transportation agencies from many states
frequently constructed steel girder bridges with a connection detail known as a pin and
hanger assembly or connection. These connections were used to connect main bridge
girder segments at locations away from piers. Unlike typical girder splices, this detail was
designed to allow free girder end rotation and act as a hinge. The geometry of these
expansion joint above them. A typical example of one of these assemblies is shown in
Figure 1.1. These assemblies, at a minimum, consisted of two pins and two plates
(referred to as hangers or links) connecting the coped ends of two longitudinal bridge
girders. The top girder, referred to as the cantilever girder, in these assemblies was
designed to be fully supported by adjacent piers. The lower girder, known as the
suspended girder, was typically designed to be simply supported by the pin and hanger
connection.
2
These assemblies came under greater scrutiny after the failure of one of these
assemblies led to the 1984 collapse of the Mianus River Bridge in Connecticut. Though
this collapse was attributed to poor maintenance rather than insufficient member capacity
(NTSB, 1984), it highlighted the hazard these assemblies can pose to the full structure.
This hazard is due to the reliance of the suspended girder on this assembly and the lack of
redundancy within this assembly. If any one element in this assembly (pin, hanger plate
or girder end) fails, the system can fail. This is particularly dangerous in two girder
bridges, like the Mianus River Bridge, where these assemblies are fracture critical,
meaning that the failure of one element will lead to structural collapse.
3
Despite the importance of these assemblies, the methods for rating the connection
components that comprise them are not always clear or consistent. Historically, there are
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). These methods are Allowable Stress
Design (ASD), Load Factor Design (LFD) and Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD). Of these methods LFD and LRFD are still used for rating, while the majority of
pin and hanger bridges currently in service were designed using ASD. When comparing
these methods, it is apparent that the treatment of pin and hanger assemblies are
methodologies individually it is not always clear what checks are required for the purpose
of bridge rating.
pin and hanger bridges, many of which are fracture critical. In rating their existing
bridges, Caltrans has noted the inconsistencies in the different design methodologies and
the lack of clarity in rating of pin and hanger assemblies. Caltrans, understanding the
study to clarify the rating methods for these assemblies and to make improvements with
This thesis will describe the first phase of a project for which the ultimate goal is
to develop new methods for rating the different components within pin and hanger
assemblies. The general objective of this first phase is to conduct a thorough review of
the literature on pin and hanger assemblies and to identify what future work is needed to
advance rating of pin and hanger connections. There was sufficient information on
hanger plates identified in the literature review to conduct a review of current rating
methods and resistance factors were calibrated for new and existing hanger plate rating
methods that are consistent with the LRFR framework. Below are specific objectives for
this research:
Identify failure modes of different elements of the pin and hanger assemblies
Identify potential rating methods for the different elements within assemblies
Review existing and alternative rating methods against the experimental data for
hanger plates
To the extent possible, calibrate rating methods for hanger plates for use within
This thesis consists of five different chapters with the first being the introduction.
The second chapter is a comprehensive literature review. This literature review will be
and historic materials. The next two chapters describe an investigation into capacity
prediction and resistance factor calibration for hanger plates. In the final chapter results
2.1 Introduction
The ultimate goal of this investigation is to provide better bridge rating of existing
pin and hanger connection components which includes and extends methods in the
present AASHTO LFD, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and the AASHTO Manual
for Bridge Evaluation (MBE). This literature review was conducted to gain a better
understanding of the existing body of knowledge and to guide future investigation. Both
historic and current specifications relevant to pin and hanger assemblies were reviewed.
The specifications reviewed included the historic editions of the AASHTO Standard
Specifications period between 1931 and 1973, the 2011 AASHTO MBE, 2002 AASHTO
Standard Specifications and 2014 AASHTO LRFD. Additionally the AREMA Manual
for Railway Engineering, the AISC Steel Design Specifications and Eurocode 3 were
reviewed. These specifications are not typically used in the United States for highway
bridge design but were reviewed to gain insight into alternate design methods. Reports
related to the in-service performance of these assemblies were reviewed to identify their
to assess the condition of pin and hanger assemblies was conducted. Existing
experimental and theoretical studies conducted on hanger plates, pins and girder ends
where investigated and their results documented. Finally, additional historic material was
specifications for bridge rating, and relevant non-bridge specifications as they relate to
pin and hanger assemblies in bridges. This review is intended to improve understanding
rating methods, and investigate other specification-based design methods that could be
Since its introduction in 1931 and until the introduction of the AASHTO LRFD
AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges has been the most influential
document for the design of most bridges in the United States. For this review, relevant
sections from the construction, design, and material sections of the original 1931 AASHO
these same specifications (AASHO, 1935, 1941, 1944, 1949, 1953, 1957, 1961, 1965,
1969, 1973) were then reviewed and the relevant additions and revisions were
documented.
8
2.2.1.1 Review of AASHO Construction Sections
Specifications, requirements were provided for both the fabrication of pins and pin holes.
Pins were specified to be turned smooth and free of flaws, all pins over 7 in. diameter
were required to be forged and annealed. Any pins over 9 in. diameter were specified to
have holes no less than 2 in. diameter drilled through their centers. Holes for pins in pin
connected members were required to be bored to the specified diameter with the final
surface produced by a finishing cut. The distance from outside to outside of pin holes in
tension members was not to vary from the specified dimension by more than 1/32th in. Pin
holes were allowed to be oversized by a maximum of 1/50th in. for pins 5 in. diameter and
In 1957, the article describing pin fabrication was altered to require all pins under
7 in. diameter to be either forged and annealed or made out of cold finished carbon steel
shafting. All pins over 7 in. diameter were still required to be forged and annealed. Then
in 1969, this article increased the allowable diameter for non-forged pins from 7 in. to 9
in. In 1959, roughness requirements for the surfaces of pins and pin holes were
standardized to comply with American Standards Association (ASA) 125. This roughness
level was described in ASA B 46.1-55. In 1969, this requirement was revised to United
States of America Standards Institute (USASI) 125 and then again to American National
The design section of the 1931 edition of the AASHO Standard Specifications
gives provisions for the design of pins, pin connected members, and pin plates.
Additionally, this section provides allowable stresses (Fa) for use in the design of
elements. In 1931, the only structural steel for which allowable stresses were provided
was carbon steel (ASTM A7). In this specification, different allowable stresses were
given for dead load and live load, with the allowable stress for live load being 2/3 that for
dead load. Table 2.1 provides relevant prescribed allowable stresses applicable to pin and
hanger assemblies. It is noted in these specifications that the allowable stresses for cast
In the 1935 edition of the AASHO Standard Specifications, the allowable stresses
(Fa) are simplified to eliminate the differing allowable stresses for live load and dead
Fa (psi)
In 1941, the allowable stress for pin bearing is broken into two categories: non-
rotating pins and rotating pins. The pins subject to rotation had lower allowable stresses.
These new allowable stresses are shown in Table 2.3 for the three structural steels
included in the specifications at the time. In this same year, the cast steel allowable
stresses were amended so that the allowable stresses for compression and bearing were
equal to carbon structural steel. All other allowable stresses for cast steel remained at ¾
resist the shear and moment produced by the connected members. In the section “net
section at pin holes,” the region around the pin hole was to be sized based on the net
section away from the pin hole (Section A-A in Fig. 2-1) for design of pin-connected
riveted tension members. The net section across the pin hole (Section B-B in Fig. 2-1)
was not to be less than 140% of the net Section at A-A. Additionally, the net section
beyond the pin hole (Section C-C in Fig. 2-1) was not to be less than 100% of the net
section at Section A-A. In 1941, a new requirement was added to this provision
specifying that the ratio between a member’s net width (taken along Section B-B from
Fig. 2-1) and thickness was not to exceed 8. In the 1949 edition, the reference to rivets in
stress was to be calculated using the effective bearing area of the pin. This effective
bearing area was determined by multiplying the diameter of the pin by the thickness of
the connected member in bearing. The 1965 edition clarified that when the pin and the
connected member were made of different materials, the allowable bearing stress would
bearing area, the installation of symmetric pin plates on the connected members. These
plates were to be as wide as any outstanding flanges on the member, if the member was
built-up and had angles for flange elements, then at least 1 pin plate was required to cover
the vertical legs of the flange angles. Enough rivets were to be provided to transmit the
bearing pressure and placed to uniformly distribute this load over the full section. In the
1941 edition, the reference to flange angles was removed. A new requirement was added
that prescribed at least one of the full-width pin plates extend to the far edge of the stay
plate and the remainder of the pin plates extend not less than 6 in. beyond the stay plate’s
near edge.
The applicability of the above pin plate provisions to the pin plates often used in
pin and hanger assemblies is not clear. Only the rivet requirements appear applicable.
The provisions appear more relevant to pin plates found on pin connected trusses, as
Fatigue design was introduced in the 1965 AASHO Standard Specifications. The
repeated variations, or reversals, of stress. The allowable fatigue stress was given as:
2 1
1
where and (psi) were tabulated values that depended on the element category,
stress type and number of load cycles, was the ratio between the minimum and
1.0 1 1.0 2 2
58,000
14
where was the members ultimate strength (psi) and was a tabulated value that
depended on the element category, stress type, and number of load cycles. Of the element
categories given and stress types provided by the provision, the most applicable for pin
and hanger assemblies was category C, base metal adjacent to bearing type fasteners in
tension, and category I, bearing type fasteners in shear. These two categories were
applicable to hangers and pins, respectively. For both of these categories was equal to
2 3
1
and for categories C and I are given in Table 2.4. These values varied depending
on the number of stress cycles seen by the member. For design purposes, the number of
cycles was based on the type of loading inducing the maximum stress and the type of
road being considered. The tabulated cycle numbers provided by the specifications are
In the 1973 edition, Load Factor Design (LFD) was introduced as an alternative
design methodology to Allowable Strength Design (ASD). This design methodology used
similar design provisions to the Allowable Stress Design but substituted yield stress for
the allowable stresses and then used load factors to amplify the service loads. There were
no specific provisions for pins or pin connected members in the LFD portion of the
The 1931 edition of the AASHO Standard Specifications provided for the use of
three (3) material specifications for the fabrication of pins: ASTM A7 structural carbon
steel, ASTM A20 Carbon Steel Forgings, and ASTM A27 Carbon Steel Castings, Class B
medium grade.
In the 1935 edition, references to ASTM A20 and A27 were eliminated. These
references were replaced with expanded steel forging and steel casting material sections
that included fabrication and testing requirements. The forging section required minimum
16
tensile and yield strengths of 60 ksi and 33 ksi, respectively. The casting section required
In the 1941 edition, silicon (ASTM A94) and nickel (ASTM A8) steel were
introduced as alternatives to carbon structural steel. The maximum thicknesses of 1 1/8 in.
and 1 in. were set for silicon and nickel steel plates, respectively. In the allowable stress
section for both of these steels, allowable stresses were provided for pins. The steel
forgings material section of this edition added a reference to ASTM A235 Class C1. In
the casting section, the reference to ASTM A27 Grade B-1 for carbon steel castings
returned and the reference to ASTM A221 Class A for chromium alloy steel castings was
added. The fabrication and testing requirements, added in the previous edition, for
In the 1949 edition, the ASTM Specification for chromium alloy steel castings
was changed to ASTM A296, grade 10 and the grade for carbon steel castings was
changed to Grades 65-35. Additionally, structural low-alloy steel (ASTM A242) was
introduced with the maximum thickness of 1 1/8 in. specified for steel plates. Allowable
stresses for up to 2 in. thick material were provided, these allowable stresses included
those for pins. In the following edition (1953), the allowable stresses for pin shear and
In the 1957 edition, pin shear and bending returned and the allowable stresses for
low alloy steel and the restriction on plate thickness were removed. In this same edition,
as a permissible pin material specification for pins under 7 in. diameter. Cold finished
17
steel shafting was required to have a minimum Rockwell Scale B hardness of 80 or
minimum tensile strength of 66 ksi and yield strength of 33 ksi was required.
In the 1961 edition, ASTM A440 and A441 were added as optional low alloy
steel specifications. Allowable stresses were provided for both materials up to 4 in. thick,
including allowable stresses specific to pins. Allowable stresses were provided for A441
up to 8 in. but stresses for pins were not provided for these thicker sections.
In the 1965 edition, silicon steel, nickel steel and A7 steel were removed from the
specifications. ASTM A36 low carbon structural steel was added, complete with
allowable stresses for pins. Additionally, a new material section specific to pins, rollers
and expansion rockers was created. This new section included all of the material
specifications shown in Table 2.6. It was noted that pins may conform to one of these
quenched and tempered alloy steel was introduced (ASTM A514 and A517). Allowable
stresses for this material were given for material up to 4 in. thick, including for pin
specific allowable stresses. Additionally, new ASTM specifications A572 and A588 were
added to the low alloy steel section. ASTM A588 and ASTM A572 provide allowable
stresses for material up to 8 in. and 4 in. thick respectively. Allowable stresses were
provided for pins. Table 2.7 provides a summary of the material specifications allowed
provides a more detailed summary of the specification in Tables 2.6 and 2.7.
The 2011 AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) with interim revisions
through 2016 (AASHTO, 2011) provides current rating methods for existing bridge
elements. The MBE uses Rating Factors (RF) to describe whether a bridge has sufficient
capacity to carry a given rating load. The equation for this rating factor depends on the
∑ ∗
2 4
where C is the capacity of the bridge (controlled by its weakest member), PL are the
permanent loads, LL is the live load, IM is the impact loading and & are load
factors whose values vary based on rating method and type of permanent load. If a bridge
has a rating factor greater than 1, it has sufficient capacity to carry the load for which it is
being rated. While both capacity and load effects influence rating, the focus of this
allowable stress rating (ASR), load factor rating (LFR) and load and resistance factor
rating (LRFR). In this section, the rating provisions for pin and hanger assemblies for
these three rating methodologies will be reviewed. The MBE acts as a companion
necessary, to make them applicable for rating. For this reason, the applicable design
codes for each of these methodologies will be referenced in tandem with the MBE in this
review. In addition to the national design specifications, the LFR rating method using
while the operational level rating is less conservative but generally consider acceptable.
ASR achieves these different rating levels by providing allowable stresses equal to design
levels for inventory rating and increased allowable stresses for operational rating.
Alternatively, LFR and LRFR achieve this difference in rating level by decreasing load
(WSD), was the first design methodology employed by AASHTO for bridge design and
rating. The most current specifications for design and rating using this methodology are
the 17th edition of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges
(AASHTO, 2002) and the 2nd edition of the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation
(AASHTO,2011) respectively. When using ASD, the stress in an element, at service level
loads is limited to an allowable stress. Some relevant allowable stresses at inventory and
The ASD section of the MBE does not address rating of pins. Therefore, the
design specification given in the AASHTO Standard Specification are used for rating of
these elements. The design provisions for pins has remained essentially unchanged since
1931. Article 10.25.3 of the AASHTO Standard Specifications simply states that pins are
to be sized for the maximum shear and moment produced by the connected members.
