REF: ASI TN012 Version 1

ASI Head Office

Level 13, 99 Mount Street
North Sydney NSW 2060
Tel: 02 9931 6666
Email: [email protected]

Author: P.W.KEY
(ABN)/ACN (94) 000973 839
www.steel.org.au
Date: Feb 2015 Page 1 of 12
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE TN012 V1

DESIGN OF BOLTED ANGLE CLEAT CONNECTIONS

- A FABRICATION RESPONSIVE SOLUTION
SUMMARY
This Technical Note is intended to provide guidance on the case for adoption of bolted angle cleat
connections and the particular design aspects that are relevant to the available connection models,
allowing designers to identify the most appropriate use cases for the connection. Detailed design
models are referenced to those available in other ASI publications.
It is recommended that designers provide suitable notes on their drawings to allow alternative
connection designs, such as the bolted angle cleat, as this will ensure cost effective solutions
that are responsive to the current market dynamics.

INTRODUCTION
Cost effective processes in the fabrication industry are in a continual state of flux, responsive to
often contradictory market forces including labour rates, the construction cycle, workplace
health and safety, the process technology available and the cost to implement efficiency
improvements. Preferred or economic solutions for particular steel connection details are
subject to these same market forces, which inevitably results in certain steel connection details
becoming more cost and process effective than others at certain points in time.
Efficiencies in cost and fabrication time with the use of structural steel can be provided in
design by adopting a collaborative approach with the fabricator. The type of steel processing
methods and equipment, specifically around connection design, can make significant
differences to structural cost. A steel fabricator without a Computer Numerically Controlled
(CNC) beam line and CNC angle line equipment may favour welded cleat plate connections,
whereas a fabricator with substantial CNC processing equipment will often be able to make
significant savings utilising predominantly bolted connections, taking advantage of the
automated holing and coping by CNC machines. A collaborative approach to connection design
between designer and fabricator will facilitate the potential for efficient solutions. In the UK and
USA, connection design is usually handled by the fabricator’s engineer for this very reason.
The bolted angle cleat connection is a case in point and in recent years, with change and
improvement in fabrication technology and supply chain logistics, has become a solution that is
responsive to CNC fabrication economies and/or pre-processing by steel processors and
distributors.
THE BOLTED ANGLE CLEAT CONNECTION
The bolted angle cleat connection consists of either a single angle bolted to a supported
member web or two angles bolted each side of a supported member web. The angle or angles
are in turn bolted to the supporting member. Typical examples of connection configurations are
shown in Figure 1.

DISCLAIMER: The Australian Steel Institute Limited shall not be liable or responsible in any way whatsoever and expressly
disclaims any liability or responsibility for any loss or damage, claim, proceedings costs or expenses howsoever incurred by any
person whether the client or any third party and whether accruing under statute or in negligence, contract or otherwise at common
law, including but without in any way limited to any loss or damage, claim proceedings costs or expenses incurred as a result of or in
connection with the reliance whether whole or partial by any person as aforesaid upon any part of the contents of this advice.
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN012 Version 1 Page 2 of 12

FIGURE 1 TYPICAL SINGLE AND DOUBLE BOLTED ANGLE CLEAT CONNECTIONS

The bolted angle cleat connection is distinctly different, but used for similar connections, to the
web side plate connection and flexible end plate connection, both shown in Figure 2.
Significantly, the bolted angle cleat connection contains no welded elements, which is the core
differentiator that may enable efficiencies in the fabrication process and supply chain, as will be
discussed subsequently.

