April 2011

Notes on
Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-
Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit

By

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E. and Wahid Tadros

Professor President
University of California, Berkeley California Engineering Contractors Inc.

Copyright © 2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

____________________________________________________________________________
(A copy of this report can be downloaded for personal use from www.steeltips.org)

0
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses - Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit

By: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor, University of California, Berkeley, and
Wahid Tadros, President, California Engineering Contractors, Inc.

Abstract—This Steel Technical Information and Product Services (Steel TIPS) report provides information and
technologies for evaluation, repair, retrofit and replacement of gusset plates in existing steel trusses of buildings
and bridges. A sister Steel TIPS report: “Design of Gusset Plates in Steel Bridges” by A. Astaneh-Asl provided
information on Design of gusset plates in steel truss bridges. This steel tips provides information and notes on
how to evaluate gusset plates in existing trusses for their strength and what to do if an existing gusset plate is
deficient and in need of repair, retrofit or replacement. The information can be applied to trusses in buildings.
The report also provides information on seismic retrofit of gusset plates in steel truss bridges.
The first chapter is a brief introduction to the steel truss bridges and gusset plates. Chapter 2 focuses on
evaluation and load rating of existing gusset plates. Chapter 3 is on damage and deficiencies found in gusset
plates in steel truss bridges including notes on corrosion. Chapter 4 discusses construction issues regarding
repair, retrofit and replacement of gusset plates. Issues related to rivet removal are also covered in this chapter.
The last chapter, Chapter 5, presents information on paint removal and repainting before, during and after the
discussed remedies for the deficient rivet or gusset plate.

First posting on the www.steeltips.org: April 2011.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E. Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1710, Phone (925) 946-0903,
E-mail: [email protected]/~astaneh, Personal web site: http://www.astaneh.net,
University web site: http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh
Wahid Tadros, President, California Engineering Contractors Inc., 20 Happy Valley Road, Pleasanton, CA
94566, CA. Phone (925) 941-1500, Fax: (925) 461-0510.
E-mail: [email protected], Web site:http://www.cecmain.com
_______________________________________________________________________

COPYRIGHT © 2011 Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States
Copyright Act of 1976 and all subsequent amendments, no part of this publication may be reproduced or
distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without written permission of
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All drawings and photos taken by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl are by and copyright 2011
of Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and cannot be used in any other document or file, printed or electronic, by anyone
for any purpose without written permission of the creator and copyright holder Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.

Disclaimer: The information presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with recognized
engineering principles and is for general information only. While it is believed to be accurate, this information
should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent professional examination and
verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by a licensed professional engineer, designer, or
architect. The publication of the material contained herein is not intended as a representation or warranty, on
the part of the Structural Steel Educational Council or of any other person named herein, that this information is
suitable for any general or particular use or of freedom from infringement of any patent or patents. Anyone
making use of this information assumes all liability arising from such use.
Caution must be exercised when relying upon specifications and codes developed by others and
incorporated by reference herein since such material may be modified or amended from time to time
subsequent to the printing of this document. The Structural Steel Educational Council or the author bears no
responsibility for such material other than to refer to it and incorporate it by reference at the time of the initial
publication of this document.

1
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The publication of this report was made possible in part by the support of the Structural Steel
Educational Council (SSEC). Funding was provided by the California Field Iron Workers
Administrative Trust (CFIWAT), a union trust fund. The authors wish to thank all SSEC members ,
CFIWAT members and all those who contribute to CFIWAT, for their support and input.
Thanks are due to Fred Boettler, the Administrator of the SSEC, for his invaluable and
tireless efforts in helping the authors to do their best in delivering the highest quality Steel TIPS
reports in a timely manner on topics of importance to the structural steel design, fabrication, and
erection communities. In addition, the authors wish to thank all other SSEC members for their
technical support as well as for the travel grant provided to the first author to spend 11 days in
Minneapolis after the 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge to collect data on the collapse. The
valuable lessons learned provide information to help prevent such tragedies from happening again in
the future. Special thanks are due to Professor Michael Miller of the University of Minnesota for his
hospitality, friendship, and important input on I-35W.
The section on the rivet removal is based on a report originally prepared by the first author
for the California Engineering Contractors Inc./Modern Continental, A Joint Venture. The support of
the Joint Venture as well as the technical information received from its engineers, especially the
second author, is greatly appreciated. Also, the comments of Dr. Michael Benoit, a renowned leader
in this field, were very useful and sincerely appreciated.
The authors would like to thank Robert Ikenberry of California Engineering
Contractors Inc. for sharing his valuable knowledge and experience in bridge painting and paint
removal and authoring Chapter 5 of this report .
We are indebted to and would like to thank the developers of the web sites:
www.historicalbridges.org , www.bridgehunter.com and www.bridgemeister.com for their dedicated
work and time spent in collecting and posting extensive information and photographs on bridges,
especially truss bridges and their gusset plates,. Similarly, the authors would like to acknowledge
Google (www.google.com) for PDF files of old books with expired copyrights in its Google books
site (http://books.google.com/).
A number of AASHTO provisions relevant to design, evaluation, repair, retrofit and
replacement of gusset plates are referred to throughout this report. Those references are for
information only. For actual design and evaluation, the AASHTO Specifications should be used .
The authors have no affiliation with the AASHTO and this report is independent of the AASHTO.
The opinions expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of California, Berkeley, where the first author is a
professor of structural engineering, the California Engineering Contractors Inc., where the second
author is the president, the Structural Steel Educational Council of which the first author is a
member, or other agencies and individuals whose names appear in this report.

2
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
NOTES ON GUSSET PLATES IN STEEL TRUSSES-
EVALUATION, REPAIR, AND RETROFIT
By:

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL, P.E., Ph.D.

Professor
University of California, Berkeley

and

WAHID TADROS President

California Engineering Contractors Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT / Page 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS / Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS / Page 3
NOTATIONS / Page 4
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO GUSSET PLATES IN STEEL BRIDGES / Page 6
CHAPTER 2. EVALUATION OF STRENGTH OF GUSSET AND LOAD RATING OF
GUSSET PLATES/ Page 9
CHAPTER 3. REPAIR, RETROFIT AND REPLACEMENT OF GUSSET PLATES/Page 20
CHAPTER 4. CONSTRUCTION ISSUES IN REPAIR, RETROFIT AND REPLACEMENT
OF GUSSET PLATES/ Page 44
CHAPTER 5. ISSUES RELATING TO PAINTING AND PAINT OF BRIDGE GUSSET
PLATES/ Page 46
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY / Page 49

ABOUT THE AUTHORS / Page 57

LIST OF PUBLISHED STEEL TIPS REPORTS / Page 58
PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF STRUCTURAL STEEL EDUCATIONAL COUNCIL/ Back Cover

3
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
_______________________________________________________________________

Notations
_________________________________________________________________________
Ab =Area of one bolt
B = Nominal capacity of one rivet or one bolt in tension
C = Capacity for limit state under consideration
DC = Dead load effect due to structural components and attachments
DW = Dead load effect due to wearing surface and utilities
IM = Dynamic load allowance
F = Allowable stress specified in the LRFD code
Fbt = Tensile strength of bolt
Fy = Specified yield strength of the steel used
LL = Live load effects
M = Moment
MDL = Applied bending moment due to unfactored dead load calculated using elastic analysis
MLL+IM = Applied bending moment due to unfactored live load calculated using elastic analysis
Mp = Plastic bending moment capacity of angle leg
Mr = Factored flexural resistance calculated based on provisions of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (AASHTO, 2007)
P = Permanent load other than dead load (such as residual stresses created in the members and
connections during fabrication and erection of trusses
PDL = Applied axial force due to unfactored dead load calculated using elastic analysis
PLL+IM = Applied axial force due to unfactored live load calculated using elastic analysis
Pnp Nominal axial force that results in formation of plastic hinge in the angle legs
Pr = Factored axial tensile or compressive resistance calculated based on provisions of the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007)
RF = Rating factor for critical sections of gusset plate subjected to axial force and bending
Rn = Nominal member resistance (as inspected)
T = Applied tension per bolt (exclusive of initial tightening)
To = Balance tension load
T1 = Tensile capacity in T-hanger or angle under tension
T2 = Tensile capacity in T-hanger or angle under tension
T2 = Tensile capacity in T-hanger or angle under tension
a = Distance from bolt center line to edge of tee flange or angle leg but not more than 1.25b
a' = a + d/2
b = Distance from bolt center line (gage line) to the face of the angle leg
b' = b — d/2
d = Bolt nominal diameter
d' = Width of bolt hole in flange parallel to the angle leg
f’c = Specified compressive strength of
fR = Allowable stress specified in the LRFD code
concrete
p = Length of flange, parallel to stem or leg, tributary to each bolt
tf = Thickness of angle leg
δ = Ratio of net area (at bolt line) and the gross area (at the face of the angle leg)
δb = An amplification factor for P-δ effects in members subjected to compression and bending

4
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
ϕ = LRFD resistance factor for load rating which is the same as the resistance factors given in the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007) for design of new bridges
ϕc = Condition factor which represents the amount of deterioration in the component or
ϕs = System factor that represent the level of redundancy in the complete bridge superstructure system
φb = reduction factor for bolt in LRFD
γb
γD = LRFD load factor for dead load
γL = Evaluation live load factor given in Table 2.1 in the text
γDC = LRFD load factors for structural components and attachments
γDW = LRFD load factors for wearing surface and utilities
γP = LRFD load factors for permanent load other than dead load= 1.0
γLL = Evaluation live load factor given in Table 2.1 earlier

5
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
1. Introduction to Gusset
Plates in Steel Bridges

1. 1. INTRODUCTION

Gusset plates are important elements of most steel trusses. A report by the author in 2010(
Astaneh 2010) focused on the behavior and design of gusset plates in new trusses in steel
bridges. This report focuses on the evaluation, retrofit, repair and replacement of gusset plates in
existing trusses.

1.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT

The main objectives of this report are:

To introduce the reader to the deficiencies that gusset plates in existing bridges may have.

To present information that can be used in evaluation of the strength of gusset plates in
existing bridges, and;

To present technologies and construction procedures for design, fabrication, erection and
other construction activities regarding repair, retrofit and replacement of deficient or
damaged gusset plates in existing truss bridges

1.3. SCOPE
This document focuses on the gusset plates in existing truss bridges. Figures 1.1 through 1.4
show typical bridge gusset plates, that are the focus of this report. The report provides
information and technologies that can be used to evaluate, repair, retrofit or replace gusset plates
in existing steel truss bridges. The first chapter is a brief introduction to the steel truss bridges
and gusset plates. Chapter 2 focuses on evaluation and load rating of existing gusset plates.
Chapter 3 is on damage and deficiencies found in gusset plates in steel truss bridges including
notes on corrosion. Chapter 4 discusses construction issues regarding repair, retrofit and
replacement of gusset plates. Issues related to rivet removal are also covered in this chapter. The
last chapter, Chapter 5, presents information on paint removal and repainting before, during and
after the discussed remedies for the deficient rivet or gusset plate.

6
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 Diagonal
Member Vertical Member
(In this case has (In this case has
tension force in tension force in it)
it)

Diagonal Member
(In this case has
compression force
in it)
Chord Member
(In this case has Chord Member
tension force in it) (In this case has tension
force in it)

Figure 1.1. A Typical Riveted/Bolted Steel Bridge Truss Gusset Plate, the Main Focus of this Report
(From: Astaneh-Asl, 2010)

Gusset Plate

Splice Plate

Photos courtesy of:

www.historicalbridge.org Splice
(with permission) Plate

Gusset
Plate
Splice Plate

Gusset Plate

Figure 1.2. The 1924 riveted King’s Highway 3 Bridge in Ontario, Canada, and its Riveted/Bolted Gusset
Plate Connections. The top right photo shows a gusset plate which is also a splice plate for
the bottom chord member (Astaneh-Asl, 2010)
7
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 Figure 1.3. The 1968 Carquinez Bridge in California and its Typical Bolted Gusset Plates
(Astaneh-Asl, 2010)

C
Photo by Mn/DOT

Photo by A. Astaneh-Asl

C
T C

Figure 1.4. The 1959 DeSoto Bridge (demolished in 2008 and is being replaced) and One of Its
Gusset Plates, at Location L11’, which had Edge Buckling. (Astaneh-Asl, 2010)
8
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2. Evaluation of Strength
and Load Rating of
Gusset Plates

2.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on evaluation of the strength of gusset plates and their load rating.
Evaluating the strength of components of a bridge, including gusset plates, is an important step
in “Load Rating” and “Posting” of an existing bridge. The essential document on the bridge
evaluation and load rating, which also governs the evaluation of gusset plates and load rating, is
The Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008) published by the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation provides
analytical and empirical methods, in LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design) as well as ASD
(Allowable Stress Design) and LFD (Load Factor Design) formats for evaluation of strength
limit states. It also provides information on evaluation of serviceability limit states although not
as specific as those for the strength limit states. In this report we focus on strength limit states
for gusset plates and only use the LRFD format to be consistent with the format of current
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007) which is the governing bridge
design specifications. There are no serviceability limit states directly associated with the gusset
plates. The fatigue considerations are not included in this report.