The rating of hanger plates is not specifically addressed in the ASD portion of the
MBE, and the design specifications for hangers have not seen any consequential change
since 1949. The design provisions provided in article 10.25.1 of the AASHTO Standard
stresses to the connection elements (plates and pins). The bearing stresses were shown in
Table 2-8.
The only guidance provided in the AASHTO Standard Specification for design or
rating of coped girder ends such as those of pin and hanger assemblies is a general note in
Article 10.12. This article states that all flexural elements are to be designed using the
moment of inertia method. The complex nonuniform stress distributions in the girder
ends from the concentrated pin loading makes application of flexural and shear design
The Load Factor Design (LFD) methodology was added to the AASHTO
Standard Specifications in 1973, Similar to the ASD method the most current guidance
for this methodology is provided in the 17th Edition of the AASHTO Standard
Specifications (AASHTO, 2002) and the 2011 MBE (AASHTO, 2011). In this method,
members are designed to ultimate capacity and the design loads are increased beyond
allowable stress from ASD with the material yield stress. In addition to this general rule,
specific provisions are given for areas of design where this increase in stress is not
23
sufficient to capture the ultimate limit state of a member. The LFD/LFR portions of the
MBE and AASHTO Standard Specifications do not provide any specific provisions for
the design of pins, hangers or their bearing. New provisions are provided for design of
shear in girders in Article L6B2.2 of the MBE which states that Article 10.48.8.1 of the
In 1994, AASHTO adopted the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) method
as an alternative to the LFD and ASD methods presented in the AASHTO Standard
Specifications. The most recent version is the 7th Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014). The LRFR portion of the MBE uses much of
the AASHTO LRFD provisions and applies factors to both the member resistances and
the load effects to establish rating factors for bridge components. Additionally, in this
section Caltrans’ current LRFR rating methods (Caltrans, 2016a) will be reviewed were
appropriate.
Article 6A.6.12.4 of the MBE specifies that pins are to be checked for combined
flexure and shear as specified in the ASHTO LRFD Specifications. AASHTO LRFD uses
plastic analysis to calculate the ultimate capacity of pins in shear and bending. To do this
6 2.2
0.95 2 5
where is the pin diameter (in), Mu and Vu are the factored moment and shear load
effects due to factored loads (kip-in and kips respectively) and Fy is the pin material yield
stress (ksi). and are resistance factors for shear and flexure respectively, both of
Additionally, Article 6A.6.2.2 of the MBE provides minimum pin strength based
Table 2-9: Minimum yield stress of pins by year (AASHTO MBE, 2014).
Minimum Yield Point, Fy,
Year of Construction ksi
Prior to 1905 25.5
1905 through 1935 30
1936 through 1963 33
After 1963 36
6A.6.6.1 for the rating of hangers. The first two provisions are the similar to those
provided by the ASD specification requiring 140% and 100% of the net area away from
the hole, across the hole (perpendicular to the load) and beyond the hole, respectively.
The third provision specifies a proportional reduction of the net area used for capacity
tension are to be checked against Article 6.8.2 of the AASHTO LRFD Design
2 6
2 7
where Ag is the gross section area in tension (in.2), An is the net section area in tension
(in.2) and U is the shear lag reduction factor. and are the tension yield and fracture
resistance factors and are equal to 0.95 and 0.80 respectively. The specifications require
that, when determining the gross section area, holes larger than those typically used for
bolts are to be deducted. The commentary confirms that this includes pin holes.
checks are performed. The first checks for yield on the section across the pin, this check
is the same as that shown in equation 2-6 with the gross area taken as the full cross-
section of the hanger minus cross-sectional area of the pin hole. The next check used by
MBE and the tensile rupture check shown equation 2-7 the produce:
2 8
2
2 9
1.4
26
2 10
Article 6A.6.12.4 of the MBE specifies that pins are to be checked for bearing
1.5 2 11
and
2 12
to describe the factored pin bearing resistance where t is the thickness of the connected
member (in.), this the pin diameter (in.) and the bearing resistance factor, , is equal
to 1.0. In the commentary, the coefficient of 1.5 is allowed to be halved to 0.75 for the
design of new pins subject to significant rotation in order to account for wear over the life
of the pin. This provision mimics the reduced bearing stress allowed for pins subject to
rotation in the original ASD methodology. The commentary states that only the 1.5
coefficient should be used for the rating of existing pins regardless of pin rotation.
2 13
where is the yield stress of the plate (ksi) and is the projected bearing area of the
2 14
where t is the thickness of the connected plate (in.), this the pin diameter (in.).
27
The AASHTO LRFD Specifications contain two additional provisions for design
of connections that could be applicable to rating pin and hanger assemblies. The first
provision is for block shear tear out and the second is for shear yield and rupture. The
provision for block shear is contained in Article 6.13.4 of AASHTO LRFD Specifications
which requires web connections of coped beams and tension elements to be checked for
0.58
0.58 2 15
where Fu is the tensile strength of the connected material (ksi), Fy is the yield strength of
the connected material (ksi), Avg is the gross area of the connected member along the
assumed failure path in shear (in.2), Avn is the net area of the connected member along the
assume failure path in shear (in.2), Ant is the net area of the connected member along the
assumed failure path in tension (in2), Ubs is a capacity reduction factor that is to be set to
0.5 for non-uniform tensile stress and 1.0 otherwise, Rp is a reduction factor that is to be
set to 0.9 if the connector holes were punched full size and 1.0 otherwise and is the
resistance factor for block shear and equal to 0.80. When calculating block shear
capacity, all possible failure paths through the connection should be considered. All
portions of the failure surface parallel to the load are assumed to be in shear and all those
0.58 2 16
0.58 2 17
where the resistance factors and equal 1.0 and 0.80 respectively.
Caltrans applies both of these methods in the rating of the hanger plates and the
girder ends (Caltrans, 2006a). For the hanger plates block shear yield and rupture are
checked behind the pin with the assumption that shear plates will form at either side of
the pin making the tension area equal to zero and the shear area for both methods yield
and rupture:
2 2 18
2
where is the clearance between the back of the pin and the end of the hanger plate. For
the rating of beam ends shear is checked on multiple failure planes with rivets holes
The AASHTO LRFD Specifications include revised provisos for the design of I
sections for flexure and shear. As discussed previously the nonuniform stress conditions
at the girder ends from the concentrated pin loading makes application of these design
equations uncertain.
The Caltran’s 2004 Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) was reviewed. These
specifications contain provisions based on the ASD and LFD design methodologies. This
review will focus on the LFD portion of these specifications because it was more recently
used by Caltrans for rating pin and hanger assemblies. Note that the 2004 BDS
Specifications may differ somewhat from Caltrans’s current rating methods (Caltrans,
specifies that pins are to be sized to resist shear and bending. For the calculation of pin
bending capacity Caltrans treats the pin as a braced non-compact section (Article 10.48.2
∗ ∗ 2 19
where is equal to the pin yield strength (ksi) and is the elastic section modulus of
treated as stout beams. The shear capacity of a pin is effectively computed as:
0.58 2 20
Two checks for the tension failure beside the pin hole are in the BDS. The first
check determines the capacity due to yield on the gross section ( ). The gross section is
computed as the hanger cross-section less the pin hole diameter times the thickness of the
plate. While this deduction is not mentioned in the LFD code it is consistent with similar
specifications in both the ASD and LRFD design methods. The nominal capacity for
∗ 2 21
The second check, based on section 10.12.3 of the BDS, determines the capacity
due to rupture on net section of the hanger. For this application, the net section is the
same as the gross section discussed previously. Based on the ASD and LRFD code
requirement that the net section at the pinhole be 140% of the required net section away
from the pin hole, the net area at the pin hole is divided by 1.4 which gives the capacity
as:
2 22
1.4
where is the tensile stress of the hanger material (ksi) and is the net area of the
2.2.2.4.3 Bearing
The BDS uses the same bearing capacity equation specified in the ASD portion of
the Standard Specifications but substitutes yield stress, per BDS Sections 10.32.4.1 and
10.46, for the allowable bearing stress. This gives the bearing capacity as:
2 23
where is the bearing capacity (kips) and is the projected bearing area (in2) of the
Section 10.19.4.1 of the BDS requires that all web connections of coped beams,
tension members and tension connections to be checked for block shear rupture. Block
shear rupture is defined in the BDS as failure when the net section of one segment
ruptures and the gross section of a perpendicular segment yields. The capacity for this
0.58 2 24
when
0.58
and
0.58 2 25
when
0.58
32
where is the gross area of the failure plane in shear (in2), is the net area of the
failure plane in shear (in2), is the gross area of the failure plane in tension (in2), is
the net area of the failure plane in tension (in2), and is the capacity reduction factor
In addition to block shear, shear yielding is checked along potential shear failure
planes. This is done by modifying the girder plastic shear capacity from BDS Article
10.48.8.1 This equation is modified by replacing the girder web area with the gross area
of the shear planes being investigated ( ) which gives the shear capacity as:
0.58 2 26
The shear capacity of I shaped girders is described in BDS Section 10.48.8. This
section matches the girder shear design given in the LFD portion of the AASHTO
Standard Specifications. In the Caltrans rating example, the portion of the web reinforced
by pin plates is treated as unstiffened web with the web thickness being the combination
of plate girder web and pin plates. When pin plates do not extend all the way to the
adjacent stiffener, the pin plate is treated as a stiffener and the shear capacity of the
In this section, alternate design specifications not commonly used for the design
or rating of highway bridges in the United States are reviewed. The intent of this is to
present possible alternative equations that could adapted for rating purposes.
Way Association’s (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering (AREMA, 2016), The
15th Edition of the American Institute for Steel Construction’s (AISC) Steel Construction
Manual (AISC, 2017), AISC 360-16 Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC,
2.2.3.1 AREMA
The AREMA Manual utilizes allowable stress design and is fairly consistent with
dimensional requirements and pin design are exactly the same and the allowable stresses
differing only slightly. The only significant difference is that AREMA does not reduce
The 2017 version of the American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC) Steel
Construction Manual and 2016 AISC Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings were
reviewed. While the structures for which these specifications where developed are subject
to very different loading conditions and generally consist of smaller members than
Within the AISC Specifications, four (4) equations are given for the design of
connected members. The first equation (given in Section D5-1(a)) provides a capacity for
tension rupture on the net effective area beside the pin hole as:
2 2 27
where Fu is the ultimate tensile stress of the hanger plate (ksi) and be, the effective width
2 0.63 2 28
where t is the hanger thickness (in) and be must be less than the actual hanger width
minus the pin hole dimension (in). The second design equation (given in section D5-1(b))
describes the capacity for shear rupture beyond the pin as:
0.6 2 29
2 ⁄2 2 30
35
where a (in) is the shortest distance from the edge of pin hole to the edge of the member
measured parallel to the direction of force, and d (in) is the diameter of the pin. AISC
defines the bearing capacity (J7(a)) for the components of a pin connected assembly as:
1.8 2 31
where is the yield stress of the material (ksi), and the projected bearing area of the
pin (in2) which is given by equation 2-14. Finally, the AISC Specifications require
to meet specific dimensional requirements as shown in Fig. 2-3. Firstly, the plate width
must be greater than two times the effective width ( ) plus the diameter of the pin.
Secondly, the least distance behind the pin hole, , is not to be less than 1.33 times the
effective width. The corners of hangers are allowed to be clipped at 45o angles assuming
the clearance between the pin hole and the clipped edge, , is greater than or equal to the
.
36
Part 9 of the AISC Steel Construction Manual provides specific guidance for the
design of coped beam ends not included in any of the AASHTO Specifications. The
behavior of the coped section is controlled by the web slenderness ratio, , and its
2 32
and
0.475 2 33
37
where tw is the web thickness (in), is the total height of the coped section (in), where
is the modulus of elasticity (ksi), is the yield stress of the web material (ksi) and where
2 34
but always greater than 1.61. In equation 2-34, is the web plate buckling coefficient and
given as:
.
2.2 when 1.0 2 35
or
2 when 1.0 2 37
or
1 3 when 1.0 2 38
where, is the length of the coped section, and is the full beam depth. These coped
sections dimensions are illustrated in Fig. 2-4. When the nominal flexural
∗ 2 39
where is the plastic section modulus of the coped section (in3). When 2
1 ∗ 2 40
∗ 2 41
where is the elastic section modulus of the coped section (in.3). When 2 then
∗ 2 42
0.903
2 43
Union for the design of both buildings and bridges. Part 1-8 of these design specifications
provides design provisions for connections in steel structures. Section 3.13 of Part 1-8
includes methods for the design of pins and pin connected members. Eurocode 3 uses a
similar LRFD format the AASHTO LRFD Specification, with resistance factors denoted
2.2.3.2.1 Pins
designed for shear, bearing, bending, and combined bending and shear. One unique
aspect to the Eurocode pin design methodology is that for bending and bearing, pins are
designed at both strength and service load levels. The service level design is only
0.6
2 44
where is the cross-sectional area of the pin (in2), is the pin tensile strength (ksi) and
The factored strength level bearing capacity for both pins and pin connected
1.5
2 45
40
where is the thickness of the pin connected member (in), is the pin diameter (in) is
the yield stress of either the pin or the pin connected member (ksi) and is the
resistance factor. The service level bearing capacity (kip) is given as:
0.6
2 46
,
The factored strength level bending capacity for pins is given as:
1.5
∗ 2 47
where is the elastic section modulus for the pin (in3) the is the yield stress of the pin
(ksi) and , is a resistance factor. The service level bending strength (kip*in) is
given as:
0.8
∗ 2 48
,
The combined shear and bending capacity of a pin is described by the interaction
equation:
1 2 49
where and are the strength level moment and shear loads seen by the pin and
and are the moment and shear pin capacities as described by Eqn. 2-47 and Eqn. 2-45.
2.2.3.2.2 Hangers
The Eurocode design methodology for pin connected members relies entirely on
specified for Type A and Type B hangers. These hanger types are differentiated by the
A Type A hanger has its end radius concentric with its pin hole. For the design of
these hangers, first , the clear distance between the outside of the pin hole the end of the
2
2 50
2 3
where, is the hanger thickness (in), is the pin hole diameter (in), is the hanger
material yield stress (ksi) and is the strength level force (kip) seen by the hanger plate.
Next , the clear distance between the outside of the pin hole and the side of the hanger,
is determined as:
2 51
2 3
42
A Type B hanger has the center point of its end radius beyond the center of the
pin hole. The design of Type B hangers is based on stricter geometric requirements that
are mostly based on the pin hole diameter. These requirements can be seen in Fig. 2-6.
Additional requirements for plate thickness and pin hole diameter are given as:
0.7 2 52
and
2.5 2 53
Since the Mianus River Bridge collapse in 1983 transportation agencies have
conducted numerous investigations into pin and hanger assemblies. The majority of these
studies focused on documenting other failures of these assemblies along with ultrasonic
testing of in-service pins. This section reviews the body of knowledge on field
performance of failures and pin materials. Additionally, this section reviews guidance
fracture occurred in 4 of the 12 pins on the bridge. Full collapse was only prevented when
the suspended span caught on the lower flange of the adjacent spans girders.