FIGURE 2 TYPICAL WEB SIDE PLATE AND FLEXIBLE END PLATE CONNECTIONS
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN012 Version 1 Page 3 of 12

THE STRUCTURAL STEELWORK SUPPLY CHAIN

The overall structure of the structural steelwork supply chain in Australia is reasonably well
established and is shown diagrammatically in Figure 3. ‘Stick’ steel sections (hot-rolled open
sections and cold-formed structural hollow sections) and plate steel are produced by the steel
mills and shipped to distributors, who maintain a stock of the most popular sizes of sections and
plate and will order any material not held in stock from the mills to meet procurer requirements.
The procurer would usually be a fabricator, who fabricates the sections and plate into
components as defined in the contractual documents for the project. The contractor
commissions the fabricator to produce (and often erect) the structural steelwork components for
the project. A number of contractual permutations are possible around this basic workflow.
Opening up of markets through globalisation has resulted in increased avenues for importation
of steel and steelwork at various points in the supply chain, as also shown in Figure 3. Non-
compliant construction products have become a significant issue (Ref. 1) and the development
of the National Structural Steelwork Compliance Scheme (NSSCS) by ASI is a response to
manage steelwork quality in Australia (Ref. 2 and 3).

FIGURE 3 GENERIC STEELWORK SUPPLY CHAIN IN AUSTRALIA

CHANGES IN THE STEEL AND STEELWORK SUPPLY CHAIN

Increasingly in recent years, distributors, whose traditional role has been to simply stock and
distribute the raw sections and plate from the mills, have undertaken a degree of ‘pre-
processing’ of the stock steel to provide value-added services for clients. Typical pre-
processing of steel includes:
• Cutting steel sections to exact lengths required
• Drilling of steel sections for bolted connection holes
• Coping of steel sections to suit connection details

These operations are performed by single or combinations of machines often generically referred to
as ‘beam lines’. Typical examples of beam line components are shown in Figure 4. A range of
videos on fabrication processes are viewable from the ASI website at http://steel.org.au/member-
resources/student-resources-members/steel-fabrication/
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN012 Version 1 Page 4 of 12

FIGURE 4 TYPICAL BEAM LINE COMPONENTS

For standard operations that involve ‘mechanical’ fabrication operations (holing, cutting, edge
treatment etc.), beam lines may offer a cost effective solution, provided economies of scale can
offset the up-front installation cost. For many fabricators, in particular those who do not have
appropriate CNC equipment, it may make economic sense to subcontract these pre-processing
services out to the steel distributor or steel processor and receive steel components that, in
some cases, do not require any further fabrication.
POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS IN STEELWORK FABRICATION AND ERECTION
A 2011 report commissioned by ASI and undertaken by Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) and titled
‘Review of steel costs in medium rise steel framed buildings’ (Ref. 4) clearly indicated there was
potential for cost savings in a number of areas of steelwork fabrication and erection, including:
1. Reduction or elimination of in-house fabrication/processing where the
distributor/merchant can pre-drill and cut members to size
2. Where machine fabrication could be utilised for most items
3. Shop drawing requirements where repetition of member types was possible
4. On-site erection due to all connections being bolted rather than welded
5. Connection costs where connections could be simplified and repetitive
The message around the option to utilise fully bolted connections where possible and
maximising the potential for cost effective pre-processing by distributors where appropriate is
clear. Numerous connection models published by ASI, including Refs 5 and 6, all adopt
standardised connection detailing to support ease of fabrication (and of pre-processing).
The bolted angle cleat connection is a straightforward application of a number of the
abovementioned principles and has the potential to contribute to cost effective solutions, in
particular for scenarios where there are repetitive simple connections, as is usually the case for
the structural beams in multi-storey building construction.
FABRICATION EFFICIENCY
A simple comparison provides an indication of the relativity in fabrication efficiency between
welded and bolted angle cleats. The 610UB101 beam member shown in Figure 5(b) has six
cleats welded to the web (three each side) intended to accept bolted secondary beams. The
total fabrication and weld time for this beam is nominally six hours. The functionally equivalent
beam shown in Figure 5(a) has holing for six bolted angle cleats (three each side). The total
fabrication time for this beam is one hour. Additionally, if pre-processing of the beam (and
potentially also the angle cleats) is undertaken by the distributor, then the fabricator has
potentially only nominal time exposure on this element.
The comparison does not consider the additional time necessary for cutting and holing of the
angle cleats or assembly of the bolted cleats to the supporting beam in option (a). Depending
on specific erector preferences, pre-assembly of the bolted cleats to the supporting beams in
the fabrication shop may be preferable.
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN012 Version 1 Page 5 of 12