2.2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “EVALUATION” AND “DESIGN”

Evaluation of an existing structural component, whether in bridges or other structures, is
somewhat different than designing the same component as part of a new yet to be built structure.
In design of new structures , the design engineer has a variety of options to choose from
regarding the structural systems, material properties, geometry and type of members and
connections. In addition, there are very specific load combinations and load and resistance
factors per design specifications such as the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
(AASHTO, 2007) that need to be followed in design of new bridges. Considering all of these
variables in design of new structures, the designer satisfies the performance criteria with regard
to safety and serviceability. The final design is to be economical, satisfy the environmental
impact rules and regulations during its entire life cycle, be easy to construct, inspect and
maintain and of course be aesthetically pleasing. However, in evaluating an existing structure
for safety and serviceability, many of the design variables such as, geometry, material properties,
9
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
aesthetics, and environmental impact have already been decided and are final. As far as loading,
in the new design one has to consider values of loads and load factors as given in the governing
design specification such as AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007).
However, evaluation of an existing bridge is commonly done for rating the bridge for a specific
maximum safe live load. Or, the evaluation of an existing bridge is done to identify its
deficiencies in order to repair or retrofit it to maintain its rating. In such evaluations, the dead
load of the bridge, geometric and material properties have known values.
Another major difference between the design of a new bridge and evaluation of strength
of an existing bridge is in the value of load factors that are used in LRFD load combinations. For
design of new bridges, the load factors given in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications should be used. These probabilistic-based load factors are established using a
target reliability index (or sometimes called safety index) , β, of 3.5. For evaluation of existing
bridges, the load factors are given in the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008) and are
established using a target reliability index , β, of 2.5. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation
(AASHTO, 2008, p. 6-2) explains that smaller reliability index is justified for evaluation “to
reflect the reduced exposure period, consideration of site realities, and the economic
considerations of rating vs. design”. Throughout this report, we will use load factors and load
combinations that are specified in the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008) for Load
and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) of bridges.
There is no difference between the design and evaluation when we establish the nominal
strength of the components. In both we use equations and procedures given in the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007). Also in both design and evaluation the
nominal values of applied loads are those given in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (AASHTO, 2007).

2.3. NOTES ON EVALUATION OF EXISTING CONDITION OF GUSSET PLATES

This section focuses on activities to undertake to establish the existing condition of gusset
plates. These activities include studying the bridge construction and its fabrication plans, its
original and as built drawings, its past inspection reports, repair and retrofit plans since the
bridge opening, and verifying the existing dead loads due to structural components and
attachments as well as the existence of any utilities. Studying the available data on the bridge
such as inspection reports and bridge plans and field inspections are main components of the data
collection for any evaluation. There are notes and tips on these items in the following section.

2.3.a. Notes on Collection of Evaluation Data on Existing Gusset Plates

The first step in evaluating the existing condition of gusset plates is to collect and study the
following documents:

10
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 1. The original construction drawings:
These drawings can be used to establish the design dimensions as well as the material
properties, which were intended to be used in the original construction. Also, these
drawings usually indicate which edition of the AASHTO bridge specification was
followed in the original design. Furthermore the dimensions of gusset plates and their
components such as rivets, bolts, welds, edge stiffeners extracted from the construction
plans should be verified in the field. As for the material properties, it may be prudent to
verify the material properties through chemical composition testing and/or hardness
testing with minimum damage to the gusset plates. If there is a reasonable doubt on the
type and mechanical properties of the steel used in the gusset plates, tension coupon tests
of specimens cut out of gusset plates can be done to establish the existing properties
accurately. The selection of the location and the size of such specimens should be done
carefully to prevent altering the state of stress in the existing gusset plate. The samples
must be taken from the less stressed areas of gusset plates that are not critical to the
stability of the superstructure.
2. The shop drawings:
In many cases, shop drawings of gusset plates are available to establish the actual
dimension of gusset plates and spacing of rivets or bolts and the size of welds. Shop
drawings also can be quite useful in establishing the type of steel and connectors used in
the fabrication of gusset plates. Figure below shows an example of such shop drawings
for gusset plates.
3. The “as-built” drawings:
As far as gusset plates are concerned, usually they are constructed according to the
original construction plans. However, if as built drawings are available, they need to be
reviewed and any changes to the original construction plans noted and verified in the
field.
4. The construction and erection plans:
The construction and erection plans show the sequence of construction and erection of
the truss, stringers and placement of the deck when the bridge under evaluation was
constructed. Figure 2.1 below show an example of such drawings. This information can
be quite useful in establishing any permanent construction stresses built into the gusset
plates during the original construction.
5. The original design contract and design calculations:
In many cases, especially for important bridges, the original contract and design
calculations are preserved and available. In some cases, even the material test results are
also available to establish the material properties of the gusset plates.

11
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2.4. LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR LOAD RATING (LRFR)
The Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008, p. 6-4) specifies three levels of load
ratings:
1. Design Load Rating
This is the first level of bridge rating using the HL-93 live loading, the LRFD design
standards and dimensions and material properties of existing bridge.
2. Legal Load Rating
This is the second level of bridge rating and provides a single rate load capacity for a
given truck configuration applicable to AASHTO and State legal loads.
3. Permit Load Rating
This level of bridge rating evaluates a bridge for safety and serviceability for passage of
vehicles heavier than the legal load level established by Legal Load Rating process.
In all three levels, the process is similar with major difference being in the type of live vehicular
load used in the evaluation. In this report, we will focus on component-specific evaluation of
gusset plates as part of the first level rating; the Design Load Rating and refer the reader for more
information on the Legal Load Rating and the Permit Load Rating to the Manual for Bridge
Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008).
In addition to the above evaluations done for bridge rating and posting purposes,
evaluation of a bridge is also done for other purposes such as establishing the existing condition
of the bridge when the bridge is planned to be seismically retrofitted, new lanes be added, or
construction material and equipment to be stored and used on the bridge. In all of these cases, the
main objective of the evaluation is to establish the existing capacity of the bridge. Then, by
considering the specific load effects such as additional seismic loads, construction loads or
weight of the new lanes, the analysis is done to ensure that the bridge can safely carry these load
effects. If the bridge is insufficient, the retrofit needs are identified and proper measures are
implemented.

2.4. LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS FOR DESIGN-LOAD RATING

The design-load rating is done to assess the performance of a bridge under AASHTO’s
“Inventory” or “Operating” design load. The dead and live load in the Inventory and Operating
design load are the same. The load factors for the Inventory design load are those given in the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007), while the load factors given
for Operating design load are those given in the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO,
2008). The Operating design load factors are smaller than the Inventory load factors which are
for the new design.

12
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2.4.a. Loads for Design-Load Ratings
The loads that should be used in evaluating gusset plates are the same loads used in evaluating
other components of an existing bridge and are specified in Section 6A.2 of the Manual for
Bridge Evaluation(AASHTO, 2008, p.6-6). The Manual, considers only the permanent loads
and live loads to be of consequence in load rating. The permanent loads include dead loads and
locked-in force effects from the construction. The dead loads to be considered in load rating,
according to the Manual for Bridge Evaluation are DC (dead load of structural components and
nonstructural attachments), and DW (dead load of wearing surface and utilities). The values of
these loads are calculated using the minimum weight of material as given in the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, if no other precise values are available. In calculating permanent
dead loads, the existing dimensions of the bridge and its components are used. Such dimensions
are shown on the plans and verified in the field.
As mentioned earlier, the locked-in forces, due to construction processes, need to be also
included in the load rating evaluations. For gusset plates in steel truss bridges, specially in
riveted and bolted trusses, such locked-in force effects are quite important since depending on
erection plans and how the span was closed during the erection of the truss, adversarial or
beneficial stresses can be locked permanently within the gusset plate. It must be mentioned that
these locked-in stresses are quite complex and establishing realistic values for them, especially if
the bridge has been under service and expansion-contraction for sometime, is a very difficult and
time consuming task. To establish these locked-in construction stresses in gusset plates, we need
to obtain the erection plans for the trusses. Using a structural analysis software, capable of
simulating the erection process, we can simulate the erection process and establish the locked-in
stresses in the members end cross sections. Then, in the analysis of gusset plate stresses, we
apply the member locked-in stresses to the gusset plates where the member ends are attached to
the gusset plate.
In addition to above permanent dead loads to be used in bridge rating and evaluation of
the gusset plates, the Manual for Bridge Evaluation states that: “Secondary effects from post-
tensioning shall be considered as permanent loads “(AASHTO, 2008, p.6-7). Pre-tensioning
primarily applies to reinforced concrete members. However, as discussed in later chapters, in
certain cases, we can use post-tensioning of gusset plates, or even trusses, to change the stress
pattern in the gusset plate as a measure of retrofit of gusset plate. In those cases, the stresses built
into the gusset plates due to such post-tensioning, should be considered as permanent load in
load rating of the gusset plates.
The live loads to be used in bridge rating depend on the level of evaluation as specified in
Article 6A.2.3 of the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008). For the first level of
evaluation; the Design Load Rating, which is the focus of this report, the HL-93 Design Load as
given in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007) is used. The
number of traffic lanes to be loaded with HL-93 and the transverse placement of wheel lines
should also be as specified in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
According to the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008, pp 6-8 to 6-9) other
loads, such as PL (Pedestrian Live Loads), WL and WS (Wind Loads), TG and TU (Temperature
13
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Effects), EQ (Earthquake Effects), CR and CH (Creep and Shrinkage Effects), in general, need
not be considered in calculating load ratings. For more detailed discussion of these loads and
when they need to be considered in design or evaluation the reader is referred to the
AASHTO(2007) and AASHTO (2008).

2.4.b. Load Factors and Limit States for Design-Load Rating

As mentioned earlier, load factors to be used in evaluation of a bridge for Operating load rating
are different and smaller than the load factors used in Operating load rating of a bridge which
are the same load factors used in design of new bridges. Also, in evaluation of a bridge for load
rating, only a small number of limit states that are given in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications are used. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation in its Table 6A.4.2.2-1 provides a
complete list of limit states and load factors for load rating of steel, reinforced concrete, pre-
stressed concrete and wood bridges. The following table shows only the part of the Manual table
that is on steel bridges and Design-Load rating. For other material and Legal and Permit Load
ratings the reader is referred to the AASHTO Table 6A.4.2.2-1 in the Manual for Bridge
Evaluation(AASHTO, 2008).
Table 2.1. Limit States and Load Factors for Design-Load Rating of Steel Bridgesa
Design Load
Dead Load Dead Load
Bridge Inventory Operating
Type Limit State b
γDC γDW
γLL γLL
Strength I 1.25 1.50 1.75 1.35
Strength II 1.25 1.50 - -
Steel Service II 1.00 1.00 1.30 1.00
Fatigue 0.00 0.00 0.75c -

a
This table is part of Table 6A.4.2.2.-1 of the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008)
b
The limit states listed here are defined in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007)
c
According to the Manual of Bridge Evaluation, this is an optional check.

2.4.c. General Load Rating Equation for Single Force Effect

The Manual for Bridge Evaluation provides the following equation “to be used in determining
the load ratings of each component and connection subjected to a single force effect (i.e., axial
force, flexure, or shear)” (AASHTO, 2008, p. 6-12). Limit states of strength in gusset plates
corresponding to single force effects are:
1. Shear failure of the rivets, bolts or welds connecting members to gusset plates
2. Bearing failure of the rivets or bolts bearing against the member or gusset plate

14
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 3. Edge distance or end distance of rivets or bolts not being adequate to satisfy AASHTO
requirements
4. Center-to-center spacing of rivet or bolt not being adequate to satisfy AASHTO requirements
5. Yielding of the Whitmore gross area at the termination areas of the tension members
6. Fracture of Whitmore net section at the termination areas of the tension members
7. Block shear failure of the gusset plate where tension members are attached to it
8. Buckling of the gusset plate in compression
9. Buckling of the “free” edges of the gusset plate
10. Shear failure of critical section of gusset plate under shear force only

If the component or connection, such as a gusset plate, is subjected to combined load

effects (e.g. combined axial and bending) the combined load effects should also be considered in
load rating. We discuss load rating of gusset plate under combined effects of axial load and
bending in the next section (Section 2.4.d).
The general load rating equation below which is for single force effect (i.e., axial,
flexure, or shear) should be applied to all limit states of a component or connection and for each
limit state a rating factor, RF, be calculated. The load rating factor, RF, for the bridge is the
smaller of all rating factors for its components and connections. The rating factor equation is
given in the Manual of Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008) as:

C − ( γ DC )( DC ) − ( γ DW ) ± ( γ P )( P )
RF = (AASHTO Eq.: 6A.4.2.1-1) (2.1)
( γ LL )( LL + IM )

The term C in the above equation is the “Capacity” for the limit state under
consideration which is given by the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008, p.6-12) as:

a. for the Strength Limit States:

C = ϕ c ϕ s ϕ Rn (AASHTO Eq.: 6A.4.2.1-2) (2.2)

A value of ϕcϕs greater than or equal to 0.85 should be used in the above equation of C.
b. for the Service Limit States:
C = fR (AASHTO Eq.: 6A.4.2.1-4) (2.3)

The terms in the above equations of C are:

15
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 ϕc = Condition factor which represents the amount of deterioration in the component
or connection and possible further deterioration in the future between inspections. The
Manual of Bridge Evaluation states that : “Use of Condition Factors as stated below may
be considered optional based on the agency’s load-rating practices.” (AASHTO, 2008, p.
6-14). Considering the importance of gusset plates in stability of determinate trusses or
trusses with relatively low redundancy, we suggest that the Condition Factors be
considered in load rating of bridge gusset plates. The value of ϕc are given in the
Manual of Bridge Evaluation as 1.0, 0.95 and 0.85 for “Good and Satisfactory”, “Fair”
and “Poor” conditions respectively (AASHTO, 2008, p. 6-14). The Manual provides an
approximate method to establish conditions of Good and Satisfactory, Fair , and Poor
based on the NBI rating of the bridge itself. In this approximate method, the
superstructure condition ratings of 6 or higher corresponds to Good and Satisfactory
condition, 5 corresponds to Fair and 4 or lower corresponds to Poor conditions
(AASHTO, 2008, p.6-15). The reader is referred to Section 6A.4.2.3 of the Manual for
Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008, p.6-14) for more information on this factor and for
its proper application.
ϕs = System factor that represent the level of redundancy in the complete bridge
superstructure system. The Manual of Bridge Evaluation states that : “System factors
that correspond the load factor modifiers in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (AASHTO, 2007) should be used” (AASHTO, 2008, p.6-15). However,
the Manual has a table that provides values of ϕs for flexural and axial effects for a
number of bridge superstructure systems. For members in truss systems subjected to
axial and flexure effects, the following values of ϕs are from Table 6A.4.2.4-1 of the
Manual for Bridge Evaluations which are given for information only. For actual design
the AASHTO Manual of Bridge Evaluation should be used.