In a report detailing this near collapse, Askeland et al. describe the examination
and metallurgical report on 4 cracked pin samples from two separate Missouri bridges. A
The pins that were removed from the bridge showed up to 0.25 in. deep wear
marks along with a thick layer of corrosion residue along the surface of the pin and
imbedded within the cracks. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of the corrosion
residue revealed high levels of chloride and iron. Cracking was concentrated at locations
of significant wear although one crack was found at a location where minimal wear was
present. All locations were said to be corroded enough to lock the pin and hanger
assembly. Analysis of the ferrite crystals showed localized plastic deformation around the
cracks. The report concluded that the excessive wear was due to corrosion at the interface
of the web/hanger plate and the pin and that cracking was caused by fixation of the pin
due to corrosion. Crack growth was caused and accelerated by a combination of torsion
overload and continued corrosion i.e. stress corrosion. This report deemed that cracking
was not induced by the wear marks but rather by locked pin rotation.
45
Limited information was provided regarding the geometry of the pin and hanger
assemblies or the bridges themselves. Based on the photographs provided, the I-55 pins
appear to be approximately 2.5 in. diameter, and pins from the Clinton Bridge were
approximately 2.75 in. diameter. Additionally, the bridges were said to be 20 years old,
recommended specifications for the evaluation of the corrosion effects. Within this report
a brief review of earlier pin and hanger assembly failures was provided. A list of
maintenance related failure modes was compiled. Pin related failure modes included
failure due to shifting hanger plates which increased the moment arm on the pin, cracking
due to excessive wear that reduced the pin section, and excessive torsional loading
induced by pin fixity. Hanger plate related failure modes included cracking at the net
section due to fatigue and cracking at the gross section due to bending stresses induced
by fixity. Limited information was given for the determination of loads effects due to
assembly fixity. For live load effects, field measurements were recommended. For
temperature effects, the report recommended predicting the expected loads using the
relative movement anticipated in the girder ends due to temperature change and the
ultrasonic inspection of 130 bridges containing 3,165 pins. While the UT methods used
appeared effective in identifying the existence of flaws they had difficultly relating their
readings to flaw size. Of the pins inspected no cracks were identified. The pin with the
lowest indication reading had wear groves of 3/8th of an inch on a 2.5 in. pin.
Another key aspect of this report was an investigation into methods of detecting
pin fixity and quantifying the forces developed in a fixed assembly. In order to detect the
degree of fixity of a pin, IDOT tested multiple methods such as attaching paper gages,
paint strips and paint scratch pointer gages at the pin to hanger interface. Unfortunately,
due to the limited longevity of the paint strips and paper gages and the relative
rotation sensors and instrumentation of the hanger plates with strain gages to measure
bending stress were investigated. Both systems were found to be sensitive and provide
useful data but IDOT recommended strain gauges over the rotation sensors based on their
lower cost and the usefulness of data for further stress analysis.
To quantify forces caused by fixed hangers, three (3) finite element models of
different bridges were produced. The pins were modeled as rotationally fixed and torque
values at these locations due to temperature change and horizontal live load were
recorded. For the girder bridge considered within this modeling study, effects of
temperature change were small compared to live load effects. The maximum stress
47
induced by temperature change on the fixed bridge was well within the pin capacity while
the live load induced stress far exceeded the yield stress of the pin.
(PennDOT) underwent a major UT inspection and repair project on its 23-fracture critical
pin and hanger bridges. During this project, 315 pins were inspected. Of this population,
24 pins were identified by UT inspection as containing defects and 13 of these were later
independently verified. Only one pin was found to have an internal crack like
in a table at the end of the paper. Material specification information was provided for the
pins for most of the bridges. Seventeen (17) of these bridges had A235 (forged carbon
steel pins), two (2) had A237 (forged alloy steel), and one (1) had A-36 (mild carbon
steel).
This paper describes the UT inspection of 192 pins on 16 fracture critical pin and
with previous LA-DOTD inspections (bring the total number of inspected pins to over
300), found only one (1) pin with a minor flaw and only 2% with minor wear marks
(considered as being under 1/16 in.). No information was provided about the material or
48
bridge geometries. Additionally, it is unclear how many pins where removed to verify the
UT results.
This report concluded that most pins within pin and hanger assemblies appeared to
be immune to cracking. Those that could be subjected to cracking were frozen pins, those
undergoing stress corrosion, or from poor fabrication. This conclusion was based on the
assumptions of high dead to live load ratios in these elements, the high dislocation
density of forged steel blunting cracks, and that pins are generally shear controlled
assemblies in his report. The condition rating of the population was reviewed, live load
stresses were measured, fatigue evaluations were done, and problems with pin and hanger
inventory.
Juntunen reported on 3 issues found within the MDOT pin and hanger bridge
inventory. The most common issue found was that of corroded hanger plates. It was
noted that this issue could lead to pin fixity (inducing torque in the pin and bending in the
hanger plate), section loss, and lateral pressure caused by pack rust leading to dishing
deformation in pin caps. Additionally, the phenomena of beam ends bearing on each
other was described. This issue was said to cause buckling in the beam webs thereby
inducing lateral pressure on the hanger plate. On one occasion, this phenomenon pushed
49
a hanger plate off the pin. The final issue described was the fracture of a link plate on the
M-36 bridge over the Tittabawasse River near Saginaw, MI. This fracture occurred on a
14 girder span with a longitudinal open joint running down the center of the bridge. The
fracture was found in the net section across the pin hole. The beam ends were observed to
This report describes the instrumentation of hanger plates on three (3) bridges and
stresses were briefly recorded at the gross section, the net section and behind the pin. The
hanger instrumentation diagram is shown in Figure 2-8. An effective stress value at net
section, adjusted to remove stress concentration effects, was calculated and compared to
the calculated effective stress using AASHTO Fatigue Guide and WIM data. Finite and
safe fatigue lives for these assemblies were calculated and the assembly geometries were
compared to those required to satisfy the AASHTO fatigue design criteria in both the
The hanger plates on an I-94 bridge in Michigan constructed in 1964 had only
40% of the AASHTO specified area behind the pin hole. These hanger plates were
identified as undersized and removed from service in 2007. Based on this occurrence,
Jansson investigated the performance of hangers with undersized sections behind the pin
hole. In this investigation, two tests were performed on instrumented plates. The tests
were not conducted to failure. One of the plates tested was designed with the AASHTO
specified section behind the pin hole and the other used the same undersized section as
that observed in the hanger plate removed from service. These tests were then used to
concentrations behind the pin and at the net section depending on the amount of material
behind the pin. Jansson revisited the “General Yield” criteria originally discussed by
Johnston in 1939 (Johnston, 1939). General yielding in the hanger was defined as the
point where the slope of the load vs pin displacement curve was one-third of its original
slope. Using the FEA models discussed above, Jansson developed another equation to
describe this general yield based on the area of the section behind the pin hole. This
2 54
2
where is the hanger general yield stress, is the factored load seen by the hanger
assembly (kips), is the net section area of the hanger plate body (in2) and is an end
where R is the ratio between the actual area beyond the pin hole and that prescribed by
the code. Jansson recommended that those hangers whose general yield stress exceeds
This guide provides a summary of traditional ultrasonic pin and hanger inspection
this guide describes the results of laboratory tests on pins removed from service and with
amplitude correction, the sensitivity of angle and straight beam transducers, the
effectiveness of defect sizing techniques and the phenomena of acoustic coupling. The
results for the beam diffraction and distance amplitude experiments found the wave
behavior performed as anticipated. For the sensitivity testing all cracks were able to be
identified by both transducers (0 and 14) but for the smallest crack, the inspector had to
be informed of the crack location in order to identify it with the 0-degree transducer.
Defect sizing using a procedure similar to the 6-dB drop method was found to be
coupling was observed under the controlled laboratory conditions and shown to be a
function of the load on the pin. Acoustic coupling, is the appearance of an impedance in
ultrasonic test results caused by high stress in the pin. Due to the high stress at the shear
52
planes in these pins this phenomenon creates the appearance of a crack in the pin at the
2.3.9 Discussion
Based on this review, the most prominent issue for in-service pin and hanger
assemblies is that of assembly fixity. As discussed in Kuliciki (1990), due to its severity,
pin fixity should be prevented and assemblies that exhibit fixity should be replaced as
soon as possible. Due to the difficulty in identifying the occurrence and degree of pin
fixity (as discussed in South et al., 1992) it may be reasonable to have a susceptibility
check for bridges. Bridges that are unusually susceptible due to their geometry could be
and wear on these assemblies. This adds another variable, in addition to material
properties and loading, to consider in future wear investigation and possibly testing. What
The experience described in Jansson (2008) shows that hangers not meeting
duration. In his report, Jansson appeared to treat the general yield of the hanger as a
Standard ultrasonic testing is the chief method for pin inspection and standard
procedures have been developed for inspection of pins. This standardization has
increased the reliability and accuracy of both crack identification and crack sizing in pins.
53
Unfortunately, it is apparent that there remain some limits to this technology. One of
these limits is acoustic coupling which reduces the reliability of this method and can lead
to false identifications in cracked pins. Newer technologies, such as phased array UTM
may improve these methods but are not described in the literature.
In this section relevant experiment and analytical studies of hanger plates, pins
and beam ends were reviewed. Special attention is given to collecting existing
experimental test data, noting failure modes and documenting capacity equations.
Of the three main elements within pin and hanger assemblies, the hanger plates
have by far received the most experimental investigation. In this section, the descriptions
of various experimental studies and analyses on hanger plates are reviewed. Special
attention was given to collecting specimen dimensions for future comparison to the
Caltrans inventory. When reviewing these studies, the primary focus was on identifying
ultimate failure modes and reporting available capacity predictions. It should be noted
that a considerable amount of work has been performed to identify and quantify the stress
concentrations that develop at the sides and behind the pin hole. Much of this work is not
reported here as the current research aims at determining ultimate limit states for hangers
and local yielding at stress concentrations is not considered as an ultimate limit state for
this work.
54
This report documents some of the earliest destructive tests on hanger like links.
The significance of these tests was their use of 12 in. diameter pins, this is the largest pin
size of any study reviewed. The specimens were rectangular bars with 4 slightly
elongated holes placed along the length of the hanger, a representation of one of these
specimens is shown in Figure 2-9. The additional holes along the length of these plates
contaminates the deformation data from these tests but should not affect the ultimate
load.
In the Quebec Bride tests, ten hangers were tested to failure and 3 different failure
modes were described: dishing, net section failure and splitting. Dishing failures were
described as instability of the material behind the pin hole causing the portion of the
hanger behind the pin to deform out-of-plane. When dishing occurred, the strength of the
hanger plate was greatly decreased. Figure 2-10 shows an image of a hanger in the early
stages of a dishing failure. Examples of the other failure modes observed are shown in
Six of the hangers were smaller scale specimens with plate thickness of 3/8 in.,
widths varying from 9 to 13 in. and they were loaded through 5 in. diameter pins. The
second set consisted of full size hangers with thicknesses varying from 1.5 to 2 in. and
widths varying from 26 to 28 in. Of the small-scale specimens, four dished and the
remaining 2 specimens were restrained behind the pin to prevent dishing and failed via
fracture at the net section and splitting behind the pin hole. Of the large-scale specimens
one split behind the hole. The remainder fractured at the net section with one plate
fracturing next to one of the unloaded holes. None of the large specimens were restrained
against dishing, and the 1.5 in. thick plates showed some lateral deformation prior to
failure.
Johnston (1939) describes one of the earliest and most referenced hanger plate test
notation for hanger plate specimens shown in Figure 2-13. Where is the total plate
width (in.), is the pin hole diameter (in), is the pin diameter (in), is the pin
clearance (in), is the plate thickness (in), is the effective width on one side of the hole
The specimens tested in this study were relatively small having thicknesses
ranging from 1/8 in. to ¾ in. and widths ranging from 6 in. to 10 in. Johnston described 3
failure modes seen in these test: dishing, net section failure, and failure below the hole.
The first two failures modes appear to be the same as those described in in The Quebec
Bridge Report (1919). Johnston described his third failure mode as “crushing and
shearing failure below the pin, in some cases followed by a tearing fracture in “hoop”
tension after considerable deformation”. This description certainly points to at least some
specimens failing by splitting behind the hole yet doesn’t rule out some of these
58
specimens failing by a shear tear out failure mode described in later studies. Using the
notation from Figure 2-13, Johnston presents empirically derived equations for the three
failure modes observed in these studies. Originally these equations were written to
provide an average pin bearing stress at which failure would occur. For the purposes of
this paper these equations were converted to give total load on the hanger at failure. This
conversion was done by assuming the average pin bearing stress is given by:
2 56
where is the ultimate load of the hanger (kips) and is the average pin
bearing stress (ksi). For dishing failures, plate strength (kips) was described as:
∗
, 20 315 75 20 20 2 57
For net section failures, plate strength (kips) was described as:
, 2 2 58
where is the tensile stress (ksi) of plate material. Finally, for failure behind the pin, the
0.92
, 1.13 2 59
1
The plate ultimate strength would be determined by the least value of , , , and , .
Additionally, Johnston documented the “general yield point” of the hanger plates
tested. This general yield was defined as the point at which the slope of the load vs.
59
deformation curve became a third of its initial slope. Johnston developed an empirical
3 2 2 60
2
where is the applied load (kips) at the point of general yield in the plate, and is
yield stress of the plate material. Deformation for these tests were measured from the
back of the pin to a fixed location on the interior of the hanger plate approximately 3
inches from the pin. Due to the empirical nature of all of these equations, Johnston
This report describes the destructive testing of 16 hanger plate specimens made
from 4 different materials: mild carbon steel, low alloy steel, silicon steel, and an
aluminum alloy. These specimens were designed, using equations from Johnston (1939),
to fail by either fracturing at the net section or splitting behind the hole with half designed
to fail each way. All 12 of the steel hanger plates failed in the manner anticipated. The
capacities agreed reasonably well with those predicted, ranging from 93% to 110% of the
predicted capacity for failure on the net section and from 92% to +101% for failure
behind the hole. This report also discusses the “general yield” concept but using the 0.2%
offset criterion.
60
2.4.1.4 Tolbert and Hackett (1970)
Tolbert and Hackett (1970) describe the testing of 13 specimens with the intent of
investigating the effect of pin hole clearance on the elastic stress distribution and ultimate
strength of lifting lugs. The specimens in this study are all 0.10 in. thick with 1 in.
diameter pin holes. In 5 of these tests, pin size is varied from a 0.5 in. to 1 in. diameter
(neat fit) to observe the effects of pin clearance. In the remainder of the tests, neat fit pins
were used and net section and area behind the pin were altered. Of these specimens, 11
failed behind the pin and 2 failed via dishing. It is not noted whether the plates that failed
Tolbert and Hackett (1970) proposed an equation to predict the ultimate force in
, ∗ ∗ ∗ 2 61
where , is the ultimate pin load (kips), is the ultimate shear stress of the hanger
The locations of shear planes are described by an angle ( in Figure 2-14) from
the plate center line. Based on observations during testing it was noted that this angle was
frequently between 45 and 55 degrees. Using 45 degrees was recommend for simplicity.