(a) Bolted angle cleats (b) Welded cleats

FIGURE 5 COMPARISON OF FABRICATION TIME FOR WELDED CLEATS VERSUS BOLTED
ANGLE CLEATS

Information on steel costs and fabrication efficiencies, in particular in relation to multistorey

buildings, is available from the ASI website at http://steel.org.au/key-issues/multilevel-
buildings/steel-costs/.
TYPICAL DETAILING OF BOLTED ANGLE CLEAT CONNECTION
The typical detailing of the bolted angle cleat connection for both single angle and double angle
cleats is shown in Figure 6, with the standardised designation of dimensioning indicated.

FIGURE 6 TYPICAL DETAILING FOR SINGLE AND DOUBLE BOLTED ANGLE CLEAT
CONNECTIONS
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN012 Version 1 Page 6 of 12

Considerations in respect of detailing include:

1 The angle component is a standard rolled equal or unequal angle (Grade 300). The
component is usually cropped or oxy-cut to length and the holes are usually punched.
Limitations in AS 4100 Section 14 (Ref. 7) apply to these operations.
2 Raking beams can be accommodated with some attention to detail. Skew beams cannot
easily be accommodated.
3 Bolt holes are 2 mm larger than the nominal bolt diameter. Slotted or oversize holes are
not used because AS 4100 requires the use of either bolting category 8.8/TF or 8.8/TB for
such hole types.
4 In connections to column webs, the beam flange may also need to be coped (removed) to
allow the connection to be effected (Figure 7).
5 Fabrication of this type of connection requires close control in cutting the beam to length
and adequate consideration must be given to squaring the beam ends such that both
angle cleats are parallel and the effect of beam camber does not result in out-of-square
angle cleats which makes erection and field fit-up difficult.
6 The use of this connection for two-sided beam-to-beam connections should be considered
carefully. Installation of bolts in the supporting member can cause difficulties in this case.
When unequal sized beams are used, special coping of the bottom flange of the smaller
beams may be required to prevent it fouling the bolts (Figure 8).
7 The connection has some facility for site adjustment during erection. In a run of beams, a
slightly shorter beam may be detailed and supplied with packs of varying thickness in
order to take up any accumulation of tolerances.
8 For coped beams, the top of the end plate and the bottom of the top flange cope cut
should coincide.
9 Check angle cleat component width to ensure that it will fit between fillets of column
section when connecting to column web (Figure 7).
10 In connections to column webs, a check must be made on the length of bolt to be used to
ensure sufficient clearance is available between the angle cleat and the inside of the
column flange, to permit the bolts to be installed (Figure 7).
11 Erection clearances must be especially considered because of the necessity to angle
beams into place during erection. This consideration is most important for the case of a
series of beams in the one row, all connected between the same main supporting
members.
12 If beams of different web thickness are connected to opposite sides of a supporting
member web (column or beam), the difference in web thickness must be kept to 2 mm to
allow the bolt gauge to be set to suit both supported member webs.
13 The bolt gauge for double angle cleat connections is usually set at around 140 mm with
s g3 set at 65 mm. This will accommodate web thicknesses from 6 mm to 14 mm, which
caters for most rolled section supported members.
14 The angle cleat is a good connection in terms of its facility for site adjustment. The two
sets of bolts are both placed in clearance holes allowing slight adjustment in two
directions before the bolts are tightened. In addition to this, packs can be placed between
the cleats and the supported member if required.
15 With two sided connections that share a common set of bolts, the shop bolts (or site bolts)
should be placed with heads in opposite directions in the webs of the connecting pair of
beams and the site bolts placed as shown in Figure 8. In some cases, it may be
necessary to place the nut over the hole and turn the bolt into the nut.
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN012 Version 1 Page 7 of 12