Table 2.2. System Factors: ϕs for Flexural and Axial

a
Effects in Truss Systems
Superstructure Type ϕs
Welded Members in Two Truss Bridges 0.85
Riveted members in Two Truss Bridges 0.90
a
This table is part of Table 6A.4.2.4.-1 of the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008)

There are no specific values of ϕs for gusset plates in the Manual for Bridge Evaluation.
In the absence of such specific values for gusset plates and until those values are included in the
Manual, we suggest the use of values given for welded or riveted members for welded and
riveted gusset plates as well. For bolted gusset plates, the use of values given for riveted
members seems to be reasonable until other values are established and given in the Manual.
16
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 ϕ = LRFD resistance factor for load rating which is the same as the resistance factors given
in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007) for design of
new bridges. For all non-strength limit states, ϕ = 1.0.
Rn = Nominal member resistance (as inspected)
fR = Allowable stress specified in the LRFD code.
DC = Dead load effect due to structural components and attachments
DW = Dead load effect due to wearing surface and utilities
P = Permanent load other than dead load (such as residual stresses created in the members
and connections during fabrication and erection of trusses.
LL = Live load effects
IM = Dynamic load allowance
γDC = LRFD load factors for structural components and attachments
γDW = LRFD load factors for wearing surface and utilities
γP = LRFD load factors for permanent load other than dead load= 1.0
γLL = Evaluation live load factor given in Table 2.1 earlier.

2.4.d. Load Rating Equation for Combined Bending and Axial Force Effect
Appendix H6A of the Manual for Bridge Evaluation (AASHTO, 2008, p. 6-73) has the following
equations for calculating rating factor, RF, when a steel member is subjected to compression plus
bending. In the absence of specific equations for gusset plate connections subjected to combined
Critical sections of gusset
plate subjected to combined
axial force and bending b
moment effects

a a

Figure 2.1. Critical Sections of Gusset Plate under Combined Effects of Axial Force and Bending Moment
17
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
axial force and bending and until such equations are developed, we suggest that the following
AASHTO equations with necessary changes be adapted for use in load rating of critical sections
of the gusset plates which are subjected to combined axial force and bending moment, see
Sections a-a and b-b in Figure 2.1. The shear force effect on the critical section is considered a
single force effect and treated following the procedures discussed in previous section.
The general load rating equation below is from the Manual for Bridge Evaluation which
is for combined axial compression and bending effects of steel members (AASHTO, 2008, p. 6-
73):

PDL
If ≥ 0.2 , and bending about one axis only, then:
Pr

P 8  M 
1 − γ D  DL + δ b  DL 
RF =  Pr 9  M r 
(AASHTO, 2008, Eq. in App. H6A) (2.4)
P 8 M 
γ L  LL + IM + δ b  LL+ IM 
 Pr 9  M r 

PDL
If < 0.2 , and bending about one axis only, then:
Pr

 PDL  M DL 
1− γ D  + δ b  
 2 Pr  Mr 
RF = (AASHTO, 2008, Eq. in App. H6A) (2.5)
 PLL + IM  M LL + IM 
γL  + δ b   
 2 Pr  Mr  

The terms used in the above equations are:

RF = Rating factor for critical sections of gusset plate subjected to axial force and bending
δb = An amplification factor that represents the P-δ effects in members subjected to axial
compression and bending. The P-δ effects on critical sections of gusset plates, which
have very short length, is negligible and the amplification factor δb for gusset plate
applications is suggested to be taken as equal to 1.0.
Notice that by using a δb value of 1.0, the above equations not only can be used for

18
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 critical sections of gusset plates subjected to axial compression plus bending, but also for
critical sections subjected to axial tension plus bending.
MDL = Applied bending moment due to unfactored dead load calculated using elastic analysis
MLL+IM = Applied bending moment due to unfactored live load calculated using elastic analysis
Mr = Factored flexural resistance calculated based on provisions of the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007)
PDL = Applied axial force due to unfactored dead load calculated using elastic analysis
PLL+IM = Applied axial force due to unfactored live load calculated using elastic analysis
Pr = Factored axial tensile or compressive resistance calculated based on provisions of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007)
γD = LRFD load factor for dead load equal to 1.25 for structural components and attachments and
equal to 1.5 for wearing surface and utilities
γL = Evaluation live load factor given in Table 2.1 earlier.

19
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3. Repair, Retrofit and
Replacement of
Gusset Plates
Photo: MnDOT

3.1. INTRODUCTION
When an evaluation and load rating of a gusset plate reveals that the load rating factor, RF,
might be less than 1.0 , it indicates that the strength of the gusset plate is not sufficient to resist
the applied loads according to the AASHTO requirements. The bridge owner makes a decision
either to repair, retrofit or replace the gusset plate to bring its rating factor RF to 1.0. This
chapter focuses on design and construction issues related to repair, retrofit and replacing gusset
plates to increase their RF to 1.0.
The two important activities regarding the design and construction issues are: Rivet
removal and replacement with high strength bolts, and gusset plate repair, retrofit and
replacement. In the following sections, we discuss these two items. Chapter 4 discusses
construction issues in repair, retrofit and replacement of gusset plates.

3.2. Design Issues Related to Rivet Removal and Replacement with HS Bolts
One of the most common items in repair and retrofit of gusset plates is the replacement of rivets
with high strength bolts. The main reasons for rivet removal are (1) a lack of sufficient strength
to carry the current gravity and wind loads, (2) a lack of strength to resist gravity and seismic
loads that were not considered in the original design, and (3) a loss of cross section of the rivet
due to accidental damage or often because of corrosion.

3.2.a. Lack of Sufficient Strength to Carry the Current Gravity Loads Combined with
Other Non-Seismic Loads
In this section we focus on issues related to rivet removal and its replacement with bolt because
of a lack of strength to resist gravity load combined with wind, snow, temperature and other
non-seismic loads. In the next section we discuss cases that the rivet removal and replacement
with bolts is part of a seismic retrofit program which may require not only increasing the strength
of the connectors (rivets) by replacing them with bolts, but, may also require to maintain or even
increase the ductility of the connection under cyclic loads resulting from earthquakes.

20
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 Returning to non-seismic cases when an evaluation of the existing rivets indicate that
some do not have sufficient strength to resist current gravity, wind and other non-seismic loads,
the deficient rivets are removed and replaced with high strength bolts, A325 or A490. Some
bridge Owners do not allow the use of A490 bolts. Rivet removal and replacement with bolts
can increase the strength of the connectors, which are now bolts, in shear, tension or combined
shear and tension significantly. In a typical gusset plate connection, most of the rivets are
subjected to shear but some could be subjected to tension or combination of tension and shear.
Rivets are replaced primarily with HS bolts to increase the strength. However, in some
cases, the rivets are replaced because of loss of integrity or loss of cross section of the rivet or its
head due to excessive corrosion. Whatever is the reason for rivet removal and its replacement
with bolts, if the load in an existing rivet is almost pure shear, in replacing the rivet with bolt, it
is better to specify “X” bolts (threads excluded from the faying surface) such as A325X
especially for cases where seismic retrofit is being done. Cyclic shear tests of rivets and bolts by
Astaneh-Asl et al (1996) have shown that rivets subjected to cyclic shear are very ductile
although ductility of bolts is also quite good and can be increased if threads are kept outside the
faying surface which means using “X” bolts.
If the load in existing rivet is pure shear or combination of shear and tension, the issue of
ductility becomes more important. Again, cyclic tests of rivets and bolts subjected to tension
(Astaneh-Asl et al, 1996) (Oro, Mori and Astaneh-Asl, 1996) and (Yin and Astaneh-Asl, 1996)
indicated that rivets, being relatively soft steel and not having threads show significant ductility
compared to bolts. Often, when rivets or bolts are subjected to tension, “prying action” is also
present which causes not only a significant increase in tension force generated in the rivet or
bolt, but prying action also causes bending in the rivet or bolt. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show two

Riveted Specimen
Bolted Specimen

Figure 3.1. Riveted Specimens at the End Figure 3.2. A Bolted Specimen at the End
of the Tests of the Tests

21
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
specimens tested in this program. The specimen on the left, being riveted, was able to resist
prying action and deform more than the specimen on the right which was bolted using HS bolts.
The studies indicated that if retrofit is done to increase not only the strength but also, ductility as
part of a seismic retrofit, then replacing rivets with bolts to achieve higher tensile capacity may
not work since the ductility of the connector may be reduced significantly by replacing rivets
with high strength bolts. The reduction in the ductility can be significant if in addition to the
force being tension, there is also prying action, forcing the connector to be under tension and
bending. Like the case of shear force acting on the rivet, for tension also, using “X” bolts
(threads excluded from the faying surface) will increase ductility of the bolt under cyclic tension.
The presence of prying action also causes bending in the connected plates which in turn
results in bending the rivets or bolts. We can use yield capacity of the connection element that is
causing prying action to act as a “yield fuse” and protect large tension forces and bending
moments from being transferred to bolt causing non-ductile failure of the threaded shank. Figure
3.3 shows an example of gusset plate rivets that are subjected to shear and tension. The shear
force in the rivet is due to the axial force in the vertical member and tension force in the rivet is
due to end moments of the floor beams.

Rivets in This Area

Are Subjected to Truss Vertical
Shear and
Floor Beam
Tension

Double Angles
Connecting
Rivets
Gusset Plate to
Subjected to
Floor Beam
Shear Only

Figure 3.3. Gusset Plate Rivets with Shear or Combination of Shear and Tension

To check rivet and bolt strength when subjected to shear and prying action tension, the
procedure below may be used. An earlier version of the procedure was given in Astaneh-Asl
(1985), which was in Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and was for cases where only tension is
present in the rivet or bolt. The procedure below is for cases with tension only as well as cases
with tension and shear applied to rivet or bolt where prying action also is present. The format of
the procedure here is in LRFD to be consistent with the current AASHTO Bridge Design

22
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
Specification (2008). More information on prying action, and how it can increase tension force
applied to rivets and bolts, is found in the literature including in Astaneh-Asl (1985).

Procedure for Evaluation of Strength of Rivets or Bolts subjected to Shear and Tension with
Prying Action Present
Step 1
Select a “Tee Hanger” element of the double angle connection as shown in Figure 3.4(a)
Step 2
Establish relevant dimensions of the connection which are a, b, tf and p, as shown in Figure
34(b). Also establish yield stress of double angles, Fy , and tensile strength Fbt of rivets or bolts,
whichever is used.
p

tf

a’
b’

a b
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3.4. Rivets or Bolts Subjected to Shear Combined with Tension and Prying Action

Step 3
Compute dimensions a', b', d' , parameter δ , tensile strength of bolt, B, and plastic moment
capacity of double angles, Mp to form a plastic collapse mechanism as shown in Figure 3.4(c),
using following equations:

a' = a + d / 2 (3.1)

23
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 b' = b - d / 2 (3.2)
d' = d + (1/16 in.) (3.3)
δ = 1 - d'/p (3.4)
B=φb Ab Fbt (3.5)
Mp = pFy tf 2/4 (3.6)

For definition of all parameters in this document, see “Notations” on Page 4.

Step 4
The available tension capacity per bolt or rivet in LRFD format, Tu is the smallest value
calculated from the following equations. For more information on derivation of equations see
Astaneh-Asl (1985).

(1 + δ )M (3.7)
T1 = (Double angle legs from plastic collapse mechanism)
b'
Ba' + M
T2 = (Bolts or rivets fail in tension due to prying action) (3.8)
a' +b'

T3 = B (Bolts or rivets fail in tension without prying action) (3.9)

3.2.b. Lack of Strength to Resist Combined Gravity and Seismic Loads

In recent years numerous bridges, including major bridges such as the Golden Gate
Bridge (Bowen and Astaneh-Asl, 1996), Carquinez Bridges (Astaneh-Asl, 1996 and 1997),
(ICEC and Astaneh-Asl, 1996) the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge (Astaneh-Asl, Cho and
Stepanov, 1997), (Shen, Yan and Astaneh-Asl, 1997), and Richmond San Rafael Bridge
(Astaneh-Asl, 1995) all required relatively large number of rivet removal and replacement with
bolts. In cases of seismic retrofit if the rivet is under pure shear, in replacing it with bolts, it is
preferred to use “X” bolts and keep the bolt threads out of the faying surface(s) as discussed in
previous section.
In many connections, including gusset plate connections, some of the rivets are under
tension or under combination of tension and shear. Often when a rivet or bolt is subjected to
tension, there is also prying action, which results in increasing tension in the rivet or bolt. As a
result, in evaluating strength of rivets and bolts with tension in them, presence of prying action
needs to be investigated and if it exists it should be included in the stress analysis of the

24
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 connection in design as well as in evaluation and rating. Prying action is especially harmful
when seismic loads are involved and the rivet removal is part of a seismic retrofit plan.
In designing seismic retrofit, in many cases, in addition to strength of riveted or bolted
connection, we need to also consider ductility of the connection. Ductility in this case is defined
as deformation at the failure divided by deformation at onset of yielding of components.
Depending on the location of the connection, the degree of redundancy and the availability of an
alternate load path in the connection, a ductility of 3-5 may be required.
Consider Figure 3.5 below, where a double angle connection is riveted to the vertical
gusset plate on the bottom chord and the horizontal gusset plate of the wind bracings. The rivets
on the outstanding legs of the angles are in combined tension and shear when seismic forces are
added to the member gravity forces.
Figure 3.5(a) shows the double angle connection in Figure 3.5. Figure 3.6(b) shows
double angles subjected to tension and shear. Figure 3.6(c) shows deformations of double angles
due to tension which in turn results in prying action and bending of the outstanding legs of the
angles. Due to prying action, the rivets or bolts are subjected to tension and bending. Increased
bending of the angle legs results in yielding and formation of plastic hinges in the angles
resulting in their plastic collapse mechanism.

