Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A nonlinear model for gusset plate connections

Chiara Crosti a, Dat Duthinh b,
a
b

Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Dr. Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 13 June 2012
Revised 4 November 2013
Accepted 19 January 2014

Keywords:
Bridges
Connections
Finite-element analysis
Gusset plate
Nonlinear springs
Steel truss

a b s t r a c t
The investigation of the 2007 collapse of the I-35 W Highway Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, used
very detailed nonlinear nite-element (FE) analysis. On the other hand, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided simple guidelines for the load rating of gusset plates, but load rating was never
intended to capture the actual behavior of gusset plates. The approach proposed here combines the accuracy of the rst method with the simplicity of the second. From the detailed FE analysis of a single joint,
the stiffness matrix of semi-rigid equivalent springs (linear in a simple model, nonlinear in a more
advanced model) was derived by applying forces and moments to the free end of each portion of member
(hereafter called stub member) that framed into the joint, one action at a time, while keeping the ends of
the other stub members xed. The equivalent springs were then placed in a global model, which was in
turn veried against a global, detailed FE analysis of the I-35 W Highway Bridge. The nonlinear equivalent
spring model was able to predict the correct failure mode. The approach was applied to a Howe truss
bridge as an example of performance prediction of bridges with semi-rigid connections, most of them
of one type. As the simplied spring model was developed from a detailed FE analysis of the joint considered, this approach would not be justied if all joints had to be modeled in detail. Examples where
the approach can be used include: structures where only specic joints need to be investigated (e.g.,
joints subjected to concentrated loads), and structures where the same joint model can be used repeatedly at multiple locations. In some cases, the effort required in performing detailed FE analyses of many
joints in order to develop simplied models can be justied if the simplied models can be used in subsequent multiple load cases, thus leading to overall computational savings. Under these circumstances,
the nonlinear connection model proposed here provides a simple and affordable way to account for connection performance in global analysis.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
The 2007 catastrophic collapse of the I-35 W Highway Bridge in
Minneapolis, Minnesota (I-35 W Bridge for short), under ordinary
trafc and construction loads, was triggered by the buckling of
an undersized gusset plate [1]. Gusset plates are complicated
structural components used to connect frame members such as
beams, columns and braces. Their use in buildings and bridges goes
back many decades and certainly predates the use of computers in
structural analysis and design. Practical design methods ensure
safety by providing a load path that satises equilibrium, boundary
conditions and does not exceed material yield limits. The resulting
stress eld is by denition a statically possible yield state of stress.
Safety against plastic failure is assured because, according to the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 975 4357; fax: +1 301 869 6275.
E-mail addresses: chiara.crosti@uniroma1.it (C. Crosti), dduthinh@nist.gov (D.
Duthinh).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.026
0141-0296/Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Lower Bound Theorem of the Limiting Load [2], a statically possible

yield state of stress is less than or equal to the limiting load, which
is characterized by unrestricted plastic ow. There is, however, no
guarantee that the design load path is the actual one, and thus the
design methods provide no information on the loaddisplacement
behavior or stiffness of the connection, even in the elastic range.
Current procedures [3] for the design and load rating of multimember gusset plates consist in checking axial, bending and shear
stresses along various sections deemed critical, using elastic beam
theory. These procedures are intended to ensure a safe and conservative design, but produce results that can be quite different from
those derived from more representative nite-element (FE) models, and cannot predict either stiffness or actual behavior. To do
so would require highly sophisticated and detailed FE models, such
as the ones used in the investigation of the I-35 W Bridge collapse
[1]. The approach presented here combines the simplicity of one
method with the accuracy of the other: a simplied connection
in the form of semi-rigid springs is proposed to improve on current

136

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

design analysis, which typically is linear and assumes rigid connections. Semi-rigid here means that the connection has a nite, dened rotational stiffness, as opposed to zero (hinged) or innite
(rigid) stiffness. The paper starts with a literature survey that focuses on approximate design and analysis methods, then follows
with a brief account of the I-35 W Bridge collapse and its investigation. Next, a simple linear equivalent spring model and a more detailed nonlinear one are developed from detailed FE analyses of a
joint, and used in a global model that, in the nonlinear case, correctly predicts the failure mode of the I-35 W Bridge. Finally, the
spring model is applied to a Howe truss bridge to show how it
can be used to predict the performance of bridges with connections
mostly of the same type.

2. Review of the literature on approximate methods for gusset

plates
Extensive reviews of the literature were performed by Chambers and Ernst [4] and Astaneh-Asl [5]. In keeping with the theme
of this paper, the focus here is on approximate methods of analysis
and design and on buckling. Whitmore [6] tested 1:4 scale specimens of gusset plates for Warren trusses made of aluminum,
masonite and bakelite using wire-bonded strain gages (a novelty
in 1952), brittle lacquer and photoelastic techniques. Based on
these experiments, he developed the effective width that now
bears his name (Fig. 1), by constructing lines making 30 with
the axis of the member which originate at the outside rivets in
the rst row and continue until they intersect a line perpendicular
to the member through the bottom row of rivets. The maximum
tensile and compressive stresses may be approximated by assuming the force in each diagonal is uniformly distributed over this
width.
Astaneh [7] proposed modeling gusset plates as wedges under a
point load. In the elastic range, closed-form solutions exist for innite wedges, but cannot account for the actual boundary conditions. Furthermore, actual loads are transferred to gusset plates
by rows of rivets or bolts, rather than at a single point. The author
also indicated that wedge models could not predict buckling, for
which he proposed a n truss model, where the cross section of
each bar was the average of the cross section of the triangle it bisected. Astaneh [7] suggested an effective length factor of 0.7 for
the one-dimensional struts to account for the restraint provided
against buckling by the transverse direction in a two-dimensional
plate. The use of multiple n trusses to model gusset plates that
connect multiple members rapidly becomes cumbersome, and
makes the FE method very attractive for its accuracy and automation, when compared to Astanehs approach.
An elegant, statically possible load path with no moment (i.e.,
concentric) in the gusset-to-beam and gusset-to-column connections was developed and called the Uniform Force Method by
Thornton [8], who obtained the following connection forces (symbols are dened in Fig. 2):