The adjustment factors for pin clearance and plate width were provided through charts
and are provided in Fig. 2-15 and Fig. 2-16 In Fig. 2-15 is the hole diameter (in.) and
is the total plate width (in.). Eqn. 4-6 was described as only applicable to plates with
overall widths at least twice the distance from center of the pin hole to the back of plate.
61
This report describes the specimens, methods, and results from tests of 23
specimens to failure. The specimens in this test program were loaded through pins with
diameters ranging from 2.5 in. to 3.5 in., plate thicknesses ranging from ¼ to 2 in., and
plate widths ranging from 6 to 23.75 in. Specimens were tested with tight spacers that left
only a 1/16th inch gap between the spacers and the test specimen at the pin. These
spacers likely prevented any possible dishing during these tests. In this experimental
63
study, three (3) different failure modes were observed: failure at the net section, single
shear pull through, and double shear pull through. An example of double shear pull
through is provided in Fig. 2-17. While no interpretations of these results were made in
this report, Duerr (1985) describes that these results were analyzed by T.R. Higgins and
two capacity equations were developed. The plate capacity for failure on net section was
described by:
, 2 2 62
where is the ultimate tensile stress of the steel plate (ksi), t is the plate thickness (in)
2 0.625 2 63
Plate capacity for failure by shear beyond the pin was described as:
, 2 2 64
2
where is the ultimate shear stress of the steel plate (ksi) taken as 0.58 ∗ .
64
This report describes tests of 10 hanger specimens and 3 triangular shaped picking
eye shapes. The application driving this research was the design of picking eyes for
heavy lifting. Due to this application, the main variable changed in these tests was the pin
strength equations with experimental results available in the literature. Of the sets of
equations reviewed, including those produced by Johnston (1939), T.R. Higgins and
Tolbert (1970). The equations from Johnston (1939) were found to agree best with the
test data available at the time, predicting the correct failure mode 50 out of 57 times and
the greatest degree of error being 30% and the second greatest being 16.7%. The T.R.
65
Higgins equations were found to be inaccurate for the data from Tolbert (1970) and
Johnston (1939) with the greatest degree of error being 62.6% and the predicted mode of
failure only being correct 15 out of 57 times. Duerr attributes this inaccuracy to the
concept. The graphs shown in Figure 2-18 were presented to show ability of each of these
Figure 2-18: Accuracy of hanger plate strength predictions (Duerr and Pincus, 1985).
66
2.4.1.7 Rex and Easterling (2003) & Easterling (1996)
These tests were performed to investigate the bearing behavior of a single bolt in
connections in buildings. All though the focus of this research does not initially appear
relevant to pin and hanger assemblies, a review of the test specimens and methods show
strong similarities with previous hanger tests, see Figures 2-19(a) and (b). Because of the
building oriented focus of these tests the specimen dimensions are smaller than those in
most tests with pin diameters ranging only from 0.75 in. to 1 in., hanger plate thickness
ranging from 0.25 in. to 0.75 in., and plate widths smaller than 5.5 in. Rex and Easterling
noted 4 varieties of failure: tear out, splitting, dishing, and bearing (excessive
deformation at the pin). For this test series, bearing failure was defined as plate
deformation exceeding 0.5 in. with no substantial loss in load capacity. Of the 48
specimens tested 13 failed by bearing, 1 failed from tear out, 6 failed by splitting, 11
(a) (b)
Existing capacity equations for tear out and bearing failure of bolt connected
material from AISC LRFD (1993), Fisher and Struik (1974), AISC LRFD (1999) and
Eurocode 3 (1993) were reviewed and compared to test data. Of the equations reviewed,
AISC LRFD (1993) was found to best predict the capacities of the specimens.
68
2.4.1.8 Duerr (2006)
In this journal article, design equations and data gathered by Johnston (1939),
Tolbert (1970), Blake (1981), Duerr and Pincus (1985) and Easterling (1996) were
reviewed. Based on this review, capacity equations for the ultimate failure modes of
fracture on net section, splitting behind the pin, double plane shear, and dishing were
recommended. For fracture on the net section Duerr recommended the plate strength be
calculated as:
, ∗2∗ ∗ ∗ 2 65
where in the predicted capacity of the hanger plate for the failure mode of fracture on
net section (kip), is the reduced effective width (in.) and is described by:
∗ 0.6 ∗ ∗ 2 66
Similar to Tolbert and Hackett (1970), Cr is a pin clearance reduction factor that is
described by:
1 0.275 1 2 67
For splitting behind the hole, Duerr recommended continuing to use the empirical
equation from Johnston (1939) but reorganized it to be in terms of load rather than
bearing stress and adds the pin clearance reduction factor as:
69
0.92
, ∗ 1.13 2 68
1
where is the nominal capacity of hanger plate for the failure mode of splitting behind
the hole (kips). For double plane shear, Duerr recommended using an equation similar to
, 2∗ ∗ 2 69
where is the nominal capacity of hanger plate for the failure mode of double plane
shear failure (kips), is the ultimate shear strength of the steel plate (ksi), and is the
total area of shear planes (in2), this is determined similarly to “ ” from Tolbert and
Hackett (1970), but , the angle describing the locations of shear planes (see Figure 2-
55 ∗
, ∗ ∗ 2 70
∗ ⁄
1
2∗
∗ 2 71
1
or
∗
2 72
1 ∗ ∗ ⁄
where
70
2∗ ∗
2 72
and
2∗ 2 73
Eqn. 2-71 is used for if ⁄ and Eqn. 2-72 is used otherwise. These equations
for the critical dishing stress are intended to account for inelastic and elastic behavior
respectively. The effective width of dishing section, (in), is given by the lesser of
2 74
1.25 ∗ 2 75
No resistance factors for these strength equations were developed but the table providing
This journal article reviews and justifies revisions to the ASME standard for
equations provided in Duerr (2006). The development of safety factors for these
specifications and their respective reliability factors was described. One aspect of these
design specifications not based on Duerr (2006) is the specification for allowable bearing
stress as:
1.25 ∗
2 76
where is a safety factor. The coefficient of 1.25 is to be reduced 50% for members
subjected to more than 20,000 cycles of rotation to reduce wear and galling. Duerr notes
that this coefficient is somewhat arbitrary and that development of a higher coefficient
2.4.1.10 Discussion
Based on the test specimens described in the literature, the dimension ranges were
compiled in Table 2-11. As can be seen in this table, the range of specimen dimensions
seems to be reasonably wide, but it should be noted that most of the test data was from
the smaller sized components. Only (Blake 1981) and the Quebec Bridge (1919) included
large scale hanger plates (over ¾ in. thick and widths greater than 12 in.) and even within
these studies, the large-scale specimens make up the minority (only 10 specimens). This
is particularly true for large size pins, as only 4 tests have been performed using pins of
72
3.5 in. diameter. These large pin tests were not only the oldest found in the literature, they
were also conducted on hangers containing additional holes between the loaded pin holes.
After the completion of the Caltrans pin and hanger inventory this range will be
compared to existing pin and hanger assemblies to see if the existing data represents the
data from destructive tests of hanger plates to calibrate rating equations and resistance
factors for these elements. The equations presented in Duerr (2006) could provide a
starting point to develop rating equations within the AASHTO-LRFR framework, with
the next step being the development of appropriate resistance factors for bridge rating.
existing test results, tests may be needed to validate the approach of an appropriate size
range.
73
2.4.2 Pins
During this literature review no physical pin tests resembling pins found in pin
and hanger assemblies were found. Tests documented in Burr (1909) were reviewed, but
the pins within these tests were only 1 in. diameter and had a minimum span of 8 in. and
therefore hold little relevance for this research. In lieu of physical pin tests, the literature
on theoretical ultimate capacity of pins and the load distribution over the length of the pin
In Hoblit and Melcon (1954) an attempt was made to quantify the effect of pin
flexural deformation on the bearing stress distribution along the length of a pin. This
concept was based on the idea that a pin bearing along a long flat surface will try to
deflect upwards at its center causing it to bear more heavily on the outside edges of the
bearing surface. This would shift the bearing stress from an evenly distributed load along
the length of the pin to a distribution that decreases towards the center of the bearing
surface and peaks at the outside faces. Hoblit and Melcon describe this by localizing
bearing stress to patches at the outside faces of the plate as shown in Figure 2-20. The
method for calculating a bearing area reduction factor, , used a chart repeated here in
Figure 2-21. It should be noted that these results were stated to be supported by
experimental studies but this data is not reported. Additionally, Hoblit was an engineer at
74
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, so data used derivation of this equation was likely from
Blake (1974) presents a 4-point bending model as a load distribution method for
plate forces acting on pins. He derived the distribution by dividing the uniformly
distributed load along the bearing surfaces of a pin into 4 equivalent point loads. For each
hanger plate, a single point load was placed at the centerline of the plate and for the beam
web, two concentrated point loads were placed at a location a quarter of the web width
away from each of the web faces. This distribution method is illustrated in Figure 2-22.
Blake then uses this model and concepts of elastic stress distribution (also shown in
Figure 2-22) to justify the common practice of checking shear and bending capacities of
In this paper Kulicki developed a LFD design method for the Greater New
shear interaction equation for pins with plastic stress distributions. Kulicki used a
computer program to track the development of plasticity across pin sections due to both
shear and moment. This program assumed that those sections that had yielded due to
shear resisted no moment and those sections yielded due to bending resisted no shear.
Based on results from this model an interaction equation was developed as:
1.0 2 77
77
where in the applied moment at a section (kip-in), is the applied shear at a section
(kips), is the plastic moment capacity of the pin (kip-in) and is described by:
∗ 2 78
6
and is the plastic shear capacity of the pin (kip) and is described by:
∗
∗ 2 79
4 √3
This interaction equation was compared to previous interaction equations developed for
solid beams by Hodge (1957) (shown Figure 2-23) and Drucker (1956) who provided an
1.0 2 80
Due a lack of available experimental data for verification, Kulicki proposed a lower
0.95 2 81
This equation was later adopted into the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
(AASHTO, 2014). Figure 2-23 shows all four of these interaction equations along with
2.4.2.4 Conclusion
data on large diameter pins similar to those contained in pin and hanger assemblies for
bridges. Also Hoblit and Melcon (1954) and Blake (1974) show that there are multiple
approaches to characterize the distribution of bearing stresses along the length of the pin
Review of the literature for relevant past work on beams ends supporting
investigations. The closest related work is on geometries found for coped beams used in
buildings to connect main girders and subframing. Coped connections can exhibit lateral
torsional buckling and local web buckling. Due to the presence of lateral bracing adjacent
to girder ends in bridge pin and hanger assemblies, lateral torsional buckling will be less
This report details finite element modeling and physical tests to develop new
design equations for both the local web buckling and lateral torsional buckling of coped
beam ends. As discussed above only the local web buckling, shown in Figure 2-24, will
be discussed here. Cheng et al. first develops the notation shown in Figure 2-25
describing the dimensions of a coped flange. In this figure, is the coped length (in),
is the cope depth (in), is the height of the remaining web (in) at coped section, is the
Figure 2-24: Example local web buckling (Yam and Chung, 2012).
Ten specimens were tested in the experimental program, of these 8 were rolled
sections (12 and 18 in. deep) and two were small plate girders 26.5 in. deep. The
specimens were laterally braced on the compression flange at the start of the coped
section and on the web at the location of applied shear. Unlike in pin and hanger
assemblies the shear force in these specimens was applied though connections welded to
the web (see Figure 2-26). Three specimens used two angles welded to the side of the
81
web as their connectors while the remaining specimens used flat plates welded to the end
of the web. These connectors were then attached to a reaction wall as shown in Figure 2-
27. The intent of this test setup was to minimize the amount of in-plain restraint felt by
Based on the results of these tests and the computer models, Cheng et al. found
alternate equation to describe the elastic web buckling of coped beams as:
∗ ∗
∗ 2 82
12 ∗ 1
where is the critical buckling stress (ksi) of the girder web at elastic stress
distributions, is the web thickness and the buckling coefficients is described as:
.
2.2 ∗ when 1.0 2 83
2 when 1.0 2 85
1 when 1.0 2 86
Additionally, Cheng et al. determined that designing a coped beam end for both elastic
web buckling and shear yield effectively precludes inelastic local buckling of the web.
All of the specimens tested in this report were plain beam sections with no
stiffeners or doubler plates. Cheng discusses three varieties of reinforcement for coped
beams: horizontal stiffeners (A), horizontal and vertical stiffeners (B) and doubler plates
(C) (see Figure 2-28). Based on results from the finite element model only, detail B was
recommended for plate girders ( / >60). The other two details were recommended
Yam et al. (2003) describe the testing of four coped beam sections. These
specimens were designed similar to those in Cheng et al. (1984) and consisted of (2)
W16x26 and (2) W18x35 beam sections. The test setup was similar to Cheng et al.
(1984) with welded end connections designed to simulate simply supported conditions.
These tests were used to validate a finite element model and an equation to establish the
∗ 2 88
where is equal to the critical buckling shear (kips), D is the beam depth (in) and τ is
∗ ∗
∗ 2 89
12 ∗ 1
∗ 2 90
85
1.38 1.79 2 91
and
This new design equation was based on shear bucking of the girder web distinguishing it
from that proposed by Cheng et al. (1984) which was based on flexural buckling theory.
Additionally, this equation was shown to better predict the capacity with less
The paper describes the tests of 6 stainless steel IPE300 beams (approximately 12
inches deep with ¼” webs) with 5 of them being coped. These beams were tested by
applying a patch load to the bottom face of the uncoped flange in the manner shown in
Figure 2-29. Four of the five coped beams failed by web buckling at the coped section
while the final coped beam failed by local web crippling above the uncoped flange. Finite
element models were created and results compared with test results. The results were also
compared to existing coped beam capacity equations produced from Cheng et al. (1984)
86
and Yam et al. (2003) and other triangular brackets models. Yam et al.’s (2003) equations
Yam et al. (2014) reviews existing test data and experimentally derived equations
relevant to the capacity of bolted coped beams. Failure modes considered include
shear/flexural yielding at the coped section, elastic and inelastic buckling at the coped
section, and block shear at the connection. In the investigation of the failure of coped
beams at the coped section this paper reviews the work by Cheng et al. (1984), Yam et al.
(2003), and Aalberg (2014). Based on the available data, the author found that the
equations developed by Cheng and Yam both predicted the capacity of elastic web
buckling at coped section fairly well but that Cheng’s equations were overly
87
conservative. The author also noted that taking the lowest of the calculated buckling,
Block shear tests for single rows of bolts in coped sections were also reviewed
and compared to existing code capacity equations. The AISC LRFD equation was seen to
show good agreement with a mean predicted/test capacity of 1.15 and with a coefficient
of variation of 0.106.
2.4.3.5 Conclusion
Based the literature reviewed, the available experimental data consists of small
coped ended beam specimens with connections that are very different from common
bridge girder beam ends with pin and hanger assemblies. Significant differences exist in
the manner of loading (doubler plates and single concentrated loading at the pin hole),
connection geometry, and member size. These differences make application of current
design equations uncertain for bridge girder ends supporting pin and hanger assemblies.
2.5 Materials
While materials were discussed in previous sections, this section will review
information specific to materials that did not align with the previous sections.