Rivets Main Gusset

Subjected to Plate
Shear Only

Double Angles Connecting

Main Gusset Plate to the
Rivets Subjected to Gusset Plate for Horizontal
Shear and Tension Wind Bracing

Gusset Plate for

Horizontal Wind Bracing

Figure 3.5. Gusset Plate Rivets with Shear or Combination of Shear and Tension

The value of load Pu , see Figure 3.6, that causes plastic collapse mechanism to form in
the double angle legs is:
Pnp = 2( 2Mp/b) =4Mp/b (3.10)
25
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 p
(a)

a T
b Pu

Plastic
Hinges Plastic
Hinges

(b) (c)

Figure 3.6. Rivets or Bolts Subjected to Shear Combined with Tension and Prying Action

Where:
Pnp Nominal axial force that results in formation of plastic hinge in the angle legs, ((see Figure
3.6) , calculated as:
Pnp = 2( 2Mp/b) =4Mp/b (3.11)
Mp Plastic moment capacity of one angle with a length of angle being equal to spacing of
rivets, p (see Figure 3.5(a)).
p Distance between the two plastic hinges on one leg (see Figure 3.6(c)). Value of g is
shown by Research (Shen and Astaneh-Asl, 1993 and 1994) to be from the edge of the
rivet or bolt hole to the face of the leg.
The value of tension force, T, in one rivet or bolt, when plastic collapse mechanism
forms, is:
T = 2Mp (a+b) /(a b) (3.12)
Where
a Distance from the edge of the rivet or bolt to tip of angle (see Figure 3.6(c))
b Distance from the edge of the rivet or bolt to the face of angle leg (see Figure 3.6(c))

26
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 If the value of T , the applied tension calculated from the above equation is more than the
tension capacity of one rivet or bolt, then the rivet or bolt will fail prior to formation of plastic
hinges in the double angle legs. Otherwise, the plastic collapse mechanism, a very ductile failure
mode will occur prior to relatively brittle failure of rivet or bolt.
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 earlier, showed two specimens from the research by (Yin and
Astaneh-Asl, 1996), Astaneh-Asl and Ho (1993), Astaneh-Asl et al. (1994) and Shen and
Astaneh-Asl, (1993 and 1994). The specimen on the left had rivets and the one on the right had
bolts. Both specimens had the same angle sections and same material of steel for angles and
plates. The riveted specimen on the left was able to develop large deformations and carry larger
load and show more ductility than the specimen on the right which had HS bolts. In both
specimens significant prying action was developed and as the deformations increased, the rivets
and bolts in both specimens were subjected not only to ever increasing tension, but also bending.
The bending in the rivet caused its yielding but not fracture.
The rivet , not having threads, showed large ductility and did not fracture. However, in
bolted specimen, under relatively small deformation of the angles, bending of threaded bolt
resulted in its relatively brittle fracture. From the behavior of these specimens, we concluded
that replacing tension rivets with HS bolts should be done carefully, especially if the replacement
of rivet is done as part of a seismic retrofit strategy which requires ductile failure mode. The
bolts to replace the rivets are usually A325. Some bridge owners place restriction on the use of
A490 bolts , especially in seismic retrofit of major bridges. If no such restriction exists, A490
bolts can also be used. In most cases, the diameter of rivet is typically 7/8 or 1 inch. In some
application, when a historical bridge is being repaired or retrofitted, the bridge owner requires
that the appearance of semi-spherical rivet heads be preserved. In case of gusset plates, usually
one head of rivet is exposed to the view and the other head is not visible. In these cases, the
tension control bolts, with almost semi-spherical head have successfully been used where the
hexagonal nut is inside the member and not visible.

3.2.c. Lack of Strength Due to Loss of Cross Section of the Rivet because of Corrosion.
If rivet removal and its replacement with bolts is only because of the loss of rivet head
and/or rivet shank and strength of the original rivet is not an issue, the rivets are removed and
replaced with HS bolts, usually A325. Again, as discussed earlier, it is better to use “X” bolts
and keep the bolt threads out of ply surfaces.

3.3. EFFECT OF DAMAGE DONE TO STRUCTURE DURING THE RIVET

REMOVAL PROCESS
3.3.a. Damage to Structure due to Rivet Removal
Generally, if the gusset plate is not being replaced or a new gusset plate is not added on top of it,
in some cases, the owners do not allow consequential damage to the gusset plate during rivet
removal. The extent of unacceptable damage , in most cases, is not specified. In reality, it is
27
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
almost impossible to avoid all damage, and there may be some damage at few locations.
Otherwise, avoiding any damage to gusset plate during rivet removal process will be very costly,
delaying the time and adding to the inspection costs. The damage to gusset plate usually
occurs during the removal of the rivet head, pushing out or burning the rivet shank and/or during
the resizing of the hole (if required on the drawings specifications).
Avoiding damage to gusset plates during the rivet-head removal is doable although if the
rivet-head is removed by torch, care should be taken not to overheat the gusset plate (AISC,
1998). However, avoiding any damage to the gusset plate during the process of pushing the rivet
shank out of the hole is almost impossible. Some damage, in a very limited locations might
occur. The damage is usually in the form of “ Penny mark” indentations and occur when the head
of pneumatic hammer impacting the rivet to push it out hits the gusset plate adjacent to the rivet
shank. In the next section, a summary of a study done by the first author (Astaneh-Asl, 2000) to
investigate the effects of “Penny marks” on the structural integrity of the member or connection
is provided.
The study summarized in this section resulted from an investigation of the effects of
rivet removal on the West Bay Crossing of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. As part of
the seismic retrofit of this bridge, about 500,000 rivets were being removed and replaced with
high-strength A325 bolts. The rivet removal was done by chipping the head of the rivets using a
chisel hammer and then using a jackhammer with a round head to hammer out the rivet shank.
After rivet removal, the replacement bolt was placed in the hole and tightened.
Examples of the locations on the West SFOBB, where the rivets were removed, are
shown in Figure 3.7.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.7. (a) Rivets on Framing Angles and (b) Rivets on Truss Chords Being Removed

28
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 During the process of chipping the rivet head off and hammering the rivet out of its hole,
the chisel or hammer head occasionally was hitting the area around the rivet or rivet hole. This
resulted in the head of hammer or chisel embedding a dent or partially circular mark on the base
metal. Since the diameter of the hammer head was about 5/8”, the marks left by the hammer
resembled a Penny coin pushed against steel and the marks were called “Penny-marks” in the
study and in this summary. The Penny-marks have a diameter of about 5/8” (about the size of a
Penny) and have a relatively shallow depth of about 1/32 to 1/16 of an inch, Figure 3.8.

Penny- Penny-
mark mark

Rivet Hole

Figure 3.8. “Penny-Marks Occasionally Left on the Steel during Rivet Removal Process
In order to study the effects of Penny-marks on the structure, the following steps were
taken by the first author:
a. A site visit and visual inspection of the rivet-removal process as well as a few affected
rivet holes were conducted.
b. Finite element analyses were performed where the stress concentrations around the rivet
hole and near the Penny-marks were studied.
c. Information relevant to this case was collected and analyzed.
The findings of the above three steps were used to establish what effects, if any, the Penny-
marks could have on the structural performance.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3.9 (a) “Penny-mark”, (b) Burrs and; (c) Deformation of a Rivet Hole 29
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3.3.b. Investigation of the Effect of Penny Marks
The appearance of Penny marks varied and some were not on the edge of the hole. The Penny-
marks were not in any way a sharp dent perpendicular to the tensile stresses, which could cause
stress raisers in the net section of connected element. Figure 3.9 shows some of the Penny-marks
near or on the edge of the rivet holes. The burrs had to be grounded off and the deformed holes
had to be rimmed to prepare them to accept the replacement bolts. None of these two processes,
grinding the burrs and rimming the holes were going to affect the structural performance in any
negative way. Therefore, the issues of burrs and deformation of the hole are not discussed
further here. Later , in the Recommendations section, suggested solutions are listed. The
following discusses the Penny-marks and their effects. Also discussed are the effects of minor
cuts at the hole edge on the fatigue life expectancy.
Effects of “Penny-marks” on the Stiffness- As expected, the finite element analysis confirmed
that the presence of Penny-marks makes a very small change in the geometry and does not affect
the stiffness in a measurable way. In other words, the stiffness of the member with or without
Penny-marks is the same for all engineering purposes.
Effects of “Penny-marks” on the Strength-The strength in a rivet hole is governed by the
strength of the net section. Since “Penny-marks” do not take away from the net section in any
significant way, but primarily make the steel hardened, it does not seem that these marks should
affect the strength.
Effect of “ Penny-marks” on Strength after Replacing Rivets with Bolts-Viltinat et al. (2000)
have published the results of their testing of connections with rivets and those with rivets
replaced with bolts. As shown in Figure 3.10, the study indicated that the distribution of stress
around the holes improves significantly when the rivet is replaced with bolts.

Rivet or Black Bolt High-strength Bolt

Figure 3.10. Stress Distribution in Net Sections of Rivets and High-strength Bolts
(From Valtinat et al, 2000).

30
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
In the tests a uniform stress of 600 kg/cm2 was applied to both riveted and bolted specimens. For
riveted holes, the stress concentration factor was about 2.5 (1477kg/cm2/600 kg/cm2) whereas
for the high-strength bolts the stresses around the hole in fact dropped below the average and was
only about 0.32 times the average stress (192/600=0.32). This is due to the relatively large
clamping effect of high-strength bolts that do not permit bearing of bolt against the hole shank.
Since stresses around the holes are so low in the bolted case, the effect of Penny-mark on the
stress concentration will be negligible and in no case it is expected that the presence of penny-
marks rises the stress from 0.30 of the average stress (in bolted hole) to 2.5 times the average
stress for the original riveted holes. In other words replacing the rivets with high-strength bolts
reduces the direct tensile stress on the net section by as much as 2.5/0.3=8 times and the penny-
marks can raise the stresses by very small amount and never near the 800%.
Effects of “Penny-marks” on the Ductility under Seismic Loading-The penny marks are
generally less than 1/6 inch deep which are only around a relatively small number of holes. It
does not appear that such a minor incursion at a very localized area will affect the seismic
inelastic ductility of the cross sections.
Effects of “Penny-marks” and Hole Edge dents on the Fatigue Life -As for the fatigue life, it
does not appear that the presence of Penny-marks would have any noticeable effect on the
fatigue life. The minor hole edge dents that occur during the rivet removal process also appear
not to have much effect on the fatigue life. However, the micro-cracks present at the edge of a
rivet-hole which are created during the rivet installation process can have an effect on fatigue
life. To study the fatigue life of steel bridge members after removal of rivets and replacing them
with bolts, researchers in Germany (Viltinat et al., 2000) conducted a series of valuable tests.
They studied the fatigue life of riveted and bolted specimens where a small crack existed at the
edge of the rivet hole. The studies done by Viltinat and his research associates in Germany on
fatigue life of riveted, bolted and mixed riveted-bolted members were relevant but of course very
conservative. In the case of Penny-marks or dents resulting from rivet removal process are
expected to be as severe as a crack at the edge of the rivet hole. The conservatism arises from the
fact that penny-marks are not cracks at the edge of the hole penetrating through the thickness.
They are a surface dent with perhaps micro-cracks at crystal level. Nevertheless studying
Viltinat’s results, as summarized below, was very reassuring and relevant.

Initial Fatigue Crack Oscillating Load

Figure 3.11. Member with Hole and Initial Crack (Viltinat et al, 2000)

Figure 3.12 shows fatigue curves for three types of specimens: with all rivets, with all
bolts and with mixed rivets and bolts. As Figure 3.6 indicates, the highest curve (and best fatigue

31
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
life) was for specimens with either four bolts or one with two bolts plus two rivets. The next best
was for specimens with one bolt plus three rivets and finally the lowest curve (with the lowest
fatigue life for the same stress range) was for the specimen with all rivets. These tests indicated
that fatigue life of specimens where some or all of the rivets were replaced with bolts, even with
a very sharp crack at the edge of the hole, improved significantly over specimens with all rivets.
It can be concluded that fatigue life of the holes with penny-marks on their edge but with bolts in
them is far longer than the similar holes but with rivets still in them.

2 Bolts and 2 Rivets Ø 17 mm

Fatigue
Stress 4 Bolts Ø 16 mm
In Net
Section,
N/mm2 1 Bolt And 3 Rivets Ø 17 mm Joint

4 Rivets Ø 17 mm

Net Area / Gross Area = 0.83

500,00 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000

Number of Fatigue Cycles, N

Figure 3.12. Fatigue Life of Specimens with Rivets, Bolts and Mixed Bolts and Rivets
(Viltinat et al., 2000)

Increase of Load Cycles (4 to 7 times)

Load Cycles, (N)

Figure 3.13. Reduction of the Crack Propagation Rate Due to the Preload of a High Strength Bolt
(Viltinat et al., 2000)
32
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 Based on the analysis and using the available relevant test results, it could be concluded
that the “Penny-marks” left in steel as a result of rivet removal operation do not seem to affect
adversely the strength, stiffness, and ductility or fatigue life of the structure.
Figure 3.13 shows the increase of fatigue life due to added pre-tensioning load of bolt
compared to the replaced rivet.