eB
b
P; V B P; V C P;
r
r
r
q
2
2
a eC b eB

HB

HC

eC
P;
r

r
1

The Uniform Force Method, with modications to account for

geometries that induce moments, is the method currently recommended by the American Institute of Steel Construction [9].
Dowswell and Barber [10] provided a quantitative denition of
compact gusset plates and guidance on the required plate thickness tb to prevent their buckling:

s
ry c 3
tb 1:5
EL2

where c = the shorter of the distances from the corner bolt or rivet
to the adjacent beam or column, E = modulus of elasticity, L2 = equivalent column length from the middle of the Whitmore width
(Fig. 1) and ry = yield stress.
The gusset plate is compact if its thickness t P tb and non-compact if t < tb. Dowswell and Barber [10] compared their theoretical
buckling capacities Pth with experimental and FE calculations in
the literature Plit. They used the average of the lengths from the
middle and the ends of the Whitmore width for the equivalent column length. For compact gusset plates, using an effective length
factor of 0.5, they found the ratio Plit/Pth = 1.47; and for non-compact gusset plates, using an effective length factor of 1.0, Plit/
Pth = 3.08. Thus, the separation of compact from non-compact gusset plates and the subsequent different effective length factors resulted in inconsistent and problematic factors of safety for design
against buckling.
Brown [11,12] developed analytical expressions for the edge
buckling of gusset plates, based on the elastic buckling stress of a
plate supported on its loaded edges, but otherwise unrestrained.
For edge buckling, the critical section bisected the long free edge
of length a and was perpendicular to the brace (Fig. 3). Its width
b was different from the Whitmore width. Only a fraction of the total brace load contributed to the edge buckling of the gusset, and
the rest was transferred directly to the steel frame. Brown
[11,12] compared her predictions with 18 experiments and produced 16 ratios of experimental to predicted values ranging from
1.01 to 1.38, and 2 values below 1 (0.99 and 0.81).
Yamamoto et al. [13] tested eight gusset plates (each connecting two horizontal chord members and two diagonal braces) and
performed FE analysis to establish stability design criteria for the
joints of the Warren truss designed to stiffen the deck of the HonshuShikoku suspension bridge. They focused on the development
of plastic zones, local buckling and ultimate strength, and found
that local yielding and local buckling preceded global buckling of
the gusset plates. The load at which local buckling started depended on the extent of yielding, which covered the inner portions
of the gusset plate, whose in-plane stiffness was constrained by the
surrounding elastic region. Under the assumption that buckling occurred when the stress reached the allowable stress in the material, ra = 0.58 ry, and with l1 = length of the vertical free edge,
Yamamoto et al. [13] proposed the following design thickness for
local buckling:

r
tcr 1:10l1

Fig. 1. Equivalent column.

ra
E

There have been numerous other FE studies of gusset plates

over the last three decades, and they have been reviewed extensively by Chambers and Ernst [4] and Astaneh-Asl [5]. Among the
earlier studies, for example, is the work of Cheng et al. [14]. They
used ANSYS and performed a parametric study to calculate the
elastic buckling strength of concentrically loaded gusset plates. In

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

137

Fig. 2. Uniform Force Method.

Fig. 3. Critical section for gusset edge buckling.

Fig. 4. Rotational spring four-parameter stiffness.

particular, they focused on the effects of the splice plate and the
rotational restraint provided by the bracing member, but did not
formulate design equations or derive equivalent springs.
A widely used equivalent spring for beamcolumn connections
of braced frames was formulated by Richard and Abbott [15]. Their
nonlinear spring had one degree of freedom, and its momentrotation stiffness was represented by four parameters that modeled a
linear elastic part, a linear post-yielding, strain hardening part,
and a curved transitional part (Fig. 4 and Eq. (4)).

6
7
K  Kp
M6

n 1=n K p 7
4
5h K CONN h
KK h
1  M0p 

where h = connection rotation angle; K = initial or elastic stiffness;

Kp = plastic stiffness; KCONN = connection stiffness; M = connection
moment; M0 = reference moment; and n = shape parameter.
Williams [16] used computer program INELAS to analyze steel
gusset plate connections and nd values that t the four-parameter model. For example, one of his model of a gusset plate and
beam was comprised of 77 nite elements, a number not atypical
of the computer technology of the time. He also used NASTRAN to
calculate the capacity of gusset plates subjected to compressive
brace forces.
Gusset plate research, highlighted above, had been sporadic in
the last 60 years, but would receive a jolt of interest in 2007 with
the catastrophic failure of the I-35 W Highway Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

138

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

3. I-35 W Bridge collapse

The I-35 W Highway Bridge Number 9340 in the National
Bridge Inventory spanned the Mississippi River in the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Construction started in 1964 and the bridge
was opened to trafc in 1967. The major superstructure components consisted of welded plate girders and truss members with
riveted and bolted connections. The deck truss portion of the
bridge is shown schematically in Fig. 5. In the terminology of the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Accident Report [1],
the deck truss portion of the bridge excludes the north and south
approach spans.
The deck truss comprised two parallel Warren trusses (east and
west) with vertical members. The upper and lower chords, the
compression diagonal and vertical members were welded box sections, whereas the tension vertical and diagonal members were Hsections. Steel gusset plates, riveted to the side plates of the box
members and the anges of the H-members, were used on all
the 112 connections of the two main trusses. All joints had at least
two gusset plates on either side of the connection. In the late
1970s, the bridge was classied as non-load-path-redundant,
that is, if designated fracture critical members of the main
trusses failed, the bridge would collapse.
Unfortunately, that is what happened on August 1, 2007. On
that day, roadway work was underway and four of the eight travel
lanes were closed to trafc (two outside lanes northbound and two
inside lanes southbound). In the early afternoon, construction
equipment and material were positioned in the two closed inside
southbound lanes. At 6:05 pm, a motion-activated surveillance
camera showed the bridge center span separating from the rest
and falling into the river. A total of 111 vehicles, including 25 associated with the construction, were on the bridge at the time, and
13 lives were lost. Examination of the bridge debris showed that
all four gusset plates at the U10 nodes (U refers to the upper chord,
L to the lower chord) had fractured into multiple pieces. More fractures in the lower chord members between the L9 and L10 (Fig. 5)
nodes precipitated complete separation of the main truss, thereby
causing the center span to drop.
As a consequence of the collapse of the I-35 W Bridge, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) produced a guidance document [3] with simple, hand-calculable formulas for the load
rating of gusset plates, with the intent that bridge owners may
use the guidance to evaluate the connecting plates and fasteners
of truss bridges. The gusset plates are rated for their resistance to
tension, compression and shear. In tension, the modes of failure
that need to be evaluated are yielding of gross section, fracture
of net section, and rupture by block shear. For shear resistance,
several sections must be investigated to nd the governing one. Finally, the compressive strength of a gusset plate is that of an equivalent column determined as follows:
1. The thickness of the column is that of the gusset plate.
2. The width is the Whitmore effective width [6] presented Fig. 1.

3. The length of the column is the average of three lengths extending in the direction of the framing member from the middle and
the ends of the last row of bolts to the edges of the gusset plate
or adjacent groups of bolts (L1, L2 and L3 in Fig. 1). This approximation is adapted from Thornton [17], who used the middle
length L2, but then went on to propose the average of L1, L2
and L3 as a more reasonable approximation of the critical
length of the column strip, with an effective length factor of
0.65, corresponding to a column with both ends xed. The
examples in the Guidance ignore any lateral constraint to the
gusset and use an effective length factor of 1.2, which corresponds to a column with one end xed and the other restrained
against rotation but free to translate. Brown [11,12] had previously proposed the factor of 1.2 based on experimental observation and calculations.
4. Detailed nite-element investigation
From the literature review, it is seen that there are simple design methods based on equilibrium and elastic behavior and proven safe by experiments. There is, however, no simple way of
calculating the actual behavior of a gusset plate, even in the elastic
range. Designers ensure that the connections are stronger than the
members, then proceed with a structural analysis that assumes rigid connections. Such a structural analysis is incapable of predicting connection failure, or account for the exibility of the
connection in the global behavior of the structure.
On the other hand, there exist detailed models such as the ones
analyzed by the NTSB. As part of the investigation of the collapse of
the I-35 W Bridge, the NTSB commissioned the FHWA, the State
University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook and the software
company Simulia to develop an FE model of the bridge. FHWA constructed a three-dimensional global model of the entire deck truss
portion of the bridge with (two-node, linear or cubic) beam and
(four-node) shell elements. The model, including the boundary
conditions at the piers, was calibrated with strain gage data from
a fatigue assessment conducted by the University of Minnesota
in 1999 [18]. In addition, as eld evidence pointed to gusset plates
as the trigger of the collapse, SUNY/Simulia developed detailed
models of the U10 (Fig. 6) and L11 nodes and incorporated them
into the global model. More details about the highway accident
and its analysis can be found in [1,19,20]. In [19] Hao provided a
possible explanation for why some of the gusset plates were under-designed: the main frame gusset plates and the upper chords
may have been designed from a one-dimensional model of the
bridge, i.e., a uniformly loaded beam supported at four points.
Each gusset plate of the detailed model was composed of four
layers of eight-node, linear, solid brick elements, whose largest
dimension in the plane of the gusset plate was 5 mm in highly
stressed regions and less than 15 mm elsewhere [20]. The
289,000 solid elements used reduced integration and hourglass
control to alleviate spurious displacement modes. The connection
model also included the ve main truss members, cut at 2/5 of

Fig. 5. Schematics of the deck truss portion of I-35 W Bridge.

139

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

Fig. 6. Detailed FE model 1 of gusset plate (ABAQUS).

their lengths in the bridge (the so-called stub members), and modeled with solid and shell elements (Fig. 6). In their largest dimension, the shell elements ranged from 25 mm to 50 mm, and the
solid elements, which were in the transition zones between the
truss members and the gusset plates, from 8 mm to 25 mm. Transition between shell and solid elements was performed by surfacebased coupling constraints. All members in the connection model
other than the main truss members and gusset plate had maximum element dimension of about 15 mm. The sophistication of
these models, compared with Williamss [16] for example, reects
the extraordinary advance of computer and nite-element technologies in the last quarter of a century.
Even with such a detailed connection model, the rivets could
not be modeled. The shanks of the rivets had a radius of 13 mm
and the hemispherical heads a radius of 20 mm. The rivets were
modeled by coupling nodes of the fastened components normal
to the rivet axis within a radius of inuence of 13 mm. Contact
pairs, with a Coulomb friction coefcient of 0.1, were also used
with the fastener elements. Such a detailed analysis required advanced skills and powerful computers and was clearly beyond routine design.

5. Simplied linear spring model

5.1. Stiffness matrix of linear springs
A simplied model of a gusset plate connection of the bridge
was developed as part of the present work. First, the linear model
2 (Table 1) is described. It started with the analysis of the NTSB detailed FE model 1 [1,20], formulated in software ABAQUS [21], of
gusset plate U10 (Fig. 6). The results of the analysis of model 1
established the equivalent stiffness of springs that completely
modeled the elastic behavior of the connection model 2 [22,23].
This simplied connection model 2 was placed in a global 2D model of the West main truss (model 5), using overall strategies for
integration of substructures proposed in [24]. Table 1 lists all the

computer models run in the present work. They are described in

more detail when they are rst used.
The ABAQUS detailed FE model of U10 (model 1) had ve stub
elements connected to a pair of gusset plates (Fig. 6). In the NTSB
global analysis, the stub members were reattached to their corresponding truss members. To develop the simplied linear connection model, the stub elements and gusset plates were replaced by
ve user-dened springs, that each had a full 6  6 stiffness matrix
for all 6 degrees of freedom (DoFs). To establish the exibility of
the spring that is equivalent to element 1 in the detailed model
(Fig. 6) for example, the ends of elements 25 in the detailed model
were xed and an arbitrary concentrated force or moment was applied to obtain the displacements and rotations at the end of element 1. In general, the concentrated force or moment was
applied at a node at the end of a stub member, as close to the center of the cross section as possible. For tubular members, two concentrated forces or moments were applied at the middle of the
long sides of the end cross section, and displacements and rotations were calculated at these same points. The process was performed using ABAQUS and repeated by applying arbitrary forces
and moments corresponding to all 6 DoFs, and thus, after normalization, the 6  6 exibility matrix for element 1 in ABAQUS coordinates was obtained. This exibility matrix was inverted to obtain
the stiffness matrix, which was then transformed to the coordinate
system specied by STRAND for user-dened elements and applied
to the simplied spring model (Fig. 7, model 2). Fig. 8 is a owchart
of the procedure.
This process was repeated for all ve elements of the connection. In calculating the equivalent spring stiffness, software
STRAND7/STRAUS7 [25] was used, and care had to be exercised
in dening the local coordinates of the user-dened element
[STRAND7/STRAUS7 required the local axis 3 to be in the longitudinal direction and pointing away from the end of the stub (Fig. 7)].

5.2. Verication of the stiffness matrix

After the equivalent springs were assembled, the response of
the simplied connection in STRAND (model 2) was veried
against the detailed FE analysis in ABAQUS (model 1), for the same
set of applied forces and moments. As done previously, forces and
moments were applied one at a time, for example at end node 1 of
element 1, while the other end nodes were xed. Agreement in the
displacements and rotations calculated was good, especially for the
diagonal terms (maximum relative error 0.5%), with acceptable errors in the off-diagonal terms, which were several orders of magnitude smaller (Tables 2 and 3). Similar results were obtained for the
other elements of the connection [22], but were not presented here
to save space.
As stated in the introduction, current design analysis is typically
linear and assumes rigid connections. The next part of this work
investigates the validity of the rigid connection assumption. For
this purpose, ABAQUS model 3 was developed by changing the

Table 1
Computer models run.
Model

Software

Analysis

Purpose

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

ABAQUS
STRAND
ABAQUS
STRAND
STRAND
ABAQUS
STRAND
STRAND
STRAND

Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Nonlinear
Nonlinear
Nonlinear
Nonlinear

Stiffness of 5 members
Stiffness of 5 springs
Stiffness of 5 members
Validity of rigid connection assumption
Behavior with various connection models
Stiffness of 5 members
Stiffness of 5 springs
Behavior with various connection models
Behavior with various connection models

Detailed connection
Spring connection
Detailed connection, various gusset thickness
Rigid connection
West main truss (2D)
Detailed connection
Spring connection
I-35 W (3D)
Howe truss (2D)

140

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

Fig. 7. Equivalent spring model 2 (STRAND).

thickness of the gusset plates in the NTSB gusset connection model

1. Also, STRAND7/STRAUS7 [25] model 4 was developed with
beams that had the same stiffness as the members framing into
U10, but were rigidly connected to each other. Table 4 compares
the displacements d and rotations q predicted by models 2
(semi-rigid connection) and 4 (rigid connection) with the results
from the detailed ABAQUS model 3 with various gusset plate thicknesses. As expected, the thicker the gusset plates, the smaller the
deections and rotations. Also, as expected, the rigid joint model
4 produced results that were not as accurate as the more complicated spring model 2, which corresponded to a gusset thickness
of 12.7 mm (base case, also diagonal terms of Tables 2 and 3).
The displacements and rotations predicted by the rigid connection
model 4 (Table 4, column 2) were not always smaller than the base
case (column 4), which included the stiffness of the gusset plates.
6. Planar linear global analysis
The next phase of the analysis consisted in using the spring elements in a global analysis of the bridge. The rst global analysis
was linear, with the various connection models placed in a 2D
model of the I-35 W Bridge, at a location corresponding to the
U10 gusset plate where the bridge collapse initiated. For this 2D
analysis, the simplied connection model only had three degrees
of freedom corresponding to planar displacements and rotation.
The analysis was performed with software STRAND7/STRAUS7
[25], using a model consisting of 496 beam elements (which have
axial stiffness) and loaded with the gravity loads (dead weight,
vehicle and construction loads, Fig. 9) present at collapse, and divided into the East and West trusses [26]. Liao et al. [27] showed
by inuence lines that the temporary construction loads placed
near U10 signicantly affected the forces imposed on the joint
and contributed to the collapse. The 2D analysis was performed
for the more heavily loaded West main truss (model 5). Although
the model was 2D, the nite elements used were formulated for
the general 3D case, and therefore some of the support points
had to be restrained in 3D (Fig. 9).
Four cases were run, resulting in the following midspan vertical
deections d: (1) all joints rigid, d = 281 mm; (2) U10 modeled with
linear springs, all other joints rigid, d = 285 mm; (3) U10 modeled
with detailed FE, all other joints rigid, d = 285 mm; and (4) all
ve-element joints hinged, all other joints rigid, d = 286 mm. Results showed that modifying the stiffness of one connection within
the elastic range produced no noticeable effect on the maximum
vertical deection of the bridge (at midspan). It was concluded
that, in the elastic range, the connections could be assumed rigid
to a good approximation.
7. Simplied nonlinear spring model

Fig. 8. Flowchart to calculate equivalent spring stiffness.

In order to investigate the failure of the bridge, it was necessary

to progress beyond the linear elastic range. To capture the nonlinear behaviour of the gusset connection up to failure, the detailed

Table 2
Element 1, node 1, displacements d and rotations q obtained in ABAQUS for applied forces and moments (detailed model 1).
Node 1

dx (mm)

dy (mm)

dz (mm)

qx (mrad)

qy (mrad)

qz (mrad)

Fx = 444.8 (kN)
Fy = 444.8 (kN)
Fz = 444.8 (kN)
Mx = 228.8 (kN m)
My = 113.0 (kN m)
Mz = 161.0 (kN m)

1.84E1
8.19E2
1.88E5
4.19E6
7.83E7
7.43E3

8.19E2
3.50E0
3.39E4
1.22E5
1.94E5
7.09E1

1.88E5
3.42E4
2.10E+1
9.30E1
1.29E0
5.10E5

6.72E6
4.51E5
1.51E0
5.15E0
3.71E2
4.41E6

7.72E5
7.66E5
5.08E0
8.98E2
7.04E1
1.11E5

2.05E2
1.96E0
1.37E4
8.80E6
8.01E6
6.16E1

141

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

Table 3
Element 1, node 1, displacements and rotations obtained in STRAND7/STRAUS7 [25] with user-dened elements for applied forces and moments (simplied model 2).
Node 1

dx (mm)

dy (mm)

dz (mm)

qx (mrad)

qy (mrad)

qz (mrad)

Fx = 444.8 (kN)
Fy = 444.8 (kN)
Fz = 444.8 (kN)
Mx = 228.8 (kN m)
My = 113.0 (kN m)
Mz = 161.0 (kN m)

1.85E1
8.27E2
2.51E4
1.60E5
3.63E5
7.60E3

8.27E2
3.50E0
3.29E4
2.83E5
1.86E5
7.07E1

2.51E4
3.29E4
2.10E + 1
9.30E1
1.29E0
4.75E5

2.61E5
4.60E5
1.51E0
5.15E0
3.71E2
4.66E6

1.43E1
7.31E5
5.09E0
9.00E2
7.06E1
1.02E5

2.10E2
1.95E0
1.31E4
7.92E6
7.14E6
6.15E1

Table 4
Comparison of displacements d and rotations q of STRAND7/STRAUS7 model 2 with semi-rigid connection, model 4 with rigid connection and ABAQUS FE model 3 with various
gusset plate thicknesses [numbers in brackets are ratios to base case with thickness of 12.7 mm].
STRAND mod. 4 rigid joints

dx (mm)
dy (mm)
dz (mm)
qx (mrad)
qy (mrad)
qz (mrad)

0.184 [1.00]
7.42 [2.12]
12.8 [0.61]
3.12 [0.61]
0.759 [1.08]
0.802 [1.30]

STRAND mod. 2 semi-rigid joints

0.185 [1.00]
3.50 [1.00]
21.0 [1.00]
5.15 [1.00]
0.706 [1.00]
0.615 [1.00]

ABAQUS FE model 3 with gusset thickness:

12.7 mm

15.87 mm

19.05 mm

25.4 mm

0.184 [1]
3.50 [1]
21.0 [1]
5.15 [1]
0.704 [1]
0.616 [1]

0.1748 [0.95]
3.276 [0.94]
18.54 [0.88]
4.688 [0.91]
0.6618 [0.94]
0.5998 [0.97]

0.1677 [0.91]
3.105 [0.89]
16.90 [0.80]
4.393 [0.85]
0.6302 [0.90]
0.5872 [0.95]

0.1575 [0.86]
2.860 [0.82]
14.83 [0.71]
4.021 [0.78]
0.5862 [0.83]
0.5682 [0.92]

Fig. 9. 2D model of I-35 W Bridge showing loads and support conditions. Circles and squares indicate support conditions (restrained displacements d and rotations q) for both
main trusses.

ABAQUS FE model 1 of the ve-element connection was loaded as

described in Section 6, but into the nonlinear range. Both geometric and material nonlinearities are taken into account (model 6).
Nonlinear material behaviour was modelled using the Von Mises
yield criterion and the isotropic hardening rule (Fig. 10, from
[1]). A large strainlarge displacement formulation (ABAQUS default option) was used to carry out the nonlinear analysis.
The results were forcedisplacement and momentrotation
curves, which were then transformed into the STRAND coordinates
of the equivalent spring model. In the spirit of simplication, to
make the problem tractable and to use what was available in
STRAND7/STRAUS7 [25], the stiffness matrix of each of the ve elements of the connection was diagonal only and derived from an
initially perfect gusset plate. The diagonal terms were in the form
of loaddisplacement or momentrotation curves (model 7). Notice that this nonlinear connection model included all six DOF.

Fig. 10. Stressstrain curve [1].

142

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

Richards four-parameter nonlinear connection model (Fig. 4, Eq.

(4)) only had one DOF and would not have captured the buckling
of the gusset plate under axial load.
Fig. 11 presents the loaddisplacement and momentrotation
curves of element 3 of the connection, where x, y and z refers to
the global coordinate system. For clarity, only the positive values
are shown. Similar curves model the behavior of the other elements of the connection and can be found in [22].

8. 3D nonlinear global analysis

As the global nonlinear analysis might involve buckling and
out-of-plane deformation, it was necessary to use a full 3D model
of the I-35 W Bridge, as described in Section 3. The FE model 8 was
composed of 1894 beam elements representing all the primary
steel members, including all main lateral braces (Figs. 12 and
13), but the deck was not included in the model.
The dead load was always present and not factored, but the construction loads were applied gradually, with a load factor of 1.0
corresponding to the actual loads at collapse ([26] and Fig. 9).
The support conditions for both main trusses were the same as described in Fig. 9. Nonlinear analyses (for material and geometry)
were run on two different models:
1. Model 8A: All joints were rigid, the ve structural members
intersecting at U10-W were elasto-plastic (Fig. 10) and all the
other members were elastic;
2. Model 8B: U10-W joint was semi-rigid (modeled by nonlinear
connection elements with diagonal stiffness matrix as
described above) and the ve members around the U10-W joint
were elasto-plastic. All the other joints were rigid and all the
other members were elastic.

9. Results

Fig. 11. Forcedisplacement and moment rotation curves for element 3 of

connection (KFXX, KFYY, KFZZ and KMXX, KMYY, KMZZ are the elastic stiffness for force
displacement and momentrotation for x, y and z axis respectively).

For model 8A (with rigid joints), failure was initiated at a load

factor of 6.36 by yielding of the end of element 1 that connected
with U10 W. Model 8B (nonlinear semi-rigid connection) provided
a much better simulation of the actual behavior. The semi-rigid
joint model predicted that U10 W began to fail at a load factor of
0.92, and completely failed at load factor 1.7 (Fig. 14), leading to
the collapse of the bridge. Fig. 15 and Table 5 present the axial
forces and load ratios (ratio of force carried to capacity) in the ve
elements of the connection. Collapse initiated when connection
element 3 reached axial capacity in compression (buckling,
Fig. 16a), which agreed with the NTSB analysis. Fig. 16a shows
the deection of the detailed ABAQUS model of U10-W under the

Fig. 12. Modeling of lateral bracing.

Fig. 13. 3D beam model of I-35 W (model 8).

143

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

ultimate axial compressive force of 12.1 MN applied at the end of

stub member 3 (Fig. 6), with the ends of the other stubs xed.
It was thus seen that the equivalent spring model produced a
good approximation of the behavior of a gusset plate connection
in the elastic and post-elastic range. Clearly, the model was not
as accurate as the detailed FE model used by NTSB. The discrepancy
was measured by a load factor of 0.92, instead of 1.0, applied to the
construction loads at failure initiation. Moreover, the simplied
connection model assumed an initially perfect gusset plate. Had
the model accounted for initial out-of-plane displacements, the
load factor would have been less than 0.92. (The NTSB connection
model [20] accounted for an initial out-of-plane displacement of
one thickness or 12.7 mm at the free edge between connection elements 2 and 3, Fig. 6. After dead weight and trafc load application,
the maximum out-of-plane deformation was 17.3 mm, in agreement with the values 15.2 3.8 mm estimated from inspection
photographs, Fig. 16b.) Nevertheless, the results of the global 3D
analysis using the simplied nonlinear connection model would
have attracted the attention of the analyst to joint U10 and the
location and magnitude of the construction loads, something that
the rigid connection model, which resulted in a load factor of
6.36, would have failed to do.
A major difculty in the development of the simplied
connection model was that it was based on a prior detailed FE

Fig. 14. Loaddeection curve (deection at midspan as indicated in Fig. 9).

Table 5
Ratio of calculated force to axial capacity for connection U10-W at load factor 0.92.
Connection element

Load ratio

Tension or compression

1
2
3
4
5

0.28
0.56
1.00
0.02
0.41

Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Tension

model. Various attempts to circumvent this difculty were unsuccessful and the literature review conrmed that previous simplied models were very limited in accuracy and use. This
simplied connection model is then most useful for structures that
use the same connection repeatedly, or only with changes in plate
thickness or material properties that can be accommodated easily
in the same detailed FE model; or for loadings that would cause the
analyst to focus on a few specic connections only; or for multiple
load cases, where a detailed model can be used efciently multiple
times. An example follows.

10. Application to a bridge with identical connections

The general procedure of using a nonlinear simplied gusset
connection was applied to a Howe truss bridge to show the importance of properly accounting for connection behavior. The truss
was 12.14 m high, spanned 93.91 m, and consisted of repeated
panels of length 11.58 m or 9.00 m dened by vertical members,
horizontal chords and diagonal braces (Fig. 17).
For simplicity, the structure considered was planar and the
three-member joints at the ends were assumed rigid. All ve-element connections and the members they attach were the same
as for U10-W analyzed above (elasto-plastic, Fig. 10, dimensions
shown in Fig. 17). Besides its dead load, the bridge was subjected
to trafc load uniformly distributed on the top chord, and construction loads modeled as three point loads on the top chord
(Fig. 17). The bridge was restrained against horizontal and vertical
translations at one end and against vertical translation at the other
end (model 9).

Fig. 15. Axial forces in the ve elements of semi-rigid connection U10-W.

144

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

Fig. 16. (a) ABAQUS model showing failure of U10 under axial compression of diagonal member 3 and (b) inspection photograph of U10 [1].

Fig. 17. Geometry of the Howe truss bridge (model 9).

Four models with large displacement formulations, elasto-plastic members and different connection models were considered:
9A: All joints rigid;
9B: one critical joint (at the concentrated loads) modeled by the
nonlinear, ve-element connection previously described, all
other joints rigid;
9C: all ve-element joints modeled by the nonlinear connection
elements previously described; and
9D: all ve-element joints hinged.
Nonlinear analyses (that accounted for both material and geometric nonlinearity) were run by applying an increasing load factor

to the concentrated loads only, with the uniform loads held constant. Fig. 18 presents the load factor versus midspan vertical displacement for the four different models considered. As expected,
model 9D (pinned joints), had the lowest load capacity, model 9A
(rigid joints) had the highest, and the others (semi-rigid joints) fell
in between.
10.1. Model 9A: Rigid joints
Model 9A reached the ultimate load factor of 3.26. Fig. 19 presents the ratio of bending moment to exural capacity in the members at the ultimate load factor. Since the joints were rigid, collapse
occurred because of exural yielding of the members.

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

145

the critical joint under the concentrated loads, and the other joints
remained elastic as the critical joint failed by exural yielding. Section 6 showed that the assumption of rigid behavior was a good
approximation for elastic joints, and the difference between models 9B and 9C was in the treatment of joints that turned out to remain elastic. If there were instead several heavily loaded joints,
then model 9C (with all joints semi-rigid) would predict a different
load distribution than model 9B (with only one semi-rigid joint) as
some of the heavily loaded joints begin to plastify. In this case, the
failure loads predicted by models 9B and 9C would be expected to
be different.
10.4. Model 9D: All ve-member joints pinned

Fig. 18. Load factor versus midspan vertical displacement.

10.2. Model 9B: Semi-rigid connection (ve element-connection at

concentrated load)
Fig. 20 illustrates the details of the joint under study, and Fig. 21
and Table 6 the axial capacity of each connection element. The failure of the truss bridge could be attributed to the achievement of axial capacity in the connection elements. At a load factor of 1.98,
connection element 2 reached axial capacity (Table 6), followed by
connection element 1 and nally connection elements 3 and 4.

10.3. Model 9C: Semi-rigid connections (all ve-member joints

modeled with ve element-connections)
Model 9C predicted the same failure load as model 9B because
in this example the highest stresses were heavily concentrated at

Fig. 22 presents the ratio of bending moment to exural capacity in the members at the ultimate load factor of 1.46. For this model, failure was reached as soon as a plastic hinge was developed in
member 1 of the joint under concentrated loads.
Table 7 summarizes the results. Models that did not account for
realistic connection behavior could be quite erroneous, especially
when concentrated loads made a joint critical.
When structural members were assumed rigidly connected, the
predicted capacity could be quite erroneous if the assumption that
joints were stronger than members turned out to be incorrect. The
methodology proposed here made global analysis with proper
accounting of connection performance efcient and affordable.
11. Conclusion
Conclusion 15 of the NTSB investigation of the I-35 W Bridge
collapse stated [1]: Because bridge owners generally consider
gusset plates to be designed more conservatively than the other

Fig. 19. Model 9A, rigid joints: bending moment ratio at load factor of 3.26.

Fig. 20. Model 9B, semi-rigid, ve-element connection at concentrated loads.

146

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

Fig. 21. Model 9B, axial forces in the ve-element connection at concentrated load.

Table 6
Ratio of calculated force to axial capacity for critical connection at load factor 1.98.
Connection member

Load ratio

Tension or compression

1
2
3
4
5

0.71
1.00
0.24
0.11
0.38

Compression
Compression
Compression
Compression
Compression

members of a truss, because the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO) provides no specic guidance for the inspection of gusset plates, and because computer programs for load rating analysis do not include gusset
plates, bridge owners typically ignore gusset plates when performing load ratings, and the resulting load ratings might not accurately

reect the actual capacity of the structure. The work presented

herein illustrates the problem. In the linear elastic range the
assumption of rigidly connected members produced good results,
and that was why FE analysis coupled with load tests [18] did
not nd the design aw that turned out to be fatal. In the nonlinear
range, however, structural capacity might not be well predicted if
connection behavior and strength were not properly accounted
for. If a particular joint was under highly concentrated loads, that
node needed to be scrutinized, possibly by the method explained
in this paper. The example in the previous section showed the
method to be especially economical when only specic nodes
needed to be analyzed in detail, or all nodes were similar. Future
work, which will include comparison with experiments, for example full scale tests at FHWA [28], will delineate more precisely the
level of detail required for the modeling of connections, and how
the approach can be used in structural health monitoring [29].

Fig. 22. Model 9D, pinned joints. Bending moment ratio at load factor of 1.46.

Table 7
Analysis of Howe truss with various connection models.
Model

Description

Ultimate load factor

Failure mode

9A
9B
9C
9D

All joints rigid

Semi-rigid joint at point loads
All 5-member joints semi-rigid
All 5-member joints pinned

3.26
1.98
1.98
1.46

Flexural yielding of members

Connection element 2 reached axial capacity
Connection element 2 reached axial capacity
Plastic hinge in member 1 of joint

C. Crosti, D. Duthinh / Engineering Structures 62-63 (2014) 135147

Accurate prediction of bridge failure should include proper

modeling of connections. This can be done economically and accurately by the method presented herein if only specic joints need
to be investigated in detail, or the same joint model can be used
repeatedly at multiple locations, or multiple load cases must be
run. The nonlinear connection model proposed here provides a
simple and affordable way to account for connection performance
in global analysis.
Disclaimer
The full description of the procedures used in this paper requires the identication of certain commercial software. The inclusion of such information should in no way be construed as
indicating that such products are endorsed or recommended by
NIST or that they are necessarily the best software for the purposes
described.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Joey Hartmann of FHWA TurnerFairbank Highway Research Center for granting access to the FE
model of the I-35 W Bridge and to the research team of
www.francobontempi.org for support and advice.
References
[1] National Transportation Safety Board. Collapse of I-35 W Highway Bridge,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 1, 2007. Accident Report, NTSB/HAR 08/03 PB
2008-916213. Washington D.C. 20594; 2008.
[2] Kachanov LM. Fundamentals of the theory of plasticity. Moscow, USSR: Mir
Pub.; 1974.
[3] Federal Highway Administration. Load rating guidance and examples for
bolted and riveted gusset plates in truss bridges. FHWA-IF-09-014,
Washington, D.C. 20590; 2009.
[4] Chambers JJ, Ernst CJ. Brace frame gusset plate research Phase 1 literature
review, vols. 1 and 2. Dept. of Civil Engg. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
841120561; 2005.
[5] Astaneh-Asl A. Gusset plates in steel bridges design and evaluation. Steel
TIPS report, structural steel educational council technical information &
product services. Moraga, CA; April, 2010. 156 pp.
[6] Whitmore RE. Experimental investigation of stresses in gusset plates.
University of Tennessee Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin no. 16,
May; 1952.
[7] Astaneh A. Simple methods for design of steel gusset plates. In: Proc. ASCE
Structures Congress 89, San Francisco, CA; 1989. p 34554.

147

[8] Thornton WA. On the analysis and design of bracing connections. In: Proc.
National Steel Construction Conf. American Institute of Steel Construction,
Washington D.C.; June, 1991. p. 2633.
[9] American Institute of Steel Construction. Manual of Steel Construction. 14 th
ed. AISC, Chicago, IL; 2011.
[10] Dowswell B, Barber S. Buckling of gusset plates: a comparison of design
equations to test data. In: Proc. Annual Stability Conf. Structural Stability
Research Council, Rolla, MO; 2004.
[11] Brown VL. Stability of gusseted connections in steel structures. Ph.D. thesis.
University of Delaware, Newark, DE; 1988.
[12] Brown VL. Stability design criteria for gusseted connections in steel-framed
structures. In: Proc. An. Tech. Sess. on Stability of Bridges. Structural Stability
Research Council, St. Louis, MO; 1990. p. 35764.
[13] Yamamoto K, Akiyama N, Okumura T. Buckling strength of gusseted truss
joints. ASCE JSE 1988;114(3):57590.
[14] Cheng JJR, Yam MCH, Hu SZ. Elastic buckling strength of gusset plate
connections. ASCE JSE 1994;120(2):53859.
[15] Richard RM, Abbott BJ. Versatile elastic-plastic stress-strain formula. ASCE J
Eng Mech Div 1975;101(4):5115.
[16] Williams GC. Steel connection designs based on inelastic nite-element
analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; 1986.
[17] Thornton WA. Bracing connections for heavy construction. Eng J AISC
1984;21(3):13948.
[18] OConnell HM, Dexter RJ, Bergson P. Fatigue evaluation of the deck truss of
bridge 9340. Minnesota Dept. of Transportation Final Report; 2001.
[19] Hao S. I-35W bridge collapse. ASCE J Bridge Eng 2010;15(5):60814.
[20] National Transportation Safety Board. Structural and local failure study of
gusset plate in Minneapolis bridge collapse. Modeling group chairman nal
report 08119, NTSBC070010, Nov. Washington D.C. 20594; 2008.
[21] ABAQUS Analysis Users Manual v. 6.5. West Lafayette, IN; 2004. <http://
www.simulia.com/>.
[22] Crosti C. Improving the safety of steel bridges through more accurate and
affordable modeling of connections. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome,
Rome, Italy; 2011.
[23] Crosti C, Duthinh D. Instability of steel gusset plates in compression. J Struct
Infrastruct Eng: Mainten ManageLife-Cycle Des Perform; 2013. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.786102 [on line 4.11.2013].
[24] Petrini F, Li H, Bontempi F. Basis of design and numerical modeling of offshore
wind turbines. Struct Eng Mech 2010;36(5):599624. ISSN:12254568, eISSN:
15986217.
[25] STRAND7/STRAUS7, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 2010. <http://www.hsh.info/>.
[26] National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB 2007). Loads on the bridge at the
time of the accident. Modeling Group Study Report No. 07-115. <http://
www.ntsb.gov/dockets/highway/hwy07mh024/385259.pdf>.
[27] Liao M, Okazaki T, Ballarini R, Schultz A, Galambos T. Nonlinear nite-element
analysis of critical gusset plates in the I-35W Bridge in Minnesota. ASCE JSE
2011;137(1):5968.
[28] Ocel JM, Zobel RS, White D. Prediction of gusset plate limit states. In: 29th Int.
Bridge Conf., Pittsburgh, PA; June 2012.
[29] Bontempi F, Gkoumas K, Arangio S. Systemic approach for the maintenance of
complex structural systems. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2008;4:7794. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/1573247060115 523. ISSN: 1573-2479.