Specifically, the AISC Steel Design Guide 15 will be reviewed for insight into historic
steel. Additionally, the basics of wear will be reviewed in order to try and better
understand the discrepancy in allowable bearing stresses, noted in Section 2.2 of this
paper.
88
The AISC Design Guide 15: Rehabilitation and Retrofit Guide (AISC, 2002),
provides information and guidance for engineers evaluating and rehabilitating historic
steel buildings. Included in this document is a compilation of historic rolled steel shapes
and their section properties. Also included in this document is a historic timeline of
changes in ASTM specifications for steels used in steel buildings. A review of this
timeline shows that some of the specifications documented were also specified for steel
bridges. Additionally, it is noted that the information provided in the timeline is more
complete than what can be found from the AASHTO specifications (Section 2.2). The
among bridge specifications on what limits to apply to pin bearing stress. Of specific
interest to this project is the treatment of bearing stress on pins subject to rotation. For the
purpose of rating, the ASD portions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications (AASHTO,
2002) and the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2011) require this allowable
bearing stress to be essentially halved. At the same time the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (AASHTO, 2014) specify, for the rating of existing pins, the same bearing
stress for rotating and non-rotating pins. Presumably the different treatment of rotating
pins is to reduce the effects of wear on the pin. The intent of this subsection is to
89
investigate the basic characteristics of wear as related to bearing stress for rating of pin
The likely wear mechanism occurring in pin and hanger assemblies is a sliding
wear mechanism, because of the relative sliding motion between the hanger, or beam
web, and the pin. From the literature, only dry (unlubricated) sliding systems were
reviewed. It was assumed that these systems were built unlubricated or that the life of any
lubricant would be finite. The effects of corrosion on the sliding wear processes was also
investigated.
Sliding wear is defined by ASTM G40 as “wear due to relative motion in the
tangential plan of contact between two solid bodies” (ASTM, 2015). A special case of
sliding wear specifically applicable to this pin and hanger assemblies is adhesive wear. A
traditional description of this wear mechanism starts with the two solid bodies adhering at
asperities (microscopic protrusions in the surface of the bodies) as they slide across each
other. After significant plastic deformation, a portion of the softer body is torn off and
joins the opposite body. Eventually this process leads to the dislocation of material off
both bodies in the form of wear debris (Rigney, 1997). The equation most frequently
referenced in the literature in relation to adhesive wear is from the 1950’s and credited to
∗
Υ ∗ 2 93
where Υ is the wear volume, is the applied load, is the sliding distance, is the
hardness of the softer material, and is the wear coefficient. Major implications of this
equation are that the wear rate is controlled by the load and the hardness of the weaker
90
material, and that adhesive wear is a function of only four (4) variables. Adhesive wear is
e complex and may be a function of more than twenty five (25) variables (Ludema,
1990). Welsh (1965) describes one occasion where slight changes in one of these
bodies where heat is not accumulated. In this theory wear results from subsurface tearing
and is considered more a function of the presences of large second phase particles and
inclusions in the steel rather than just its hardness. Suh supports this theory in part by the
observation that under slow sliding conditions, annealed iron had one third the wear rate
of AISI 1020 steel despite only having one third of the hardness. However, Rigney
(1997) brings into question the subsurface origin of the material fracture. Rigney (1997)
also highlights the importance of the properties of the wear particles produced in the
The literature cited here is a small sample of the complexity inherent in adhesive
wear. Because of this complexity, Ludema (1990) warns not to rely on any wear equation
without simulative testing to support the behavior described by the equation. It should be
noted that none of the documented tests found to date accurately describe the conditions
One form of adhesive wear that is of particular interest is to this project is galling.
Galling is defined by ASTM G40 as “a form of surface damage arising between sliding
protrusions above the original surface” (ASTM, 2015). Galling is of specific interest to
this research due to the severity of the damage it causes, as well as significance as a
91
binary occurrence. This means that it either occurs or it does not, and its occurrence is
based on reaching threshold stress and sliding distance (Waite et al., 2006). ASTM
currently offers two standardized test methods for the occurrence of galling ASTM G98
(ASTM, 2002) and ASTM G196 (ASTM, 2016). But these tests are only recommended
for preferential ranking of mating materials for the purpose of design (Waite et al., 2006).
Situational specific tests are recommended to determine quantitative values for stresses at
Corrosion can significantly affect the mechanism of sliding wear. Madsen (1990)
observed that there can often be a synergistic effect between these two processes. This
synergistic effect does not always occur in sliding scenarios. Trausmuth et al. (2014)
observed no increase in the wear of one of their two low-alloyed steel samples when
exposed to sliding wear within a corrosive environment. These specimens were of the
same chemistry and only differed by heat treatment. Trausmuth et al. (2014) also
documents surface softening of both specimens exposed to sliding corrosion wear. This is
the opposite of what is normally seen in sliding wear, where strain hardening typically
In this literature review, both historic and current specifications, relevant to pin
and hanger assemblies, were reviewed. Additionally, reports related to the in-service
assess the condition of pin and hanger assemblies were reviewed. Existing experimental
92
and theoretical studies conducted on hanger plates, pins and girder ends where
investigated. The basic principles of wear were also reviewed. Based on the literature
The provisions available in the AASHTO Specifications for the analysis of girder
ends in pin and hanger assemblies are based on Euler-Bernoulli beam theory.
Based on the complex and non-uniform stresses created by the concentrated load
Given the lack of previous testing on large diameter pins, experimental data is
necessary to support the pin interaction equation given in the AASHTO LRFD
interaction equation.
appear to be most applicable for hanger plate sizing during design. These
provisions do not seem as useful for the determination of the actual member
capacity. More accurate rating methods are required for hanger plates.
reduced bearing stress, as used in the allowable stress portion of the AASHTO
enough data to develop rating equations and to calibrate resistance factors for
3.1 Introduction
performance of hanger plates was identified. This information included various failure
modes and test results for 190 experimental specimens. Additionally, several existing
methods were identified that have been used to predict the strength of hangers for
different failure modes. In this chapter, the empirical data for different hanger failure
modes is reviewed and the specimen geometries and material properties are compared to
those from a sample inventory of Caltrans’ in-service hanger plates. Of the equations
identified in the literature review, those from Caltrans’ LFR and LRFR methods
(Caltrans, 2016a) (Caltrans, 2016b), the AISC specifications (AISC, 2016), Johnston
(1939) and Duerr (2006) considered in more detail. The equations are compared against
experimental results in the literature and the predictive capabilities of the different
In the literature review, data on 190 specimens was collected from seven separate
experimental studies. These studies were conducted between 1919 and 1997. Of these
specimens 14 were removed because they either did not achieve ultimate strength or their
failure mode was not reported. Some data were removed when the specimens had small
pins in oversized holes that exceed the tight pin hole clearance of typical bridge
95
construction. The review of historic and current AASHTO/AASHO specifications
revealed that tolerances for the clearance between the pin and the pin holes were limited
to 1/50th in. for pins under 5 in. diameter and 1/32nd in. for pins over 5 in. diameter.
Caltrans’ current rating methods also do not take clearance into account, likely due to the
tight tolerances specified. Studies by Duerr and Pincus (1985) and by Tolbert (1970) both
investigated hole clearance and showed that increased clearances decreased the hanger
capacity. In order to prevent data from tests with unrealistically large pin hole clearances
from negatively affecting predictive equations applicable to only tight tolerance pin
holes, specimens that did not conform to the AASHTO requirements for clearance were
removed. This left 80 remaining specimens from five (5) different experimental studies
for use this investigation. The general dimensional ranges for these specimens are shown
in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Range of data for hanger tests corresponding to AAHTO pin hole dimensional
tolerances.
The remaining data from the literature was compared to the hanger plates used on
assemblies within their inventory. To illustrate the representative details, ten (10)
separate bridges were reported. The first step in this process was a comparison of hanger
thickness , effective width , edge distance behind the pin hole and the pin
diameter . These comparisons are shown in histograms in Figures 3-1 through 3-4.
The bars in these histograms represent the available experimental data while the vertical
dashed lines represent hangers from Caltrans’ inventory. This comparison showed that,
based on overall scale, the experimental specimens were considerably smaller than the
Figure 3-2: Edge distance behind the pin of Caltrans’ hanger inventory with
experimental data.
Figure 3-3: Effective width of Caltrans’ hanger inventory with experimental data.
98
Figure 3-4: Pin Diameter of Caltrans’ hanger inventory with experimental data.
Comparisons between the hanger and pin dimensional proportions was made. The
edge distance behind the pin hole to the diameter of the pin ( : )
specimens is shown in histograms in Figures 3-5 through 3-7. This showed that the
available specimens match well with Caltrans’ inventory based on the relative sizes of
elements (proportions). Given this, assuming that there are no scaling factors (which none
are expected), the available data set appears sufficient for use in developing and
A comparison of the yield stress of these two groups, shown in Figure 3-8, shows
agreement between Caltrans’ inventory and the experimental data. But it is important to
note that only a single high-yield strength plate exists in the data considered. Caltrans’
inventory contains at least one high yield hanger in service. The bounds of Caltrans’
Figure 3-8: Yield stress of Caltrans’ hanger inventory with experimental data.
From the literature review, four (4) hanger plate failure modes were identified.
The first of these failure modes was tension fracture across the pin hole. This mode is
defined by a fracture across the effective width of the hanger plate perpendicular to the
applied load, see Figure 3-9a. The failure modes of splitting behind the pin hole and pin
tear out both produce a fracture behind the pin hole at failure. The difference in these two
failure modes is in the location of the fracture relative to the pin. For splitting behind the
102
pin hole, the fracture occurs directly behind the center-line of pin as shown in Figure 3-
9c. The fracture in the pin tear out failure mode occurs towards the outside of the pin, on
one side or both sides, as shown in Figure3-9d. The failure mode of dishing is due to
instability of the material behind the pin hole. Dishing is typified by the section behind
3-3. A review of this table shows there is minimal data for hangers that failed by pin tear
out or splitting behind the pin hole. This lack of data is mostly due to researchers not
differentiating between pin tear out and splitting behind the pin (Johnston (1939) and
Tolbert (1970)) and, a lack of suitable pictures to enable independent verification of the
failure modes.
Tension
Test Series Splitting Tear Out Dishing
Fracture
Quebec Bridge (1919) 1 0 1 4
Johnston (1939) 12* 5 37
Luley (1942) 3 3 6 0
Tolbert (1970) 6* 0 0
Blake (1981) 0 0 0 0
Duerr and Pincus (1985) 0 0 2 0
Rex and Easterling (1996) 0 0 0 0
4 3
Total 14 41
Combined: 18
The present methods used by Caltrans to evaluate hanger plates were compared
against the 80 available data in the literature to assess the current state-of-the-practice.
The predicted capacity of each specimen was compared to its experimentally determined
ultimate strength. The inputs for rating were the actual reported material properties and
104
plate geometries. This procedure was performed for both rating methods used by
Caltrans: the Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) and Load Factor Rating (LFR)
method. These methods for rating hangers were previously discussed in detail in sections
2.2.2.3 and 2.2.2.4. For clarity, the equations used by Caltrans for each method will
It should be noted that these equations are presented without the resistance factors
that are typically found in the LRFR method and occasionally in the LFR method. This
was done intentionally because resistance factors are used to achieve a target reliability
In Caltrans’ LFR method, five checks are used to determine the nominal strength
of a hanger plate. In practice, the check that predicts the lowest capacity for the hanger
controls the rating and defines the hanger plate capacity. Yield across the pin is checked
using:
2 3 1
where is the effective width next to the in hole (in), is the plate thickness (in) and
is the plate material yield stress (ksi). Excessive bearing pressure on the pin hole is
checked by:
3 2
where is the pin diameter (in). Shear yielding behind the pin is checked using:
0.58 3 3
105
where is the area of the pin shear out surface (in) and is described in detail in section
2.2.2.3.4 of this paper. Shear rupture behind the pin is checked using:
0.58 3 4
where is the ultimate stress of the plate material (ksi). Finally fracture across the pin
2
3 5
1.4
When these checks where used to compute the nominal strength of the 80 tight-fit
specimens from the literature they were found to be generally conservative with only 2
specimens having capacities above those predicted. Figure 3-10 shows the experimentally
determined ultimate load of each specimen divided by is predicted capacity ( ) using the
LFR method. Additionally, the symbol used for each specimen denotes which LFR
check controls the rating of the hanger. When a symbol is filled, that denotes that the
failure mode of the test specimen corresponds to the predicted failure mode. The checks
for yielding across the pin hole, bearing, and shear yield correspond to a limit state which
Figure 3-10: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for Caltrans LFR methods across
all specimens.
As can be seen in Figure 3-10, this method is generally conservative and produced
a high bias with an average / of 1.54 but shows large variability with a coefficient
of variation (COV) of 26.5%. Additionally, the checks properly identified the actual
failure mode for only two (2) specimens out of the population of 80 specimens.
One possible explanation for the inaccuracy of this rating method is the presence
of dishing failures. Of the specimens in the data set, over half failed by dishing. The LFR
rating method has no check for this failure mode. Considering only specimens that had
failure modes other than dishing the results are shown in Figure 3-11.
107
Figure 3-11: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for Caltrans’ LFR method with
non-dishing specimens.
lowered the COV to 21.2%. It is also notable that all predictions are now conservative.
Caltrans’ LRFR method utilizes the same rating equations as the LFR method
3 6
2
3 7
1.4
and
3 8
108
Review of this equation shows that it can be used to predict two separate failure modes.
When the effective section is controlled by the clearance behind the hole ( ), it can be
used to predict failure behind the hole. When the effective section is controlled by the
effective width ( ) it is equal to Eqn. 3-5 and checks for fracture across the pin hole.
This method was then used to rate the 80 tight-fit specimens from the literature
with the results shown in Figure 3-12. The LRFR method proved to be more conservative
than the LFR method and predicted the correct failure mode 21 out of 80 times. But this
method produced large bias with an average / of 1.77 and a high coefficient of
Figure 3-12: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for Caltrans’ LRFR methods
across all specimens.
When dishing specimens are removed from the analysis, the bias /
increased to 2.02, the coefficient of variation decreased to 18.2%, and all the predictions
109
were conservative. A plot of the LRFR method comparisons without dishing specimens is
shown in Figure 3-13. The statistical results from these two methods are summarized in
Table 3-4.
Figure 3-13: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for Caltrans LRFR methods with
non-dishing specimens.
In this section, all of the ultimate strength prediction equations specific to a single
failure mode were compared directly to specimens that failed in that failure mode. First,
each prediction equation considered is used to predict the ultimate capacity of the
comparison of these two values are then used to determine the bias and COV for each
method.
For the purpose of this study the failure modes of pin tear out and splitting behind
the pin hole were combined into a single failure mode: failure behind the pin. This
combination was made for practical reasons, due to the lack of data necessary for them to
be treated separately. Additionally, it was noted that these two failure modes seemed to
behave very similarly. An example of this common behavior comes from Luley (1942)
who conducted tests on two specimens (M7-1 and M7-2) of the same low alloy steel and
with near identical dimensions (see Table 3-5). As can be seen in Figure 3-14, specimen
M7-1 failed by splitting behind the pin hole while M7-2 failed in pin tear out.
Additionally, a comparison of the ultimate load for both plates shows approximately the
Table 3-5: Example of similarity between splitting and shear failure behind the pin hole
(Luley, 1942).
Given that these are only two specimens that may or may not be representative of
hangers in general, further investigation was conducted into the other five hangers that
where known to have failed in these limit states. Unfortunately, unlike in the example
above from Luley (1942), a direct comparison between specimens was not possible given
the varying material and dimensions between hanger plates. Instead of direct comparison
the equations for splitting behind the pin and pin tear out from Duerr (2006) were used to
112
calculate the capacities of specimens that failed by splitting behind the hole and shear tear
out. The results for this analysis can be seen in Table 3-6 and Table 3-7. This analysis
shows that both equations predict ultimate hanger strength with reasonable accuracy,
regardless of the whether the hanger failed by splitting behind the hole or pin tear out.
Table 3-6: Splitting specimens compared against splitting and tear out prediction
methods.
Table 3-7: Tear out specimens compared against splitting and tear out prediction
methods.
The predictive equations for both splitting and tear out were compared to the
available data that are defined here as generally having failed behind the pin hole. The
predictive equations analyzed in this section are shear fracture (Eqn. 3-4) and the fracture
113
behind the pin hole equation used in Caltrans’ LRFR method (Eqns. 3-6 and 3-8). As
discussed in the literature review, Johnston (1939) and Duerr (2006) both developed
equations for failure behind the pin hole. The equations from these studies will be
reiterated below for convenience. From Johnston (1939), the empirically derived
equation:
0.92
1.13 3 9
1
was developed to predict failure occurring behind the pin. In Duerr (2006), two (2)
equations for failure behind the pin were developed. The first was intended specifically
0.7 3 10
where is the area of the shear planes and is described in greater detail in section
2.4.1.8. Duerr’s second equation, which was based on Johnston’s, was intended
0.92
1.13 3 11
1
where the coefficient is used to account for pin clearance and is equal to:
1 0.275 1 3 12
Using these five (5) equations, the nominal capacities where calculated for the 25
specimens that failed behind the pin. The results are shown in Figure 3-15 with the data
114
sorted by according to their origin of study. The statistics for this analysis are
Figure 3-15: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for failure behind the pin
prediction methods.
Table 3-8: Statistics for failure behind the pin prediction methods.
The Johnston and Duerr splitting equations performed the best, with bias close to
1.0 and reasonably low COVs. The shear rupture equation used by Caltrans produced a
low COV, but it proves to be unconservative. The fracture behind the pin hole equation
115
used by Caltrans is very conservative but produced the largest variability of those
investigated.
In this section the predictive equations for fracture across the pin hole are
reviewed against the available data. Four equations were considered, including the
fracture across the pin hole equation used in both Caltrans’ LFR and LRFR methods
(Eqn. 3-5). The second equation considered was the net section rupture from the AISC
2 3 13
2 0.63 . 3 14
2 3 15
will be considered. Finally, the equation from Duerr (2006) for net section rupture:
2 3 16
0.6 3 17
and is the same coefficient described by Eqn. 3-12. These predictive equations were
compared to the fifteen specimens that failed in net section fracture (Figure 3-16 and
Table 3-9).
116
Figure 3-16: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for fracture on net section
prediction methods
A brief review of the prediction equations for fracture across the pin hole showed
similar formats. Where these equations appear to differ was in the treatment of two
variables: pin clearance and the effective net section. Due to the relatively tight pin
clearances specified for actual bridge hangers, the treatment of pin clearance is not
relevant here. The Caltrans’ method divides the capacity of the plate by 1.4 which implies
that only about 70% of the net section is considered active at ultimate strength. Figure 3-
117
16 shows that, in general, this assumption is conservative. For the AISC method, a review
of the second specimen in Figure 3-16 (Quebec bridge (1919) specimen #2) provides
some further insight. This specimen is the only one that had an effective section ( ) that
was controlled by the plate thickness and was therefore less than . The results for this
specimen show that this adjustment to the effective net section may be overly
conservative. Another interesting data point in Figure 3-16 was for the 14th specimen
(specimen 1-A from Duerr and Pincus (1985), referred to here now as DP 1-A). The main
significance of specimen DP-1A is that it is the only sample with steel plate having a high
3-10 shows the results of DP 1-A compared to the average results for the all 15
specimens. This table shows that for this specimen there is a general drop in the ⁄
value for all but the Duerr predictive equation. This is due to Duerr’s adjustment to the
effective area that takes into account the / ratio. Table 3-10 shows that only the
Caltrans method and Duerr’s method predict a capacity that is not greater than the
experimental result. Given that Duerr developed his equation with consideration of this
specimen, more investigation into high-yield plates may be necessary to verify Duerr’s
adjustment.
118
Table 3-10: Relative performance of specimen DP 1-A for alternate rating methods.
⁄
Prediction Equation
⁄ ⁄ ⁄
Fracture Across Pin Hole (Caltrans) 1.12 1.39 0.81
3.6.3 Dishing
Only two (2) methods for predicting the strength of specimens exhibiting dishing
are identified in the literature. The first equation was empirically derived in Johnston
(1939) as:
20 315 75 20 20 3 18
The second was developed in Duerr (2006) and gave the dishing load as:
3 19
⁄
1
2
∗ 3 20
1
3 21
1 ⁄
for elastic dishing. With , the effect dishing width, taken as the lesser of:
3 22
119
and
1.25 3 23
These prediction methods were compared to the 41 dishing specimens from the
literature (Figure 3-17 and Table 3-11). A review of these results show that Johnston’s
equation significantly out performs Duerr’s method. It is critical to note, however, that
the only data considered in this review is either from Johnston’s study or from the
Quebec bridge study, which Johnston reviewed in his initial study. It should be of no
surprise that an empirical equation performs well when compared to the data from which
(2006), is its poor performance against the results of Rex and Easterling (1996), whose
specimens fall within the allowable proportions for this equation as described by
Johnston. While the Rex and Easterling study was not considered in this analysis, due to
relatively large pin clearances, the poor performance does raise the concern that
Johnston’s equation for dishing may not produce good correlation for variables outside
Figure 3-17: Ratio of measured and predicted strength for dishing prediction analysis.
An alternative method for checking the dishing limit state is implied by the
AASHTO Design provisions and discussed in Duerr (2006). This method involves
limiting the proportional thickness of a plate in order to prevent dishing. The first
proportional limit discussed was added to the AASHO Standard Specifications in 1941
(AASHO, 1941). This limit is directly stated in the specifications and restricts the ratio of
the width of the net effective section across the pin hole (2 ∗ ) to the plate thickness to
It should be noted that the specifications do not provide a reason for this limit nor does it
mention dishing. But this requirement does limit the slenderness of a plate which appears
to be a driving factor for dishing. Additionally, this requirement was added to the
failure, the ultimate bearing stress of both specimens that failed by dishing and those that
failed in other manners where plotted against their ratio of the width of the net effective
section across the pin hole to the plate thickness (2 / ). This results is shown in Figure
3-18. This figure shows that all the specimens that failed in dishing exceeded the
proportional limit. What this figure also shows is that many specimens that did not fail in
requirement that the net area across the pin hole be equal to 140% of the area behind the
pin hole, a proportional limit can be derived relating clearance behind the pin hole to
5.6 3 25
This limit is appealing because, as noted in Johnston (1939), dishing appears to be more a
factor of the section behind the pin rather than across the pin. As seen in Figure 3-19, this
limit appears to differentiate better between dishing and non-dishing specimens. Though
it is notable that three (3) specimens that met this limit still exhibited dishing.
123
Figure 3-19: Dimension behind the pin to plate thickness ratios compared to bearing
stresses.
Duerr (2006) suggest an alternate thickness limit based on the clearance behind
the hole:
0.19 3 26
This proposed limit is very similar to the implied limit from AASHTO seen aabove. In
fact, if this limit is calculated for a hanger with negligible pin clearance and made from
33 ksi steel, it is found to be equal to the 5.6 implied by AASHTO. The main contribution
of this new limit is the ability to account for higher steel plate yield stresses. This update
makes this limit comparable to local buckling limits commonly seen for the webs and
flanges of compression and flexural members. Figure 3-20 shows the performance of this
limit by normalizing it (above 1.0, specimens exceed limit), and as seen here all but one
of the specimens that meet the limit (below 1.0) do not exhibit dishing. The sole
124
specimen that met this limit but still exhibited dishing had a normalized slenderness of
0.99.
Figure 3-20: Normalized dimensions for plate behind pin from Duerr (2006) with bearing
stress.
The vertical dashed lines in Figures 3-18 through 3-20 represent the proportions
figures it appears that dishing may not be an issue for the hangers within Caltrans
inventory, but the provisions of Eqn. 3-26 can be used to identify potential for dishing in
other cases.
3.7 Discussion
Based on this review it was determined that while Caltrans’ current methods may
be inaccurate and imprecise with regards to actual failure modes, they are consistently
conservative for the available test data on hangers not susceptible to dishing. There are
125
better strength prediction equations for failure behind the pin and net section fracture
failure modes.
For predicting failure behind the pin, the most accurate methods were determined
to be the splitting equations presented by Johnston (1939) and Duerr (2006). Of the two
methods used by Caltrans’, the shear rupture (equation 3-4) is reasonably precise but
frequently over predicts capacity. Caltrans’ fracture behind the pin equation (equation 3-6
For prediction of net section facture, Caltrans’ method of reducing the net section
by 30% appears overly conservative for most data considered here. However, for the only
Duerr (2006) appears to provide the most accurate method for determining net effective
The current prediction methods for the failure mode of dishing are either
inaccurate or uncertain of broad applicability beyond the calibration data set. Proportional
limits on the plate dimensions with respect to the material properties appear to be way to
identify susceptibility to dishing. Based on the dishing limits described, none of the
4.1 Introduction
In the load and resistance factor design and rating methodology, factors are
applied to both the load effects and resistance of the element. The intent of these factors
is to account for the uncertainty in these values and provide a uniform level of reliability
in design and rating across materials, members, and connections. In order to achieve a
specified level of reliability, these factors are calibrated. In this chapter, the process of
calibration will be reviewed and resistance factors for the ultimate limit state equations
reviewed in Chapter 3 will be calibrated for use in the LRFR methodology. The method
of calibration used for this project was a one-sided calibration using a Monte Carlo
simulation similar to that described in Ocel (2014). Prior to discussing the specific
calibration process used for the present work, background is provided on probabilistic
methods used for structural design. Next, the source and treatment of the statistical
parameters used in calibration are discussed. Finally, the calibration process is described
AASHTO LRFD, is that the resistance of an element and the load effect seen by that
element are not deterministic, but instead are random variables. This assumption
recognizes that during design an engineer cannot know exactly the magnitude and
127
distribution of load applied to the bridge during the lifetime or if a component is
constructed with materials or methods so that it may be higher of lower than assumed.
The variability of load and resistances can be described by their probability distribution
functions (PDFs). An example probability distribution curve is shown in Figure 4-1. The
total area under a PDF curve is equal to one as it describes all the possible variation in the
population. To describe a PDF, and by extension the random variable, three properties are
necessary: a distribution type, a mean value, and the standard deviation. The distribution
type describes the shape of the PDF curve. In the example shown in Figure 4-1, the
standard deviation, relative to the mean value, will shorten the height of the curve and
make the curve wider. Conversely a small standard deviation relative to the mean will
make the curve narrower. If the standard deviation were zero, the data would be
distribution, mean value, and standard deviation of the random variables of load and
resistance must first be identified. The process for identifying these values will be
To model the load effect random variables, statistical properties that describe the
these variables were identified in the literature. These properties were used, along with
information about the structure, to develop mean values and standard deviations for load
The final report for NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 186, referred to here as NCHRP
20-7/186, describes the strength limit-state calibration of the load and resistance factors
used in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (Kulicki et al., 2007). In this
report the statistical parameters used for the original specification calibration and their
origins are presented. These parameters are presented as biases ( ) and coefficients of
129
variation ( ). The bias of a distribution describes the difference between the nominal
value and the mean value, while the coefficient of variation describes the standard
the report states that these loads are often treated as normally distributed.
NCHRP 20-7/186 presents the biases and coefficients of variations for four types
of dead load: factory made members, cast in place members, wearing surface and
miscellaneous items. While for any single bridge, the total dead load will be comprised of
elements that fall into each of these categories, it is understood that the majority of dead
load on a bridge comes from the cast-in-place deck. For this reason, the bias and
coefficient of variation for dead load used in this calibration was taken as that equal to the
For live load, NCHRP 20-7/186 presents multiple ranges of biases that are
dependent on the: type of load effect, the number of loaded lanes, and the average daily
truck traffic (ADTT). For this project, the bias for the shear load effect was chosen
because the connection plates are principally loaded by the end reaction of the suspended
span girder which is effectively the end shear of the girder. An ADTT of 5000 was
chosen to be consistent with the original LRFD Specification calibration which also used
5000 ADTT. Finally, the two lanes loaded case was chosen because this case typically
To account for the addition of impact loading, the coefficient of variation was
increased from twelve percent as shown in Table 4-1, to 18% as described in NHCRP 20-
7/186. The load statistical parameters taken from this report are summarized in Table 4-2.
With the bias and COV identified, mean load effect values can be determined as:
∗ 4 1
where is the nominal effect of the load under consideration, is the bias as described
in the previous section and is the mean load value for use in calibration. Similarly, the
where is the coefficient of variation from the previous section and the standard
Based on Eqns. 4-1 and 4-2 it is seen that nominal values for both live load and
dead load are required prior to calibration. In the calibration of the original AASHTO
LRFD load and resistance factors, nominal load values were determined by performing
live load analyses on approximately 200 actual bridge designs (Kulicki et al., 2007). For
the calibration of resistance factors for gusset plate connections presented in Ocel (2013),
live load to dead load ratios were used to determine nominal load values. The use of live
to dead load ratios is an effective method for the purpose of calibration because the value
of total nominal load does not affect the reliability level. In calibration, the rating
equation is always set so the factored resistance equals the factored load. This means that
if the total nominal load is doubled, with load and resistance factors, as well as live to
dead ratios held constant, the nominal resistance is also doubled creating no net change to
the reliability. A change in the relative proportions of live and dead load on the other
hand does affect the reliability due to the different bias, COV, and load factors connected
In this project, similar to Ocel (2013), live load ratios ( : ) were used to
determine nominal loads for calibration. The live load ratio used in this project is defined
as:
: 4 3
132
where is the nominal live load (including impact) ( ) and is the total nominal
4 4
where is the nominal dead load ( ). For simplicity, the total nominal load was set
to unity for all resistance factor calibrations. In an attempt to determine realistic bounds
for dead and live load proportions, the ten bridges provided by Caltrans were reviewed to
determine their live load ratio. The dead load was taken directly from the rating sheets
provided by Caltrans with the wearing surface and miscellaneous dead loads lumped into
a single value with the dead load of components. The live load was determined by
performing live load analysis on each bridge using the HL-93 load model including
impact. Where applicable, distribution factors for this analysis were determined using
2014). Where this table was not applicable (mainly for two girder bridges) the lever rule
was used. Based on the analysis of these ten bridges, the live load ratios ranged from 0.25
to 0.85. Using the live load ratio discussed above and the assumed total nominal load of
one, the nominal live load and dead load were determined through Eqns. 4-3 and 4-4.
With the nominal value of both live load and dead load effects determined, the average
values and standard deviations of both were determined using Eqns. 4-1 and 4-2,
respectively.
133
4.4 Resistance Statistical Properties
Similar to the load effect produced on a member, the resistance of a member can
also be treated as a random variable. Ravindra and Galambos (1978) describe the
Using this concept, the resistance of a member can be represented using a simple
∗ ∗ ∗ 4 5
random variable representing the uncertainty due to material properties, , the fabrication
tolerances, and , the professional factor, is a random variable used to represent the
uncertainty of the calculations used to estimate the resistance. These three random
variables are described in the literature with different biases and COVs. This is
convenient for code calibration because when the bias for each factor is inserted into Eqn.
4-5, along with the nominal value for resistance, the mean resistance is known. To
determine the nominal resistance for calibration, the rating equation is set so that the
factored resistance exactly equals the factored load. This equation can then be solved for
to give:
4 6
134
where is an assumed resistance factor with a value between 0.05 and 1, though values
The coefficient of variation for the member resistance was found using the
4 7
are the COVs for the material, fabrication and professional factors, respectively.
For this project the fabrication and material factor values for bias and COV were
taken from Elingwood (1980). These values are shown in Table 4-3. Because the
ultimate strength of steel generally controls in these equations, the variability of ultimate
strength was used for the material factor. For the fabrication factor a single set of
statistics are given for hot rolled steel elements, because it is assumed that these plates are
hot rolled these values were used. The bias and COV for the professional factor were
piece of information required for the resistance side of calibration is the distribution of
While several methods exist to conduct calibration of load and resistance factors,
the method used in this project was the Monte Carlo method. The calibration procedure
was one-sided resistance factor calibration, similar to that conducted in Ocel (2013). This
method calibrates resistance factors using the existing load factors in the specification.
unnecessary load cases. The ultimate goal of this calibration is to produce resistance
factors that provide uniform reliability with the remainder of the code. The level of
number of standard deviations between the mean margin of safety and failure. An
example of this is shown in Figure 4-2. Margin of safety is a random variable defined as:
4 8
where and are the random variables of resistance and total load effect, respectively.
136
The simplest method for determining the reliability index is to use the closed-
form solution:
4 9
where and are the mean values of load and resistance respectively, and and
are the standard deviations of load and resistance. This method proves only to be
applicable if the load and resistance variables are both normally distributed or both
lognormally distributed (Kulicki et al., 2007). Because both variables are not defined
using the same distribution in the present case, a more robust method such as the Monte
When rating bridges using the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE)
there are two levels of reliability that for which a bridge can be rated. The first is the
137
inventory reliability level, which is calibrated to a reliability index of 3.5 and is consistent
with that used in the design of bridge. The second is the operational reliability level
which is calibrated to a reliability index of 2.5. In the current edition of the AASHTO
MBE these two rating levels share the same resistance factors and only vary through
different load factors. Given that the inventory level is consistent with typical design,
these resistance factors were calibrated here to a reliability index of 3.5 using inventory
level load factors. The calibrated resistance factors were later checked against the
operational load factors. It was found that, at the live load to dead load levels
investigated, they produced an average reliability index of approximately 2.5. For the
present calibration, the Strength I load combination was used. This load combination was
chosen because the MBE uses this strength-level load combination for rating the HL-93
load model, which was used to develop the LL to DL ratios considered in the process.
With a reliability level and load combination defined for calibration, an equation for the
4 10
where and are the anticipated loads as described in Section 4.3.2 of this paper.
and are load factors for live load and dead load of components from the
AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2011). For the Strength I inventory
level rating these factors are equal to 1.75 and 1.25 respectively.
138
4.6 Monte Carlo Simulation
In this section, the actual process of the Monte Carlo simulation technique is
described. This process is based on that described in the NCHRP 20-7/186 (Kulicki et al.,
2007). The first step in the Monte Carlo process is to define the nominal values for the
resistance and loads. As discussed in Section 4.3.2, the nominal total load was set equal
to one. Using Eqns. 4-3 and 4-4, the nominal live load and dead load were determined.
The resistance factor was assumed and the nominal resistance was found using Eqn. 4-6.
this project, these values were created using the two Excel functions RAND and
NORMSINV. The first function creates evenly distributed random values between one
and zero, and the second function converts these values into a standard normal
distribution with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. Using one of these
4 11
Similarly, a value for the simulated live load was determined as:
4 12
Because the member resistance is taken as lognormally distributed, the mean and
standard deviation had to first be converted to lognormal values prior to using them in the
1
ln 4 13
2
ln 1 4 14
Using Eqns. 4-13 and 4-14, a single value of simulated member resistance was
determined as:
4 15
From these simulated load and resistance values, a margin of safety was calculated as:
4 16
A set of sample calculations was conducted for a single simulation and can be found in
Appendix B.
This process was then repeated 20,000 times for each of the predictive equations
at each live load ratio. These 20,000 values of were then ranked in ascending order and
4 17
# 1
This value was then inserted into the inverse normal distribution function,
NORMSINV, to calculate the standard normal value ( ). The margins of safety for
these 20,000 simulations are plotted against their respective standard normal variables to
produce a normal probability plot as shown in Figure 4-3. As describe in Allen et al.
(2005) the value of when the equals zero is the negative value of the reliability
index .
140
As can be seen in Figure 4-3 the values for the probability plot show a definitive
curve and only a few values exist near failure ( 0). The curve in this plot is due to the
contribution of the lognormal variable, had all variables been normally distributed, the
previously, the intent of producing this plot is to determine the approximate value of
where 0. Unfortunately, there are very few values in this tail of the graph and the
excessive additional simulations, the lower ten percent of values were isolated from
Figure 4-3. This lower tail was assumed to be approximately linear and a linear curve was
fit to the data. The negative value of the y-intercept of this best fit line was then taken to
Figure 4-4: Example of best-fit line using lower 10% of data from Monte Carlo
simulations.
If this analysis produced a reliability index near the target of 3.5, the assumed
resistance factor was deemed acceptable and recorded. If the reliability index produced
was deemed unacceptable, the resistance factor was changed and the process in this
section was repeated until the reliability factor achieved the target of 3.5.
The process discussed in Section 4.6 was then conducted twice (once for each live
load ratio) for each predictive equation considered. The resistance factors were chosen
based on producing an average (between each live load ratio) reliability index of
approximately 3.5. The calibrated resistance factors for each predictive equation are
shown in Tables 4-4 through 4-6; additionally in these tables, the reliability indices are
noted for each live load ratio along with the average.
142
Table 4-4: Calibrated resistance factors for failure behind the pin.
A review of these calibrated resistance factors brings up a few points. First, the
AISC net section rupture equation has the smallest resistance factor for the fracture on net
section equations. This low resistance factor is due to the relatively high COV for the
professional factor, from the conservative treatment of the effective net section for wide
plates. Outside of this treatment of effective net area, this equation is very similar to
Johnston’s. This highlights the influence of variability on the calibration process and the
need to ensure that an analytical model is properly describing the strength across the
relevant parameters rather than being applied to cases for which is it was not intended.
As can be seen in Tables 4-4 and 4-5, fracture across the pin hole and behind the
pin hole, both used by Caltrans, have reliability indices greater than 3.5. The high
reliability indices for these equations are due to their resistance factors being capped at
one. To achieve a reliability index of 3.5, these resistance factors would have to be larger
than unity. These were artificially capped here because traditionally such factors are not
Finally, the very low resistance factor for Duerr’s dishing equation (Eqn. 3-19)
shows that the present formulation is not sufficiently robust to be an used in bridge rating.
144
The better approach is to test for susceptibility to dishing based on the plate material and
In this study, the literature regarding pin and hanger connections for steel bridges
was reviewed and summarized. Included in this literature review were current and
material behavior related to mechanical wear. From this literature review the following
There is a lack of previous testing on large diameter pins to support the pin
The provisions available in the AASHTO Specifications for the analysis of girder
ends in pin and hanger assemblies are based on Euler-Bernoulli beam theory.
Based on the complex and non-uniform stresses created by the concentrated load
information includes data from several test series, identified failure modes, and
Based on the literature review, it was determined that there was only sufficient data
on hanger plates for further analysis. The experimental data from the hanger plate
146
literature was then reduced to eliminate data that lacked sufficient details or had pin hole
clearances exceeding AASHTO tolerances. There were 80 test results that satisfied the
requirements for further use in the study. The experimental data were then compared to
Caltrans reported representative inventory of bridge hanger plates. The data set was used
to investigate the sufficiency of Caltrans’ current LFR and LRFR methods for rating
hangers. Alternative strength predictions from AISC (2016), Johnston (1939), Duerr
(2006) and Caltrans’s methods were evaluated relative to the empirical data for each
failure mode. Finally, geometrical proportion and material properties were used to
determine the susceptibility to dishing failure. From this analysis the following
The empirical data were smaller in size, but had relative proportions that were
representative of in-service hanger plates. The materials also covered those of the
Current Caltrans rating methods using LFR and LRFR were not able to predict the
controlling failure mode, produced large bias and high variation. However, when
ratings.
There are currently available methods that better predicted the ultimate strength
for the failure modes of net section fracture and failure behind the pin.
147
The current prediction methods for dishing failure produce high variability or may
not apply beyond the limited data for which they were developed. They should
The use of proportional limits based on the edge distance behind the pin relative
to the plate thickness and material yield stress appear to effectively identify if a
Resistance factors were calibrated for all of the prediction equations that
described the failure modes identified in the literature. This calibration was conducted
through Monte Carlo simulation using statistical information gathered from the literature
and from the professional factors determined for each of the analysis methods considered.
The calibration factors can be used for rating bridge hanger plates that is more
reliability.
New LRFR calibrated equations provide rating for the failure modes of net
section fracture and failure behind the pin as a single failure mode at prescribed
The resistance factors were calibrated for inventory levels with target reliability
indices of 3.5, and achieved target reliability indices near 2.5 for the operating
level.
The low resistance factor calibrated for dishing failure further indicated that it
Failure behind the pin shall be checked using the shear rupture equation (Eqn. 3-
Net section fracture shall be checked using the method developed in Duerr (2006)
the current AASHTO resistance factor for tension net section fracture be used.
Tension yield (Eqn. 3-1), bearing (Eqn. 3-2) and shear yielding (Eqn. 3-3) shall
still be checked.
All hangers shall be screened for susceptibility to dishing using the proportional
These methods were chosen because they align closely with current AASHTO methods
yet also provide superior results than Caltrans’s current methods. For net section fracture
the current code base resistance factor was chosen over the factor derived in Chapter 4
because it is more conservative. This conservatism is welcome given the limited data
large diameter pins and beam ends with riveted pin plates. These tests should be
instrumented to identify stress distribution though out these elements. For large diameter
149
pins, the study should be conducted in a manner to compare to the current specification
dishing failures. For this development, finite element analyses could be used to
analytically simulate buckling behind the pin. Due to the lack data for high yield plates,
particularly useful in evaluating the material property influence on net section fracture.
Finally, while this study was focused on the ultimate strength evaluation of these
members, it was noted in the literature that hanger plates can undergo significant plastic
deformation prior to failure (Johnston, 1939). Limited work has been conducted on this
subject since Johnston’s original study. Further investigation into this subject may be
AASHO (1931). AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges and Incidental
Structures, 1st Ed., American Association of State Highway Officials,
Washington, DC.
AASHO (1935). AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 2nd Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHO (1941). AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 3rd Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHO (1944). AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 4th Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHO (1949). AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 5th Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHO (1953). AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 6th Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHO (1957). AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 7th Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHO (1961). AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 8th Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHO (1965). AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 9th Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHO (1969). AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 10th Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHO (1973). AASHO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 11th Ed.,
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO (2002). AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Ed.,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO (2011). AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 2nd Ed., American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
151
AASHTO (2014). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Ed., American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AISC (2016). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-16, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
AISC (2017). Steel Construction Manual, 15th Ed., American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL.
Allen, T.M., Nowak, A.S., Bathurst, R.J., (2005). “Calibration to Determine Load and
Resistance Factors for Geotechnical and Structural Design.” Transportation
Research Circular, E-C079.
Archard, J.F. (1953). “Contact and rubbing of flat surfaces.” Journal of Applied Physics,
24(8), 981-988
Archard, J.F. (1980). “Wear theory and mechanisms.” Wear Control Handbook, edited
by M.B Peterson and W.O. Winer, ASME, New York, N.Y., 35-80.
AREMA (2015). Manual for Railway Engineering, 2015, American Railway Engineering
and Maintenance-of-Way Association, Lanham, MD.
Askeland D.R., Kisslinger F., Wolf W.R. (1987) “Investigation of Bridge Pin Failures”,
Report number 87-1, Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission,
Jefferson City, MO
ASTM (2009). G98-02 Standard Test Method for Galling Resistance of Materials, 2009,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009,
https://doi.org/10.1520/G0098-02R09
ASTM (2015). G40-15: Standard Terminology Relating to Wear and Erosion, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1520/G0040-15
ASTM (2016). G196-08 Standard Test Method for Galling Resistance of Material
Couples, 2016, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
https://doi.org/10.1520/G0196-08R16
Blake, G.T. (1981), “Structural tests of large pin-connected links”, U.S. Steel Research,
Monroeville, Pa.
Brockenbrough, R.L. (2002). Design Guide 15: Rehabilitation and Retrofit Guide,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
152
Caltrans, (2004). Bridge Design Specifications. California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, CA.
Caltrans, (2016a). Caltrans’ Pin and Hanger Assembly LRFD Rating Example.
Caltrans, (2016b). Caltrans’ Pin and Hanger Assembly LFD Rating Example.
Cheng J.J., Yura J.A, Johnson C.P (1984) “Design and Behavior of Coped Beams”
PMFSEL Report No. 84-1, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Duerr, D., and Pincus, G. (1985). “Experimental Investigation of Pin Plates.” Research
Rep. No. UHCE 85-3, Univ. of Houston, Houston, TX.
Drucker, D.C., (1956). “The effect of shear on the plastic bending of beams.” Journal of
Applied Mechanics, Dec. 1956, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, N.Y.
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T.V., MacGregor, J.G., Cornell C.A., (1980). “Development
of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58.”
NBS Special Publication 577. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC
Finch, K.J., Freeman, M.P. (1994). “NDT (UT) Inspection and Data Management for
Bridge Pins and Trunnions” Structural Material Technology: An NDT
Conference., Scancella R.J., Callahan M.E., Technomics, Chicago, IL, 257-260.
Government Board of Engineers (1919). “The Quebec Bridge over the St. Lawrence
River.” Vol. 1, Rep. of the Government Board of Engineers, Canada Department
of Railways and Canals, Canada.
Hodge, P.G. (1957). “Interaction curves for shear and bending of plastic beams.” Sept.
1957, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, N.Y.
Jansson, P.O. (2008), “Analysis of Stress Distribution in Link Plates Used for Suspended
Bridge Beams” Research Report No. R-1517, Michigan Department of
Transportation, Lansing, MI
153
Johnston, B. G. (1939). “Pin-connected plate links.” Transactions of American Society of
Civil Engineers, 104, 314–339.
Juntunen, D. (1998), “Study of Michigan’s Link Plate and Pin Assemblies”, Research
Report No. R-1358, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI.
Kulicki, J.M., (1983). “Load Factor Design Applied to Truss Members in Design of
Greater New Orleans Bridge No. 2” Transportation Research Record, 903,
Chicago, IL., 22-26.
Kulicki, J.M., Prucz, Z., Sorgenfrei, D.F., Mertz, D.R., Young, W.T. (1990). Guidelines
for Evaluating Corrosion Effects in Existing Steel Bridges, NCHRP Report 333,
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
Kulicki, J.M., Prucz, Z., Clancy, C.M., Mertz, D.R., Nowak, A.S., (2007). “Updating the
Calibration Report for AASHTO LRFD Code”, NCHRP 20-7/186, Transportation
Research Board, Washington D.C.
Ludema, K.C., (1990). “Sliding and adhesive wear.” ASM Handbook: Volume 18
Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology, ASM International, Materials Park,
OH., 236-241.
Melcon, M. A., and Hoblit, F. M. (1953). “Developments in the analysis of lugs and
shear pins.” Prod. Eng. N.Y., 24(6), 160–170.
Miller W.J. and M.K. Chaney (1994). “NDT of Bridge Pins on PennDOT Structures.”
Structural Material Technology: An NDT Conference., Scancella R.J., Callahan
M.E., Technomics, Chicago, IL, 252-256.
Moore, M., Phares, B.M., Washer, G.A. (2004). Guidelines for Ultrasonic Inspection of
Hanger Pins, FHWA-HRT-04-042, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C.
Ocel, J.M. (2013). “Guidelines for the Load and Resistance Factor Design and Rating of
Riveted and Bolted Gusset-Plate Connections for Steel Bridges.” National
Academy of Sciences, Washington ,D.C.
154
Ravindra, M.K., Galambos T.V. (1978). “Load and Resistance Factor Design for Steel.”
Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 104, No. ST9, 1337-1353.
Rex C.O., Easterling, (1996). S.W. “Behavior and Modeling of A single Plate Bearing on
A Single Bolt.” Report No. CE/VPI-ST 96/14, Virginia Tech University,
Blacksburg, VA.
South, J. M., Hahin C., Telford R.O., (1992) “Analysis, Inspection, and Repair Methods
for Pin Connections of Illinois Bridges”, Illinois Department of Transportation,
Report No. FHWA/IL/PR-107. 1992.
Suh, N.P., Jahamir, S., Abrahamson, E.P. (1974). The Delamination Theory of Wear
Progress Report, AD/A-003 583, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, VA.
Tolbert, R.N., and Hackett, R.M. (1974). “Experimental Investigation of Lug Stresses
and Failures.” AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 11, No.2, 34-37.
Trausmuth, A., Rodríguez Ripoll, M., Zehethofer, G., Vogl, T., and Badisch, E. (2015).
"Impact of corrosion on sliding wear properties of low-alloyed carbon steel".
Wear, 328-329, 338-347.
Welsh, N. (1965). “The Dry Wear of Steels II. Interpretation and Special Features.”
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences, 257(1077), pp.51-70.
Yam, M., and Chung, K. (2013). "A numerical study of the strength and behavior of
reinforced coped beams". Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 80, 224-234.
Yam, M., Lam, A., Iu, V. and Cheng, J. (2003). “Local Web Buckling Strength of Coped
Steel I Beams.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(1), pp.3-11.
Yam, M., Fang, C., Lam, A. and Cheng, J. (2014). “Local failures of coped steel beams
— A state-of-the-art review.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 102,
pp.217-232.
155
Appendices
Appendix A: Historic Steel Specifications (Brockenbrough, 2002)
Date Specification Material Yield Point* Tensile Strength* Notes
1900 Rivet Steel 30 50/60
A7 for Bridges Soft Steel 32 52/62
Medium Steel 35 60/70
1901‐1904 Rivet Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength 50/60
A7 for Bridges Soft Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength 52/62
Medium Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength 60/70
1905‐1908 Structural Steel Record Value 60 desired
A7 for Bridges Rivet Steel Record Value 50 desired
Steel Castings 1/2 Tensile Strength 65
1909‐1913 Structural Steel Record Value 60 desired
A7 for Bridges Rivet Steel Record Value 50 desired
Steel Castings 1/2 Tensile Strength 65 Deleted 1913
1914‐1923 Structural Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength 55/65
A7 for Bridges
Rivet Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength 46/56
1924‐1931 Structural Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 30 55/65
A7 for Bridges
Rivet Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 25 46/56
1932 Plates, Shapes, & Bars 1/2 Tensile Str. or 33 min. 60/72 Issued as Tentative Revision to A7 and A9
A140‐32T
Eyebar flats, un‐annealed 1/2 Tensile Str. or 36 min. 67/82
A141‐32T Rivet Steel 1/2 Tensile Str. or 28 min. 52/62
1933 A140‐32T Discontinued
Structural Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 30 55/65 Tentative Revision, Oct. 30, 1933.
A7‐33T (Bridges) Plates, Shapes, & Eyebars 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 33 60/72
Eyebar flats, un‐annealed 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 36 67/82
A141‐32T Rivet Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 28 52/62 adopted
1934‐1938 Plates, Shapes, & Eyebars 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 33 60/72 For Bridges, adopted
A7‐34
Eyebar flats, un‐annealed 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 36 67/82
A141‐33 Rivet Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 28 52/62
1939‐1948 A7‐39 Structural Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 33 60/72 Consolidation of A7‐34 and A9‐34
Appendix A - Historic Steel Specification (Brockenbrough, 2002)
A141‐36 Published as tentative standards, 1932‐1933.
Rivet Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 28 52/62 Replaced rivet steel formerly in A7 and A9
A141‐39 Rivet Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 28 52/62
156
Appendix A: Historic Steel Specifications (Brockenbrough, 2002)
Date Specification Material Yield Point* Tensile Strength* Notes
1949 Issued as tentative standard covering delivery
A6‐49T
requirements for A7 steel
A7 ‐49T Structural Steel 1/2 Tensile Strength ≥ 33 60/72
A141‐49T Rivet Steel 28 52/62
1961 All Shapes 33 60/75
A7‐61T
Plate/bars to 1‐1/2 in 33 60/72
(Structural Steel)
Plate/bars over 1‐1/2 in 33 60/75
1962 All Shapes 36 58/80
A36‐62T
Plate/bars to 1‐1/2 in 36 58/80
(Structural Steel)
Plate/bars over 1‐1/2 in 36 58/80
1963 Group 1 shapes &
Plates/bars to 3/4 in. 50 70
Group 2 shapes &
A242‐63T plates/bars over 3/4 to
(HSLA Steel) 1‐1/2 in. 46 67
Group 3 shapes &
plates/bars over 1‐1/2 to 4
in. 42 63
Group 1 shapes &
Plates/bars to 3/4 in. 50 70
Group 2 shapes &
A440‐63T plates/bars over 3/4 to
(High Strength Steel) 1‐1/2 in. 46 67
Group 3 shapes &
plates/bars over 1‐1/2 to 4
in. 42 63
157
Appendix A: Historic Steel Specifications (Brockenbrough, 2002)
Date Specification Material Yield Point* Tensile Strength* Notes
1963 Group 1 shapes &
(cont.) plates/bars to 3/4 in. 50 70
Group 2 shapes &
plates/bars over 3/4 to
A441‐63T
1‐1/2 in. 46 67
(HSLA Steel)
Group 3 shapes &
plates/bars over 1‐1/2 to 4
in. 42 63
Plates/bars over 4 to 8 in. 40 60
1964 A529‐64 Group 1 shapes &
(Structural Steel) plates/bars to 1/2 in. 42 60/85
A514‐64 to 2‐1/2 in. 100 115‐135
(Q&T Alloy Plate) Over 2‐1/2 to 4 in. 90 105‐135
1966 Group 1&2 shapes &
plates/bars to 3/4 in. 50 70
Group 3 shapes &
A440‐66 plates/bars over 3/4 to
(High Strength Steel) 1‐1/2 in. 46 67
Group 4&5 shapes &
plates/bars over 1‐1/2 to 4
in. 42 63
1967 A7‐66 Discontinued
1968 Group 1 & 2 shapes &
plates/bars to 3/4 in. 50 70
Group 3 shapes &
A242‐68 plates/bars over 3/4 to
(High Strength Steel) 1‐1/2 in. 46 67
Group 4 & 5 shapes &
plates/bars over 1‐1/2 to 4
in. 42 63
158
Appendix A: Historic Steel Specifications (Brockenbrough, 2002)
Date Specification Material Yield Point* Tensile Strength* Notes
1968 Group 1 & 2 shapes &
(Cont.) Plates/bars to 3/4 in. 50 70
Group 3 shapes &
plates/bars over 3/4 to
A441‐68
1‐1/2 in. 46 67
(HSLA Steel)
Group 4 & 5 shapes &
plates/bars over 1‐1/2 to 4
in. 42 63
Plates/bars over 4 to 8 in. 40 60
Grade 42‐ Shapes to 426
lb/ft & plates/bars to
1‐1/2 in. 42 60
Grade 45‐ Shapes to 426
A572‐68
lb/ft & plates/bars to
(HSLA Steel)
1‐1/2 in. 45 60
Grade 50‐ Shapes to 426
lb/ft & plates/bars to
1‐1/2 in. 50 65
Grade 55‐ Shapes to 426
lb/ft & plates/bars to
1‐1/2 in. 55 70
A572‐68
Grade 60‐ Group 1 & 2
(HSLA Steel)
shapes & plates/bars to
(Cont.)
1 in. 60 75
Grade 65‐ Group 1 shapes &
plates/bars to 1/2 in. 65 80
Group 1‐4 shapes and
plates/bars to 4 in. 50 70
A588‐68
(HSLA Steel) Group 5 shapes and
plates/bars over 4 to 5 in. 46 67
Plates/bars over 5 to 8 in. 42 63
159
Appendix A: Historic Steel Specifications (Brockenbrough, 2002)
Date Specification Material Yield Point* Tensile Strength* Notes
1972
Grade 42‐ Shapes to 426
lb/ft & plates/bars to 6 in. 42 60
Grade 45‐ Shapes to 426
lb/ft & plates/bars to 2 in. 45 60
Grade 50‐ Shapes to 426
A572‐72
lb/ft & plates/bars to 2 in. 50 65
(HSLA Steel)
Grade 55‐ Shapes to 426
lb/ft & plates/bars to 1‐1/2
in. 55 70
Grade 60‐ Group 1 & 2
shapes & plates/bars to 1 in. 60 75
Grade 65‐ Group 1 shapes &
plates/bars to 1/2 in. 65 80
1973 Grade 60 & 65: Maximum
A572‐73 thickness for plates/bars
now 1‐ 1/4 in.
1974 A514‐74a To 2‐1/2 in. 100 110/130
(Q&T Alloy Plate) Over 2‐1/2 to 4 in. 100 100/130
Grade 42‐ All Shapes &
plates/bars to 6 in. 42 60
Grade 45‐ All shapes &
plates/bars to 2 in. 45 60
A572‐74b
(HSLA Steel) Grade 50‐ Groups 1‐4 shapes
& plates/bars to 2 in. 50 65
Grade 55‐ Shapes to 426
lb/ft & plates/bars to 1‐1/2
in. 55 70
160
Appendix A: Historic Steel Specifications (Brockenbrough, 2002)
Date Specification Material Yield Point* Tensile Strength* Notes
1974 Grade 60‐ Group 1 & 2
(Cont.) A572‐74b shapes & plates/bars to 1‐
(HSLA Steel) 1/4 in. 60 75
(Cont.) Grade 65‐ Group 1 shapes &
plates/bars to 1‐1/4 in. 65 80
All shapes and plates/bars to
A588‐74a 4 in. 50 70
(HSLA Steel) Plates/bars over 4 to 5 in. 46 67
Plates/bars over 5 to 8 in. 42 63
1977 A514‐77 To 2‐1/2 in. 100 110/130
(Q&T Alloy Plate) Over 2‐1/2 to 6 in. 100 100/130
Grade 42‐ All Shapes &
plates/bars to 6 in. 42 60
Grade 50‐ Groups 1‐4 shapes
A572‐77a & plates/bars to 2in. 50 65
Grades 45 and 55 Discontinued
(HSLA Steel) Grade 60‐ Group 1 & 2
shapes & plates/bars to
1‐1/4 in. 60 75
Grade 65‐ Group 1 shapes &
plates/bars to 1‐1/4 in. 65 80
(*) Properties are specified minimum except minimum/maximum where two values are listed.
"Record Value" indicates that the value is recorded but no value is specified.
"Desired" indicates a value that is aimed for, but no value is specified.
161
162
Load Side:
Resistance Side:
ϕ ≔ 0.8
VR ≔ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
VF 2 + VM 2 + VP 2 = 15.9% Combined COV of Resistance
Q ≔ DL + LL = 1.086 kip
σlnR ≔ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ln ⎛⎝VR 2 + 1⎞⎠ = 0.158
⎛ μR ⎞ 1
μlnR ≔ ln ⎜――⎟ - ―⋅ σlnR 2 = 0.832
⎝ 1 kip ⎠ 2
Y ≔ R - Q = 0.519 kip
165
Appendix C – Recommended AASHTO MBE Revisions
6A.6.6.1.1– Bearing
6 . 6.6.1.1 1
where:
2 6 . 6.6.1.2 1
where:
2 6 . 6.6.1.3 1
where:
specified minimum yield strength (ksi)
specified minimum tensile strength (ksi)
pin hole diameter (in.)
hanger plate effective width (in.) as
shown in Figure C6A.6.6.1.2-1
168
6A.6.6.1.5– Block Shear Yielding C6A.6.6.1.5
The section behind the pin hole shall be This provision considers yielding of the
checked for block shear yielding using Eqn. hanger plate in the region behind the pin
6A.6.6.1.5-1. plate. The failure planes are like those for
block shear with the tension component set
0.58 6 . 6.6.1.5 1 to zero.
where:
The section behind the pin hole shall be Fracture of the plate behind the pin
checked for fracture using Eqn. 6A.6.6.1.6-1. hole can result from either splitting or pin
tear out. Splitting occurs behind the center-
0.58 6 . 6.6.1.6 1 line of the pin with tensile fracture. Pin tear
out is similar to block-shear fracture. This
specified minimum tensile strength (ksi) provision accounts for both failures modes.
the combined cross-sectional area (in.2) The resistance factor in Eqn. 6A.6.6.1.6-1 is
of two shear planes as illustrated in developed in Montgomery et al., (2017) and
Figures C6A.6.6.1.5-1 and accounts for reduced ultimate capacity due
C6A.6.6.1.5-2 to interaction of shear and tensile stresses
0.65, and is the resistance factor for behind the pin.
fracture behind the pin hole.