3.3.c. Recommendations on Rivet Removal and Replacement

1. The contractor should try to limit the number of Penny-marks to a small percentage, say
less than 10% of total holes for the appearance reasons.
2. In those areas where the Penny-marks occur, it is suggested that a light grinding be
applied to the areas with Penny-marks to smooth the surface
3. If Penny-marks are located such that they will be under the rotating nut, a standard
washer for the type of bolt may be used under the nut to ensure the Penny-mark does not
interfere with bolt tightening operation. If the bolt is being turned for tightening and a
Penny-mark is located under the rotating bolt head, a washer may be used under the bolt
head.
4. The burrs on the edge of the rivet holes should be removed by grinding.
5. If the rivet hole is deformed, it should be rimmed into round geometry. The rimming
should be kept to a minimum.
6. In some cases of bridges built prior to 1940’s, such as the Bay Bridge and the Golden
Gate Bridge, the steel is Silicon steel, which is not weldable. In these cases, there should
be no welding or heating of steel above 800 degrees for any reason. For components that
are not made of Silicon steel, since they have stresses due to service load in them, it is not
advisable to apply welding or high temperature neither unless special shoring and other
measures are provided to relieve the internal service stresses.

3.4. REPAIRING GUSSET PLATES

This section discusses the issues related to repair of those gusset plates that are damaged. Some
of the reasons for damage might be:

a. Corrosion

b. Accidents

c. Fire

33
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 d. Overloading beyond elastic limit of the gusset plate or connectors (rivets, bolts and
welds)
Each of these damage cases might require different repair strategy and procedures as
discussed in the following sections.

3.4.a. Damage Due to Corrosion

Corrosion is the most common case of damage to gusset plates. Figures 3.14, and 3.15 show
examples of mild and serious corrosion in gusset plates respectively. In many cases,
unfortunately corrosion of gusset plates is more serious in areas of high stress. In those areas the
stress in a “cause and effect” manner results in more corrosion and more corrosion results in
increase in the internal stresses where the thickness is already reduced due to corrosion.

Photos by A. Astaneh-Asl, 2007

Figure 3.14. Examples of Minimal or Mild Corrosion in Gusset Plates

In most truss bridges, such as the one shown in Figure 3.14 above, gusset plates in main
trusses are double gusset plate. However, in some bridges, such as the one shown in Figure 3.15,
the main trusses have a single gusset plate sandwiched between two angles, two channels (Figure
3.12) or the single gusset is placed in the slot cut in the I-shaped, box or pipe members. In
buildings the use of single gusset plate trusses is very common and most trusses have only one
gusset plate. In trusses, with single gusset plates, even the connection has no redundancy. If the
single gusset plate is exposed to high temperature and loses its strength, it can fail initiating the
collapse of the entire bridge if the truss is internally determinate and has no internal redundancy,
such as the trusses shown in Figure 3.15.

34
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 Photo taken by Jack Schmidt

Photo: Missouri Department of Transportation

Figure 3.15. Examples of Serious Corrosion in Gusset Plates

The bridge shown in Figure 3.15 having simply-supported trusses does not have external
redundancy either. The external redundancy, such as having continuous trusses over multiple
supports, as is the case in many cantilever trusses, will not help prevent the collapse of the steel
truss superstructure . This was demonstrated so tragically in the collapse of the I-35W bridge in
2007, Figure 3.16 . The Figure also shows examples of gusset plate connections of the bridge
which had various levels of corrosion.
35
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 In truss bridges, the extent of corrosion depends on the acidity of the environment , the use
of acidic de-icing agents such as salt, the type of truss bridge being deck- bridge or through- truss
bridge, and the location of the gusset plate in the truss.
Bridges in salty and corrosive environment, such as bridges crossing salty waters and
having relatively small clearance between the bridge and surface of the water, will have more
corrosion. Bridges in cold, icy and snowy regions are in many cases exposed to acidic de-icing
agents ,such as salt, for many years and show serious corrosion in their components including
gusset plates, Figure 3.15.
Unfortunately in most cases, gusset plate corrosion occurs in areas of high stress such as
the shear critical horizontal plane just outside the chord, or at the edges of the members, see
Figure 3.15. In some cases, the unstiffened edge of the gusset plate corrodes. The corrosion
results in the loss of thickness of the gusset making the free edge of the gusset susceptible to
buckling. In those cases, edge stiffeners are added as a measure of repair
If the evaluation of the gusset plates has indicated that the loss of cross section in a gusset
plate is serious and has resulted in lowering the load rating below the standard level, the deficient
gusset plate would need to be replaced. If corrosion is very localized, after cleaning the
corroded surface or surfaces, a cover plate can be added to the existing gusset plate to increase
the area of the corroded region and relieve the stress in that localized area of the gusset plate.
Loss of thickness of gusset plate due to corrosion can result in failure of tension areas of
gusset plate in yielding of gross area, fracture of net area and block shear failure. Corrosion of
‘critical sections” of multi-member gusset plates can result in failure of these sections under
combination of shear, axial load and bending moment. For more information on these and other
failure mode and design equations see Steel TIPS report by A. Astaneh-Asl (2010). Loss of
thickness of gusset plate in compression areas can result in buckling of these areas. Such failure
occurred in 1996 in an I-95 Bridge, Figure 3.17.

3.4.b. Damage due to Accidents

In through truss and double deck bridges, the gusset plates may be subjected to the impact
of cars. Although rare, such collisions can damage a gusset plate to the detriment of truss
integrity and safety. After such collisions, the affected gusset plate needs to be inspected as soon
as possible . One or more lanes would need to be closed until a thorough investigation of the
damage and stress analysis of the damaged gusset is done. Depending on the extent of the
damage, the gusset plate may need repair and strengthening to restore its strength. It is also
possible that the extent of the damage is such that the gusset plate needs to be replaced.

36
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 E E

E E
E 20m F

5 6 7 8

33m 81m 139m 81m 51m

34.5m 1.2m

Figure 3.16. The I-35W Bridge and Examples of Corrosion in the Bridge (Corrosion was not the
cause of collapse)

37
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 (a) The I-90 Bridge in Ohio

(b) Contours of constant thicknesses

All photos courtesy of the Ohio Department of Transportation Photo from: (Albert, 2008)
(c) Buckled Gusset (d) Buckled Gussets (e) Buckled& torn Gusset

Figure 3. 17. The I-90 Bridge over Grand River in Ohio and Buckling of its Gusset Plates
(ODOT 2008)

3.4.c. Damage Due to Fire

Fire damage to gusset plates is rare but it can happen accidentally or in some cases, especially
in wood bridges, it may happen due to arson.
On September 20, 2010, a major fire broke out among wood pilings beneath Harlem River
railroad carrying all Metro-North lines between Manhattan and the Bronx in New York, Figure
3.18 (Daily News, 2010) . The bridge was a steel truss lift bridge. According to the CNN(2010)
the fire burned the bridge fenders around one of the piers. The bridge owner said that the bridge
did not sustain structural damage .However the rail traffic was slowed down on the bridge
because of heavy damage to rail signal systems over the bridge that guide train traffic on the
bridge.

38
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 Photo: Daily News, 2010, daily news.com

Figure 3.18. September 20, 2010 Fire under the Railroad Bridge in New York

If a gusset plate is exposed to fire and cooled down its strength and ductility may be
affected. If the heat was intense and the gusset plate had cooled down rapidly after the fire was
extinguished, an uncontrolled quenching and tempering might have taken place resulting in
increase in yield stress and reduction in ductility of material of gusset plate in terms of ultimate
elongation. If temperature in the gusset goes beyond about 900-1000 degrees Fahrenheit during
fire, the yield stress and modulus of elasticity of steel will drop significantly, see Figures 3.19.

1.0
Light Weight
0.8 Concrete Note: Source of
data: U.S. Steel
Strength at Higher Publications and
Temperature Structural Design
0.6 for Fire Safety by
Normal Weight Steel A. H. Buchanon
Strength at Room
0.4 Concrete
Temperature

0.2

0.0
0 400 800 1200 1600 1800

Temperature, o F

Figure 3.19. Variation of Strength (Fy for Steel and f’c for Concrete) versus Temperature
(from: Behavior and Design of Steel Structures , A Textbook by A. Astaneh-Asl, 2011)

Figure 3.20(a) from Astaneh-Asl(2008b) shows the variation of yield stress of three
major types of steel used in bridges and Figure 3.20(b) shows the variation of modulus of
elasticity of steel under high temperature.
Significant reduction of modulus of elasticity and yield stress can result in buckling
and/or yielding and fracture of the heated gusset plate.
39
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 A514 Steel 1.0
1.0

A36 Steel E at Elevated

Temperature
Fy at Elevated ________________
Temperature
________________ E at Room
A441 Steel Temperature
Fy at Room
Temperature

0.0 0.5
0 800 1600 2400
0 400 1200
800
O
Temperature, F O
Temperature, F
(a) (b)
Figure 3.20. Variation of (a) Yield Stress Fy, and (b) Modulus of Elasticity, E, of Steel
versus Temperature (from: Behavior and Design of Steel Structures , A Textbook by
A. Astaneh-Asl, 2011), (Source of data: Steel TIPS Report by Hassett et al., 2003)

During a fire, if only one of the two gusset plates in a connection is exposed to high
temperatures, the drop in the yield stress will result in the affected gusset plate not being able to
carry its 50% share of the load. In this case, the load in the heated gusset plate will be shed to the
other gusset plate and the connection may not sustain permanent deformations due to buckling
and elongation of gusset plate areas under compression or tension. However, if both gusset plates
in a truss node are exposed to intense heat and loose their strength, both gusset plates can buckle
or yield and fracture and the gusset plate connection loses much of its strength and stiffness. If
the bridge is a determinate system, such as the bridge shown earlier in Figure 3.13, the gusset
plate connection failure can result in total collapse of the span.
Although the tragic collapse of I-35W bridge in Minnesota in 2007 was not due to fire, the
cause of complete collapse of the cantilever truss span was due to failure of both gusset plates in
node U10 of the bridge (Astaneh-Asl, 2008) and (NTSB, 2009). The cantilever truss super-
structure was internally determinate and had no redundancy for the primary truss members or
connections. For a discussion of redundancy in truss bridges with gusset plates see the Steel
TIPS by Astaneh (2010). Most truss bridges built since the early 1900s do not have internal
redundancy in their superstructure when under gravity loads and are “fracture critical”. As a
result, if both gusset plates fail in a node, due to overload or fire effects, the entire span can
collapse.
As mentioned in the previous section, most truss bridges have double gusset plates in their
main trusses. With double gusset, the connection has an internal redundancy and if one gusset
fails due to high temperature during fire the other gusset, if not exposed to the fire, can carry the
load shed on it by the failing gusset plate. However, in bridges with only single gusset in the
connection, as shown in Figure 3.15 earlier, there is no redundancy in the connection. If the

40
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
single gusset loses its strength during the fire and fails, its failure can initiate the collapse of the
entire bridge span if the main truss is also internally determinate and has no internal redundancy.
Currently, establishing the extent of damage to steel structure due to fire is a very complex
undertaking which is best left to expertise of the firms specialized in this filed.

Gusset
U10

a) Node U10 on West Truss, Viewed Looking b) Node U10 on East Truss, Viewed Looking
Northwest from inside the Structure Northeast from inside the Structure

Figure 3.21. Edge Buckling of Gusset Plate U10 of the I-35W Bridge Photographed in 2003
(URS, 2003)

3.4.c. Damage Due to Overloading Beyond Elastic Limit of Gusset Plate or Its
Connectors (rivets, bolts and welds)
Gusset plates can fail due to increase in applied load. The increase in dead load in many
cases is due to addition overlay, heavy curbs and guard or utility lines that were not considered in
the original design. The dead load of construction material and equipment during repair and
retrofit of a bridge can also overstress the gusset plates. The tragic collapse of I-35W was
primarily due to overstressing the under-designed gusset plates at Node 10. The increase in the
dead load was due to addition of 2.5 inches of overlay in 1990’s and placing more than 240 tons
of construction material on the deck in the vicinity of gusset plate U10 in 2007 for the repair
work on the bridge. From the photos taken by the inspection team (URS, 2003), it is clear that
41
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
the gusset plates U10 on both east and west trusses had already deformed and were in the verge
of failure, Figure 3.21.

3.5. RETROFITTING GUSSET PLATES

This section discusses issues related to retrofit of the gusset plates that are found deficient. A
few of the common deficiencies of gusset plates are:

a. Inadequacy of gusset plate strength to resist gravity and non-seismic loads

b. Inadequacy of Gusset Plate Strength, Stiffness or Ductility to Resist Gravity
Combined with Seismic Effects
c. Lack of edge stiffeners when needed
d. Inadequacy of connectors, such as rivets and bolts
e. Loss of the cross section of gusset plate as a result of corrosion
The last item in the above list was discussed earlier in this section. The remaining items are
discussed in the following.

3.5.a. Inadequacy of Gusset Plate Strength to Resist Gravity and Non-seismic Loads
Because of increase in applied gravity and other loads, gusset plates can be subjected to higher
stresses than the original design. Also, due to freezing of the expansion joints, the locked thermal
stresses can change the stresses in the gusset plates. Regardless of the reason, when the
evaluation and load rating of the gusset plate indicate that the gusset plate is deficient and does
not meet the current AASHTO bridge design standards, the gusset plate should be retrofitted or
replaced.