FIGURE 7 COPING BEAM FLANGE(S) FOR COLUMN WEB CONNECTION

FIGURE 8 COPING BEAM BOTTOM FLANGE TO CLEAR BOLTS

FIGURE 9 TYPICAL BOLT PLACEMENT

(after Ref. 8)

COMPLIANCE WITH AS 4100 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONNECTIONS

The angle cleat is notionally a FLEXIBLE CONNECTION within the terms of AS 4100, which is
discussed in Section 2.2 of Handbook 1 (Ref. 9). The requirements for any design model are
specified in Clause 9.1.3 of AS 4100 (Ref. 7) which is discussed in Section 2.3 of Handbook 1.
The ductility necessary in the angle cleat connection is provided by the following factors:
— deformation of the bolts along their axis;
— deformation of the angle cleat by flexing out of plane, pulling in towards the beam and local
deformation of the cleat around the bolt (Figure 10);
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN012 Version 1 Page 8 of 12

— slippage of the cleat horizontally as the plate deforms.

It is considered that the available testing data indicate that sufficient ductility is present from
these sources for the angle cleat connection to qualify as suitable for simple construction terms
of the requirements of AS 4100, provided that all the requirements of this design model—
particularly the limitation on supported member rotation and the geometrical limitations
specified—are complied with.

FIGURE 10 DEFORMATION OF THE ANGLE CLEAT

(after Ref. 10)
BASIS OF DESIGN MODEL – DOUBLE ANGLE CLEATS
The recommended design model in this Design Guide treats the angle cleats as an extension of
the supported beam web.
The American Institute of Steel Construction (Ref. 8) and the Steel Construction Institute, UK
(Ref. 10) adopt a similar design model, with similar assumptions to the recommended design
model.
The design capacity of the bolt group connecting the angle cleats to the supporting member is
based on the assumption that the bolts are loaded in vertical shear only. The design expression
is based on Section 3.6 of Handbook 1 (Ref. 9).
The design capacity of the bolt group connecting the angle cleats to the supported member is
based on the assumption that the bolt group is subject to eccentric shear force acting at the
face of the supporting member. The design expression is based on Section 3.9 of Handbook 1
and involves consideration of the following:
(i) the bolt group being loaded in eccentric shear with the design capacity being derived
using the method of Section 3.9 of Handbook 1, this design capacity being limited by the
bolt shear capacity, bearing on the component and on the supported member web (even
though hole distortion is an inherent part of providing rotational ductility in the
connection).
(ii) end plate tear-out at the most heavily loaded bolt being checked using the component of
force in the vertical direction with any end distances (including holes) in the vertical
direction and the component of force in the horizontal direction with any end distances in
the horizontal direction. The expressions on which the design capacity are based are also
derived in Section 3.9 of Handbook 1.
The expressions for the design capacities of the angle cleat component in shear and under
moment are taken directly from the expressions given in Section 5.4 of Handbook 1, the latter
being derived from the design moment capacity (φM si ) divided by the eccentricity (e). Likewise,
the expression for the design capacity in block shear is taken from Section 5.4 of Handbook 1.
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN012 Version 1 Page 9 of 12

The design capacity of the supported member in shear and in bending for coped supported
members use the expressions derived in Section 6.2 to 6.6 of Handbook 1, again assuming that
the end reaction acts at the face of the supporting member. The design capacity in block shear
is intended to guard against the possibility of that type of failure in the web of a coped
supported member. This phenomenon is discussed in detail in Section 6.9 of Handbook 1.
In Reference 11, Carrato has compared Australian (Ref. 12) and American (Ref. 13) design
methods. He observed that the Australian method gave a lower design capacity and noted that
this is primarily due to consideration of horizontal tear-out in the web of the supported member
in the Australian design method. Carrato considers such tear-out as ‘highly unlikely’ for five
different reasons. The other minor differences between the two design methods noted by
Carrato are considered by him not to influence ‘the final design of the connection’.
Since the bolts in the supported member web are considered to be eccentrically loaded in the
recommended design model of Reference 12 and this Design Guide, a horizontal component of
force is applied to the bolts. AS 4100 requires that tear-out be considered in such a case. The
basis of the recommended design model in this Design Guide is consequently identical to that in
Reference 12, and is consistent with that for the web side plate connection in this respect as
contained in Handbook 1.
BASIS OF DESIGN MODEL – SINGLE ANGLE CLEATS
The recommended design model in this Design Guide treats the angle cleat as an extension of
the supported beam web.
The American Institute of Steel Construction (Ref. 8) adopts a similar design model, with similar
assumptions to the recommended design model. The Steel Construction Institute, UK (Ref. 10)
does not have a design model for a single angle cleat.
The design capacity of the bolt group connecting the angle cleat to the supporting member is
based on the assumption that the bolts are loaded in eccentric shear force. The design
expression is based on Section 3.9 of Handbook 1 (Ref. 9) for an eccentricity equal to the
distance between the centre of the supported member web and the centre of the bolt group.
The design capacity of the bolt group connecting the angle cleat to the supported member is
based on the assumption that the bolt group is subject to eccentric shear force acting at the
face of the supporting member. The design expression is based on Section 3.9 of Handbook 1.
The design expressions for both bolt groups involves consideration of the following:
(i) the bolt group being loaded in eccentric shear with the design capacity being derived
using the method of Section 3.9 of Handbook 1, this design capacity being limited by the
bolt shear capacity, bearing on the component and on the supported member web (even
though hole distortion is an inherent part of providing rotational ductility in the
connection).
(ii) end plate tear-out at the most heavily loaded bolt being checked using the component of
force in the vertical direction with any end distances (including holes) in the vertical
direction and the component of force in the horizontal direction with any end distance in
the horizontal direction. The expressions on which the design capacity is based are also
derived in Section 3.9 of Handbook 1.
The expressions for the design capacities of the angle cleat component in shear and under
moment are taken directly from the expressions given in Section 5.4 of Handbook 1, the latter
being derived from the design moment capacity (φM si ) divided by the eccentricity (e). Likewise,
the expression for the design capacity in block shear is taken from Section 5.4 of Handbook 1.
The design capacity of the supported member in shear and in bending for coped supported
members use the expressions derived in Section 6.2 to 6.6 of Handbook 1, again assuming that
the end reaction acts at the face of the supporting member. The design capacity in block shear
is intended to guard against the possibility of that type of failure in the web of a coped
supported member. This phenomenon is discussed in detail in Section 6.9 of Handbook 1.
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN012 Version 1 Page 10 of 12

CONNECTION GEOMETRY
As indicated in Figure 11, angle components are assumed to be oriented such that:
(a) one leg of the angle cleat component (leg α) is attached to the supporting member
through bolt group α;
(b) the other leg of the angle cleat component (leg β) is attached to the beam web through
bolt group β.

FIGURE 11 CONNECTION GEOMETRY

ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN012 Version 1 Page 11 of 12

RECOMMENDED DESIGN MODEL – SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHECKS

Single and double angle cleats
Design is based on determining Vdes, the design capacity of the connection, which is the
minimum of the design capacities tabulated below.
The design requirement is then Vdes ≥ V* (design shear force).
From AS 4100, Clause 9.1.4(b)(ii) (Ref. 7) this connection must be designed for a minimum
design shear force of 40 kN, or 0.15 × member design shear capacity, whichever is the lesser.

DESIGN CHECK NO. 1 — Detailing limitations

DESIGN CHECK NO. 2 — Design capacity of bolts to supporting member
DESIGN CHECK NO. 3 — Design capacity of bolts to supported member
DESIGN CHECK NO. 4 — Design capacity of angle cleats (Shear, bending, block
shear)
DESIGN CHECK NO. 5 — Design capacity of supported member (Shear—Uncoped or
coped)
DESIGN CHECK NO. 6 — Design capacity of supported member (Block shear—Coped
section)
DESIGN CHECK NO. 7 — Design capacity of supported member (Bending of coped
section)
DESIGN CHECK NO. 8 — Beam rotation check
DESIGN CHECK NO. 9 — Local stability of coped supported member
DESIGN CHECK NO. 10 — Local capacity of supporting member
The full design checks are documented in Ref.14. Design capacity tables for common
standardised configurations of bolted angle cleats are provided in Ref.14, together with detailing
aspects.
ASI RECOMMENDATIONS
ASI recommends that the supply chain, and in particular designers, fabricators and detailers,
explore at an early stage in the project the cost savings possible through sympathetic detailing
of the connections with consideration given to both the capabilities of the distribution chain to
provide cost effective pre-processing and the availability of CNC machines in some fabrication
shops. The use of the bolted angle connection may be a cost effective solution in some
situations.
Designers should facilitate the potential adoption of alternative solutions for connection
configuration, where these meet the performance requirements and can be demonstrated to
provide cost and/or time efficiencies. The bolted angle connection is a case in point. Notes on
the relevant construction drawings or in specifications to allow submission of alternative
solutions may be an appropriate mechanism.
Compliance of construction products is a current issue in industry. In respect of steelwork, the
engineer must have confidence in the material systems and traceability, weld processing
capability to AS/NZS1554 etc. of the fabricator, appropriate to the level of risk for the structure
concerned. These systems are covered by the ASI National Structural Steelwork Compliance
Scheme (NSSCS) and the ASI Structural Steelwork Fabrication and Erection Code of Practice
(COP). At the time of writing, the COP is in process to become the first Australian Standard for
fabrication and erection of structural steelwork, AS/NZS 5131. ASI recommends the
construction specifications and drawings for all projects contain the wording to reference the
new COP (and AS/NZS 5131 when available). Guidance on the required wording is contained in
ASI Tech Note TN-011 (Ref. 15), freely downloadable from the ASI website.
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN012 Version 1 Page 12 of 12

REFERENCES
1 Australian Procurement and Construction Council, ‘Procurement of construction products.
A guide to achieving compliance’, 2014.
2. Australian Steel Institute, ‘Structural steelwork fabrication and erection Code of Practice’,
Australian Steel Institute, 2014.
3. Steel Compliance Australia website: www.scacompliance.com
4. Rider Levett Bucknall, ‘Review of steel costs in medium rise steel framed buildings’, 2011.
Download: http://steel.org.au/key-issues/multilevel-buildings/steel-costs/
5. Australian Steel Institute, ‘Design capacity tables for structural steel, Vol 3: Simple
connections - Open sections’, 2007.
6. Australian Steel Institute ‘Design capacity tables for structural steel, Vol 4: Rigid
connections - Open sections’, 2009.
7. Standards Australia, AS 4100-1998 ‘Steel structures’ (includes Amendment 1, 2012).
8. American Institute of Steel Construction, ‘Steel construction manual’, 13 th edition, 2005.
9. Australian Steel Institute, ‘Handbook 1: Design of structural steel connections’, 2007.
10. Steel Construction Institute and British Constructional Steelwork Association, ‘Joints in
steel construction: Simple connections’, Publication P212, 2002.
11. Carrato, P.J., ‘A comparison of Australian and American design of double angle
connections’, Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, 3 rd Quarter,
2003, pp.139–147.
12. Australian Institute of Steel Construction, ‘Design of structural connections’, 4 th edition,
Authors Hogan, T.J. and Thomas, I.R., 1994.
13. American Institute of Steel Construction, ‘Manual of steel construction load and resistance
factor design’, 3 rd Edition, 2001.
14. Australian Steel Institute, ‘Design guide 5: Angle cleat connections’, 2007.
15. Australian Steel Institute, Tech Note TN-011 ‘Structural steelwork fabrication and erection
Code of Practice – Implementation guide for design engineers’, Oct, 2014.