3.5.b. Inadequacy of Gusset Plate Strength, Stiffness or Ductility to Resist Gravity

Combined with Seismic Effects
In most bridges designed prior to development of modern seismic codes a number of truss
members and connections, such as gusset plates are deficient. The deficiency can be related to
the lack of strength, stiffness or ductility. If the strength of a gusset plate is not adequate, it can
be retrofitted to bring its strength to the level of strength required by the current codes. The
deficiency of gusset plate with regard to stiffness is usually due to the lack of edge stiffeners
when needed. This item is discussed in the next section. Some gusset plates in existing bridges
do not have adequate ductility as established by the inelastic analysis. The reason in most cases
is that the gusset plate being in tension fractures through the net area or develops block shear
failure before yielding. Net section fracture and block shear failure are considered brittle failure
modes while yielding is considered a ductile failure mode. Therefore, to have a ductile gusset

42
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
plate its governing failure modes should be all yielding of gusset plate cross section. Failure of
connectors also will result in a brittle behavior for the gusset plate connection.
It is very likely that main trusses that are load-path non-redundant, brittle failure of
members, connectors and gusset plates can lead to catastrophic failure of the entire span. To
increase the ductility of a gusset plate and make the yielding of gross area the governing failure
mode is not an easy undertaking. Quite often , especially when the gusset plate is made of high
strength steel , such as A242 or A572, because of relative closeness of yield stress Fy and
ultimate strength Fu, it is almost impossible to make the yield capacity less than the net section
fracture capacity. In these cases, the gusset plate and its connections to members need to be
designed for the capacity of the members such that when the members reach their failure
capacity, the gusset plate is still elastic. Such capacity design will eliminate the need to make
gusset plate ductile. The strengthening of gusset plate to resist larger forces than those it is
designed for, is relatively easy as we discussed in previous section.

3.5.c. Lack of Edge Stiffeners When Needed

Free edge of gusset plates, especially if they are in compression, can buckle, Figure 3.22.
Figure 3.23 shows the 1959 DeSoto Bridge over the Mississippi river in St Cloud, Minnesota. In
2008, MnDOT inspector discovered a bowing in gusset plate L11 of this bridge which appeared
to be due to edge buckling. The author spent a day on the bridge and inspected the steel
superstructure and the reinforced concrete approach structure. Other than this one gusset plate
that seemed to have bowed, the steel superstructure was in a very good condition with minor
corrosion, Figure 3.23. Figure 3.24 shows the distressed and damaged R/C approach structures.
The bridge was demolished and replaced with a new steel plate girder bridge, Figure 3.25, in
about a year.
Buckling of free edge of
gusset plate

Figure 3.22. Edge-buckling of the Gusset Plate

43
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 C

Photo: A. Astaneh-Asl

C
C
T

C
Photo by Mn/DOT

Figure 3.23. The 1959 DeSoto Bridge and One of Its Gusset Plates, at Location L11’

Figure 3.24. Serious Structural Damage in the R/C Approach Structures of 1959 De Soto Bridge 44
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 Figure 3.25. The New “Granite City Bridge” That Replaced 1959 Desoto Bridge in St Cloud, MN

Photo: MNDOT

Figure 3.26. Edge Stiffening of a Gusset plate

3.5.d. Inadequacy of Connectors, Such as Rivets and Bolts

The inadequacy of connectors, such as rivets and bolts, connecting gusset plates to
members was discussed in Section 3.2 earlier. When the rivets in a gusset plate are inadequate,
they are replaced with A325 or A490 high strength bolts. If the existing structure has A307 or
A325 bolts which are inadequate, they can be replaced with A490 bolts to increase their
strength. In order to add more strength to connector, if the spacing of rivets allow, consider
adding new bolts in the spacing between the two adjacent existing rivets. If these strengthening
measures do not provide the necessary strength, as a last resort, after removal of the rivet or bolt,
the rivet or bolt holes can be rimmed after they are removed to enlarge the holes to accept larger
diameter A325 or A490 bolts. The rimming of the existing hole can be difficult especially if the
space is limited and it can be costly and time consuming.

45
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4. Construction Issues
in Repair, Retrofit
and Replacement of
Gusset Plates Photo: Cleveland.com

4.1. INTRODUCTION
Gusset repair, retrofit and replacement often requires removal of the existing fasteners.
This is typically required in order to allow for removal and replacement of the gusset or to
replace the existing fasteners with higher strength fasteners. Most modern bridges are assembled
with bolts and can therefore be disassembled by use of large wrenches or pneumatic or electric
tools. However, most older bridges were assembled with rivets which require certain removal
methods that are discussed in this chapter.

4.2 Rivet Removal and Replacement- Construction Issues

Many gusset plate repairs, retrofit or replacement plans involve removing the existing
rivets and replacing them with mostly A325 bolts or in some cases if higher tensile and shear
strength are required to meet design requirements, and if the Owner allows, with A490 bolts. The
common methods used in rivet removal are:
a. Rivet Busting
b. Burning the Rivets
c. Drilling out the Rivets
In the following these three methods are discussed.

a. Rivet Busting
In this method, which is the most common and economical method for rivet removal, a
pneumatic hammer with chisel, Figure 4.1, is used to first shear ("bust") the head of the rivet
using a flat rivet gauging tip and then use the impact of a round “rivet buster” hammer to drive
the rivets out.

46
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 Reasonable Care must be taken when removing the rivet to avoid severe damage to the
parent metal (see section 3.3 of this report). Also when the head is sheared and when the shank is
driven out by impact forces they often separate from the structure at a high velocity. For safety, it
is therefore recommended that consideration be made to contain the sheared head and driven
shanks. This can be accomplished by general containment around the work area or, when that is
not practical, by use of a bucket or even a coffee can.

Photos: Crowder Hydraulic Tools

Photo by WSDOT

Figure 4.1. “Rivet Buster” Pneumatic Hammer/Chisels and Ironworkers Using it to Remove Rivets

b. Using Oxy-Acetylene and Thermal Lance Equipment and Burning the Rivet
In some cases the removal of the rivet head by rivet buster is not accessible due to the
size of the hammer and available space around the rivet. In this case, an oxy-acetylene cutting
torch can be used to remove the rivet head. First, the head of rivet on the accessible side is
burned (“washed”). Austin (2002) suggests that in order to remove the rivets using Oxy-
Acetylene, heat the head of the rivet until it is red using a large enough tip to avoid spending too
much time heating and use an oxidizing flame. That reduces the heating of the base metal and
keeps it from reaching a temperature that would cause it to melt or oxidize. When the rivet
reaches a suitable temperature the excess oxygen in the flame will "cut" the rivet. Oxygen can
be applied with a cutting torch but care must be used (Austin, 2002).
Roberts (2002), while supporting the above mentioned method suggested by Austin
(2002), states that the method has been used “ to cut a nut off of a bolt and keep the bolt threads
intact. The main idea is to keep the metal you do not want to cut below the temperature required
for exothermic reaction with oxygen.” The shank can then be removed with the aid of a thermal
lance. A thermal lance is a tool that burns iron in the presence of pressurized oxygen to create
very high temperatures for cutting. It consists of a long iron tube packed with iron rods,

47
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
sometimes mixed with aluminum or magnesium rods to increase the heat output. One end of the
tube is placed in a holder and oxygen is fed through the tube, as shown in Figure 4.2.
The far end of the tube is pre-heated and lit by an oxy-acetylene torch. An intense stream
of burning iron is produced at the lit end and can be used to cut rapidly through thick materials
including steel and concrete. The tube is consumed, so every few minutes the operator shuts off
the oxygen, discards the remaining stub of a lance tube and starts using a new one.
Using the thermal lance a hole smaller than the diameter of the rivet is burned through the
center of rivet. The remaining shank then can easily be pushed out by a round rivet busting
hammer. The benefit of using the thermal lance is that it creates intense heat to burn a hole
through the center of the rivet without preheating the rivet or overheating and damaging the
parent metal. In this case the issue of removing lead paint becomes a concern since the burned
lead based paint is more hazardous than when it is in solid state, as is the case when rivet busters
are used. Most existing riveted bridges have lead-based paint and burning lead based paint can
result in serious health and environmental hazard. For more information on how to handle lead-
based paint during the rivet removal process, see Chapter 5 of this document and others.

Photos by WSDOT

Figure 4.2. "Thermal Lance" Equipment and an Ironworker Doing a Demonstration

c. Drilling out the Rivets

When burning of rivets using a thermal lance is not practical, the rivets can be removed
by drilling. Drilling out of rivets can be time consuming and very costly and should be
considered only as a last resort. The rivet head can be removed by a rivet buster hammer or by
oxy-Acetylene burning as indicated above. A magnetic steel drill can then be used to drill out the
shank.

48
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5. Issues Relating to
Painting and Paint
on Bridge Gusset
Plates Photo: Fouad Althabani, NYDOT, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov

By: Robert Ikenberry, California Engineering Contractors Inc.

When repairing or modifying bridge gusset plates, paint is a necessary consideration. For
riveted bridges, the assumption must be made that the existing paint on the steel contains
substantial levels of lead. Essentially all rived bridges used rust inhibitive primers containing
lead. It is an effective corrosion inhibitor and it is not uncommon to find bridges 50 or 75 years
old that still have most of the original primer intact. Disturbing lead based paint is a hazardous
and highly regulated undertaking.
One common approach is to remove all the lead based paint and existing corrosion to
facilitate proper inspection of the underlying steel substrate. If there is substantial rust, or any
evidence of rust scale, in the area of the gussets, this should be strongly considered. Removal of
the overlying paint and corrosion products will expose the fasteners and plate and allow
assessment of section loss, pitting corrosion, and fastener failure which may not be visible or
quantifiable otherwise.
In order to properly remove and contain the lead hazards, expert contractors should be
employed. SSPC, the Society for Protective Coatings, certifies contractors qualified to remove
hazardous coatings via their QP-2 designation. Most Departments of Transportation and
numerous other owners of complex structures require this certification whenever paints
containing lead must be disturbed or removed. See SSPC.org (a list of current QP-2 qualified
contractors is at http://www.sspc.org/PDFs/QP/QP2alpha.pdf)
Numerous regulations apply to disturbing hazardous (specifically leaded) coatings,
including OSHA, EPA, Air Quality Boards, and Water Quality Districts. Areas of active
removal must be contained, exposures assessed, the workers trained and protected, sufficient
ventilation and dust collection provided, and all waste generated must be contained, collected,
analyzed, and properly disposed of. Substantial worker health risks, site contamination (even
beyond the limits of the structure), or regulatory fines can result from failure to follow all
required guidelines and procedures.
Even if the lead paint is not removed prior to repair or replacement work on the structure,
the work will still “disturb” the hazardous paint and the same regulations covering worker

49
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
protection, airborne contaminate collection, and waste disposal will still be required during the
actual repair work.
Bridges constructed with high strength fasteners (bolts) or welds do not assure one that
lead based paint is not present. Any bridge constructed prior to 1978 should be presumed to
have lead paint and all existing coatings should be tested to verify the absence of hazardous
metals. In addition to lead, other toxic metals, such as cadmium, chromium, or arsenic may be
present in coatings, triggering health regulation requirements and environmental risks if not
handled properly.
Other paint and corrosion protection considerations should also be included in gusset
repair, replacement or upgrades. Edges and loose contact surfaces are typically the first locations
of coating failure. Pack rust behind or between gussets can lead to steel deformation and early
failure. All rust and rust scale must be removed from the connection during modifications.
Traces of rust will capture moisture, typically cannot be properly sealed with the application of
new coats of paint, and will create initiation cells for future corrosion.
Spaced construction, such as back-to-back angles or channels, with gaps less than half the
width of the members involved, cannot be properly cleaned and re-painted and will eventually
cause corrosion. If new gussets are larger than the remaining underlying gussets, fill plates need
to be incorporated into the design so that gaps and crevices are not created. All overlying steel
plates need to be in tight contact with the underlying members and edges should be caulked to
prevent moisture from entering the connection.
If existing gussets show deformation or evidence of pack rust under the plates, the
repair/retrofit sequence should be designed to allow complete removal of the original gusset to
expose the inner surfaces for complete cleaning, rust removal, and repainting prior to final
assembly. The removal of the existing rust is more critical than the application of protective
coatings. Tight steel contact with no moisture presence will not rust. Be aware that past pitting
or severe corrosion may not allow a tight contact with overlying members, even if well cleaned.
Once a gap allows the presence of debris, air and water, the connection will eventually fail. In
some cases, seal welding may need to be considered.
If new connections are considered slip-critical, the condition of the faying surfaces, and
specifically the paint materials within the grip of the connection, must be considered.
Historically, bare (uncoated) steel was considered the optimum surface for developing a slip
critical connection. If one or more of the faying surfaces are to be coated for corrosion
protection, either during shipment or service, the coatings applied must conform to the
requirements of the Research Council on Structural Connections (RCSC), including testing per
Appendix A of the “Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts”.
Typically coatings must meet testing criteria for Class B and maximum thicknesses will apply.
Upon completion of repairs or retrofit work, all exposed steel surfaces should be coated
with a paint system appropriate to the service environment of the structure. Special care should
be given to coating edges and areas of the structure where later access will be difficult. Gaps
between members where water can collect or enter the connection should be caulked.
50
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

AASHTO (2007). “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and 2008 Interim Revisions, 4th
Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO (2003). Manual for condition evaluation and load and resistance factor rating (LRFR) of
highway bridges, American Association of State Transportation and Highway Officials,
Washington D.C.
AASHTO (2008). Manual of Bridge Evaluation, American Association of State Transportation and
Highway Officials, Washington D.C.
AISC, (1998). “ Rivet Removal” Steel Interchange in the Modern Steel Construction, AISC, Chicago,
July (http://www.modernsteel.com/steelinterchange_details.php?id=551
Albert, W (2008). “TRUSS GUSSET PLATES”, PowerPoint, New York State Department of
Transportation, at: https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/repository/events-
news/session6b_2008.pdf
Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S. C., and Hanson, R. D. (1981). “Behavior of steel Diagonal Bracing.”
Proceedings, ASCE Conference, St Louis. ASCE, preprint 81-522.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S. C., and Hanson, R. D. (1982). “Cyclic Behavior of Double Angle Bracing
Members with End Gusset Plates.” Report no. UMEE 82R7. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan.
Astaneh-Asl, A., and Goel, S. C. (1984). “Cyclic In-Plane Buckling of Double Angle Bracing.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 110(9), 2036–2055.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1985). “Procedure for Design and Analysis of Hanger-type Connections,”
Engineering Journal, AISC, 1985, 2nd Quarter, 22 (2), pp. 63-66.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Goel, S. C., and Hanson, R. D. (1985). “Cyclic Out-of-Plane Buckling of Double
Angle Bracing. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 111(5), 1135–1153.
Astaneh-Asl, A.,(1989) "Simple Methods for Design of Steel Gusset Plates," Proceedings Volume on
Steel Structures, ASCE Structures Congress, San Francisco, May 1989, pp. 345-354.
Astaneh-Asl, A. (1989). “Simple Methods for Design of Steel Gusset Plates.” Steel Structures,
Proceedings of the Sessions Related to Steel Structures at Structures Congress ’89, Iffland, J. S.
B., ed. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 345–354.
Astaneh-Asl, A. (1992). “Cyclic Behavior of Gusset Plate Connections in V-Braced Steel Frames.”
Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures under Cyclic Loading, Fukomoto, Y., and Lee, G. C.,
eds. Ann Arbor, MI: CRC Press, 63–74.
Astaneh-Asl, A., and Ho, I. (1993). “Behavior and Design of Angle Connections Subjected to Cyclic
Axial Force and Shear.” Proceedings, ASCE, Structures Congress, Irvine, CA.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Donikian, R. R., and Cho, S., (1994). “Seismic Performance of Steel Bridges during
the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.” Proceedings of the NEHRP Conference and Workshop on
Research on the Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994, III-197-204.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Bolt, B., McMullin, K., Donikian, R. R., Modjtahedi, D. and Cho, S.W. (1994).
“Seismic performance of steel bridges during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.” Report No.

51
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 UCB/CEE-Steel- 94/01, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
April.
Astaneh-Asl, A., M. N. Nader and L. Malik,(1989). "Cyclic Behavior of Double Angle Connections,"
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE , 1989, Vol. 115, No. 5.
Astaneh-Asl, A. (1996). “Capacity of Gusset Plate Connections.” Technical Design Criteria for
Seismic Retrofit of the Carquinez Bridge. Submitted to California Department of Transportation.
Astaneh-Asl, A. and Roberts, J. (1996). Editors, “Seismic design, evaluation and retrofit of steel
bridges.” Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 96/09, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, November.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Westphal, D., Stepanov, L. and Cho, S. W. (1996). “Cyclic and monotonic tests of
truss verticals of SFOBB” Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 96/04, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, December.
Astaneh-Asl, A., S. W. Cho, H. Mori, L. Oro, D. Westphal, J. C. Yin, and J. H. Shen, (1996).
“Ductility and retrofit of the Bay Bridge in the transverse direction,” Proceedings, 4th Annual
Caltrans Research Workshop, Sacramento, CA.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Cho, S.W., and Stepanov, L. (1997). “Cyclic tests of existing and retrofitted sway
frames of SFOBB.” Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 96/06, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, February.
Astaneh-Asl, A. (1997a). “The steel curved cable-stayed bridge designs: 1. the sloped tower design
and; 2. the vertical tower design.” Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 97/05, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley, June.
Astaneh-Asl, A. (1997b). “Inelastic Models of Steel Components of the Carquinez Bridges”, Report
to CH2M Hill/HNTB and Caltrans, Sacramento, June.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (2000). “Effects of Rivet Removal and Bolt Replacement on the Bay Bridge”,
Technical Report, Submitted to the California Engineering Contractors Inc./Modern Continental,
A Joint Venture, November.
Astaneh-Asl, A. (1998). Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates. Steel TIPS Report. Moraga,
CA: Structural Steel Educational Council (www.steeltips.org).
Astaneh-Asl, A., (2008). “Progressive Collapse of Steel Truss Bridges, the Case of I-35W Collapse”,
Invited Keynote paper, Proceedings , 7th International Conference on Steel Bridges, Guimarăes,
Portugal, 4-6 June, 2008.(www.steelbridges08.com)
Astaneh-Asl, A., (2010) .“Gusset Plates in Steel Bridges, Design and Evaluation”. Steel TIPS Report.
Moraga, CA: Structural Steel Educational Council (www.steeltips.org).
Astaneh-Asl, A. (2010). Behavior and Design of Steel Structure, A Textbook to be released in 2011.
Astaneh-Asl, A., Cho, S. W. Shen, J. H. and Modjtahedi, D. (1994). "Ductility of the Bay Bridge in
Transverse Direction," Proceedings, The Third Annual Caltrans Seismic Research Workshop,
June 27-28, 1994, Sacramento.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1995). Performance Criteria for the Richmond San Rafael Bridge in San Francisco
Bay, March 1995, technical report submitted to ICF-Kaiser of Oakland and California
Department of Transportation.
Astaneh-Asl, A. (1995). Seismic Design of Components of the East Bay Crossing, April 1995, Report
No. UCB/CE-Steel/95/01, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

52
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 Astaneh-Asl, A., (1998). Seismic behavior and design of gusset plates, December 1998, Steel
Technical Information and Product Services Report, Structural Steel Educational Council, CA.
Astaneh-Asl, A., S. W. Cho and L. Stepanov, (1997) . Appendices to: Cyclic tests of existing and
retrofitted sway frames of SFOBB, February 1997, Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 96/06,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1997). Inelastic Models of Steel Components of the Carquinez Bridges, February
1997, Report to CH2M Hill/HNTB and Caltrans, Sacramento.
Astaneh-Asl, A., S. W. Cho and L. Stepanov, (1998). Cyclic tests of existing and retrofitted sway
frames of SFOBB, May 1998, Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 98/02, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (2005). Notes on Design of Double-Angle and Tee Shear Connections for Gravity
and Seismic Loads, August 2005, Steel Technical Information and Product Report, Structural
Steel Educational Council, CA.
Astaneh-Asl, A. , Cochran, M. and Sabelli, R., (2006). Seismic Detailing of Gusset Plates for Special
Concentrically Braced Frames, December 2006, Steel Technical Information and Product
Services Report, Structural Steel Educational Council, CA.
Austin G., (2002). “Welding, Bonding & Fastener Engineering-Removing Rivets with Minimal
Damage”, ENG-TIPS FORUMS site at: http://www.eng-
tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=26778&page=8.
Astaneh-Asl, A., (1996) Low cycle fatigue studies of Carquinez Bridge, August 1996, Internal
Technical Report, Submitted to CH2M/Hill-HNTB Team, Sacramento.
Astaneh-Asl, A. and J. Roberts.(1996) Seismic design, evaluation and retrofit of steel bridges,
November 1996, Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 96/09, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Bowen, C. M. and A. Astaneh-Asl,(1996) . Buckling behavior of the tower legs of the Golden Gate
Bridge, December 1996, Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 96/07, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Bowen, C.M., S. W. Cho and A. Astaneh-Asl, (1996).“Post Buckling Behavior of Laced Members
and Main Tower Legs of the Golden Gate Bridge,” Proceedings, Second US Seminar on
Seismic Design, Evaluation and Retrofit of Steel Bridges, San Francisco, November.
CNN (2010). “Commuter train service in New York restored after bridge fire”, New York Daily News,
September 20, 2010 (http://www.CNN.com)
Daily News (2010). “Blazing bridge fire over Harlem River halts Metro-North rail traffic”, New York
Daily News, September 20, 2010 (http://articles.nydailynews.com)
Doswell, B. (2006). “Effective Length Factors for Gusset Plate Buckling.” Engineering Journal,
Second Quarter, American Institute of Steel Construction (www.aisc.org).
Dotson-Lewis, B.L., (2004). “Appalachia: Spirit Triumphant” Published by Buy Books on the web.
Dowswell, B. and Barber, S. (2004). “Buckling of Gusset plates: A Comparison of Design
Equations.”, Proceedings, 2004 Annual Meeting, Structural Stability Research Council.
FHWA (2007a). Technical Advisory 5140.27—Immediate Inspection of Deck Truss Bridges
Containing Fracture Critical Members (FCM); Date: August 2, 2007. Washington, D.C.:
Federal Highway Administration.
FHWA (2007b). Technical Advisory 5140.28—Construction Loads on Bridges; Date: August 8,
2007. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
53
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 FHWA (2008). Technical Advisory 5140.29—Load-carrying Capacity Considerations of Gusset
Plates in Non-load-path-redundant Steel Truss Bridges; Date: January 15, 2008. Washington,
D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
FHWA (2009). Load Rating Guidance and Examples for Bolted and Riveted Gusset Plates In Truss
Bridge. U.S. Department of Transportation Publication No. FHWA-IF-09-014, Washington,
D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
Goel, S. C. (1986). “Combined Shear and Tension stresses.” Engineering Journal, Third Quarter,
American Institute of Steel Construction.
Hassett, P.M. (2003) .“Steel Construction in the New Millennium” Steel TIPS Report. Moraga, CA:
Structural Steel Educational Council (www.steeltips.org).
Holt, R. and Hartmann, J. (2008). “Adequacy of the U10 &U11 Gusset plates for the Minnesota
Bridge No. 9340 (I-35W over the Mississippi River”, Interim Report, Federal Highway
Administration, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center Report
Hooks, J. M.(2003). “Holding it Together: FHWA Bridge Plan Part I.” Roads & Bridges 41(6), June
2003.
HNTB, (2009). “Lake Champlain Bridge–Safety Assessment Report”, HTNB New York
Engineering & Architecture , prepared for New York State Department of
Transportation,(NYSDOT)m, December, 596pp.
HNTB, (2009). “Load Rating & Evaluation of Gusset Plates”, Powerpoint Presentations, ASCE
Structural Engineering Conference , Ames, Iowa, November.
Huckelbridge, A. A., Palmer, D. A., and Snyder, R. E. (1997). “Grand Gusset Failure.” Civil
Engineering 67(9), 50–52.
Ho, I., and A. Astaneh-Asl, (1993). Behavior of double angle connections subjected to shear and
axial monotonic or cyclic loads, 1993, Report No. UCB/CE-Steel-93/17, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
ICEC Consultants Inc. and Astaneh-Asl, A. (1996). “Technical design criteria for seismic retrofit of
Carquinez Bridges”, Report to CH2M Hill HNTB and Caltrans, Sacramento, June.
Irvan, W. G. (1957). “Experimental Study of Primary Stresses in Gusset Plates of a Double Plane
Pratt Truss.” University of Kentucky Engineering Research Station Bulletin No. 46.
Kanada, M. and A. Astaneh-Asl,(1996). Seismic performance of steel bridges during the 1995 Kobe
Earthquake, December 1996, Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 96/01, Department of Civil and Env.
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Kato, B., Morita, K., Tanuma, T. (1992). “Experimental Studies on the Strength of Brace-to-Gusset
Plate Connections with High-Strength Bolts.” Proceedings of the Pacific Structural Steel
Conference, Auckland. New Zealand.
Kulak, G. L., Fisher, J. W., and Struik, H. A. (2001). “Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and
Riveted Joints.” 2nd ed. Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction, Free download at:
http://www.boltcouncil.org/files/2ndEditionGuide.pdf
Kulicki, J.M., Prucz, Z, Sorgenfrei, D.F., Mertz, D.M., and Young, W.T. (1990). “Guidelines for
Evaluating Corrosion Effects in Existing Steel Bridges- Final Report”, Monographs, NCHRP
Report 333, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
Martindale T. R., and W. B. Conway, W. B. ( 2000). “Union Pacific Railroad Truss Hanger Rivet
Replacement Program” Proceedings, 1999 Annual Conference, American Railway Engineering
and Maintenance-of-Way Association
54
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 Medwick , S. (2010). “Truss bridges: Inspection and load rating, post I-35W Bridge collapse Changes
in practice, intensity, and ratings performed “ , Internet Posting at Rebuilding America’s
Infrastructure ,www.rebuildingamericasinfrastructure.com)
MoDOT, (1991). “Bridge Redundancy and Fracture Critical members”, Chapter 8 of Inspection of
Fracture Critical Bridge Members, Supplement to the Bridge Inspection Training Manual
(FHWA), Missouri Dept. of Transportation web site.
MN-DOT.(2007). “Construction plans, inspection reports and other data on I-35W”, posted on the
web site of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2007.
NCHRP, (2005). “Inspection and Management of Bridges with Fracture Critical Details”, NCHRP
Synthesis 354, By Robert J. Conner, Robert Dexter and Hussam Mahmoud, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
NTSB-Dockets. “(2007). Press releases, reports, photos and other information on I-35W”, the
National Transportation Safety Board Docket on the Internet, 2007-2008.
ODOT, (2008) “Gusset Plate Analysis: Procedures & Guideline for Analysis “. PowerPoint
presentation by Michael Loeffler, P.E. , Assistant Administrator, Bridge Operations , Office of
Structural Engineering Ohio Department of Transportation, Presented at 2008 Ohio Bridge
Conference Columbus Ohio, August.
Oro, L., Mori, H., and Astaneh-Asl, A. (1996). “Cyclic tests of rivets for SFOBB sway frame
specimens.” Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 96/02, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, May.
Prucz, Z. and Kulicki, J.M., (1998). “Accounting for Effects of Corrosion Section Loss in Steel
Bridges”, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C.
Rabinovitch, J. S., and Cheng, J. J. R. (1993). “Cyclic Behavior of Steel Gusset Plate Connections.”
Engineering Report No. 191, University of Alberta.
Roberts, G. (2002). “Welding, Bonding & Fastener Engineering-Removing Rivets with Minimal
Damage”, ENG-TIPS FORUMS site at: http://www.eng-
tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=26778&page=8.
Sheikh Ibrahim, F.I., (2008). “FHWA Guidance for Load Rating Evaluation of Gusset Plates in Truss
Bridges”, Powerpoint, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C.. At: http://www.transportation.org/
Shen, J. and A. Astaneh-Asl,(1999). “Hysteretic Behavior of Bolted Angle Connections,” Journal of
Steel Constructional Research 51, pp. 201-218.
Shen, J.H., Yan, L. and Astaneh-Asl, A. (1997). “Analysis of the cyclic behavior of existing and
retrofitted sway frames of the SFOBB.” Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 96/05, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, January.
Shen, J.H. and A. Astaneh-Asl, (1993). Hysteretic Behavior and Modeling of Double Angle Semi-
Rigid Connections, September 1993, Report No. UCB/CE-Steel 93/10, Department of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of California.
Sheng, N., Yam, C.H. Michael and Iu, V.P. (2002). "Analytical Investigation and the Design of the
Compressive Strength of Gusset Plate Connections" Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
58/11, pp 1473-1493.
SSRC, (1998), “Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures”,5th. Edition, T. V..
Galambos, Editor, Structural Stability Research Council, .
55
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 Thornton, W. A. (2002). “Combined Stresses in Gusset Plates.” Copyright Cives Steel Company
(www.aisc.org).
URS (2003). “Initial Inspection Report for Fatigue Evaluation –Bridge 9340 -35W Over Mississippi
River, Report prepared for Mn/DOT by URS Corporation (a copy is available for download at
Mn/DOT site).
Vermes, W. (2007). “Design and Performance of Riveted Bridge Connections”, Powerpoint,
Euthenics, Inc. (http://www.otecohio.org/).
Viltinat, G., Hadrych, I. And Huhn, H., (2000). “ Strengthening of Riveted and Bolted Steel
Construction Under Fatigue Loading by Pre-load Fasteners-Experimental and Theoretical
Investigations”, Proceedings, 4th International Workshop on Connections in Steel Structures,
Held in Roanoke, Virginia, October 21-24.
Waddell, J. A. L. (1898). “De Pontibus—A Pocket Book for Bridge Engineers”, John Wiley & Sons
Inc., New York. ( an electronic version can be found at
:http://openlibrary.org/details/depontibusapock00waddgoog
Walbridge, S.S., Grondin, G. Y., and Cheng J. J. R. (1998). “An Analysis of the Cyclic Behavior of
Steel Gusset Plate Connections.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research 46(1–3).
Whitmore, R. E. (1952). “Experimental Investigation of Stresses in Gusset Plates, Bulletin No. 16,
Engineering Experiment Station, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, May.
Yamamoto, K., Akiyama, N., and Okumura, T. (1988). “Buckling Strength of Gusseted Truss Joints.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 114(3), 575–591.
Yin, J. C. and Astaneh-Asl, A. (1996). “Cyclic tests of riveted and bolted angle connections of
SFOBB.” Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel- 96/03, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, May.

56
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
About the Authors:

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., is a Wahid Tadros currently is the President of

professor of structural engineering at the University California Engineering Contractors Inc. (CEC).
of California, Berkeley. He is the winner of the He received his B.S degree in Civil Engineering,
1998 T. R. Higgins Lectureship Award of the with Honors in 1979 from the University of
American Institute of Steel Construction. Since
California, Berkeley. He joined CEC in 1972 as
1968 he has been involved in design, research,
laborer and continued to serve as estimator,
evaluation and construction of buildings, bridges
project engineer, project manager, vice president
and other structures such as water tanks and guyed
towers. His teaching, research, design and and became president in 1992. He has been
consulting activities has been both on buildings and involved in numerous bridge construction,
bridges with an emphasis on behavior and design of repair, retrofit as well as demolition and removal
steel and composite structures subjected to gravity of a number of various structures including
and seismic loads. Since 1995, he has also been bridges. CEC was the prime contractor in the
studying the behavior of steel and composite seismic retrofit of the San Francisco - Oakland
structures, both buildings and bridges, subjected to Bay Bridge. The project included the removal of
blast and impact loads and has been involved in over 500,000 rivets, installation of over
testing and further development of technologies and 17,000,000 pounds of structural steel and
design concepts to reduce blast damage and to 1,000,000 bolts. His work as well as CEC’s in
prevent progressive collapse of steel and composite demolishing and removing the 1927 Carquinez
building and bridge structures subjected to terrorist Bridge in Vallejo, California was the subject of a
blast (car bombs) or impact (planes and rockets) documentary by the National Geographic
attacks. Channel.
His recent projects include investigation of the
collapse of the two spans of the MacArthur Maze More information on Projects by California
elevated intersection in Northern California due to Engineering Contractors can be found at
fire, development of technologies to protect www.cecmain.com.
buildings and bridges against the blast and impact
of projectile effects, progressive collapse
prevention of steel bridges and buildings, seismic
behavior and design of steel and composite shear
walls and connections of steel and composite
structures.
Contact the author at:
Contact the author at:
Wahid Tadros, President,
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor
California Engineering Contractors Inc.,
781 Davis Hall, University of California
20 Happy Valley Road, Pleasanton, CA 94566,
Berkeley, CA 94720-1710
Phone (925) 941-1500, Fax: (925) 461-0510.
Phone and Fax: (925) 946-0903
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.astaneh.net and
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh
57
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 List of Published Steel TIPS Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following reports have been published by the Structural Steel Educational Council (SSEC). The
reports have been peer reviewed by members of the SSEC and other professionals. Copies of the Steel
TIPS reports can be downloaded from www.steeltips.org, free of charge by California and Nevada
residents and for a nominal fee for others.

04.2011 > Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and
Wahid Tadros.
05.2010 > Notes on Blast Resistance of Steel and Composite Building Structures, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
04.2010 > Gusset Plates in Steel Bridges-Design and Evaluation, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
04.2010 > Steel Plate Shear Walls: An Option for Lateral Resistance in High-Rise Core Wall Buildings, by James
O. Malley
12.2009 > Economy of Steel-Framed Buildings For Seismic Loading, by Christopher Hewitt, Rafael Sabelli, and
Jayson Bray.
10.2008 > A Comparison of Frame Stability Analysis Methods in AISC 360-05, by Charles J. Carter and Louis F.
Gerschwinder.
09.2008 > Quality Assured Steel Bridge Fabrication and Erection, by Jay P. Murphy.
06.2008 > Seismic Behavior and Design of Base Plates in Braced Frames, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
04.2008 > Cost-Effective Steel Bridge Fabrication and Erection, by Jay P. Murphy.
06.2007 > Early California Accelerated Steel Bridge Construction by Jay P. Murphy.
06.2007 > Design of RBS Connections for Special Moment Frames, by Kevin S. Moore and Joyce Y. Feng.
05.2007 > Progressive Collapse Prevention of Steel Frames with Shear Connections , by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
12.2006 > Seismic Detailing of Gusset Plates for Special Concentrically Braced Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-
Asl, Michael Cochran, and Rafael Sabelli.
08.2006 > Alfred Zampa Memorial Steel Suspension Bridge, by Alfred Mangus, Sarah Picker.
07.2006 > Buckling and Fracture of Concentric Braces Under Inelastic Loading, , by B. Fell, A. Kanvinde, G.
Deierlein, A. Myers, and X. Fu.
08.2005 > Notes on Design of Double-Angle and Tee Shear Connections for Gravity and Seismic Loads, by
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
06.2005 > Design of Shear Tab Connections for Gravity and Seismic Loads by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
07.2004 > Seismic Design of Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames, by Walterio A. Lopez and Rafael Sabelli.
05.2004 > Special Concentric Braced Frames, by Michael Cochran and William Honeck.
12.2003 > Steel Construction in the New Millennium, , by Patrick M. Hassett.
08.2002 > Cost Considerations for Steel Moment Frame Connections, by Patrick M. Hassett and James J.
Putkey.
06.2002 > Use of Deep Columns In Special Steel Moment Frames, by Jay Shen, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and
David McCallen.
05.2002 > Seismic Behavior and Design of Composite Steel Plate Shear Walls, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
09.2001 > Notes on Design of Steel Parking Structures - Including Seismic Effects, by Lanny J. Flynn, and
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
07.2001 > Seismic Behavior and Design of Steel Shear Walls, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
06.2001 > Metal Roof Construction on Large Warehouses or Distribution Centers, by John L. Mayo.
03.2001 > Large Seismic Steel Beam-to-Column Connections, by Egor P. Popov and Shakhzod M.Takhirov.
58
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
10.1999 > Welded Moment Frame Connections With Minimal Residual Stress, by Alvaro L. Collin and James J.
Putkey.
08.1999 > Design of Reduced Beam Section (RBS) Moment Frame Connections, by Kevin S. Moore, James O.
Malley and Michael D. Engelhardt. ,
07.1999 > Practical Design and Detailing of Steel Column Base Plates, by William C. Honeck and Derek Westphal.
12.1998 > Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
03.1998 > Compatibility of Mixed Weld Material, by Alvaro L. Collin and James J. Putkey.
08.1997 > Dynamic Tension Tests of Simulated Moment Resisting Frame Weld Joints, by Eric J. Kaufmann.
04.1997 > Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment Resisting Frames, , by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
01.1997 > Quick Reference Guide for Structural Steel Welding Practices,
12.1996 > Seismic Design Practice For Eccentrically Braced Frames, by Roy Becker and Michael Ishler.
11.1995 > Seismic Design of Special Concentrically Braced Steel Frames, by Roy Becker.
07.1995 > Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
04.1995 > Structural Details to Increase Ductility of Connections, , by Omer W. Blodgett.
12.1994 > USE OF STEEL IN THE SEISMIC RETROFIT of HISTORIC OAKLAND CITY HALL by William
Honeck & Mason Walters. ,
12.1993 > Common Steel Erection Problems and Suggested Solutions, by James J. Putkey.,
10.1993 > Heavy Structural Shapes in Tension Applications
03.1993 > Structural Steel Construction in The 90's, by F. Robert Preece and Alvaro L. Collin.
10.1992 > Economical Use of Cambered Steel Beams
08.1992 > Value Engineering and Steel Economy, by David T. Ricker.
07.1992 > SLOTTED BOLTED CONNECTION ENERGY DISSIPATERS , by Carl E. Grigorian, Tzong-Shuoh
Yang and Egor P. Popov.,
06.1992 > What Design Engineers Can Do To Reduce Fabrication Costs by Bill Dyker and John D. Smith.
04.1992 > Designing for Cost Efficient Fabrication, by W.A. Thornton.
01.1992 > STEEL DECK CONSTRUCTION
09.1991> Design Practice to Prevent Floor Vibrations, by Farzad Naeim.
03.1991 > LRFD-COMPOSITE BEAM DESIGN with METAL DECK, , by Ron Vogel.
12.1990 > Design of single Plate Shear Connections, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steven M. Call and Kurt M.
McMullin.
11.1990 > Design of Small Base Plates for Wide Flange Columns*, by W.A. Thornton.
05.1989 > The Economies of. LRFD in Composite Floor Beams , by Mark C. Zahn.
03.1989 > EXTERIOR WALL CONNECTIONS TO STEEL FRAMING
01.1987 > COMPOSITE BEAM DESIGN WITH METAL DECK
02.1986 > UN FIRE PROTECTED EXPOSED STEEL PARKING STRUCTURES
11.1976 > STEEL HIGH-RISE BUILDING FIRE
01.0 > Design Practice to Prevent Floor Vibrations
01.0 > Fireproofing Open-Web Joists & Girders

59
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 STRUCTURAL STEEL EDUCATIONAL COUNCIL
Funding provided by the California Field Iron Workers Administrative Trust
A Union Trust Fund

E-mail: [email protected]

Steel TIPS may be viewed and downloaded at www.steeltips.org

Steel

Participating Members of SSEC

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL, Ph.D., P.E.; UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
MICHAEL COCHRAN, S.E.; WEIDLINGER ASSOCIATES, INC.
RICH DENIO, S.E.; RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE
RICH DEVEAU; ALBANY STEEL, INC.
JEFFREY EANDI, P.E.; EANDI METAL WORKS, INC.
PATRICK M. HASSETT, S.E.; HASSETT ENGINEERING, INC.
WILLIAM KAVICKY; TRANS BAY STEEL CORP.
JOHN KONECHNE, P.E.; CALIFORNIA ERECTORS, INC
BRETT MANNING, S.E.; SCHUFF STEEL CO.
KEVIN MOORE, S.E.;CETUS CONSULTING INC.
JAY MURPHY; MURPHY PACIFIC CORPORATION
RICHARD PERSONS; PERSONS & ASSOCIATES
PAUL RANGEL; PDM STEEL SERVICE CENTERS, INC.

60
Notes on Gusset Plates in Steel Trusses-Evaluation, Repair and Retrofit, by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Wahid Tadros
Copyright  2011 by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. All rights reserved.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation