Commission of the European Communities

technical steel research

Properties and service performance

THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS

FORTHE DESIGN OF WELDED JOINTS BETWEEN
STEEL STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS
AND H-SECTIONS

Report
EUR 9462 EN
Blow-up from microfiche original

Commission of the European Communities

technical steel research

Properties and service performance

THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR THE DESIGN OF WELDED JOINTS BETWEEN
STEEL STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS
AND H-SECTIONS

T.W. GIDDINGS
BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION
9, Albert Embankment
GB-LONDON SE1 7SN

Contract No 7210-SA/814
(1.7.1980- 30.6.1983)
FINAL REPORT

Directorate-General
Science, Research and Development

1985

EUR 9462 EN

Published by the
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Directorate-General
Information Market and Innovation
L-2920 LUXEMBOURG

LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the Commission of the European Communities nor any person acting
on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of
the following information

ECSC-EEC-Euratom, Brussels Luxembourg

THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR THE DESIGN OF WELDED JOINTS
BETWEEN STEEL STRUCTURAL HOLLOW
SECTIONS OR BETWEEN STEEL STRUCTURAL
HOLLOW SECTIONS AND H-SECTIONS

F I N A L

R E P O R T

Agreement No.

7210.SA/8I4

T.W. Giddings
Research Centre
Corby Works
British Steel Corporation

EUR 9^62 EN

Summary
This report contains the results of research carried out in the
UK on the development of design recommendations for welded joints
in steel structural hollow sections and forms part of an international programme of research involving also France, Germany,
Italy and The Netherlands.
The UK programme examined three separate problems.
1.

The effect on the strength of PHS K- joints of external loads

applied at the joint.

2.

The behaviour of FHS K- joints with bracings in two planes

90 to each other.

3.

The influence of inplane moments and axial load/inplane

moment interaction on CHS cross joints and Tee joints.

The work was carried out by the British Steel Corporation Tubes
Division in co-operation with the University of Nottingham (PHS
joints) and the Kingston Polytechnic (CHS joints).
The results of all tests carried out are summarized. These comprised 18 tests in part 1, 2 tests in part 2 and 27 tests in part
3.
Recommendations are given to enable the designer to deal with
external loads applied to PHS lattice frame joints and to deal
with CHS cross joints and Tee joints subjected to axial load,
inplane moment or a combination of axial load and inplane moment.
Tentative conclusions only have been drawn from the two tests on
PHS K- joints in two planes.

Sommaire
Le present rapport presente les resultats de recherches
poursuivies au Royaume-Uni et portant sur la mise au point
de recommandations en matire de conception des assemblages
soudes de profils creux en acier utiliss en construction;
il fait partie d'un programme international de recherches
auquel participent galement la France, l'Allemagne, l'Italie
et les Pays-Bas.
Les tudes menes au Royaume-Uni ont port sur trois aspects:1.

L'effet sur la rsistance des joints en K pratiqus sur

des profils creux rectangulaires, des charges extrieures
s'exerant au niveau du joint.

2.

Le comportement des joints en K des profils creux rectangulaires

avec renforcements dans deux plans normaux l'un par rapport a
1'autre.

3.

L'influence des moments de systmes plans et l'effet rciproque

des charges axiales/moments de systmes plans sur les
assemblages de profils creux ronds en T double et T simple.

Les travaux ont t conduits par la Division Tubes de la British

Steel Corporation, en coopration avec l'Universit de Nottingham
(assemblages de profils creux rectangulaires) et du Polytechnic de
Kingston (assemblages de profils creux ronds).
Les recommandations labores ont pour but de permettre aux bureaux
d'tudes d'arriver une plus grande prcision concernant les
forces extrieures exerces sur les assemblages de poutres en
treillis, ainsi que pour les assemblages de profils creux ronds
en T double et T simple soumis une charge axiale, ou a une
combinaison de charge axiale et de moment d'un systme plan. Les
deux essais pratiqus sur les joints en K sur des profils creux
rectangulaires en deux plans ont permis d'arriver a des conclusions
qui ne sont encore que prliminaires.

n i

Zusflitmienfas sung
Dieser B ericht e n t h l t die Ergebnisse der i n Grobritannien durchgefhrten
Forschung zur Ausarbeitung von Modellempfehlungen fr geschweite Verbindungen
zwischen Stahlbauhohlprofilen; dies s t e l l t einen T e i l des i n t e r n a t i o n a l e n
Forschungsprogramms d a r , an dem auch Frankreich, Deutschland, I t a l i e n und
die Niederlande b e t e i l i g t s i n d .
Im Rahmen des b r i t i s c h e n Programmes wurden d r e i getrennte Probleme
untersucht.
1.

Die Auswirkung e x t e r n e r , auf die Verbindung wirkender B elastungen auf

die F e s t i g k e i t von KVerbindungen aus Hohlprofilen mit Rechteckquerschnitt.

2.

Das Verhalten von KVerbindungen aus Hohlprofilen mit Rechteckquerschnitt

mit Versteifungen i n zwei um 90 gegeneinander v e r s e t z t e n Ebenen.

3.

Der Einflu von i n e i n e r Ebene wirkenden Momenten und der Wechselwirkung

zwischen Lngsbelastung und i n e i n e r Ebene wirkendem Moment auf
Querverbindungen und TVerbindungen aus Hohlprofilen mit K r e i s q u e r s c h n i t t .

Die Arbeiten wurden von der B r i t i s h S t e e l Corporation, Unternehmensbereich

Rhren i n Zusammenarbeit mit der U n i v e r s i t t Nottingham (Verbindungen zwischen
Hohlprofilen mit Rechteckquerschnitt) und dem Polytechnikum Kingston
(Verbindungen zwischen Hohlprofilen mit K r e i s q u e r s c h n i t t ) durchgefhrt.
Es e r f o l g t eine Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse smtlicher Prfungen. Dazu
gehrten 18 Prfungen i n T e i l 1, 2 Prfungen i n T e i l 2 und 27 Prfungen i n
T e i l 3
Es werden Empfehlungen gemacht, die dem Konstrukteur b e i der B earbeitung
folgender Problemstellungen b e h i l f l i c h s i n d : B ei auf Gitterrahmenverbindnngen
zwischen Hohltrgern mit Rechteckquerschnitt wirkenden externai B elastungen,
b e i Lngsbelastungen ausgesetzten Quer und TVerbindungen zwischen
Hohlprofilen mit Kreis que r s c h n i t t , b e i i n e i n e r Ebene wirkendem Moment oder
e i n e r Kombination aus Lngsbelastung und i n e i n e r Ebene wirkendem Moment.
Aus den beiden Prfungen an KVerbindungen zwischen Hohltrgern mit
Rechteckquerschnitt i n zwei Ebenen wurden l e d i g l i c h vorlufige Schlufolgerungen
gezogen.

LIST OF CONTENTS
i) Summary
ii) Symbols
Part 1:

General Information
T.W. Giddings, N.F. Yeomans
British Steel Corporation, Tubes Division

Part 2:

Influence of Purlin Loads on K- Joints

M.G. Coutie, G. Davies, M. Bettison, J. Piatt
The University of Nottingham

Part 3:

The Strength of Three Dimensional PHS Joints

M.G. Coutie, G. Davies, M. Bettison, J. Piatt
The University of Nottingham

Part 4:

The Strength of T- and X- Joints in CHS

A. Stamenkovic, K.D. Sparrow
The Kingston Polytechnic

A detailed list of contents is given at the beginning of each of

the detailed parts of the report i.e. parts 2, 3 and 4.

vii

TABLE DES MATIERES

i)

Sommaire

ii)

Symboles

le Partie:

Gnralits
T.W. Giddings, N.F. Yeomans
British Steel Corporation, Tubes Division

2e Partie:

Effet des charges exerces par les pannes sur

les joints en K
M.G. Coutie, G. Davies, M. Bettison, J. Platt
Universit de Nottingham

3e Partie:

La rsistance des assemblages tridimensionnels de

profils creux rectangulaires
M.G. Coutie, G. Davies, M. Bettison, J. Platt
Universit de Nottingham

4e Partie:

La rsistance des assemblages en T double et T

simple de.profils creux ronds
A. Stamenkovic, K.D. Sparrow
The Kingston Polytechnic

Une table des matires dtaille figure au dbut de chacune des

parties dtailles du rapport, c'est--dire des 2e, 3e et 4e
parties.

IX

INHALTSVERZEICHNIS

a)

Zusammenfassung

b)

Symbole

Teil 1 :

Allgemeine Angaben
T.W. Giddings, N.F. Yeomans
B r i t i s h Steel Corporation, Unternehmensbereich Rhren

T e i l 2:

Einflu von Pfettenbelastungen auf K-Verbindungen

M.G. Coutie, G.Davies, M. B e t t i s o n , J . P l a t t
U n i v e r s i t t Nottingham

T e i l 3*

Die F e s t i g k e i t dreidimensionaler Verbindungen zwischen

Hohlprofilen mit Rechteckquerschnitt
M.G. Coutie, G.Davies, M. B e t t i s o n , J . P l a t t
U n i v e r s i t t Nottingham

T e i l ]+:

Die F e s t i g k e i t von T- und X-Verbindungen b e i Hohlprofilen

mit K r e i s q u e r s c h n i t t
A. Stamenkovic, K.D. Sparrow
Polytechnikum Kingston

Ein ausfhrliches I n h a l t s v e r z e i c h n i s finden Sie am Beginn e i n e s jeden

B e r i c h t a b s c h n i t t s , das h e i t zu Beginn von Teil 2, 3 und 1+.

XI

Symbols
The symbols used are explained at the beginning of each part of
the report.

Xlll

Acknowledgements
The Project Leader wishes to record his appreciation of the
efforts and co-operation he has unceasingly received from the
staff of the University of Nottingham and Kingston Polytechnic,
and British Steel Corporation Tubes Division Technical Centre
and of the valuable discussion, particularly at the formulation
stage of the project, fron the Joints Working Group of CIDECT.
Thanks are particularly due to the European Coal and Steel
Community, Cometube International pour le Dveloppement et
l'Etude de la Construction Tubulair and the Science and
Engineering Research Council for their support which made the
research possible.
Finally he wishes to thank Monsieur Descade, Chairman of Executive
Committee F8 and Mr J. Ferron of the ECSC for their kindness and
help during the presentation of the results of the work.

xv

Commission of European Communities

Technical Steel Research

Final Project Report

DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF

WELDED JOINTS BETWEEN STEEL STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS OR
BETWEEN STEEL STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS AND H SECTIONS

PART 1:

GENERAL

T.W. GIDDINGS
N.F. YEOMANS

British Steel Corporation

Tubes Division
Technical Centre
Corby
England

ECSC Agreement No: 7210.SA/814

Research carried out with the financial aid of the European

Coal and Steel Community.

1.

General

1.1

Introduction
Steel structural hollow sections (SUS) have an essential role to
play in improving the aesthetics and economics of construction.
The use of steel SHS in construction has increased considerably in
recent years even against a general decline in building activity.
In many cases SHS have opened up new opportunities for steel that
would otherwise be in other materials such as concrete or wood.
An example of this is the use of concrete filled SHS columns in
buildings that would traditionally be in reinforced concrete.
This trend will encourage the use of steel products generally by
leading the way to more steel intensive solutions.
Light SHS trusses are also the most serious competitor to wood
applications such as roof trusses for housing.
The lack of comprehensive design reoommendations in some areas of
SHS applications have proved to be a severe handicap to the continuing development of the market. This is particularly so in the
field of welded lattice girder construction where the particular
properties of SHS can be used to their best advantage.
Based on research supported previously by ECSC
and others,
international design recommendations
have been framed now and
are being used in some of the EEC countries. However, from the
information available it was found that a more detailed
investigation was required in certain areas to increase the range
of validity of the design reoommendations and to simplify them.
Some of these problems have been examined in a co-ordinated programme developed and undertaken by the major producers of
structural hollow sections in the EEC under separate contracts
with ECSC but under the general direction of the BSC Tubes
Division.
The overall programme was undertaken by the companies listed
below each of whcm will submit a report dealing with that part of
the programme for which they were responsible.
Company

Country

ECSC Agreement

Mannesmannrohren-Vferke AG

Federal Republic

7210.SA/109

of Germany
Valexy

France

7210.SA/305

Dalmine

Italy

7210.SA/410

Staal Centrum

The Netherlands

7210.SA/606

British Steel Corporation

UK

7210.SA/814

1.1

The conclusions and recommendations of each progranme will be presented and co-ordinated in a summary report that will be prepared
when all of the final reports are available.
1.2

Cbjectives
The objectives of this programme are:-

1.3

1.

To provide the necessary experimental and theoretical data

to enable rational and simple design recommendations to be
developed in those areas of SHS welded joints not covered
satisfactorily in existing work.

2.

To provide evidence to enable existing design recaimendations

to be simplified and extended to cover all of the parameters
relevant to the range of manufactured structural hollow
sections.

3.

To identify the limits of parameters

strengths do not have to be calculated.

4.

To provide comprehensive recommendations on the design of

welded joints in SHS and SHS and H sections to form the basis
for future European recommendations and Euronorms.

for

which

joint

Benefits
The development of comprehensive and efficient design recommendations for lattice girder construction using SHS will enable more
economic designs to be produced and will encourage the greater use
of steel products generally by encouraging steel intensive
solutions. Thereby helping to safeguard the market for steel and
hence employment in the industry.

1.4

UK Programme
The work carried out in the UK concentrated on three specific
problem areas each of which is dealt with in a separate part of
the report as follows.
Part 2

The effect on the strength of RHS K- joints of external

loads applied at the joint.

Part 3

The behaviour of RHS K- joints with bracings in two planes

at 90 to each other.

Part 4

The influence of inplane moments and axial load/inplane

moment interaction on CHS cross joints and Tee joints.

The work was carried out by the British Steel Corporation Tubes
Division in conjunction with the University of Nottingham (RHS
joints) and the Kingston Polytechnic (CHS joints).

1.2

1.5

References

1.

Wardenier, J and
Stark, J.W.B.

The static strength of welded

lattice girder joints in structural
hollow sections in Commission of the
European Communities, ECSC Agreement
No.
6210-SA/6/604, Final Report
1980.

2.

International
Institute of
Welding

Design

reoommendations for hollow

section joints, predominantly
statically loaded - IIW Document
No. XV-491-81.

1.3

Commission of European Communities

Technical Steel Research

Final Project Report

DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF WELDED

JOINTS BETWEEN STEEL STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS OR
BETWEEN STEEL STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS AND H SECTIONS

PART 2:

JOINTS WITH LOCAL (XINCENTRATION LOADS

M.G.COUTIE
G.DAVIES
M.BETTISON
J.PLATT

Department
Nottingham
University
NOTTINGHAM

of Civil Engineering
University
Park
ND7 2RD

ECSC Agreement No:

7210.SA/814

December 1983

Research carried out with the finanical aid of the European Coal and
Steel Community and the Science and Engineering Research Council

CONTENTS - PART 2

1.

Introduction

2.

Test Specimens

3.

Material Properties

4.

Test Rig and Testing Procedure

5.

Measurements

6.

Test Results (Joints with purlin loads)

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7

7.

General Description of Joint Behaviour Under Load

Modes of Failure
Branch-Chord Deflections
Failure Loads
Working Load Deflections
Forces and Moments
Summary and Conclusions

Development of Design Recommendations

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7

Review of Previous Test Results

Corby Tests
Failure Modes
The Influence of Chord Preload on Ultimate Strength
Local Deflection
Comparison between Test Results and the Suggested CIDECT
Equation
Recommendat ions

References
Tables
Plates
Figures

2a

TABLE DES MATIERES - 2e PARTIE

1.

Introduction

2.

Eprouvettes

3.

Proprits des matires

4.

Montage d'essai et mode opratoire

5.

Mesures

6.

Rsultats des essais (assemblages subissant des charges exerces

par les pannes)
6.1

Description gnrale du comportement de l'assemblage

en charge

7.

6.2

Mode de ruine

6.3

Flches des diagonales-membrures

6.4

Charges de ruine

6.5

Flches pour les charges de service

6.6

Forces et moments

6.7

Sommaire et Conclusions

Elaboration de recommandations en matire de conception

des
7.1

Examen des rsultats f\ essais prcdents

7.2

Essais de Corby

7.3
7.4

Modes de ruine
Effet de la pr-charge des membrures sur la rsistance
la rupture
Flche locale

7.5
7.6

Comparaison entre les rsultats des" essais et l'quation

propose par CIDECT

7.7

Recommandations

Rfrences
Tableaux
Photographies
Chiffres

2b

INHALTSVERZEICHNIS - TEIL 2

1.

Eirifhrung

2.

Probestcke

Werkstoffeigenschaften

il.

Prf Vorrichtung und Prfverfahren

Messungen

6.

Prfergebnisse (Verbindungen mit Pfettenbelastungen)

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.I4.
6.5
6.6
6.7

7.

Allgemeine Beschreibung des Verhaltens der Verbindung u n t e r Last

Arten des Versagens
Abzweig/Gurt-Durchbiegungen
Ausfallbelastungen
Durchbiegungen b e i Arbeitsbelastung
Krfte und Momente
Zusammenfassung und Schlufolgerungen

Entwicklung der Modellempfehlungen

7.1
7.2
7-3
7.1+
7.5
7.6
7.7

berblick ber frhere Prfergebnisse

C orby-Prfungen
Ausfallbelastungen
Der Einflu der Gurt-Vorbelastung auf die maximale F e s t i g k e i t
Lokale Durchbiegung
Vergleich zwischen den Prfergebnissen und der vorgeschlagenen
CIDECT Gleichung
Empfehlungen

Literatur
Tabellen
Phot o graph! en
Abbildungen

2c

SYMBOLS

A^

cross sectional area (mm3) of member i

load (kN) in member i

N0p

pre-load (kN) or additional end load in chord due to other than the branch
force components at the joint

Nu

ultimate load (kN) in member i

lum

Mean ultimate strut load (kN) from Wardenier's joint strength eguation
(Ref. 1)

icr

load (kN) at which crack initiation was first observed

l%bo

load (kN) at which a joint deformation of 1% chord width (b0) occurs

N* x

joint design strength (kN) based on force in branch strut

characteristic joint strength (kN) based on strut

ik

NpL

'purlin' load (kN)

throat thickness (mm) of fillet weld

bi

breadth (mm) of RHS member i perpendicular to plane of

joint

eccentricity (mm) between bracing and chord centre lines measured

perpendicular to chord

gap between the toes of the bracings (g' measured between toes of welds)

hj

height (mm) of RHS member in plane of joint

member number 0,1,2 for chord, strut and tie bracing

respectively

standard deviation

wall thickness of member i

width ratio (compression bracing to chord)

chord slenderness factor where y " b o /2t 0

ym

material or joint strength factor

local deflection - as measured by LVDTs shown in Fig. 7

2d

angle of inclination of bracing member (i = 1,2)

relative to chord

average chord pre-load stress - N o p /A 0

r0

gap shear stress (N/mm2) in chord

shear yield stress (N/mm2) in chord

eo

average stress (N/mm2) in member i

ei

material yield stress (N/mm2) of member i

ou

material ultimate stress (N/mm2) of member i

0 2

0.2% proof stress

influence function for the axial stress in the chord on joint strength

LVDT

linearly variable differential transformer

ERSG

electrical resistance strain gauges

RHS

rectangular hollow section

UB

universal beam

SWG

standard wire gauge

2e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The experimental part of this investigation was carried out under the
direction of Dr. M.G. Coutie and Dr. G. Davies, at the laboratories of the Tubes
Division of the British Steel Corporation, at Corby, Northants.
The British Steel Corporation was responsible for the supply of materials and
fabrication of joints to the specifications laid down and the supply and fixing of
strain gauges.

Recording of strains, and testing was carried out on Steel

Corporation equipment.

The operation of the testing machine was carried out by

Tubes Division staff to the instruction of Nottingham personnel.

The authors acknowledge the ready co-operation of Tubes Division staff, and in
particular that of Mr. T.W. Giddings and Mr. N.F. Yeomans.
Gratitude is also expressed to Professor R.C. Coates and in turn to
Professor P.S. Pell, Heads of the Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nottingham for their interest and cooperation.

The support of the Science and

Engineering Research Council has been of great encouragement.

Particular thanks are due to the European Coal and Steel Community for their
sponsorship of this work.

2f

JOINTS WITH LOCAL CONCENTRATED LOADS

PREFACE
This report is the Final Report of the research programme "Influence of
Purlin' Loads on K joints", subcontracted by the British Steel Corporation to
Nottingham University.

It covers the contents of four previously issued

Intermediate Reports.
The investigation was divided into two phases:
PHASE I examined the effect of a varying magnitude of compressive 'purlin'
load on the strength and stiffness of two dimensional Warren braced gap joints
welded from rolled sguare hollow sections (RHS), of high chord wall slenderness.
The effect of branch to chord width ratio and the level of preload was also
considered.

PHASE II examined the effect of varying the eccentricity of the 'purlin' load
in relation to the joint intersection.

In addition two tests were carried out on

three dimensional joints.

The Final Report of the investigation is presented in two parts:
Part II, The Influence of Purlin type loads on K joints in RHS;
Part III, Three dimensional joints in RHS.
In addition appendices containing data and the results of individual tests are
presented in a separate volume.
This investigation is part of an extensive international research programme
entitled

"Development of Recommendations for the Design of Welded Joints between

Steel Structural Hollow Sections, or between Steel Structural Hollow Sections and
'H' Sections".

It examines the strength of predominantly statically loaded welded

lattice girder joints of different configurations, and made of different types of

hollow sections or combinations of hollow and open sections.

2g

JOINTS WITH LOCAL CONCENTRATED LOADS

1*

INTRODUCTION
As part of a previous investigation on the strength and stiffness of K joints

involving RHS chord members, Wardenier & Stark (1) considered the effect of
compression purlin loads on the behaviour of K joints with gaps, in their test
series F.

The joint and load parameters for these tests are indicated in Fig. 1,

together with the loading method.

Wardenier concluded that the purlin load did not

have a significant effect on the joint strength, and that the results were
contained within the normal experimental scatter for joints without purlin load.
Packer (2) analysed these joints using a yield line analysis, excluding and
allowing for membrane effects in the chord connecting wall in the gap and found
that no significant variation in the strength was predicted, if the failure
occurred in the connecting wall, or by shear in the sidewalls.

It was, therefore,

concluded that for normal purlin loads, the strength of the joint would be as
predicted for the same joint without purlin loads.

All the Delft joints in the Series F tests were, however, carried out on
relatively small chord members involving 100 100 RHS, with 25 < b 0 / t 0 < 33, and
it was considered prudent to extend the size of the chord and its slenderness into
the range where buckling of the chord sidewalls might become a significant factor.
The severity of the purlin loading was also increased to examine the effect of
concentrated loads well in excess of that normally associated with purlin loads.
Because of the increased slenderness it was considered appropriate to examine the
effect of combined additional chord end load (or chord pre-load) and local
concentrated load.

TEST SPECIMENS
This investigation was based on a chord size of 250 250 6.3 RHS, with a

slenderness b 0 / t 0 - 40.

The bracing/chord width ratio was varied from 0.4 < <

0.8, as shown in Table 1A, but a gap 'g' was kept constant at g - 0.2 b 0 .

The

local concentrated load was varied so that 0 < N P L < 0.8 H1 sin Sj. The tests were
in sets of three local load (N PL ) levels for each of three values of .

2.1

Two tests

to examine the effect of chord preload (N op ) were included.

These Phase I

specimens also had one test WRR12, where both the branches acted as egually loaded
strute, so that the joint really behaved as a modified cross joint.

The effect of

non-central purlin loading was investigated under Phase II, where the purlin was
positioned opposite the intersection of the centre line of a branch and the inner
face of the chord.

The proposed schedule of purlin load tests is given in Table 1A, while a
general index of these tests is given in Table IB.

Details of the nominal and

measured dimensions of the RHS members are given in Table 2.

The full width purlin cleat shown in Figs 2 and 6 is a 250 mm long, RSJ
stiffened to prevent web buckling but allowing application of a concentrated load
without introducing bending moment.

The cleat was fillet welded to the RHS chord,

and was always present irrespective of whether a purlin load was added, or not.
Since the gap between the bracings was kept constant at 0.2 b 0 , the effect of
varying the value of the branch-chord width ratio was to vary the eccentricity
between - 41 < e < 29 mm, or - 0.164 < e/h 0 < 0.116 as shown in Fig. 3.

As will be

indicated later the presence of secondary moments will cause a further variation in
the effective eccentricity range.
In order to be able to fit this comparatively large joint into the testing rig
it was necessary to shorten the strut bracing as shown in Fig. 2.
The fabrication of the joints was carried out in a special jig.

The weld

details specified are shown in Fig. 4, where the welds on three walls are always
fillet welds, with a throat thickness egual to the wall thickness t x or t 2 of the
branch member.

Only the wall adjacent to the gap is specially prepared, and this

is also shown in Fig. 4, where the weld is specified as a butt weld.

All specimens

were welded with PHILLIPS 5 5 - 8 S.W.G. rods with a welding current of 180-200 amps
and a voltage of 45 volts DC.
It became clear from some of the early tests that the preparation and butt
welding at the tie toe had not been satisfactorily carried out (3), as illustrated
by the early failure of WRR 4.
4A.

The test was repeated on a replacement joint WRR

Since the strength of other joints was not affected by the welding, further

2.2

re-testing was not considered necessary.

The subsequent welding was carefully

checked by sectioning, polishing and etching the welds, and found to comply with
the specification.
The specimens were prepared and welded at the British Steel Corportion
Laboratory Workshops, at Corby, Northants, from tube material either manufactured
at Corby or Hartlepool.

The welds were not x-ray tested, but checks on the quality

of the weld were made by cutting the specimens after testing.

Welds with a throat

thickness 'a' < 4 mm were welded in one run, starting from the midside, while those
with greater throat thickness were done in two runs.

3.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The hot rolled hollow sections were specified as mild steel grade 43 C,

according to BS 4360: Part 2: 1969 equivalent to Fe 430 C according to Euronorm 2572, with a specified minimum yield stress 255 N/mm a .
The cross sectional area was based on actual measured dimensions rather than
nominal values, and was checked by weighing a given length (p - 7.860 gm/cm 3 ).

The

yield stresses , ultimate stresses au and the elongation were derived from
tensile coupons cut from the midside of the rectangular sections as specified in BS
4360: Part 2: 1969, or Euronorm 2-57, and tested according to BS 18: Part 4: 1971.
The nominal and measured properties are recorded in Table 2.

Some of the material

used was below the grade 43C specification for yield stress ( - 255 N/mm 2 ) and
was known about before the joints were tested.

It was considered acceptable for

test purposes as the properties were known.

4_

TEST RIG AND TESTING PROCEDURE

A general view of the Corby Universal Test Rig is shown in Plate 1.

and Plate 2 show a typical Warren joint mounted horizontally in the rig.

Fig. 5
The end A

of the chord was normally free, while the other end of the chord was supported by
a knuckle joint, equivalent to a pin in compression, the end C of the tie bracing
being bolted.

Although these pins theoretically carry zero moment, friction and

lack of fit result in some end moment being present both in and out of the joint

2.3

plane.

The local concentrated or purlin load was also applied by hydraulic jack

through the special loading cleat shown in Fig. 6, which is designed to avoid the
application of moment.

The strut load was effectively applied through a pin D

although some lateral displacement (which was measured) also occured.

For the tests where chord precompression was applied by a hydraulic jack at A,
the alignment of the jack was adjusted to ensure that the moment introduced into
the chord due to its deflection under load was reduced to a minimum.
For each joint, preliminary elastic tests were carried out to ensure that the
joint was properly aligned in the testing machine - where there were excessive inplane or out of plane bending moments adjustments were carried out by shimming at
the bolted supports to reduce these to a minimum.

A check was also carried out to

establish that the member forces derived from the system of strain gauges provided,
were in reasonable eguilibrium with the external forces - see Secton 5.

The load was initially applied in steps of approximately 1/20 of the

anticipated collapse load, and then at smaller intervals near failure.

During this

step by step loading, the strut bracing load, the deflection of the chord face and
member strains were measured and recorded.
failure, and unloading of the joint.

The readings were also taken after

The mode of failure of the joint was

recorded, together with any indications of yielding or cracking.

5.

MEASUREMENTS
During each stage of loading, the axial forces in the jacks were recorded by

load cells, and the forces in the members calculated from electrical resistance
strain gauges attached to the members well away from the joint intersection.
The deformation of the chord face was measured along the strut and tie centrelines, and in the line of the local concentrated load on each side of the joint as
shown in Fig. 7.

This was similar to the approach used by Wardenier (1), but

modified to ensure that the results were not affected by out of plane bending of
chord walls.

Dial gauges were also used to measure movement of the ends of the

chord.

2.4

Electrical resistance strain gauges (TML type PLS-10) were attached as shown
in Fig. 8, along the centre line of each face of each member at two cross sections,
in order to check axial load and bending moment, (and thus allow an eguilibrium
check) and to ascertain the magnitude of the secondary moment at the connection.
A program was written to process the results, and to plot load-deflection,
strain curves up to failure.
In addition an X-Y plotter was used throughout the testing programme to record
the outputs from the load cell and one displacement transducer (LVDT) on the
compression bracing.

This arrangement gave an immediate indication of specimen

yielding during the course of the test, and also recorded the ultimate load which
could be missed between the incremental scans of the data logger.
During the final testing of each specimen, modes of failure, initial yielding,
local buckling, initiation of cracks etc., were observed and recorded.

Various

possible modes of failure are indicated in Fig. 9, taken from Ref. 1.

Failure or

maximum test loads are shown for two typical load-deflection curves in Fig. 10.

In

many cases the maximum test load is the highest recorded, the specimen still
exhibiting some positive stiffness as shown in Fig. 10b, but where considerable and
excessive local deflection has occurred.

A considerable amount of information with regard to the fabrication of each

specimen was recorded before testing commenced and typical information sheets are
given in Appendix Al.

The pertinent data is given for all specimens in Table 2.

Difficulty occurred on occasions due to the malfunctioning of the data logging

and control systems which considerably extended the time taken to carry out tests
and results analysis.

It was necessary to edit punched tape data to allow for

known discrepancies before the load-strain and load-deflection curves were plotted.
Preliminary tests were carried out and graphical output obtained for elastic
runs before the joint was loaded to failure.

Based on these results any faulty

strain gauges were replaced, and excessive out of plane stresses were reduced by
shimming the flanged supports, as described in Section 4.
An examination of the strain gauge outputs and graphs showed that there were

2.5

often differences between the estimates of axial load from various pairs of gauges
on the same member, and also with the expected force obtained from the calibrated
load cell.

This is discused in greater detail in Section 6.6.1.

This could occur

for various reasons e.g. St. Venant effect due to the nearness of the support
affecting one of the gauges, local bending of member walls and pitting of the steel
surface.

The most serious disagreements occured in the chord member, where

insufficient distance to end plate or branch connection was available.

A simple check on joint eguilibrium for forces and bending moments both in and
out of the joint plane was made, and sometimes a significant lack of equilibrium
was found, although great care had been taken in setting-up.

In order to examine

this affect a computer program was written which is described by Piatt (4)
elsewhere.

This was based on a least squares approach for an over determined set

of results, where weightings were given for each strain gauge output.

Force

diagrams for axial load, shear and bending moments have been derived at each load
increment and joint.

Bending moment diagrams based on raw results, and modified

for equilibrium are presented with the results for each joint.

In order to observe initiation and development of yielding of the joint a

coating of whitewash was provided in the critial areas before the commencement of
the test.
6.

TEST RESULTS (Purlin Loading)

6.1

General Description of Joint Behaviour Under Load

Test results for each joint are presented in modular form in Appendix A2,

consisting of
(i) comment on test
(ii) sketches of joint dimensions and position of strain gauges
(iii) photographic plates of failed joints
(iv) load-strain curves
(v) load-deflection curves
(vi) bending moment and axial force distribution in members
(iv) load-strain curves
Specific detailed reference is omitted in this section.

2.6

With the application of the test load the top face of the chord deflected
inwards in the area below the compression bracing and outwards at the tie bracing.
This was accompanied by an outwards deflection of the sidewalls of the chord, which
was confined largely to the section below the compression bracings.

Little

deformation was present under the tension bracing.

The first local yielding, indicated by flaking of the whitewash coating,

usually occurred in the chord material, at the gap, close to the corners of the
compression bracing welds.

As the loading increased, the local yielding spread

gradually around the strut/chord connection, above and below the weld.
At the tie/chord connection the local yielding, similar to but less extensive
than that at the strut, began in the chord material at the weld corners and spread
into the gap, parallel to the weld at the toe of the tie.
The specimen was considered to have failed when the chord deformation became
excessive or when a significant increase in the strut load could not be obtained.
Usually at this stage, the chord face deformation was so great that the material in
the gap had been pulled parallel to the tie bracing.
At the end of the tests the bracings were undamaged except for some local
yielding in the vicinity of the welds.

Similarly the purlin bracket and the bottom

face of the chord were undamaged.

6.2

Modes of Failure
The most common mode of failure (see Fig. 9) was identified as G4, associated

with large deflections of the chord connecting wall and sidewalls, under the strut.
One joint W R R 4 failed because of inadequate toe welding of the branch tie and is
identified as G2b (or G2w) as the failure occured at the edge of the weld and tie
wall.

In no other tests did weld failure occur.

However, in many other cases

local fracture of the chord connecting wall adjacent to the tie branch toe occured
(G2c) but this was usually after extensive deformation of the G4 variety with the
gap wall almost parallel to the tie centre line.

Cracking initiated in the

significantly bent region adjacent to the tie weld.

In many cases the test was

stopped while there was still some positive stiffness as the deformations were

2.7

exceedingly large.

The modes of failure shown in Table 2 are therefore dominated

by G4, although G2c may be the final trigger of failure.

6.3

Branch-Chord Deflections
The branch to chord load-deflection curves, incorporating preliminary testa

and accidental damage are summarised in Figs 11-17.

Accidental damage occurred in

two cases either while the joint was being positioned in the rig or due to loss of
load control during a test.

In order that elastic deflection comparisons can be

made the strut force (N^) and tie force (N) are presented in kN in (a) and (b),
while in (c) and (d) are non-dimensional to include the yield stress variation
which occurs from test to test.

The branch-chord deflections are given for each joint in Appendix A2 on Frames
10-13 or Frames 12-15, for the final test to failure.
preliminary tests.
load N^ u .

These frames do not show the

The load is recorded as a percentage of the maximum strut test

Frame 10 records the deflections of the six LVDTs while Frame 9, records

the mean strut, tie and purlin deflections.

Frames 12 and 13 repeat the

information but with the deflection recorded as a percentage of the chord width b 0 .
For WRR 1-3, with = 0.8 the deflections (Fig. 11) remain small nearly up to
failure, the tie deflection being progressively reduced as the purlin load
proportion is increased.

The load-deflection relation is linear for a substantial

proportion of the maximum load.

There is no significant difference in the 3trut

deflection with increasing purlin load proportion.

For WRR 4-6, with = 0.6, the deflections (Fig. 12) are significantly larger
indicating a more flexible joint, with non-linearity commencing at a much lower
load.

The load-deflection curves take the characteristic bi-linear form shown in

Fig. 10(b).

The outward deflection of the tie is reversed with an increasing

proportion of purlin load.

For low loads where elastic behaviour can be expected

Fig. 12(a) shows that there is little difference in the four joints tested.

Until

weld failure in WRR 4 there is little difference in behaviour between it and the
retested joint WRR 4A.

However, if account is taken of the differing chord yield

stress in each case then the non-dimensional results shown in Fig. 12(c) for these
joints differ significantly.

Joint WRR 6 was the first tested and the sharp knee

2.8

in the curve may indicate that the preliminary test was taken to too high a load
with resulting permanent set, which was not recorded.

If this were the case this

would indicate a small increase in strut deflection with increasing proportion of

purlin load for WRR 5 and WRR 6.

For the highest values of purlin load ratio, the

purlin LVDTs also record significant deflections - see Appendix A2.

The 1% b 0

strut deflection is approximately 50% of the failure loads - but higher for the low
strength WRR 4.
For WRR 7-9 with 0.4 the deflections (Fig. 13) are significantly more non
linear than for higher values of and the joints noticeably more flexible.

Fig.

13(a) shows the cumulative deflections, allowing for preliminary runs and
accidental damage, as outlined in Appendix A2.

The difference between Fig. 13(a)

and the corresponding deflections in Appendix A2 is important to realise,

particularly as accidental over-loading is possible.
b 0 deflection loads is of course great.

The influence of this on 1%

Both Fig. 13(a) and (c) indicate the

growing influence of purlin load ratio on local strut deflection, with the
corresponding reduction of 1% b 0 deflection loads.

The variation of tie deflection

is very clearly indicated in Fig. 13(b) and (d), where increasing purlin load ratio
results in the tie deflection changing to inward deflection under maximum purlin
effect.

Fig. 13 also shows the effect of varying Np^ from 0 up to 2, the last case
being for WRR 12 where the branch load should be equally compressive.

It can be

seen that there is a profound effect on the strut as the tie ceases to be tensile.
Again the photographic plates illustrate this point clearly.
The effect of purlin position is shown in Fig. 14 and 15 for - 0.6.

For

Np L /N^ sin = 0.5, Fig. 14(a) shows a progressive increase in strut deflection as
the purlin eccentricity moves from being under the tie to under the strut.

This is

not reflected in Fig. 14(c) where the difference of chord yield stress in WRR 5
changes its relative position.

However, the tie pull-out changes consistently with

eccentricity, there being push-in for WRR 13 rather than pull out.

For the higher

value of purlin load ratio the load deflection curves are shown in Fig. 15.

Fig.

15(a) shows little difference between WRR 15 and WRR 16 for low loads, although WRR
15 exhibits larger strut deflections for high loads.

In this case WRR 6 with zero

eccentricity shows the lowest deflection, although this may be exaggerated due to
an accidental permanent set before final testing.

2.9

In Fig. 15(c) where the effect

of yield stress is allowed for, a significant difference is observed throughout the

deflection range.

Fig. 15(d) clearly illustrates the increasing inwards deflection

of the tie associated with purlin eccentricity towards the strut side.

This effect

is also clearly illustrated in the photographic plates associated with these tests
and shown in the Appendix A2.
All previous tests were carried out on joints with no preload.

Tests WRR lo

ll were designed to examine whether there was any interaction between preload and
purlin load.

As is described in the section on the individual joints, considerable

difficulty was experienced in the setting up of the preload such that large
deflections did not occur at the free end of the chord, and hence introduce
significant preload eccentricity moments.

The initial test WRR 10 was repeated viz

WRR 10A, in an effort to get a proper basic comparison test for no purlin loads.
In both WRR 10 and 10A there was a noticeable reduction in strength due to preload
compared with the identical joint WRR 7 which had no chord preload.

With the

purlin load level set at Np L /Ni = 0 . 5 sin ^ in WRR 11, the strength of the joint
is seen to be greater than either WRR 10 or WRR 10A.

It is not completely clear

whether this is due to restriction on the free movement of the free end of the
chord - Fig. 18, thus reducing the eccentricity of the preload or not.

The load-deflection diagrams for these joints are given in figs 16 and 17.

It

can be seen that initial deflections of varying degree occur with the application
of the preload only, but that the initial stiffness of each joint with strut load
is very similar.

Joints WRR 10 and 10A show a long plastic plateau, while WRR 11

preserves a positive stiffness for a greater range.

6.4

Failure Loads
A comparison with Wardenier's results shows that the joints at both Delft and

Corby were deformed to about the same level i.e. a strut deflection of the order of
10% b 0 .

This is important in making comparisons of maximum loads with residual

positive stiffness, as in Fig. 10(b).

Fig. 19(a) shows a non-dimensional plot of these maximum loads for central
purlin joints in terms of the branch/chord width ratio .

The results (except for

joints 10-12) generally fall within the scatter band of the results for gap joints

2.10

without purlin loads, or on the safe side - as for joints with = 0.4.

The plot

in Fig. 19(b) shows the deviation from the Wardenier gap equation for all joints
tested.
The variation of strength at maximum load based on the strut load N^ u with
purlin load ratio is shown in Fig. 20(a) for each case of ,

while the effect of

eccentricity up to 0.52 b 0 is shown in (b).

No significant trend can be detected with the value of Npj^/Nj sin ^, while a
tie force exists, but a significant reduction in strength can occur once both
branches are in compression, as signified by test WRR 12 where NpL/N^ sin ^ = 2.
However, a decrease in strength can be detected for any non-zero purlin
eccentricity.

The effect of chord preload is indicated in Fig. 21 and Fig. 19.

The

reduction in joint strength with chord load is greater than that given by
Wardenier's reduction factor = 1.3 - 0.4(/)//? for compressive chord forces.
This may be due to the eccentricity of chord preloading caused by rigid body
movement and chord bending associated with the Corby testing rig.

In this case

failure is noticeably magnified by the large strut-chord punch-in, which reduces

the effective properties of the cross-section, exacerbating failure adjacent to the
strut as shown by the reversal of chord face end deflection in Fig. 18.

The

photographic plates for these tests also clearly display the mode of failure.

6.5

Working Load Deflections

Not only must the joint be of sufficient strength under ultimate load

conditions, it must also behave satisfactorily under service conditions.

For gap

joints local deflections of the chord, particularly under the strut must be such as
not to be too large or significantly non-linear under such working loads.
It is clear from Figs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 that the 1% b 0 deflection level
represents a fair amount of non-linearity in all joints tested and it is unlikely
that values in excess of this would be permitted.

Indeed bearing in mind that the

deflection normal to the chord face is likely to be approximately a factor of

2.11

(l/sin ) greater than this, it is probable that this should be considered the
limit.
The 1% b 0 values of Nj_ are plotted in Fig. 22 on the basis of either the
maximum load N^ u , or the average strength of the joint derived from the Wardenier
equation, for various branch/chord width ratios .

The points lie on a curve which

indicates the importance of the value of .

If the margin of safety between failure and working loads is to be say 2.0,
then the intersection of the horizontal line of Ni% D o/ N lu = 0.5 in Fig. 22(a)
represents the limit of = 0.6 at which joints with lower 's

will have excessive

local deflection unless the working load is reduced below 0.5 N ^ Q .

However, since

joints would normally be designed on the basis of strength, the values of N]*jj0 are
plotted as a ratio of the design strength - illustrated in terms of the Wardenier
equation in Fig. 22(b).

As can be seen there is more scatter of the results, but

the curve lies marginally higher.

It can also be seen that joints with higher or

eccentric purlin loads give the worst results.

Fig. 23 shows the variation of the l%b0 deflection on the basis of purlin load
ratio.

There is very little variation in strut deflection up to a central purlin

load ratio of 0.8 for > 0.6, but there is indication of a fall off after a ratio
of 0.5 for = 0.4, as indicated in the joint WRR 9, and joint WRR 12.

The effect

of eccentricity of the purlin load on the local deflection limit of l%b0 is shown
in Fig. 24.

6.6
6.6.1

Forces and Bending Moments

General
The results of strain gauge output were used to calculate axial load on the

basis of
(a) each pair of gauges at each cross section
(b) mean of four gauges at each cross section
(c) mean of eight gauges on both cross sections for each member
and compared with the load predicted by the strut load cell.
possible to isolate the more doubtful gauges.

2.12

In this way it was

Axial load, bending moment and shear force distribution in both planes were
then plotted for each joint by computer as shown in Fig. 25 - the actual graphical
output has been offset from the intersection point for clarity.

Significant out-

of-plane bending was eliminated by shimming, during preliminary tests.

The plots

shown are for final tests only, and the resulting effects are based on the gauge
values at the beginning of the test to failure.

Even though considerable care was taken in setting up the joint and
eliminating undesirable effects, it is clear that the resulting force distribution
can only be approximate.

To reduce this to a realistic level, account is taken of

the fact that there is a surplus of gauges for the unique determination of strain
distribution, and the over determined set of equations obtained is used to satisfy
equilibrium, and to modify the results to their likely level, using a least squares
procedure described by Piatt (4). Two sets of moment distribution are presented
for each joint in Appendix A2, the raw set, and the adjusted set.
that there are often very big differences.

It can be seen

The problem of lack of equilibrium is

illustrated from Fig. 25, for Joint WRR 1, and load increment 10.

Out of balance moment at intersection of branch centre lines

= M 0 + N 0 (e) + + M 2
- 6.0 + 349.7 (0.04) - 9.9 - 7.6
= 2.49 kNm.
It is important to note that the unadjusted raw results in this case indicate an
out-of-balance moment, which is an appreciable proportion of the measured member
moments.

In other joint tests the out-of-balance moment was of the order of the

largest measured moment in the joint.

Clearly in such cases only general

observations are likely to be useful and valid, and therefore it is not proposed to
dwell on detail.
Good agreement is generally obtained for axial load in the strut, as derived
by load cell and strain gauge measurement based on measured cross sectional area.
For the tie the tensile force can vary by up to 10% from that calculated
assuming a pinned joint, the value based on strain gauges being usually less.
The form of the bending moment diagrams approximately conform with the
positions of the knuckle joints (pins) in both strut and chord, while the point of

2.13

contraflexure in the tie is usually well outside the fixed flange supports.

6.6.2

Joints WRR 1-9, 12

In joints WRR 1-3 ( = 0.8) the bending moments at the end of the branch

members are considerably greater than that in the chord.

For this group of tests

the joint eccentricity is + 40 mm, i.e. e = 0.16 h 0 - see Fig. 3.

Nevertheless the

chord bending moment is dominated by the secondary stress effect, rather than
eccentricity, and the bending stresses under the tie are still compressive.

The

effective load eccentricity in the chord at centre line intersection varies from 0.05 h 0 to -0.10 h 0 with increasing purlin load.

The actual moment remains fairly

constant, but the chord load reduces with increase of purlin load proportion.

The

maximum strut moment is approximately 0.25 My for the section.

In joints WRR 4-6 ( = 0.6) the bending moments at the end of the branch
members are less than that in the chord member - sometimes considerably less than
the recorded values, but of the same order as the adjusted values.

The

eccentricity of centre line intersection for this group is + 6 mm i.e. + .025 h 0 ,

which is almost axial loading.

Nevertheless, the chord adjusted moments are much

the same as for WRR 1-3 and the effective chord load eccentricity lies -0.20 h 0 < e
< -0.12 h 0 increasing with purlin load ratio.

The maximum moment recorded for the

strut is approximately 0.25 My for the branch section.

In joints WRR 7-9, 12 ( -= 0.4) the bending moments at the ends of the branch
members are considerably less than that in the chord.

The eccentricity of the

centre line for this group is - 28 mm i.e. - 0.11 h 0 -

Apart from WRR 7 which

indicates very large chord moments - probably associated with the initial
overloading referred to earlier the maximum, chord bending moments are again of the
order of 8-10 kN.m.

The effective chord eccentricity at the joint noding is,

however, -0.3 < e/h 0 < -0.2. There is, however, no clear evidence that there is a
significant change of effective chord eccentricity with purlin load ratio.

It is

worth noting that the chord moment has reversed completely for the high purlin load
indicated in WRR 12, where the behaviour is equivalent to that of a Croas Joint.
This is of course by virtue of the method of testing in the Corby Rig.

The maximum

adjusted moment recorded for the strut is approximately 0.55 My for the branch.

2.14

In summary the following comments can be made:

The ratio of maximum branch to chord moment decreases significantly as the
If = 0.8, the branch moments are greater than those in the chord,

ratio reduces.

while at = 0.4 they are considerably less.

This is probably not only a effect,

but is also associated with the geometrical eccentricity of intersection.

The

actual moment in the chord will be algebraic sum of the moments associated with the
geometrical eccentricity and the secondary moment of the joint.

At zero eccentricity the chord moment is still equivalent to an effective

chord force eccentricity varying between - 0.1 h 0 and - 0.2 h 0 .
For the higher joints this effective chord force eccentricity appears to
increase in magnitude, but in a negative sense with increasing purlin load ratio.
For 0.4 it is not possible to discern a trend, but the value of effective
eccentricity appears to be between -0.3 < e/h0 < -0.2.

The effective eccentricity

in the chord at the heel of the tie would of course be less and about 2/3 of the
above values for 0.4.

6.6.3

WRR 14-16

Eccentric Purlins

The effect of eccentric load is to be seen in the adjusted Bending Moment

Diagrams, e.g. the effect of moving from WRR 13 to 14 (Table IB) is to apply an
anticlockwise moment N p L (2 e P L ) to the joint in addition to the moments existing
in WRR 13.

This increases the moments in the strut and tie but reduces the moment

in the chord.

Similarly for WRR 15 and 16 with the higher purlin ratio the moment

in the chord not only reduces, it actually reverses.

There is reasonable

indication that the moment due to purlin eccentricity is approximately distributed

according to member stiffness, as shown in Table 3, even though members are not
rigidly interconnected.

The majority of the moment is transferred to the chord, of

course, so that in a design situation most of the eccentric purlin moment would be
associated with the chord.

2.15

6.6.4

WRR 10-11

Chord Preload or Additional End Load in Chord (N op - Fig 2)

Considerable effort was made to ensure the proper alignment of the preload
jack - it being offset initially to ensure that when the end of the chord deflected
the offset decreased so that near collapse the preload was almost axial.

The

extent to which this was successful can be gauged from the bending moment diagrams
for WRR 10.

It can be seen that the eccentricity was probably about right, but

that the jack alignment produced significant bending moments in the chord under
both strut and tie.

The maximum unadjusted moment indicated is about 40 kN.m,

compared with 128 kN.m to produce yield.

However, with a preload ratio oop/aeo

0.495, the maximum moment required to produce yield is reduced to 64 kN.m.

The

jack end of the chord deflected in the direction of the force N for the low values
of N^ but reversed near to collapse - see Fig. 18.

This reversal can be explained

in terms of the yielding of the inside face of the chord due to large local
deflection adjacent to the strut connection and the chord end load movement.

As

the local deflection increased the middle of the chord wall was unable to sustain
the large compressive stresses due to chord end force, and it was transferred to
the two inside corners.

When the corners yielded the loss of stiffness on the

inside face caused failure which reversed the direction of the end movement.

In

these circumstances it was not possible to predict safely the joint capacity using
the strength reduction formula.

The test was repeated (WRR10A), again taking even greater care with both the
eccentricity and alignment of the chord preload jack.

Although the chord moments

were reduced so that the line of action can be considered more axial, the same
reversal of bending moments is observed.

The load-deflection curves are similar

for both WRR 10 and 10A, although the loads are a little enhanced in the latter.
It is, however, clear that the low failure load with much smaller moments cannot be
accounted for by the proposed chord load reduction formula.
In WRR 11 where the joint has a purlin load, the same precautions were taken,
but the chord tip deflections were reduced by the presence of the purlin load.

The

chord bending moments are small on the free section and show a considerable
reversal towards failure load so that the chord connecting face has a compressive
stress level less than the average.

The strength of this joint is enhanced above

that of WRR 10 and 10A, but insufficiently to bring it to the safe strength
predicted as shown by Fig. 19.

2.16

In summary it can be said that chord preload has produced a significant

reduction in the joint strength, much in excess of that suggested by the Wardenier
chord load reduction factor for - 0.4.

To some extent it can be argued that this

is associated with the bending moments inevitable with the application of the chord
preload in the Corby testing rig.

However, this is only partly true in view of the

small chord moments in WRR 10A , and the reverse moments in WRR 11.

Some recent

experimental results for similar large joints carried out in Norway by Strmmen (7)
also indicate a greater than predicted reduction in strength even though the joints
were prestressed and each branch was independently loaded.

Care should therefore

be taken in discussing these preload results as being inappropriate for lattice

girders.

Sul

Conclusions

These tests on large joints show good agreement of joint strength with the
predictions of the Wardenier equation, although the predictions for 0.4 tend to
be conservative.

There appears to be little variation in joint strength with increase in the

central purlin load as long as the tie branch remains in tension.

However, if both

branch members are in compression, then the reduction can be significant.

Eccentricity of purlin loading appears to produce weaker joints irrespective

of the direction of the eccentricity.

The strength of joints subject to chord preload were significantly less than
the Wardenier prediction, even when no purlin load was present.
have been a function of the testing method.

This may, however,

The effect of simultaneous chord

preload and purlin load was to strengthen the joint, but still well under that
predicted.

The wisdom of using gap joints of large chord slenderness and low

branch/chord width ratio is debatable in the presence of large chord forces.

The 1% b 0 deflection limit (in the direction of the branch) for these joints
of large chord slenderness is likely to result in initial non-linearity, associated
with some permanent set.

It is likely to represent the upper limit on local

2.17

deflection under working load conditions, with some permanent set on the initial
loading.
For branch/chord width ratio's less than 0.6 and a factor of safety of 2, the
Wardenier mean joint strength equation will require reducing to limit the local
joint deflection to 1% b 0 under service conditions.

Further reduction is likely to

be necessary for joints with large purlin load ratios or eccentricities of the
order discussed.

7.0

DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1

Review of Previous Te3t Results

The only previous testing programme in which localised joint loads have been

applied to K gap joints in RHS is that of Wardenier (1). Wardenier tested six
joints, and the results are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 27(a), together with the
results of similar joints carrying no localised loads.

Among these twelve test

results three different values were used and two b 0 / t 0 ratios - approximately 26
and 32.

It can be seen from Fig. 27(b) that there is no definite trend discernable

among the results.

For instance, at a ratio of 0.4, the two joints with b 0 / t 0 of

27 show an increase of strength with increasing local load (N PL ) while the joints
having b 0 / t 0 > 30 show a decrease of strength.

The average is a constant joint

The results for = 0.6 show a consistant decrease in strength while

strength.

those for = 1.0 tend to show an increase.

Wardenier concludes 'concentrated

loads of about 35-55% of N^ u sin reduce the strength of joints with low ratios
by about 20% compared with the results for joints not loaded by concentrated
loads'.

This conclusion appears to be based on one result only - that for joint

151 (b 0 /t 0 = 30). Joint 150 (b 0 /t 0 = 27) shows an increase of 17%.

In the Delft report the exact method by which the 'purlin' load was applied is
not clear.

A load-deflection graph such as that in Fig. 28 suggests that the joint

was loaded initially without a local load and that only after a considerable
proportion of the ultimate load had been applied was the local load added.
difference in loading method may make valid comparisons difficult.

2.1!

This

7.2

Corby Te3ts
In the current Corby test series nine comparable joints have been tested.

The

results for these tests, plotted in a similar manner to those for the Delft series,
are shown in Fig. 29(a).

It can be seen that a rather flatter line than the Delft

choice of (0.5 + 10.3 ) would be more appropriate, but the scatter is very
similar.

The trend with N P L is shown in Fig. 29(b).

As with the Delft results

there is no clear trend, and there is no support from these tests for Wardenier's
contention that "concentrated loads of about 35-55% of N^u.sinei reduce the
strength of joints with low ratios by about 20% compared with the results of
joints not loaded by concentrated loads".

It must be remembered that all the Corby

joints had a b 0 / t 0 of approximately 40.

7.3

Failure Modes
A study of failure modes shows no clear pattern among either the Delft or

Corby results.

In most cases the recorded failure mode in the presence of a local

load differs from that in its absence, but there is no consistency.

Joint 4A (NpL

= 0) failed by mode G2C, while the similar joint 6 (N p L = 261 kN) failed by G4.
However, joint 3 in the Delft series failed by G4 (Np L - 0) while joint 146 (Np L 0) failed by G2C.

The picture is to some extent confused by the fact that all

joints were not tested to the same level of local deformation, and that there may
well be an overlap between one form of mode of failure and another.

Generally,

however, for the Corby tests local deformation at maximum load was always present
in the G4 mode, but higher levels of deflection could give way to chord failure
(G2C) at the toe of the tie branch particularly where the tie force was high i.e.
for low purlin loads.

2-

The Influence of Chord Preload on Ultimate Strength

No joints with chord preload were tested in the Delft series.

Three such

joints were tested at Corby (10, 10A and 11) and the results have already been
shown in Fig. 21, together with that for joint 7 which had no preload.

Only joint

11 carried a local load, and the failure load is seen to be higher than that for
joints where N p L - 0 (10 and 10A). One disturbing feature of this graph is that
the strength reduction due to chord force appears to be much greater than that

2.19

predicted by the Delft formula . 1.3 - 0.4(0/0)//}.

This may, however, be due

to the manner of preloading adopted in the Corby tests.

Comment has already been

made in section 6.6.4 on the eccentricity of loading produced by the chord jack,
and the low value of the resulting failure load could to some extent be due to the
additional bending moment produced.

7.5

Local Deflection

Comparisons between the results obtained at Corby and those obtained at Delft
In Fig. 30(a) the results are plotted against Ni%bo/Nlu

are shown in Fig. 30(a).

and in Fig. 30(b) the results are plotted against N ^ ^ / N ^ u m -

^ium

used here is

the joint strength determined from Wardenier's empirical equation (Ref. 1, equation
la).

9
N

lum * eo

< W

+ 8

5/?)

s i n

2 sin

where . = chord force function = 1.3 -

'
fi

or,

eo
In both cases the influence of the thin joints tested at Corby is clear, with the
results falling below those from Delft.

The loading arrangements seemingly used at

Delft and refered to earlier are likely to reduce the value of comparisons based on
deflection.

It appears from the Delft results (Fig. 28) that the l%b0 deflection

value occurred before the purlin load was applied in joints having < 1.0, and the
figure is not therefore comparable with that obtained in the Corby series.

In Fig. 31(a) the influence of 'purlin' load is demonstrated for both the
Corby and Delft tests.

For the higher ratios the results are in agreement with

the Delft tests for = 1.0 above the Corby tests for - 0.8.

This follows the

trend of the Corby results on their own (Fig. 23). However, the remaining results
show a much less well ordered pattern.
in value with decreased ,

A lthough generally all Delft results fall

they do not give the same approximately horizontal lines

shown by the Corby results.

2.20

The general conclusion is that there is a decrease of the strut load at which
the local deflection reaches l%b0 of the chord width, as a proportion of the
failure value, with decreasing ratio.

The purlin load does appear to decrease

the ratio further in some cases, but there is no clear pattern.

The influence of chord preload (Corby tests 10, 10A and 11) is clearly to
reduce N^ u considerably, but to increase deflections to a much smaller extent.

Deflections are only of significance at working loads.

If the maximum working

load is taken as being some 50% of ultimate load, then only for joints having the
ratio Ni%bo/Nlu less than 0.6 does deflection have to be considered.

Hence from

Fig. 30(b) all joints with > 0.6 (b 0 /t 0 = 40) automatically satisfy a l%b0
deflection limit criterion for working load.
from the Delft results is > 0.4.

The equivalent figure for b 0 / t 0 32

Purlin load appears to have little effect on

these values, whether placed centrally, or eccentrically to the joint.

7.6

Comparison between Test Results and the Suggested CIDECT Equation

The Wardenier equation, based as it was on the results of a large ECSC

sponsored test programme, provided the best available method of predicting joint
strength at the time (1978).

It was, however, based entirely on the results of his

own tests, and did not take into account tests performed elsewhere.

These other

tests, although small in number, did illustrate aspects of joint design not fully
examined by the Delft series.

Since 1980 CIDECT has been engaged in the production

of design recommendations that would take account of all test results, and be of
use internationally.

In the CIDECT Monograph No. 6 (5) to be published shortly, an

equation providing the characteristic strength for K and N joints, is given as

b
2
l
t 9.8 (_i
eo
k

N 1Ic -
K

+ b

+ h

i
4b.

+ h

1)

0 5
___ yu-*
sin ,

f(n)

where the chord force function f(n) has the value

_ .

f(n) = 1.3 - 111. I _f_ I

"
eo

2.21

and y = (b /2t )
o

This form of equation has been developed from Wardenier's equation by

a) simplification of his expression of (0.4 + 8.5/3) to 9,

as he suggested

b) modification of the angle function to 0.85/sin 9Q_, to take better account of

joints
c) replacement of by (bj + b 2 + h^ + h 2 )/4b 0 to allow for rectangular bracings.

This equation is intended for design, and is to be based on nominal dimensions

and the characteristic yield stress of the materials specified.

The factor of 9.8

takes into account the variability of actual dimensions and yield stresses observed
by Wardenier (6).

The values of N^j for the Corby tests are plotted against the measured
ultimate loads in Fig. 32, with a dashed line drawn to indicate the mean joint
strength on which the characteristic value is based.
mean).

(Characteristic - 0.90

This figure shows that most points lie close to or above the mean line -

that is, they are safe.

The specimen '4' failed prematurely, due to defective

welding and could be discarded.

Similarly, the points 1, 2 and 3 (on the 500 kN

line) could also be rejected as the material was below specification - the measured
minimum in three tests was 237 N/mm 2 against a specified minimum of 255 N/mm2
although this was known before testing (section 3 ) . Points on the characteristic
line are acceptable, however, as the assumption is that only 95% of all points need
lie above the line.

In this figure the strength of joint 12 is computed as that of

a cross joint.

The characteristic strength for a cross-joint is given in Ref. 5 as:-

N.. - a
t
Ik
eo o

.5.
/
+ 4(1-/3)
]
v
J
.
(1->) sin .
_sin
._
~'

2h
r

[
Lb
r

If a Warren joint carrying two compressive bracing members is visualised as a

cross joint, the strength can be based on one bracing member only.

On this basis,

the strength of joint WRR12 is 109 kN (hx = 99.9 mm, - 45).

If the two Warren bracings are taken to form a single branch with normal force
component 2N^ sin (= Np^), and h = (2h^/sin ^ + g)
reduces to:-

2.22

then the above equation

2h

l
-
N

lk - eo V

s i n

+ g

+ 2(1

-^)

(1-0) sin .

For this case the strength of joint WRR12 is 74 kN, against the measured ultimate
loads of 170 kN in the strut and 150 kN in the tie (both compression).
The experimental ultimate strengths for all joints tested at Corby and
carrying purlin loads are compared with the computed values in Fig. 34.

It 'is seen

that the joint strength based on the Wardenier K joint equation over estimates the
experimental value, while the equivalent cross joint based on two bracings under
estimates the strength significantly, which is in keeping with previous
observations for cross joints with low and high chord slenderness b 0 /t 0 .

The

joint strength based on the single bracing equation gives a result more in keeping
with the other results based on joint predictions.

Unfortunately, it does not

idealise the joint correctly.

Local deflections are often a problem for cross joints with low ,

but here it

is not the case, since N^% is well above the working load as seen in Fig. 31(b).
The presence of chord load would lower both N ^ and N^ u .
Figure 32 indicates that the allowance in the joint strength equation for
chord force (function f(n)) above is not adequate - results 10, 10A and 11.

Of

these three tests, only joint 11, with the highest failure load carried a purlin
load.

In Fig. 33 the values of N llc are shown plotted against the Njjj values.

As the

deflection limit is a working load level criterion of serviceability the dashed

line shown corresponds to working load, here taken as characteristic divided by 1.7
(5).

All points lying above the dashed line have a deflection of less than 1% b 0

at working load - the values for 0 0 . 8 and those for - 0.6, close to the line,
are therefore quite satisfactory.

The joints having 0 - 0 . 4

are well below the

assumed working load line, and therefore can be regarded as too flexible in
practice.

This type of joint would be likely to lead to early fatigue failure in

the case of cyclic loading.

2.23

7.7

Recommendations
(a) The scatter of experimental results from these tests with purlin load is

similar to that previously obtained without purlin load, and on which the
characteristic strength equation given in CIDECT Monograph No. 6 was based.

For

purlin loads less than 0.6 N^ u in magnitude no account need be taken of the effect
of purlin load.

This conclusion can be applied to joints with chord slenderness

ratio b 0 / t 0 up to 40.
up to 0.5 b 0 .

The purlin may be eccentric from the bracing intersection by

Compressive purlin loads only have been considered.

Joints should

be checked for punching shear and bearing failure, as discussed in Ref. 5 and Ref.
6, and the welding must be adequate to transfer the loads involved.

(b) The chord force factor of Monograph 6 is not adequate to explain the
strength reductions found in the present tests although the differences could be
explained by the loading procedure.

More tests should be carried out.

(c) It is considered that the equivalent cross joint strength (2 bracings)

gives a realistic although conservative estimate of strength of a K joint with
N

PL/Nlsinel

= 2

'

ano

- ensures that the working load deflection is satisfied.

However, it should be noted that this is based on one test result only.
(d) Joints having b 0 / t 0 as high as 40 and with less than about 0.6 are
generally too flexible and should be avoided.

If they are used, the working load

ought to be regarded as no more than approximately 0.35 of the characteristic

strength of the Wardenier joint equation estimate (at 0 = 0.4).

2.24

REFERENCES
1.

Wardenier, J. and Stark, J.W.B.

The static strength of welded lattice girder

joints in structural hollow sections - Part 4: Joints made of rectangular

hollow section.

Report No. BI-78-20.0063.43.470, Delft University of

Technology, March 1978.

2.

Packer, J.A.

Theoretical behaviour and analysis of welded steel joints with

RHS chords - Final Report.

3.

CIDECT Report No. 5U-78/19, 1978.

Davies, G. and Bettison, M.

Report on quality of member preparation and

welding of joints WRR 1, 4, 5 and 6.

4.

Piatt, J.

University of Nottingham, 1981.

Sidewall behaviour in full-width rectangular hollow section joints.

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, to be published.

5.

CIDECT

CIDECT Monograph No. 6 - Welded Joints.

6.

Strating, J.

To be published.

The interpretation of test results for a level-1 code.

Annual

Assembly, International Institute of Welding, Lisbon, 1980, (IIW Doc. XV-46280).

7.

Strmmen, E.N.
sections.

8.

Ultimate strength of welded K-joints of rectangular hollow

University of Trondheim, Norwegian Institute of Technology.

Wardenier, J. and Davies, G.

The strength of predominantly statically loaded

joints with a square or rectangular hollow section chord.

Annual Assembly,

International Institute of Welding, Opato, 1981, (IIW Doc. XV-492-81).

2.25

NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY
PHASE 1 - INFLUENCE OF 'PURLIN LOADS' ON K JOINTS

TEST No.

CHORD SECTION

BRACING SECTION

REMARKS

pi

"

These tests are designed to compliment

WRR1

250 X 250 6.3

200 200 6.3

0.8

39.7

WRR 2

250 250 6.3

200 200 6.3

0.8

39.7

.5 Feu

Sin

the work of Mr. Wardenier by providing

WRR 3

250 250 6.3

200 200 6.3

0.8

39.7

.8 Feu

Sin .

evidence for the effect of purlin loads

WRR 4

250 250 6.3

150 150 6.3

0.6

39.7

WRR S

250 250 6.3

150 150 6.3

0.6

39.7

.5 Feu

Sin

.8 Feu

Sin

on chord sections with a high value of

>o

250 250 6.3

150 150 6.3

0.6

39.7

WRR 7

250 250 6.3

100 100 6.3

0.4

39.7

WRR 8

250 250 6.3

100 100 6.3

0.4

39.7

.5 Feu

Sin ;

is unusual in practice and a special case

WRR 9

250 250 6.3

100 100 6.3

0.4

39.7

.8 Feu

Sin ;

as far as failure modes are concerned.

WRR 10

250 250 6.3

100 100 6.3

0.4

39.7
39.7

.5 Feu

Sin

39.7

2 Feu

Sin

WRR6

WRR11

250 250 6.3

100 100 6.3

0.4

WRR12

250 250 6.3

100 100 6.3

0.4

TABLE 1A

ratio of 1.0 not considered because it

= 0.6
op
eo

op

= 0.8
eo

TESTS PROPOSED FOR THE NOTTINGHAM SUB-CONTRACT

PHASE

= b /b=
1 o

PL
N, sin
1
1

op

o eo

rPL
,r/

bi + bo

2b 0

0.4
WRR 7

0.6

0.8

WRR 4/WRR 4A

WRR 1

WRR 5

WRR 2

I
0.5
I

WRR 10/WRR 10A

0

0.5

WRR 8

+ 0.52

WRR13

- 0.52

WRR 14

II

0.5

I
0.8'

WRR 11

WRR 9

WRR 6

+ 0.52

WRR 15

- 0.52

WRR 16

WRR 3

II

2.0

WRR 12

A l l c h o r d RHS:: 250 250 6.3 grade.43 s t e e l ;

_o _

^\4

g = 0.2 b
o
TABLE IB

Index of 'Purlin' Load Tests Carried Out Under Phases I and II

2.27

Dimension compr. bracing (mm.) Dimension tension bracing (mm)S

Dimension chord (mm)

TEST SPECIMEN

NOMINAL

*%

ho

Vt

2
mm

MEASURED
b

%o

ho

/ lw

2
mm

NOMINAL

A l , |tl

2
mm

MEASURED

v.

*>

2
mm '

NOMINAL
b

Vd2

h2

<2

2
mm

MEASURED

Vdjs

'2

21
mrn I

1
WRR i

250
"

WRR 2.
WSR 3
WRR i

Zio

,
,

>3

bIZO- 2|<I'1 2SOI 6 4 3 bZi

WRR 6

'1

WRR 7

'

to

WRR 8

M
00

WRR 9

l\

,,

'

'1

,(

.,

258 2SO8 6 4 3

6267

2S0 9 2S05 636

6/8]

ISO

ISO

2>(*0O

'

.,

Zio-C 246

64

621

il

..

"

.,

ISO O 2.5) I 6 4 4 6255

II

It

.,

.,

2 5 o 25- 641

II

250 0 2 5 / 0 6 4 3 62SS

1*

220.4 Zio 6

6244 I0O
II

ff

'00

II

'1

23fo

II

49,32 loo

2op

63

I"?*1?

W7

641 4 9 f 8

1/

..

mi

2ooo 6Sl 5011

.1

,,

..

150

14-1-51505 673 3 874 /So

Iffl

lSft

141-0 1500

no

<?f|

b-tH 3 5 2 3

II

bM

too

(00

3774

bo<\

,,

9 9 s <?94 6 ) 2

994 992

22 5"?

6 2 3 f 7

Jt

l(

4 S 6 0 H7 l<??3
II

.
I

II

,,

3frc
t

234o
H

653

492SJ

Ml

2ofc

64

ion |

\m
Mi

2 o c o 6 Sj

SOU 1
"3

m*

ISo3 6 6 f

37)7

/ 5 0 3 666

lii-s /49J

3'/>5j

663 37S7?

15 190 6 1 /

2&4lJ\

15 9

6/9

2ZIH\

99S 19-f

L-I

u
22 7 7 |

627
M

..

WRR

/OA

1'

il

II

WRR > f A

l|

/o

12

4fco 1117 I1S7 6 4 5

62/8

WiJR.

UKR

63

25I 0 2505 6 3 8

KJRR

IJ

,1

WRR 5

Zoo

.1

il "

II

,,

62/2
6236

,,

,,

63/0

II

25 4 2SO-3 38
2SO8 Zo-lc (,4o

,,

,,
tl

2 5 0 3 25o (, 49 63/S

1 1

2 5 / 2SII

<l

tl

..

fi

2SW

ZSo<f

(,-4s

6o

.,

II

,,

II

99 4 992 .07 2 2 S 3

,.

qq's

<?q-7

b-2o

2293 ?

1'

99s

19S

ol

217.3

il

<?9S

99 S

6 0 S 2235

,.

,.

990

99o

63 23</o

,,

1(

,,

.,

73 99-3

(l

qrq2 99-2 Zi

lt

,.

<?99 999

-3

3sr/

,,

(S"0

ISO

6 3

?Goo

'492 y ^ 4

36

36/?

ISO

So

629 2 3 2 3 i

a
3<?0 4<\s /4?-2 (,2

235/ |

3599

WRC

13

II

WRR 14

WRR

IS

WR

lia

,|

.,

,,
il

6/7

6o<]

2SI 9 19 0 6 2 S

6yo

IS o S Ze-i,

#/? SSI-0

.Woi 2'So(,
...<_.

. S 6 ' Z o

'rf."

536.

li

,,

,.

#9 3 'fc>| 62 S Sil
/44S

.,

/7

632

Cif)

#(

GOO

/4?s ' * 9 7 6 32 ,
'4<? ,3

i<

,.

'I

' I

mJ

/5b 1 635

,,

ISOO

'<?3 21

ISoO

/3

il

W;l

/412 3 ? 3 6 3 ri

36JI |

6 7J JS"S 2 |

TABLE 2

BASED ON M E A S U R E D
Ecce n :.

GAP(mm)
a

, 1e

*,
g

mm

ULTIMATE

DIMENSIONS

\ '

\ N/mm

TENSION

COMPR. BRACING

CHORD

N / m .n

N/m m

N ' mm'

LOADStkN) AND MOMENTS ( " N m )

BRACING

COMPR BRACING. TENS BRACING

CHORD
N

KM,

'u

M,

'u

M2

N/mm*

#
237

425

4/0

4o

44 i

S1-S

So-3

43

4 S

+15

461

4 >

44 s

+5-5

la

45

44 i

4J

4-4*

45

478

&

4 4_

4 4 z.

46S

42-3

23

26o

4s o

4<\o

28

II

s <? .*

Slo

'

f i*
4

! I

4R_

45

4 5 . . 45 _

44i
45

<M
4s

tf
2S7

4it>
l\

430

ail

11

2S3

4 34

?S3,

'1

24<>

4T7

)i t 4^

sM

,,

54<

1(

3J-74

Sot

2/79

2 66.

272Sr

ri

4J9

'1

225j

Soo

24-ot*

8C,

503

So3

45 5/ '

3 42

>
)3 OS '

330

447

'

4^7

/1-75 I

42o

/49 V

2oo

jtr

39

393

672

47P

34/;

__2L

2oJS

462

l\

4&S

'

76-S9 '

.352

/Js4 v

31?

11

20/)

4T 6

//46^

2/0

II

20J '

36 +

y63^

3S

.,

4-3 6>

42<?

318

+*/

J/8

451

3oS

4^e

3oS

45S

30f_

452

30

3/8

//

ff

t\

II

3/8

Soo

4i-s

-za

II

f1

252*

45)
+ 45

44

44-5

-3D

3o9

4 s's

47-0

4<-5

48*-

5"C3

2q

4s

31-73

'1

47-S

)(

. 429

'

5-3

444

749

'1

1'

,,

'I

749

430

252*
ao8

4<s%
Zoi

4*

II

451

136

Soo

44s '

too

45

979

<0>

32-6S
>
4-22 T
21-22

5/90
55>

>
'

v
2 3 OS

loo

1 - ^

1S2

'4-G

/)-^2v

68
Y

25

428^

92

3,7>

0*4

4 So

,|

29

2/

3 2.4-

473

,,

4S"6

324

.,

4*6

'IWT

S?cC. Tc STi5 A S

S/6

S-96

1
37 3/

/So

.^__
V

i 4 z ^

44$ '

+ 25

>
/267

!!_ _+

;LL.

4s 2

45"- 8

45"

+? S

H -s

45"

ft

f s -5

45"
4 _ .

45

46-3

29/

+7J

332

4?6.

3 ^

4-SL

457

4-5" 7

3"o-9/'

453

I0-2V

29/

473

oaf

324-

4fC

46f

4fc4

S-2S^

420

i_Ly6r

9/

473

332

4*

23,2

45X

2 4

3050

+20

7syy

ZZI

4jTG

332

4rSL

4-31

//JST

475

/ 2 s cr

60
* B eiom

a *
f*9

i t

f y F i c ^ f i o n buf" s t u f " W e

(br

feifanq

3/ +
4V

l<\0

5'+

/3-o7

/6frS*

. S+ i v ? r
22

'

TABLE 2 ' c o H T

It-tf

BASED ON MEASURED DIMENSIONS

N

TEST SPECIMEN

deform.! %)

.1. .

''. bL(d 0 )
N

'U

crock>n%N2u

Type of f a i l u r e

do

to

to

d. . (J.

i r c s p 1
2
2b
<* 0
o
b] b .

g'
g
bo t) W o )

J_o_
"o

Comments.

PURLIN
LOAD

'0Wi%b/N_

t
WRR 1

9/

WRR 2.

9o

> lOo

WRR 3

?2

WRR

WRR S

/RR 7
__________________
WRR8
WR 9

WRR
UlRR

l|
12

WRR + A

5o

Lv'QR 14
WRR

IS

WW /&

393

0794

02osc2o<>

y 100

yioo

64

,,

390

0794

0I&9 o-i*!

91

100

Gii

'394

0595

o / 7 | o / 7 4 0 418.07 024

391

595

0/93 0 ' 7

~?loo

55
y joo

y f00

7o

j _
!

455
+q

yioo

So

S3

41

270

,,

>ioo

G4
G4
62_

1-000';

/61

0418

>/>>

0Z4

l(r\

0//2

390

0 543

39)

0394

0/86

62c

11

3? 9

C739S

0492 /?6 loo4

? loo

G4-

il

324

030,7

0 2oo o2o4

7/00

G4-

II

393

0397

20/

0<

1 ooi -o-ll,

y/00

G4-

392

0397

'0 -OD

o-m

o4?1

62 _

II

326

0 3<? 6

0-1*4-

1 000 -0-I20

G+

1,

3 6

0392

O 27

o-m

ooi

G2_

II

4/Z

0595

O-til

o-ill

s4

100

? loo

<?o

;>

40k

G4

0596

ii

G2c

0,1c

+03

0595

(?/<?/

0>lc

92

0S"95

/93

4c3.

055"

M 97

-o-m

132

-Q-IZ'O

22S

-0

2//

000 oozi

/40

0Q%

0-0Z4-

/ro

0'9?6

oo4

/5' 099

0014

\
'o-m

\
0010

1000

RA-TIO AT f * i t t
Ni.. = 5 Z 0 K N
F=3O1KN

49

-Ollb

0492 o-li

IO0O

cfr^i<w- uei-

140

0-19> 02-

/qo

WR<U ~ i 2

'
WR2 3

CIS?

64

00

?+
4'
4/

) 00c?

>IOO

VJRR /OA

no

looo 0

40

go

oi7o|o/&4

> 100

WR? / O

09TS

0799

>/00

389.

> 100

72

26

lo

too

41

28

PL;
(kN) 1

>

5 0

WRR 6

>.

'

"

*?*

^r
V '
HPL

TABLE 2 ^ O M T

^
s

. -* _

'PL

_ __

+
vT

'PU

Strut

Tie

Chord

I cm4

1236

1236

6049

1 mm

883

1383

895

i/l--*
mm

1.40

.894

6.76

Distribution
Factor

.155

.100

.747

Li

2 eT = 2 46.7 .13 kN.m = 12 kN.m

PL PL
for Load Increment No. 9/8 See Moment Diagrams
in Appendix 2.

kN.m

ai

- - 1.9

4 =-1.2

-M 5 =-9.0

WRR 13
-4.2

-4.7

+ 14.3

M , + .
13
*

-6.1

-5.9

+5.3

WRR 14

-8.1

-6.3

+7.6

13

14

TABLE 3

ECCENTRIC PURLINS

Distribution of Purlin Moment for WRR 13-14

2.31

b /t
o o

eo
2

o
2

N/mm

N/mm

eo

WRR 4A

.595

41.2

291

100

0.344

WRR 17

.597

39.8

291

154

0.529

WRR 18

.598

40.2

291

25

.086

WRR 7

0.394

39.8

260

75

.288

WRR 17

0.399

39.8

291

154

.529

WRR 18

0.399

40.2

291

25

.086

U
1.0

lum
= 1 kN

,
N.
lum
lu
kN
expt
kN

lu expt
lum

457

457

445

.974

482

456

400

.877
(.83)

1.0

474

474

440

.928

1.0

302

302

352

1.165

334

258

289

1.12
(.865)

328

328

330

1.006

.946

.771
1.0

Wardenier (2) Mean Strength Equation for RHS Gap Joints

,0.5^1.5,..
_ _, 1 + sin
=
b
t
0.4 + 8.513 -r ; - Eq. 1
eo o
o
2 sin
lum
, ,
where = 1.3
TABLE 4

0.4 ,o .
( )

eo
COMPARISON OF 3D JOINT STRENGTH WITH TWO DIMENSIONAL JOINTS

2.32

PIATE 1

: Corby Universal Testing Rig

PLATE 2

: Typical joint in Universal Testing Rig, showing

joint deflection gauges, and electrical resistance
gauges.

2.33

SERIES F11):INFLUENCE ADDITIONAL LOAD ON ULTIMATE STRENGTH

NpL= 0

NpL
a LO

WITH NpL

W-RR-1

W-RR-U4
W-RR-H2

062 W-RR-3
-o O
+ -o
XT

07

W-RR-14 7

0-38 W-RR-6

W-RR-150

II

W-RR-V.6

0-42 W-RR-7

ca

W-RR-151

Ratio _ 2 _ _ chord 33
'o
Ratio chord of other testpieces cv 25
to
* ) Sections normalised

SERIES F

10
o

g=20

J*A

f_3M^_-i.
O
h

in

KJ

_ .

concentrated bad

JQ

A
local buckling of
JK_l\ccmpr. bracing

bo
+ r
'o

NpL VARIED FROM 35% TO 55% OF N ^ ' S I N

N

1 u = t P o 5 'o

%o

105.10.3)
r

bu0-5

CONCENTRATED

1u
6
t 1-5 Q
T

AND ______

eo

33

2bn

10

2b0

FOR WRR JOINTS WITH

LOAD AND WITHOUT CONCENTRATED LOAD

Q) testpieces with eccentricity

FIG.l

I' 'PL

b vb2

OS
RELATION BETWEEN

__u25l

+025h 0 < e 051 0

TESTS PREVIOUSLY CARRIED OUT ON WRR JOINTS WITH LOCAL CONCENTRATED

LOADS (1)

2.34

203x133 U.B.

32L_Z

N,
:

= 900

R>,

N,

-900

-*>*

NPL
FIG.2

ARRANGEMENT OF JOINTS

/'

:__./.-. e 4__

*-^

POSITIVE
ECCENTRICITY

FIG.3

i I

:-*_

-\

4-

ZERO
ECCENTRICITY

DEFINITION OF ECCENTRICITY

2.35

l-

/
/
____-

/_zp7

NEGATIVE
ECCENTRICITY

1 S max

(a) BRANCH SIDE WALL

FILLET WELD

a=t
(c) BRANCH HEEL FILLET WELD
(b) BRANCH TOE BUTT WELD

FIG.4 WELD DETAILS

HYDRAULIC
JACKS

FIG.5 PLAN OF THE CORBY UNIVERSAL TEST RIG,

AS SET UP FOR WRR JOINTS WITH LOCAL
LOADING

2.36

HYDRAULIC
RAM

LOAD CELL

6mm
STIFFENER
PLATES

-v
FIG.6

DETAILS OF APPLICATION OF LOCAL CONCENTRATED LOAD

LVDTs

FIG.7

JOINT DEFLECTION GAUGES

2.37

FIG.8

TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT OF STRAIN GAUGES

L INWARD DEFORMATION

KEY:

OUTWARD DEFORMATION

^__%4^_^__^_j
PP
CHORD FACE

O O

3-^

FAILURE

CHORD FACE AND CHORD SHEAR

WALL FAILURE AROUND MODE OF
THE JOINT WITH OR
FAILURE
WITHOUT CRACKS

TYPE G1|

TYPE GA

TYPEG2^

TYPE G3

CRACK LEADING
TO DIAGONAL
FAILURE
TYPEG5r-

WkAi
gg.

o o
CHORD
CHORD FACE CHORD WALL
LOCAL
BUCKUNG BUCKLING AND CHORD BUCKLING
WALL FAILURE
COMPR.
AROUND TENSION
BRACING
BRACING
LEADING TO
BRACING
FAILURE
O O

ITYPEGSI
FIG.9

|TYPEG7|

|TYPEGfl

MODES OF JOINT FAILURE

2.38

|TYPEG9|

()

Deformation

FIG.10

(b)

Deformation

LOAD - DEFORMATION RELATION, SHOWING

MAXIMUM LOAD CAPACITY

2.39

LOAD-DEFLECTION PA THS CAILURE WRR 1:2:1

LEGEND
95 1
rfRR 2

SCALE'
ABSCISSA:

. 3

U _ ._._..!
a

OTOjNATS

1.22

! NOTES

t
r

CCHPRESSiON 3? AC

LCCTiON

[.V.b]

( a ) STRUT

FRAHE No. < i ) LOADDEFLECTION

PATHS TO F A I L U R E

WRR

1:2=3
LEGEND
W

VSR 3

!
i
I
I

SCALES
ABSCISSA:

I u

ORDINATE:

.ca
J

S3

NOTES

_l_

T I E 8RACE DEFLECTION

(b)

[*)

TIE

FIG 11 LOA D-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR 1-3

2.40

( = 0.8)

iea

ise :

LOADDEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 1 : 2 : 3

! LEGEND

_,_

.
"

n
s 0
.

'

LU
Ci

1
,

ill

VRR 3

C-CALC,

f
f

2
*
LO

2 ?
o

i
.83

e
0' :

.tu

! NOTES

1
I
I:

<>

A5SCSSA!

WP 2

-j

'j

COHPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION C>.b03

i
!
i

(c ) STRUT

i ) LOADDEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 1 : 2 : 3

FRAME N o . <

LEGEND

fl
IP
O

IO
Si' 0
0

t?

<>
Q

<

O
_1

LU
O

<

a
m

WRR

WRR 2
WRR 3

/
;
SCALES

AescrssA
e

ORO I NATE:
1
8

.ea

1
1

1 .Hi!
1

LU
t

I
1

e
1

<>
I

NOTES

TIE BRACE DEFLECTION

l>.b 0 J

(d ) TIE
FIG 11 (CONT) NON-DIMENSIONAL LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR1-3

2.41

( = 0.8)

LOAD-OrFLCCTiN

PA THS

TO FA ILURE

WRR

4:5 N
LEGEND
WRR

'.

WRR

*90

WRR A

->"__.J

SCALES
1 .W5

AQ'XJYA:

.ea
1

ea

NOTES

_!_
2

_l_
1

__
5

_l_
7

COriPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION i"/:b0]

( a ) STRUT

FRAME No. < 2> L O A D D E F L E C T I O N

PATHS

TO F A I L U R E

WRR 4 : 5 : G
LEGEND

WRR

WRR

VRR

VRR

SCALES

Cl

ABSCISSA:

<
o

I..............
8
ORDINATS:

sa

NOTES

_L.
2

_L

TIE BRACE DEFLECTION CV.LO

( b ) TIE
FIG 12

LOADDEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR46

2.42

(3 = 0.6)

ac

is

LOAD-DEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 4:5:6

LEGEND

WRR-

">

WRR-

WRR-

WRR-

SCALES
ABSCISSA:

.ea

ORDINATE:

1 .?B
1

NOTES

COMPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION [v.b-]

( c ) STRUT

FRAME

No. < 2) LOAD-DEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 4 : 5 = 6

LEGEND
WRR- 1
WRR- 5
WRR- S
WRR- <A

SCALES
.ea

A3SCSSA:
I

Ol
O

<

ORO I NATE:

c_

CD.

I
1

.ea
I

NOTES
_1_
-3

-2

TIE BRACE DEFLECTION V'.be)

( d ) TIE
FIG 12 (CONT) NON-DIMENSIONAL LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR4-6

2.43

(S = 0.6)

LOAD-DEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 7:8:3:12

LEGCND

108 -

COMPRESSION BRACE DC-FLECTION L>.b0 J

( a ) STRUT

FRAME

No. ( 3) LOAD^DEFLECT I ON PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 7 : 8 : 9 = 12

LEGEND
588

WRR-

WRR-

WRR-

WRR-12

SCALES
ABSCISSA:

1.8

ORDINATE:

I.KB

58

iaa

NOTES

"IE BRACE DEFLECTION

[>.b 0 ]

( b ) TIE
FIG 13 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR7-9 & 12

2.44

(p = 0.4)

158

LOAD-DEFLECTION ^A THS TO FA ILURE WRR 7:8:9:12

LEGEND
WRR 7
WPP *i
WRR 3
WRR12

ABSCISSA:
I
e

1 .88

ORDINATE:

1 .88
J

NOTES

COMPRESSION BRA CE DEFLECTION [/-.b-]

( c ) STRUT

FRAME

No. < 3) LOADDEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR

7:8:9:12
LEGEND
WRR 7
WRR
WRR 3
WRR12

SCALES
.ea

ABSCISSA:
1

a
ORONATE:

1
1 .88
I

NOTES

TIE BRACE DEFLECTION [V.b03

( d ) TIE
FIG 13

(CONT) NON-DIMENSIONAL LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR7-9 & 12 (p= 0.4)

2.45

LOAD-DEFLECTION PA THS TO FA ILURE WRR 5:13:14

LEGEND
WRR

WRR13
WRR1

NOTES

COMPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION CXb, J

( a ) STRUT

FRAME

No. < ) LOADDEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 5 = 1 3 : 1 4

LEGEND
URR

WRR13
WRR11

SCALES
ABSCISSA:

1.88

L _ _ _ _ J _
e

ORDINATE:
.n,I
a

sa

NOTES

_L

_L.

TIE BRACE DEFLECTION

_l_
2

Ckb1

( b ) TIE
FIG 14 LOA D-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR5, 13, 14
= 0.6; Np L = 0.5; ECCENTRIC PURLIN LOADS

SIN 1

2.46

I.88
L
io

_J
isa

LOAD-DEFLECTION PA THS TO FA ILURE WRR 5=13:14

LEGEND
WRR
WRR
URR

SCALE3
ABSCISSA:

I.08

ORDINATE:

I .88
I

NOTES

COMPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION CXb]

( c ) STRUT

FRAME

No. c 4) LOADDEFLECT I ON PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 5 : 1 3 = 14

LEGEND
WRR 5
WRR13
WRR11

SCALES
Q

.88

<

ABSCISSA:

'

LU

<
O

ORDINATE:

Cu

.88

NOTES

TIE BRACE DEFLECTION f/.b-D

(d ) TIE
FIG 14 (CONT) NON-DIMENSIONAL LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR5, 13, 14
= 0.6; N p L =0.5; ECCENTRIC PURLIN LOADS
N1 SIN

2.47

LOAD-DEFLECTION PA THS T FAILURE WRR 6:15:16

LEGEND

c<

'

WRR1 ?

WRRIE

SCALES

Q
9 258

ABSCISSA:

I .88

Wr.'lNAlr :

.a

ice

58

I5C

JE

LU

NOTES

J_

_1_

l_
5

_I_

COMPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION

l>.tiB J

( a ) STRUT

FRAME N o .

< 5) LOADDEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 6 : 1 5 = 1 6

LEGEND

sea

_ _

WRR

"

WRR15
WRRIG

15

iee

35a

SCALES

3)e
O

ABSCISSA:

iia

!_._. ._t..__.J

_l

LU
O

<

1 .88

200

ORDINATE:

1 .88

188

cu
isa

LU

58

1S8

'L
NOTES

TIE

a^

'

BRACE'DEFLECTION

"

CXb3

( b ) TIE
FIG 15 LOA D-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR6, 15, 16
= 0.6; N p L = 0.8; ECCENTRIC PURLIN LOADS
N1 SIN 1

2.48

t
1

LOAD-DEFLECTION PA THS TO FAILURE WRR 6:15:16

I LEGEND
Hf
WRR
WPR

AU'.C ] ",'. :

! .RH

r m j ; :

.K3

NOTCS

COMPRESSION 3RACE DEFLECTION t be. 3

(c ) STRUT

FRAME

No. < 5) LOADDEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 6 = 15 = 16

LEGEND
WRR

WRR15
WRR 6

SCALES

<
o

ABSCISSA:

ORDINATE:

NOTES

T I E BRACE DEFLECTION

[Xb3

( d ) TIE
FIG 15 NON-DIMENSIONA L LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR6, 15, 16
= 0.6; N p L = 0.8; ECCENTRIC PURLIN LOADS
^~~SIN 1

1.88

1 .88

LOAD-DEFLECTION PA THS TO FAILURE WRR 7:13:1

1

LEGEND
WRR 7
WRRie
w=(.i 1
WICR

IPO

SCALES
ADSL ISSA:

1 .88

ORDINATE:

S?

.ee

aa

i',a

NO CS

'

COMPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION

0.b03

( a ) STRUT

FRAME

No. < s> LOADDEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 7 = 1 0 : 1 1

LEGEND
WRR 7

WRRl '.
WPRI8A

SCALES
ABSCISSA:

ORDINATE:

SB

NOTES

TIE

B R / a DEFLECTION

CXb.3

( b ) TIE
FIG 16 LOA D-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR7, 10 & 11

(3 = 0.6)

EFFECT OF CHORD PRE-LOAD AND PURLIN LOAD ON STRENGTH

2.50

LOAD-DEFLECTION PA THS TO FA TLURE WRR 7:10:11

I

LEGEND

.1

8 _

WRR 7

WRR18

WRRI1
wpwiaA

SCALES
1 .82

ABSCISSA:

.ae

ORDINAT^:
1

NOTES

COMPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION [>.b-3

(c ) STRUT

FRAME

No. < 6> LOADDEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 7 : 1 0 = 1

LEGEND
WPR

WRR

,8

WRR

,;

WRR

18A !

SCALES
ABSCISSA:
Il 1 1

LU

1.BB

. 1
1

I 1'
o_

ORUIN. It

.M

CO

11. i l i . ili

LU

NOTES

T I E eR ACE DEFLECTION

O.b3

( d ) TIE
FIG.16 (CONT) NON-DIMENSIONAL LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR7, 10 & 11
EFFECT OF CHORD PRE-LOAD AND PURLIN LOAD ON STRENGTH

2.51

LOAD-DEFLECTION PA THS TO FA ILURE WRR 7=8=10:11

LCGL'ND
WRR 7
WRR. y
WRRP

3 L

wkpia

SCALES
1.80

ABSCISSA:

ORDINATE:

.88

50

ICO

ise

NOTES

COMPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION [V.O-3

( a ) STRUT

FRAME

No. < 7> LOAD-DEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 7=8 = 1 0 : 1 1

LEGEND
WRR- 7
WRR- 8

588

WRR-11
WRR-I8A

SCALES
ABSCISSA:

1.8

ORDINATE:

I.

ni

sa

tee

ise

NOTES

-2

-1

TIE BRACE DEFLECTION

[*b 0 3

( b ) TIE
FIG 17 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR7, 10 & 11 (= 0.6)
WITH AND WITHOUT PRE-LOAD

2.52

LOAD-DEFLECT I ON PA THS TO FA ILURE WRR 7:8:10 = 11

LEGEND

WKR V

WRR 8

WRRI I
WkKIBA

SCALES
AfVI'.SA:

.fl

ORDINATI":

NOTES

5'

COMPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION [V.be3

( c ) STRUT

FRAME

No. ( 7) LOADDEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 7 : 8 : 1 0 =

LEGEND
WRR 7
WRR O
VRR1!
URRIOA

SCALES
ABSCISSA:

ORDINATE :
'
e

'

1.88
I

NOTES

( d ) TIE
FIG 17 (CONT) NON-DIMENSIONAL LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR JOINTS WRR7, 8, 10 & 11
( = 0.6) WITH AND WITHOUT PRELOAD

2.53

 o ^ 400
",
\

300
kN

f
s

200

C'

o WRR7
OWRR8
X WRR 10
D WRR1OA
+ WRR 11

k. y

"Kl

75100mm

100
788 at Ok
WRR 10
- 10

__Jf + V e

f At
5

mm 10

1 5.

FIG 18. DEFLECTION AT FREE END OF CHORD WITH STRUT LOAD

2.54

?x

20

I \J

I
I 048E , -

^8
CD
C

CD
C

CM

is

'w
+

9+
+8

in

'

o
>
t>

y
0
(a)

"^

,3

0 6 /

0-84(0-4+8-5 )

11 +
10+

0-2

10
0-6

0-4

0-8

10

JOINTS WITH CENTRAL PURLIN LOAD

Wardeniers equation
( 0 b 0 5 t 1 0 5 (04 + 85)

, predict =

600

(kN)

whereju =

1 for tension chord

SAFE
& > j

> ? M ^
2sin

moi

500

for cc impressio
16

N,u
expt.

+8

400

/^

y^
/

9
7*
300
^. = 40
/

200

/
12

100

+11
,10

/ /
10A

08
06
04

/
UNSAFE

100

200

300

400
N, u predict.

500

600
(kN)

(b) ALL JOINTS TESTED

FIG19. COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST RESULTS AND WARDENIER GAP EQUATION FOR STRENGTH

2.55

1O
N2= compression

N2= tension

CD
C

'

)
c

- - + e = _ _ -

CM

O4A

LD

o
: ;l .

-o

l= 0 - 8

_^ *

._,

_^____;

___.

LD

._.

OO

.* 1

p = 0.

05

10

PL

15

20

N l sin8 1
(a) CENTRAL PURLIN LOADING

10

I
CD
C

CD

V)
+

in
(

I
I

NPL
N-)Sin0-|

13

in

15

_ _o

- * - f, r = C^-J
I

6
0-78
o 0-47
4

I
I
I

STRUT SIDE

TIE SIDE

I
I
0-5

J>

GpL

05

(b) ECCENTRIC PURLIN LOADING

FIG 20. EFFECT OF PURLIN LOAD AND POSITION ON JOINT STRENGTH

2.56

A<o eo

FIG 21. EFFECT OF CHORD FORCE ON JOINT STRENGTH

2.57

1-O.r

~ 7F

10A-10 -

08

1
o4 /

0-6

i 4A.5.15

o
JO
6s

#.lV4
.11,12 /
7 /

0-4

0-2

"9

to

-SL =0-2 '

bo
I

0-2

0-4

0-6

0-8 1-0

(a) BASED ON MAXIMUM TEST LOAD

i-Or

0-8

J_>

0-6
F
D

+11

-"*

z:

g/

04

9+
+12

0-2

0-2

0-4

0-6

0-8 o

1-0

(b) BASED ON WARDENIER STRENGTH EQUATION

FIG 22. VARIATION OF LOCAL l%bo DEFLECTION LIMIT WITH BRANCH/CHORD WIDTH RATIO

2.5

0-8
<>4
0-6
4A

JO

6
o p-0-6

12

.-+

0-4

-0-4

+
0-2

1-5

1-0

0-5

2-0

PL
Nlusin0i
(a) BASED ON MAXIMUM TEST LOAD

Np L
N1r_sin91
(b) BASED ON WARDENIER EQUATION

FIG 23. VARIATION OF l%bo DEFLECTION LIMIT WITH CENTRAL PURLIN LOAD RATIO

2.59

Nl%b^
N,

T-1-0-

urn
-8
NPL
0-6

Nasino]
0-78
o 0-47

STRUT

TIE

0-2

5b 0

5b,

PL

Do

PURLIN ECCENTRICITY RATIO

FIG 24. VARIATION OF LOCAL l%bo DEFLECTION LIMIT WITH PURLIN LOAD
ECCENTRICITY

2.60

FR.M1E No. <H>

D I S T R I B U T I O N OF MEMBER FORCES TO FAILURE

WRR I

"OSITIVE SENSE 0=
s w . s RLSUI.TMIIO,

AXIAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION

UNADJUSTED

UNITS
FORCES
nonENTS
LENGTHS

[kN]
[KN-O
(a)

SCALES
O.

*fr

LOCAL ABSCISSA
0

.13

LOCAL ORDINATE
. , '.
RANGE

SHOWN

_, /
-719.9

N3
-319.7
-G1P.7
-716.8

-CIS./
-719.8

N2
222.3
i n .a
198.9

Nl
-217.8
-116.7
-S8S.7

( a ) AXIAL FORCE

FRAME No. <12 )

D I S T R I B U T I O N OF MEMBER FORCES TO F A I L U R E
IN-PLANE BENDING MOMENT DISTRIBUTION

WRR 1

POSITIVE SSNSE OF
STRESS RESULTANTS

UNADJUSTED

<"%'

--^V

(tO BENDING MOMENTS

FIG 25. DISTRIBUTION OF UNADJUSTED MEMBER FORCES FROM STRAIN GAUGESJOINT WRR-1

2.61

FRAME NO. <15>

DISTRIBUTION OF MEMBER FORCES TO FA ILURE

WRR 1

POSITIVE SENSE OF
5TKESS RESULTANTS

AXIAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION

ADJUSTEO
$ "

' ,

^<V

' / /

UN I TS

//y /.
/'

EDtrrs
tlCnENTS
LENGTHS

(kNi
[kN)
;r

SCALES
LOCAL ABSCISSA
f

.ie

LOCAL ORDINATE
.
srALF fkfin
RANGE inOWN

NOTES

__v
G11.2
7 1 1 .5

.
NO
?
N
IB 3 1 5 . I
226.8
I7 G11.2
133.8
20 7 1 1 .6
502. I

NI
215.8
158.1
518.

( a ) AXIAL FORCES

FRAME No. <I3>

D I S T R I B U T I O N OF MEMBER FORCES TO F A I L U R E
IN-PLANE BENDING MOMENT DISTRIBUTION

WRR !

l'IT. I U V ! ; ','. O
STRESS RESULT1NTS

ADIU5TE0

FORCES
nOriENTS
LEIICII'S

IkNl
CkNp)
Cm)

SCALES
LUCAL ABSCISSA
l_J
e

I
2

I
j

.13

LOCAL ORDINATE
. . .SCALE IR01
RANGE SHOWN

NOTES
Inc
13
17
23

(b) BENDING MOMENTS

FIG 26. DISTRIBUTION OF ADJUSTED MEMBER FORCES FROM STRAIN GAUGES-

2.62

3
7.6
9.5
8.1

2
7.9
Ol.3
23.9

13.5
17.1
15.S

120

FIG. 27(a)

DELFT SERIES F TEST RESULTS PLOTTED AGAINST g

120

^ ^ 0 / 1 4 5 , R_i n

4(271.^
10 G

(26) 144

7t

33)2

__

Joint fio

to
80

o
LO

60

"**..

(26)146
a

[34)
147 (30)"
O,(27)
*/'

* = 06
X127) 150

LO

_? 4 0=:
34)
7

= 04
(30)151

20

02

04

06

08

1 .0

FIG. 27(b) DELFT SERIES F TEST RESULTS PLOTTED AGAINST PURLIN LOAD

2.63

P-in*/.FcuJf

MlnV.Ftu

100'/

(1)-

Iplttallen ol c-=cl<

(2)-

eccessive beorn-wa5 oSorRitS"

(3)

C.~;V? bjrr.'iK la.raici

W.R.R 5
W.R.R. 150

6
reiation. between the load V. F eid the deormation of the pint in 'I. 3 .

FIG. 28

LOA D/DEFLECTION CURVE TAKEN FROM REF. 1 (WARDENIER)

tfaa
/

>_~'*" Di

FIG. 29(a) CORBY TEST RESULTS PLOTTED AGAINST

0-2

0-4

0-6

0-8

PL
N<| sinQ-i
FIG. 29(b) CORBY TEST RESULTS PLOTTED AGAINST PURLIN LOAD

2.65

10

0-8

N1%b-

>

06

04

/<

0-2

So
41 - 39 Corby
+ 3 0 - 34 Delft
X 2 5 - 2 7 Delft

0-2
FIG. 30(a)

Y/
\

'-

0-4

0-6

0-8

1-0

/. FOR CORBY AND DELFT RESULTS PLOTTED AGAINST

l%b_ lu

10
/

0-8
#

0-6

T/ob
Ni

um 0.4
</

0-2

e 41-39 Corby
+ 30-34 Delft
25-27 Delft
0-2

FIG. 30(b)

0-4

06

0-8

1 0

,/N
RATIO FOR CORBY AND DELFT RESULTS PLOTTED AGAINST
1%R lum

2.66

D Delft Results
b0/to=32

Ni/.
1/ob<

1um

Cl

06

b 0 / t 0 = 26

=06

_3"_;04

ih X "~

"

=06

04

=04

02

05

FIG. 31(a)

/
c

10
PL/N1sin01

D Delf t Results
b 0 / t 0 = 32

JJ____
=08
X

0I,
N&j

20

R
A TIO FOR CORBY AND DELFT RESULTS PLOTTED
A
A
G INST PURLIN LOAD

~7~

10r

15

" =06

Based on
equivalent X joint ^
(two bracings)
^

\P=___

10
Npi/NiSin!
FIG. 31(b)

/
A
R TIO FOR CORBY AND DELFT RESULTS PLOTTED
l%bc. urn AA
G INST PURLIN LOAD

2.67

^1

II
<_L

CO.

II

500

400

300
(kN)

200

100

200

FIG. 32

300
N l k (kN)

400

COMPA RISON OF ULTIMATE LOADS AND THE CHARACTERISTIC LOAD

FROM CIDECT MONOGRAPH NO. 6
o

500

II

II

ex

ex

CO

CO

WRR1
2S3

(kN)

N |K (kN)
FIG. 33

COMPA RISON OF.N

LO
A DS AND THE CHARACTERISTIC LOAD
FROM CIDECT MONOGRAPH NO. 6

2.68

X Joint Two Bracings

(2-30)

X JointOne Bracing
(1-56)

WRR 12> Joint

(064)

PL
^^

FIG. 34 APPROXIMATION FOR JOINTS HAVING TWO BRACINGS IN COMPRESSION

2.69

Commission of European Communities

Technical Steel Research

Final Project Report

DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF WELDED

JOINTS BETWEEN STEEL STRUCTURAL HOLLOW 'SECTIONS OR
BETWEEN STEEL STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS AND H SECTIONS

PART 3:

STRENGTH OF THREE DIMENSIONAL RHS JOINTS

M.G.COOTIE
G.DAVIES
M.BETTISON
J.PLATT

Department
Nottingham
University
NOTTINGHAM

of Civil Engineering
University
Park
NG7 2RD

ECSC Agreement No: 7210.SA/814

December 1983

Research carried out with the financial aid of the European Coal and
Steel Community and the Science and Engineering Research Council

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The experimental part of this investigation was carried out under the
direction of Dr. M.G. Coutie and Dr. G. Davies, at the laboratories of the Tubes
Division of the British Steel Corporation, at Corby, Northants.
The British Steel Corporation was responsible for the supply of materials and
fabrication of joints to the specifications laid down and the supply and fixing of
strain gauges.

Recording of strains, and testing was carried out on Steel

Corporation equipment.

The operation of the testing machine was carried out by

Tubes Division staff to the instruction of Nottingham personnel.

The authors acknowledge the ready co-operation of Tubes Division staff, and in
particular that of Mr. T.W. Giddings and Mr. N.F. Yeomans.
Gratitude is also expressed to Professor R.C. Coates and in turn to
Professor P.S. Pell, Heads of the Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nottingham for their interest and cooperation.

The support of the Science and

Engineering Research Council has been of great encouragement.

Particular thanks are due to the European Coal and Steel Community for their
sponsorship of this work.

3a

CONTENTS - PART 3

1.

Introduction

2.

Test Specimens

3.

Material Properties

4.

Testing Rig and Testing Procedure

5.

Measurements

6.

Test Results

6.1 General Description of Joint Behaviour Under Load

6.2 Modes of Failure
6.3 Branch-Chord Deflections
6.4 Crack Developments
6.5 Failure Loads
6.6 Working Load Deflections
6.7 Forces and Moments
6.8 Summary and Conclusions
7.

Recommendations

7.1 Design Recommendations

7.2 Suggestions for Further Work
References
Tables
Plates
F igures

3b

TABLE DES MATIERES - 3e PARTIE

1.

Introduction

2.

Eprouvettes

3.

Caractristiques des matires

4.

Montage

5.

Mesures

6.

Rsultats des essais

6.1

Description gnrale du comportement des assemblages en charge

6.2

Modes de ruine

6.3

Flches des diagonales-membrures

6.4

Fissuration

6.5

Charges de ruine

6.6

Flches pour les charges de service

6.7

Forces et moments

6.8

Sommaire et conclusions

7.

Recommandations

7.1

Recommandations en matire de conception

7.2

Autres travaux suggrs

d'essai et mode opratoire

Rfrences
Tableaux
Photographies
Chiffres

3c

INHALTSW!R2EICHNIS - TEIL 3

1.

Eirifhrung

2.

Probestcke

3.

Werkstoffeigenschaften

PrfVorrichtung und Prfverfahren

5.

Messungen

6.

Prfergebnisse
6.1
6.2
6.3
6. k
65>
6.6
6.7
6.8

7.

Allgemeine B e s c h r e i b u n g d e s V e r h a l t e n s d e r Verbindung u n t e r L a s t
A r t e n d e s Versagens
Abzwe i g / G u r t - D u r c h b i e g u n g e n
Rientwicklung
Ausfallbelastungen
Durchbiegungen b e i A r b e i t s b e l a s t u n g
K r f t e und Momente
Zusammenfassung und S c h l u f o l g e r u n g e n

Empfehlungen
7.1
7.2

Modellempfehlungen
Vorschlge fr w e i t e r e

Arbeiten

Literatur
Tabellen
Phot o g r a p h i e n
Abbildungen

3d

SYMBOLS
Aj

cross sectional area (mm2) of member i

Ni

load (kN) in member i

pre-load (kN) in chord

op

N-

maximum chord load (kN)

Niu

ultimate load (kN) in member i

icr

load (kN) at which crack initiation was first observed

l%bo lad (kN) at which a joint deformation of 1% chord width (B0) occurs

joint design strength (kN) based on force in branch strut

characteristic joint strength (kN)

purlin load (kN)

PL

a
b^

throat thickness (mm) of fillet weld

breadth (mm) of RHS member i perpendicular to plane of joint

eccentricity (mm) between system lines measured perpendicular to chord

gap between the toes of the bracings (g' measured between toes of weld)

height (mm) of RHS member in plane of joint

member number 0,1,2 for chord, strut and tie bracing respectively

standard deviation

t^

wall thickness of member i

width ratio (bracings to chord)

chord slenderness factor where -y = b 0 /2t 0

Ym

material or joint strength factor

Y^

width-wall thickness ratio for RHS member

local deflection - as measured by LVDTs shown in Fig. 6

angle of inclination of bracing member (i 1,2) relative to chord

r0

gap shear stress (N/mm2) in chord

3e

'eo

ei
ui
0.2

shear yield stress (N/mm2) in chord

average stress (N/mm2) in member i
material yield stress (N/mm2) of member i
material ultimate stress (N/mm2) of member i
stress at 0.2% strain

influence function for the axial stress in the chord on joint strength

LVDT

linearly variable differential transformer

ERSG

electrical resistance strain gauges

RHS

rectangular hollow section

UB

universal beam

SWG

standard wire gauge

3f

THREE DIMENSIONAL JOINTS IN RHS

PREFACE

This report is Part 2 of the Final Report of a research programme, awarded by

the British Steel Corporation to Nottingham University, to investigate the effect
of local concentrated loads on the strength of planar Warren gap joints in RHS, and
also three dimensional gap joints.

Part 2 summarises the work on Three Dimensional

Joints carried out under Phase 11 of the Contract.

In all two joints were tested

to simulate the effect of normal in-plane loading, combined with out of plane wind
bracing loading as could occur in a through type lattic girder structure.
This report presents the results of the two tests, and also examines and
compares the strength of such three dimensional (3D) joints with those subject to
in-plane loading only, and described in Part I of the Final Report.
The Final Report of the overall investigation is presented in two parts:
PART 2 Influence of Purlin Type Loads on K joints in RHS
PART 3 Three Dimensional Joints in RHS
This investigation is part of an extensive international ECSC research
programme entitled "Development of Recommendations for the Design of Welded Joints
between Steel Structural Hollow Sections, or between Steel Structural Hollow
Sections and 'H' Sections".

It examines the strength of predominantly statically

loaded welded lattice girder joints of different configurations and made of

different types of hollow sections, or combinations of hollow and open sections.

3g

THREE DIMENSIONAL JOINTS

1.

INTRODUCTION
There has been a relatively small amount of testing of 3D welded joints in

Rolled Hollow Sections.

The only previously reported work generally available is

that due to Redwood et al (1), who examined the strength of welded joints using
hexagonal and sguare section chord members for single panel girders of triangular
cross section, where the chord was in tension, as shown in Fig. 1.

In total ten

trusses were tested in which there was one joint of interest in each case.
of the trusses had square chords and three hexagonal chords.

Seven

These trusses were

designed to be loaded symmetrically in the vertical plane of symmetry.

Adjacent

faces of the chord RHS were symmetrically deformed with a push-pull type of local
deflection.
The two tests on three dimensional joints carried out at Corby and described
in this report were intended to represent the top chord joint of a through type
lattice girder (Fig. 2) where the vertical bracing was for the vertical loading
while the horizontal bracing was to counter horizontal load - e.g. due to wind.
The horizontal load is therefore reversible.

The main purpose of the two tests

was, therefore, to examine the difference in behaviour for the two geometrically
identical joints when the load in the horizontal bracing was reversed.

2.

TEST SPECIMENS
The chord dimensions chosen were 250 250 6.3 in grade 43 steel, giving a

high chord slenderness b 0 / t 0 39.

Branch members of 150 150 6.3 RHS were

chosen for the main bracing giving = 0.6, and 100 100 6.3 RHS for the
reversible wind bracing (i.e. = 0.4). A gap of 0.2 b 0 was chosen to correspond
with the majority of tests previously carried out on two dimensional Warren joints.

Eccentricity due to non-noding of member centre lines is shown in Fig. 3(a).

A diagram of the joint in its testing position is shown in Fig. 3(b) and (c), with
the main bracing in the horizontal plane.

In order to fit this comparatively large

joint into the testing rig it was necessary to make some of the bracings shorter as
shown.
3.1

The fabrication of the joints was carried out in a special jig.

The weld

details specified are shown in Fig. 4, where the welds on three walls were always
fillet welds, with a throat thickness equal to the branch wall thickness t^ or tOnly the wall adjacent to the gap was specially prepared, where the weld was
specified as a butt weld.

All specimens were welded with Phillips 55-8 S.W.G. rods

with a welding current of 180-200 amps and a voltage of 45 volts D.C.

The welds

were not radiographed, but a subsequent check was carried out by sectioning the
joint along two planes.

The specimens were prepared and welded at the British Steel Corporation
Laboratory Workshops at Corby, Northants, from tube material manufactured at either
the Corby or Hartlepool Works.

3.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The hot rolled hollow sections were specified to be mild steel grade 43C,

according to BS 4360, Part 2, 1969, equivalent to Fe 430 C according to Euronorm

25-72, with a specified minimum yield stress ae

= 255 N/mm2.

The cross-sectional area was based on actual measured dimensions rather than
nominal values, and was usually averaged from wall thickness measurements.

The

yield stress -, ultimate stress a u and the elongation were derived from tensile
coupons cut from the midside of the rectangular sections as specified in BS 4360,
Part 2, 1969, or Euronorm 25-72, and tested according to BS 18, Part 4, 1977.
nominal and measured properties are recorded in Table 1.

The

Some of the material used

was below the grade 43c specification for yield stress (- 255 N/mm^) and was
known about before the joints were tested.

It was considered acceptable for test

purposes, as the properties were known.

4.

TEST RIG AND TESTING PROCEDURE

A general view of the Corby Universal Testing Rig is shown in Plate 1.

Plate

2 shows a two dimensional joint mounted in the rig.

Fig. 5 gives a plan and

elevation of the 3D joint with hydraulic jacks etc.

The end A of the chord was

kept free while the other end was supported through a bolted flange to a knuckle

3.2

joint, equivalent to a pin in compression.

The end C of the major tie bracing (150

150 6.3 RHS) was bolted through a flange and the major strut was hydraulically
loaded through a knuckle joint connected to the strut flange.

The flanged ends of

the 100 100 6.3 RHS minor bracings were each bolted to a hydraulic jack with
load cell, with no knuckle joints.

The support and loading conditions were

therefore as shown in Fig. 5.

The loads were applied to the bracings in each plane through the hydraulic
jacks in the same proportion throughout the test.

The proportion was based on the

strength of similar two-dimensional joints (see Final Report, Part 2 ) . The

strength of the joints WRR 4A { = 0.6), where (N lu = 445 kN) and WRR 7 { - 0.4)
(where N^ u = 352 kN) were used, so that load in the minor bracings ( = 0.4) was
kept to about 75% of that in the major bracings ( = 0.6) throughout.

This is

slightly greater than the ratio of the strengths predicted by the Wardenier
Equation for the mean strength of gap joints - Eq. (1) - see Table 4.

In these tests no chord preload or purlin load was applied.

For each joint, preliminary elastic tests were carried out to ensure that the
joint was properly aligned in the testing machine.

Where there were excessive in-

plane or out of plane bending moments, adjustments were carried out to reduce these
to a minimum by shimming at the bolted supports.

Checks were also carried out to

ensure that the instrumentation was functioning properly, and that the output from
the electrical resistance strain gauges matched the forces indicated by the
external load cells.

In the main test to failure the load was initially applied in steps of
approximately 1/20 of the anticipated collapse load, and then at smaller intervals
near failure.

During this step by step loading, the bracing member loads, chord

face deflection and member strains were measured and recorded.

taken after failure and unloading of the joint.

Readings were also

The mode of failure of the joint

was recorded, together with indications of yielding and cracking.

3.3

MEASUREMENTS

During each stage of loading, the axial forces produced by the hydraulic jacks
were recorded by load cells and member forces were calculated from electrical
resistance strain gauges attached to each member.

The deformation of chord face and sidewalls was measured along the length of
each brace by two LVDT's as shown in Fig. 6.

This was similar to the arrangement

used by Wardenier (2), but modified to ensure that the effect of bending of the
chord sidewalls was minimised.

Dial gauges were also used to measure the

deflection of ends of members.

Electrical resistance strain gauges (TML type PLS-10) were attached at two
cross sections along the centre line of each member face in the positions shown in
Fig. 7.

These measurements were subsequently used to estimate axial loads and

bending moments, and to ascertain the magnitude of the secondary moments at the
connection.

A computer program was written to process the results and to plot loaddeflection, and load-strain relationships up to failure.

In addition an analogue X-Y plotter was used throughout the testing programme
to give a continuous plot of the outputs from the major strut load cell and one
LVDT on the same compression bracing.

This arrangement gave an immediate

indication of any non-linearity due to yielding or sudden cracking during the

course of the test, and also recorded the ultimate load, which could be missed by
incremental recording with the data logging system.

During the final testing of each specimen, initial yielding, local buckling,
initiation of cracks, modes of failure, etc., were observed and recorded.

Various

possible modes of failure are indicated in Fig. 8 based on two dimensional joints.
Failure or ultimate loads are shown for two typical load-deflection curves in Fig.
9.

In the two tests reported here the ultimate load is the highest recorded, the

specimen still exhibiting some positive stiffness as shown in Fig. 9b.

A considerable amount of information with regard to the fabrication of the

specimen dimensions etc., was recorded before testing commenced and typical data

3.4

sheets as for two dimensional joints are given in Appendix Al.

The pertinent data

is given for all specimens in Table 2.

An examination of the strain gauge outputs showed that there was frequent
disagreement between the load cell estimate of axial load, and that derived from
various pairs of gauges mounted on the saune member.

This could occur for various

reasons, e.g. St. Venant effect due to the nearness of supports affecting one or
more of the gauges, local bending of member walls, particularly near the chord
connection, and pitting of the steel surface.

The most serious disagreements

occurred in the chord member, where insufficient distance was available from the
gauge to end plate or branch connection.
In order to observe initiation and development of yielding of the joint a
coating of whitewash was provided in the critical areas before the commencement of
the test.

6.

TEST RESULTS

6.1

General Description of Joint Behaviour Under Load

Test results for each joint are presented in modular form in Appendix A3,

consisting of
i) Comment on test
ii) Sketches of joint dimensions and position of strain gauge
iii) Load-deflection curves
iv) Load-strain curves
v) Axial force and bending moment distribution in members
Specific detailed reference is omitted in the following discussion.
With the application of the test load (the minor bracing load being increased

3.5

in the ratio of 75% of the major bracing load) the connecting faces of the chord
deflected inwards in the area under the strut, and outwards under the ties, the
deflection under the minor bracing being greater than that under the major.

In the

case where the bracing loads were in the same sense on each side of the gap (WRR
17) as shown in Fig. 2b, the deflections were generally less than those for WRR 18
where the bracing forces were in opposition on each side of the gap, see Fig. 2c.

The first local yielding, indicated by flaking of the whitewash coating

occurred in the chord connecting faces adjacent to weld corners at the toes of the
struts.

This was true for both WRR 17 and 18, except that it appeared earlier in

the case of joint WRR 18 with opposing bracing loads, see Fig. 2c.

This was

followed by further yielding in the chord face spreading around the strut
connections, across the gap and along the side.

The corresponding flaking around

the tie connections took place at higher loads.

The specimen was considered to have failed when the chord deformation became
excessive, or when a significant increase in the strut load could not be obtained.
Usually at this stage the chord face deformation was so great that the chord
connecting face in the gap had been pulled parallel to the tie bracing, as seen in
the photographic plates in Appendix A3.
At the end of the tests the bracings were undamaged except for some local
yielding in the vicinity of the welds.

6.2

Modes of Failure
The failure mode in both tests was associated with large chord connecting wall

deflections, while the deflections of the other chord walls were comparatively
modest, compared with what had been observed for comparable planar joints.

In the

case of WRR 18 the mode of failure could be described as Gl to G4, with extensive
deflection but no cracking.

For joint WRR 17, however, large deflections

associated with G1-G4 were present, but cracking took place in the chord adjacent
to the tie bracing weld, producing punching shear failure in the gap which is
described as G2C in Fig. 8.

There is also some out of plane deflection of the

strut cross walls adjacent to the gap, but this only developed under large
deflections.

3.6

6.3

Branch-Chord Deflections
Full details are shown in Appendix A3, where it can be seen that the tie

deflections are significantly less than for the strut, for both major and minor
bracings.
A plot of the load against major strut average deflection (% b Q ) is shown in
Fig. 10(a) and (c) for WRR 4A (equivalent 2D joint), WRR 17 and WRR 18.

In each

test the chord yield stress was the same, but the chord thickness was marginally
different.

It had been anticipated that the joint stiffness of WRR 17 would be

greater than that of WRR 4A, while that of WRR 18 would be less than that of WRR
4A.

There is some evidence for this in the early elastic stages of loading, but

the picture is somewhat confused by the apparent malfunctioning of LVDT 4 in WRR 17

at loads below 20% of the ultimate.

This is confirmed in the plot of individual

LVDT's in Appendix A3.

A plot of the load against minor strut average deflection (% b 0 ) is shown in

Fig. 11(a) and (c), for WRR 7, (equivalent 2D joint), WRR 17 and WRR 18.

Two

observations should be made regarding the malfunctioning of the Corby Testing Rig.
In WRR 7, a considerable accidental load was applied during the final stages of
test preparation with the result that the main test began with a substantial
permanent set deflection of the chord.

Control difficulty was also experienced

with WRR 18, when the minor strut load initially went into tension.

It is

therefore difficult to make definite statements of comparison, except to say that

in the early stages of loading, the stiffness of WRR 18 is noticeably less than
that of WRR 17 as anticipated.

The behaviour at deflections in excess of 2% b 0 are

difficult to explain, particularly the sudden increases of joint stiffness.

However, this is probably associated with sticking of the LVDTs due to the large
deformations involved.

It should also be remembered that the yield strength for

WRR 7 is about 10% below that of the others shown.

Figs 10 and 11(c), and (d) show the same curves as (a) and (b), allowing for
yield stress variation.

3.7

6.4

Crack Developments
In WRR 18 no cracking of the weld, or material adjacent to it, was observed

during the test, while in WRR 17, cracking was first observed at around 55% of the
final tie load in both ties.

This initiated in the chord gap material adjacent to

the toe of the weld near the corners of the RHS, and subsequently spread across the
gap.

Doubtless the presence of this early cracking resulted in reduced post yield

stiffness of WRR 17, and hence affects the comparison with WRR 18.

It should be

noted that WRR 4A also failed by chord cracking adjacent to the weld, but that this
developed much later at 90% of tie maximum load.

6.5

Failure Loads
Failure loads are given in Table 2, and compared in Table 4 with the failure

loads of two dimensional joints given in Table 3 - these being obtained from Part I
of the Final Report.

This is done on the basis of the mean strength prediction of

the Wardenier Equation.

In the three connections (Table 4) for which ~ 0.6 the strength ratio less
than that predicted, with WRR 17 showing the greatest deviation, although its
result does improve when the chord force modification factor is taken into
account.

All three results are then within the scatter band of two dimensional

test results previously obtained by Wardenier.

When the minor branch connections

( = 0.4) are considered, the experimental strengths obtained all exceed the
Wardenier prediction, as was common for the comparable 2D joints, with large
slenderness, examined in Part 2 of this Final Report.

However, both 3D joints

achieve lower maximum loads than that obtained for the 2D joint as shown in Table
4.

It should be noted that the effect of chord load is increasingly important in

3D joints of low branch/chord width ratio ,

branches of WRR17.

as is illustrated for the minor

The high chord load, a consequence of the loading sense in the

minor bracings, in addition to the cracking, may have resulted in a joint strength
lower than that obtained for WRR18.

3.;

6.6

Working Load Deflections

The l%b0 deflection loads are tabulated in Table 2, and N^^j-./N^y and

l%b -^lum

va

lue3

are

plotted in Fig. 12 on the same basis as was used for the two

dimensional joints reported in Part 1.

It can be seen from Fig. 12(a) that the 3D

results are safely included in with the results for 2D tests, but that for 3D tests
the values at = 0.6 tend to lie below the dotted line.

This is particularly so

for WRR 18, indicating that deflections are likely to be slightly more sensitive at
working loads in 3D joints with = 0.6, particularly with force reversal.

6.7 Forces and Moments

Axial force and bending moment diagrams for WRR 17 and 18 are shown in Figs.
13 and 14 respectively.

There is good agreement between the various pairs of

strain gauges and load cells on the branches, but less so with regard to the strain
gauges on the chord.

This is to be attributed to the nearness of chord flange and

branch connections producing St. Venant effects on the chord, as discussed in Part
2.

The bending moments are small in the branches and the dominant values are in
the chord.

Although considerable care was taken both in setting up and carrying

out the test, there is a very clear lack of moment equilibrium obtained from the
extrapolation of the strain gauge results.

In the case of WRR 17 there is "out of

major plane equilibrium moment" at the joint intersection of 14.2 kNm, for load
increment 10.

For the minor plane the corresponding value is -32.9 kNm.

It is

clear that with this order of lack of equilibrium, it is not possible to make
detailed comment.

However, the moment distribution for major bracings is similar

to that obtained for comparable two dimensional joints reported in Part 2.

In the

strut minor bracing a clear point of contraflexure is observed and the sense of the
moment is reversed to that previously obtained, either resulting from rigid body
movements of the specimen or indicating poor alignment of the minor strut hydraulic
ram.

In the chord the moments at first increase as expected, up to load increment

10, but then reverse.

It is probable that this change is associated with local

wall bending near gauge No.11.

3.9

The behaviour in WRR 18, where the directions of the minor branch loads are
reversed, is shown in Fig.14.

In the case of major branches the behaviour at low

load is similar to that for WRR 17.

chord at higher loads.

However, there is no reversal of moment in the

For the minor branch plane the moments in the chord at low

loads are in the opposite sense to those obtained for WRR 17 - this is not
surprising in view of the direction of the eccentricity and secondary stress.

The

reversal in direction of moment of the minor strut (WRR 18) compared with that of
the minor strut (WRR 17) could as above result from rigid body movement of the
specimen or poor alignment of the minor strut ram.

The accumulative compressive stress due to chord axial load and chord bending
movement in both planes, exacerbates longitudinal yielding of the chord corner
between the two planes of branches in WRR 17.

In WRR 18 this net effect is

considerably less because the chord moments in each plane oppose one another, while
the total chord force is also considerably reduced, so this yielding will be
reduced by load reversal in minor members.

6.8 Summary and Conclusions

These two 3-dimensional Warren gap joint tests are too few to form the basis
of design recommendations for such joints.

Nevertheless, the following

observations can be made.

It is particularly difficult to estimate realistic bending moment
distributions in such joints fabricated from comparatively short and slender
members, and great reliance should not be placed on the readings obtained.
The strengths of these two joints were reasonably predicted by the Wardenier
(2, 3) Gap Joint Equation (see table 4) for 2-dimensional joints, the 3D results
lying within the scatter band for 2D joints.
The appropriate chord force reduction factor is likely to have a much more
dominant effect in the case of 3D joints, where the branch forces on each side of
the gap are in the same sense, as for WRR 17.

3. 1!

The modes of failure were both associated with large connecting wall
deformations, particularly for the minor bracings, although the local deflections
of the unconnected chord walls were not as marked as those for 2D joints.

The mode

of failure G4 was valid for WRR 18, but cracking in the chord altered the mode of
failure in WRR 17 to G2c.

For these high chord slenderness values, there was np

indication of chord shear failure, although this may be more important for high
and lower chord slenderness.

Local deflections of the chord wall under working load conditions are likely
to be excessive, with force systems like WRR 18 being most severe.

For

satisfactory limit state design it will be necessary to reduce the design strength.

7.0

Recommendations

7.1

Design Recommendations
No firm recommendations are possible for three-dimensional joints.

Although

the present programme has provided useful information on a type of joint occurring
not infrequently in practice, no general conclusion can be based on just two tests.
Further testing would be useful.

Although three dimensional joints have been

tested in Canada, these are of a different form from the Corby type, and no direct
comparison is possible.
For these high slenderness chords the three dimensional experimental joint
strengths were found to be lower than for the comparable two dimensional tests.

In

comparing three dimensional joint strengths with the Wardenier equation it is seen
that the results fall within the previously obtained scatter band for two
dimensional joints, being below the mean for 0.6 and above the mean for =
0.4.

It is suggested that an appropriate strength reduction factor of around 0.85

should be used when applying the Wardenier Equation (derived for two dimensional
joints) to three dimensional situations.

As suggested previously for two dimensional joints in section 7.7 (Part 2)

three dimensional joints having a chord slenderness (b 0 /t 0 ) as high as 40, and with
< 0.6, are also generally too flexible at working loads (Fig. 12), and should be
avoided.

If they are used the working load ought to be regarded as no more than

3.11

approximately 0.35 of the Characteristic Strength of the Wardenier K joint eguation

at - 0.4.
The Wardenier chord force reduction factor ()

for two dimensional joints may

not be adequate to cover the effect in a three dimensional joint.

7.2

Suggestions for Further Work

A limited number of additional three dimensional joints should be tested tor

ia) extend the range of chord slenderness ratio b 0 /t 0 ;

(b) extend the range of the width ratio ,

since the mode of failure is likely to

change;
(c) evaluate the validity of the Wardenier chord force reduction factor, or
establish an alternative.

3.12

REFERENCES
1.

Redwood, R.G. and Harris, P.J.

Welded joints for triangular trusses.

Structural Engineering Series Report No. 81-2, Department of Civil Engineering

and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal 1981.

Also CIDECT Report

No. SW-81/1.
2.

Wardenier, J. and Stark, J.W.B.

The static strength of welded lattice girder

joints in structural hollow sections: Part 4 Joints made of rectangular hollow

sections.

March 1978, Stevin Report 6-78-4, TN0-1BBC report Bl-78-

20.0063.43.470.
3.

CIDECT Report 5Q/78/4.

Wardenier, J. and Davies, G.

The strength of predominantly statically loaded

joints with a square or rectangular hollow section chord.

Annual Assembly,

International Institute of Welding, Oporto 1981 (IIW Doc. XV-492-81).

3. 13

Material cut from RHS

250 250 6.3

150 150 6.3

100 100 6.3

291

321

252

473

456

445

% elongation
5.65 /s
o

41

38

38

e
u

TABLE 1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES DERIVED

FROM TENSILE SPECIMENS

3.14

- - " "

Dimension

TEST SP ECIMEN
I

2J

chord (mm)
b

% > o

NOMINAL
2
mm

MEASURED

NOM NU L

mm

!
!

""
1
Dimension compr. bracing ( m m ) Dimension tension bracing ( m m j j

to/ t

/<,

|I,

2
mm

MEASURED

7,

h,

mm

h2

2/d
/

'2

mm

MEASURED

NOMINAL
b

Vd 2

h2

mm J
'" i

WRR. 17 MAJOR P LANE ISo

ISo

UZ.

Ulo

WRR '7 MIMOR PLANE. So

to

63

(>20 2^01 2 3

2_j_3 2522

2e?

tm

62<? .m /oo

So

t.3

3ioo

m-i 45

100

63

2i4o

sis 917

25

35+-

(,-03 2223

ISo

ISO

(,2

26(7 o /<t3

144-bbis

loo

/op

23fo

<U-t S-% 2223 1

loo o

3SSC E

i
WRR

IS MAJOR PLANE. 2So

\zSo

63

,12c

2fol

WR

| 8 M l N O i \ PLf.rME. 2So

ISo

bz

6/20

ZSo-2 2?>7 62J

25-7 _ _ 5

Loll

i>o

ISo

(,-3

3&

loo

loo

i-3

224-0

lift-Z

n$

/4q-5 bZI

997 bo3

3523

ISO

2 3 3 loo

/-

b'Z

OCO 144-2

m-i

b-23

lOo

63

2.^C7 iooo

qq-

s-u 2223

I
|

Ui

1
'S

!
I
j

-__-

i
TABLE 2

ULTIMATE

BASED ON' MEASURED C IMENSION!

GAP ( m m )
g

s'

mm

COMPR,BRACING

C MOF D

E c cr
eni !

0
s.

S N/m m

TENSION

CHORD

ff

u,

".o
2

N
2

N/mm

LOADS(kN)AND MOMENTS (KNm)

BRACING

'u

N/mm

vs

COMPR BRACING. TENS

BRACING

N/mm

,'mm

473

3J

4-Zb

3Z|

4,

952

qs2

31e r -4-0O 0 2

4 73

*
,252*

44$

*
252

4 ^

\Sl

<?5_ '

?.s? 3oo

4A

4fo

14e!

N/mm

I
45

47-0

47 -3

-t,

45 i

4-5

44-s

4b -s

- 2 ?7

29I .
1

2-I

45"

44

4-<r

444
*r 2.

4SI

i-or

300

s-is*

> 4oZ

/V

4-43

i
AS

357

...

So

ZV

473

291

473

!_

_1 ___....

32/

4 S,

44*

22/
252

456

/4<?

44 s

/4 e?

4b4s

Z3 0

%-

330

j
j

,
"
_

ri

^~

m j La_ur<A

Sfc

le**

tTwan

iFtctt see S c f i o n 3.

i
TA3LE 2CONT.

/>3

BASED ON MEASURED DIMENSIONS

N

TEST SPECIMEN

c! ________

d, . d . ,
1

*' hoW.J ?fcrm.("W

do

Type of f a i l u r e

d, . d _

* r.sp '

'

b, . b j

7^

T.e. u

g'

ho

h t,,

bo

bofa.)

r c s p

Comments.

ia>tf*o/NM
%
..

J
WRR

fo
5450 1 53

MAJOR P U N E .

VfcR 7 M I N O R

PLANE.

1 '~~
1

WRR

I8

MAJOR. P U N E .

MK

18 MiNop, PLANE

bo

G2.C

39S

0597

o/ss: 0/9 loos 0-02-4

SS

&lc

_<}_

03^9

om

\ 1_" -T -> - T _ _ .

% o-ns
.

^ f

41

100 >

G4

36

41

loo >

64

of

-.-/(

4-5

X _ _

_l_

1 4o-2

5<?2

42

0'3<}<.

0117 O-loo I 002 o-oi4

o '45 -- 1-002 -O-IIb

j _l_

Jr

Lx

1
...

..
*

"
1

^ . j j g a M J S r m TT inm.

ni

.li

n i tr o _ i r

, .ynt w+Y**

m*_ PI W W V I / * ' ^

'

*w/<mJ<*fawt*Ji

TEST SPECIMEN

NOMINAL
*o

y.

2
mm

Dimension compr. bracing (mm.) Dimension tension bracir .g (mm.)[

chord (mm )

Dimension

MEAS'JRCU
b

% o

ho

mm

NOMINAL
%

t ,

! h,

2
mm

MEASURED

h,

NOMINAI

2 D
mm

V^

A
2
m ra

ME A SL1 RE D

Vdjh.

-^4

!
I

WRS

L
ISO

WRR2
WRR3

WRR 4

2So

fc_

6 I 2 0 22_

42 b 24-1, 2o

bin

2S--6

2--6

(,4o 21.

II

1,

100

100

2Soq

2.51-1

6 44 4255

WRR 7

..

..

,,

1'

2504

2S"o-|

WRR 8

Il

1,

,.

(1

2S_ o

25/0

11

|(

,,

62^

643 425S

25->4 2ft>-4 f f

,1

IO

WRR /OA
W Ri?

WRR 4 A

WR2 3
!

|
*

ilPO

W \ <

l{

WRR

w< / t

,,

.,

2 4 Z.--4

Il

2SO-3 2 5 0 - 6

j. : : _ .

"

63.

,.

2 5 / 2 ZSI-I

69

ISo S

6/7 4o_>9_

Z5

ISO

yo

;_79?-U-Z.S 6 ' 2 o

0
., ^L ..*. ->,}

141 o

1500

64

23 f o

no

II

(4o 23_
62/2

2 SI- 919-0

1,

2SO-8 2 5 6

.
.

69 3S23

. 4 9 43/5

,,

le-lu

ISO

,,

,,

W-I

il

"

'1

6 4 63/0

l>

,,

47

25.-.

il

1505

,.

/4<?3

,,

,.

4 S I Soll

.1

i1

II

1992 Iooo

II

2-0-

II

374

6-12

ISO

,,

37941 "

99 1 69

1<t-s 994

/<?>

2O

63

II

If

II

150

..

If

M
100

22 <

114 992 46 2 3 f 7

,,

f93[

4360 1197 1993 6 5 J

il

<3t<?

1997

2oo6

643 SOU I

; ? 9 2 faSj

5011 I

l5o.jJ66t

?
3717?.

'49/

1443 J 5 0 3 . ,

/4>s .MJI&M 375 7 I

~0

955

3S05.

19oUi/ az4(

,,

,1

995

994 6/9 2zi4-\

99 S

I9f

414

i
227 7
il

62-7

.,

W N R

360O

ISO

~
j

'1

4/5]

'

iso

636

2. S a 5

WRR 6

wxn

'1

250-9

"

li

,,
,.

I 9 H 1997 64/ 4918

II

(,4z 247

W Ri? S

loo

,,

ZSo-9 2S0

b S

4 6 0 1117 I9S7 6f5 413*

,,

250-5

43

'1

251 o

Zoo

\
11

..

ISO

..

'

4fy

4 3

99 4 992

4>7

22S3

,.

..

,.

qq's 997

420

2qz I

(S

22.S

..

,.

..

995 99s

0/

2X7.3 C

.,

..

993 993

429 2 5 2 3 ?

,,

qq-s

99

990

990 436 2l4o

<9 I M

3&00

'SO/

,.

/9

m-

.,

/?*

i"4 13S\

492 #4 3 3b IS

m3

..
'

II

Ll< J582
432

36(7C

14-0 65?. 3 t " 0

i 2 4:i9 3636
" ~ 1412

992 43 S

2i5/ f

s 3<oo / ^ S /v?2 629

f
j

II

Wz

So

So

i'

.,

.,

..

49 3 '-1

6 35

u . 11 ii

.,

. 2.

3SS2?

"
'

1'

,.

. '

'93

So C / . j

"

__'

6 7. 35" 2 . f

y4?a;/4926;39 343,
.

ABLE

BAbLO MEASURED
GAP(mm)

9/0

44 ,

_/-5

so3

43

4S

-5

441

4o

*__J-_

TT'5

4>5

L !_li_
__ __.

4-J

46*
b

3173

SCS

2400

497

JJM 1

; 54/

S4

3174

5os

2179

260

2728

4^9

4J9

2285

Soo

24os

li

2305

503

53

45-SI

3 4a

3 OS

447

4-t7

1975

4?

39J

______

4724.
_____

4-s J

IO

4_s

>
>

330

Ilio

/.49

Zoo

14 6? 1

!___..
352

;_4/

IL

/ls4 31$

2./5

>
s

i?_?/

446

//44>

2/0

q.qqv

Soi

452

zoz

45

3oj

-<o/

2sri

3b4

6_ >

35

>l-32y

3/8

45)

3/8

4*1

<l3i,

Soo

32.5

3/ 9o

100

/5S

>

29

6S

I4s

4(-h

ZS

2SZ

445

-2.52.

445

j /o/S

ioo

422

55 >

loi

/52

S5

Ibi

di.c

JP

3o8

45g

_.<?_

4?fc

t 979

$o?

/2

- 4

i4b

428

<?

1-T

4<s

'29

5 5

475

45

->0

4.3

23

_4-s_ 4s-2 4?'

_____

4?<:

44-

f-S"

__

45"

fS"

44

26

429

2S

___

^Y

;?c .

ZV

4so

i m < i i i l . j .

749

2011

44 4 i 44 4

i .*JL

-3-.

| 749

-_L S _.

4s

45

2S3

430

48S

5/-

4 36

.387

___-.

SOe

4s

253

430

o{

N/WS

SoS

45

4-s

267

N / m m"

4-s o 49

44

______

mm'

toi

45

44-5

N/mm

TENS SRACING

4*/

4R

45.

237

COMPR.BRACING

^ U

N/mm'

^Km)

CHORD

33

465

'rO

N/IT

L 0 A D 5 ( K N ) A N D MOMENTS

3/8

44-

+5

TENDON BRACING

'U

42 5

47 3

COMPR. BRACING

CHORO

Eccenul

mm

rS

ULTIMATE

DIMENSIONS

41
? I

* ~ ;

473

_?4

ST.

4S6

324

4 sc

gi

-_i_J.__2.
4 ^ f 4t4

4>4
3/4

s qG

47J

332

4-SU

473

34

4$b

473

332

4*6

332

4sX 3 / 4

33.

4-T6

332

4__ ; 4_4

<?___

______

45" 7

4:/

rs'

/5o

170

'l/JT

/435

>

373/

445

?o9/'

43.3

/029

22

4zo

___/_._

___
4

<0

.'( 35V

475

T5
Y

l-iQ

425

IZ-bl

ilo

;7 r

2i_
,$4
123

_____

i__^

6*c,W 5pfCiFl^^f"'on but" at?l<- ir fefrfKvT

iWW"S

TABLE

COKT

i'l.bjd.l

'TEST SPECIMEN

'u

" '"''

rt,.dj

oel<m.r.'.I

croCkin'''N2u

do

t>o

to

to

Type of failure

1 2u

i rcsp

2d0

d,.H,

2!>0

bi . 7

ho

_____
b0(d_) t_(d 0 )

2bg

{PURLIN

loM|%b_/Ni_,

LOAD

i
VR 1
!

1 9o

WRR 3

<72

WR&4

5o

r
WRR 7
WRR S

o
.
Wisp. /O
WAR

G4

393

0-144

02OS -2>

099 S o-nz.

[7o

>loo

64

390

0794

0/9

I 000 oIS?

270

91

loo

Gii

394

0595

099?.<7O2f

>ioo

> loo

G4

.,

391

OS95

0/93_ 0-/87

O9940 -02.-

/40

IOn

>/00

>/

72

WRS
'J KR

o-y.7

' '7 _. o.;/"74

Ibi

390

0593

OKO

.,

39]

0394

0/24 0/61

0998 0 / / 2

G2c

(l

SS- 9

399

0I92 o / ? 4

00 4 0 7 / 2

132

S4

it

_5S9

0397

02P0

0-2,^

1000

12'

22S

y/oo

G4

(l

393

0397

020/

o-iqo

l-oo 1 0 7 /

y/oo

G4

,,

392

0397

o-lo o / 2 7

oW

177/2

62 _

II

334

039.

o-nz

0-/8f

/ C5

0 . / . o

41

G4

3*6

0398

8 7

O-liz

/oo/

o//_

4/2.

o-ss

o-mi o-Hi

looo

002'

> 00

G4

loo

62_.

54

y/oo

55

loo

000\

-QZ<i

WiiQl -\2

CNIIW. Vu_u;J

_____

1
Ni. ^,c=_#0,*iN

F=3o4hN
'

94

/O A

11

" 1
r

12

41

y/DO

..
100
y "

loo

t4i

looo 0 / 6 0

Gi

I
I

28
2 6

_l70 / 4 4

> 100

40

to

0 799

I0O

>

49

WRR 6

389

>

64

____________________

(kN)

HI

WRR2

omments.

KK

WRR4A

WRR

i
j

WRR 14
WRR S

5>

!_

4S
40
5o

~~44

Ho

7>

?/..
?/>

ii

?_

y oo

ZD

G2 c

G4

G2c

G2,
G? c

o-syc

0-192 0-123

looo

0 020

/</.

4o-2.

0-S1S

497U17? ____6

.024

/<r0

4o-3

0595

(7/9/

<7S"95

0/93

4o-y

?2

I'0/93
05

_3|

0 496 OOI4

_<

00l4\2bi

ft*

^-~

TABLE 5 - c ^ r


eo

b /t
o o

N/mm2

N/mm2

lu
expt
kN

lu expt

457

445

.974

482

456

400

.877
(.83)

lum

lum

eo

(U=l)kN

kN

457

lum

WRR4A

.595

41.2

291

100

0.344

WRR17

.597

39.8

291

154

0.529

WRR18

.598

40.2

291

25

.086

1.0

474

4 74

440

.928

WRR7

0.394

39.8

260

75

.288

1.0

302

302

352

1.165

WRR17

0.399

39.8

291

154

.529

334

258

289

1.12
(.865)

WRR18

0.399

40.2

291

25

.086

328

328

330

1.006

Wardenier (2)

1.0
.946

.771

1.0

Mean Strenth Equation for RHS Gap Joints

lum = 0 eo bo -5 to1 5 (0.4 + 8.5) V2

Sn

91

sin -_

Eq. (1)

( ) but } 1.0 for chords in compression

o
eo
and = 1.0 for chords in tension

where = 1.3

TABLE 4

COMPA RISON OF 3D JOINT STRENGTH WITH TWO DIMENSIONAL JOINTS

3.21

PLATE 1

PLATE 2

Corby Universal Testing Rig.

:Two dimensional Warren joint in Universal Testinq

Pig,showing joint deflection gauges,and electrical
resistance strain gauges.

3.22

, O

FIG.l

Details of triangular truss testing arrangements used

(1)
by Redwood and Harris

;.23

(a) Through lattice girder

(b) Top chord joint with

bracing loads in the
same sense on each side
of the joint gap

(c) Top chord joint with

bracing loads in the
opposite sense on each
side of the joint gap

FIG. 2 : Three Dimensional Joint Considered

3.24

/
"
(a)

____
,
4 I

>ii+e5

V-

\
:___^

/
1~

POSITIVE
ECCENTRICITY

Minor Bracing
Connections

__.

ZERO
ECCENTRICITY

NEGATIVE
ECCENTRICITY'

Members in the Major P lane

(b)

Members

in the

Minor P lane

(c)

FIG.3 Dimensions of 3D Joints WRR-17 and 18 shown in testing position

3.25

1-5max

_-_J

____max

a=tyg_-2_X "
.
(a) Branch side wall fillet
weld

a = t-*\
(c) Branch heel fillet
weld

(b) Branch toe butt

weld

FIG.4 : Weld details

HYDRAULIC
JACKS

ELEVATION

HYDRAULIC
JACK

PLAN

FIG.5 : Corby Universal Testing Rig, set up for Three Dimensional

Joint

3.26

Members in the Major Plane

Members in the Minor Rane

FIG.6 : Arrangement of the deformation transducers on the bracings

3.2:

Minor Bracing
Connections

Members in the Major Plane

Members in the Minor Plane

FIG.7

Arrangement of strain gauges

3.28

4$. INWARD DEFORMATION

KEY:

OUTWARD DEFORMATION

X ^ ^
[_____

3D

__
j_

CHORD FACE CHORD FACE AND CHORD SHEAR

FAILURE
WALL FAILURE AROUND MODE OF
THE JOINT WITH OR FAILURE
WITHOUT CRACKS
|TYPE G

TYPE G] [TYPE G 2 ^

o o
CHORD FACE CHORD WALL
AND CHORD BUCKLING
WALL FAILURE
AROUND TENSION
BRACING

[TYPEG6I

________

|TYPEG7|

[TYPE G9|

D e s c r i p t i o n of two d i m e n s i o n J o i n t modes of

(a) Deformation

FIG.9

TYPE G 5 ^

[______] L ^ M

LOCAL
CHORD
BUCKUNG BUCKLING
COMPR.
BRACING
LEADING TO
BRACING
FAILURE

FIG.8

TYPE G3J

S__2____Z

CRACK LEADING
TO DIAGONAL
FAILURE

IN

failure

lmax

[b) Deformation

Possible load-deflection Curves

3.29

FRAHE NO. c 8)

LADDFFLECTION

COMPRESSION

(a)

BRACE

PATHS

TO

FAILURE

WRR

1:17:13

WRR

4:17:18

DFFLEC

ON

[V.b o :

Major Strut

FRAME No. < 8) L O A D D E F L E C T I O N

PATHS

TO F A I L U R E

LECEND
TO

WRR17
WRR1 S

SCALES
.ee

ABSCISS*:
1

ORDINATE:
1,11 ( 1111

sa

NOTES

TIE BRACE DEFLECTION

(b)

V<b0l

Major Tie

FIG.10 : Joint Load-Deflection Curves for Major Bracings ( = 0.6)

3.30

.eo
_1
es

|
152

FRAME No. <

> LOADDEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 4 : 1 7 : 1 8

COMPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION [V.b3

(c)

Major S t r u t

FRAME

No. c 8) LOAD~DEFLECT I ON PA THS TO FAILURE WRR 4:17:18

LEGEND
RR

URR.7
WRRI8

o
(D*

_
\
SCALES

<

ABSCISSA:

L t _ _ . _ , _

LU
U

ORDINATE:

.ae

C_

NOTES

TIE BRACE DEFLECTION [XbJ

(d)

Major T i e

FIG.10 (cont) : Non Dimensional Joint Load-Deflection Curves for

Major Bracings ( = 0.6)

3.31

FRAME NO. C 9)

LOADDEFLECTION

PATHS

TO

FAILURE

WRR

7:17:13
:GEND
WRR 7
HRRI?
wRBm

AQ.CIS'.A:

I.B

ORDINATE:

NOTES

COMPRESSION

BRACE DEFECTION

[V.b

(a) Minor S t r u t

FRAME NO. < 9) L O A D D E F L E C T I O N

PATHS

TO F A I L U R E

WRR

7:17:18
LEGEND
WRR

WRR17
WRR13

isa _

SCALES
.ee

ASSCMSA:

<

1
ORDINATE:

NOTES

TIE BRACE DEFLECTION

[V.o. I

(b) Minor Tie

FIG.11 : J o i n t LoadDeflection Curves for Minor B racings ( = 0.4)

3.32

.en

FRAME NO. (

> LOADDEFLECTION

PATHS

TO F A I L U R E

WRR 7 : 1 7 :
LEGEND
WRR 7
WRR17
WRR18

SCALES
ABSCISSA:
I,
e

I .80
I
:

ORDINATE:

i.ea
I

NOTES

COMPRESSION BRACE DEFLECTION tv.b-]

(c) Minor Strut

FRAME N o . (

9) LOADDEFLECTION PATHS TO FAILURE WRR 7 : 1 7 : 1 8

LEGEND
WRR 7

WRR17

WRR1S
O
7

tn
_> o
o

t.*

_
\

SCALES

Cl

i .ce

ABSCISSA:

<

e
LU

<_>
<

ORDINATE:

L_

ai
ai
I

/
__

NOTES

,
!

TIE BRACE DEFLECTION C"cb ]

(d) Minor Tie

FIG.11 (cont) : Non-Dimensional Joint Load-Deflection Curves for
Minor Bracings ( = 0.4)

3.33

I .C3

10

1
10A+
10 +

08

11
o

06

17

r&v

J_

/\*

17CU
18

/
LO

02
= 02

0-2

0-6

CU

0-8

10

(a) Based on maximum experimental load.

10

08

O
)
*

cO6
F

Vo-/

17 H

-i

&&____:17

li

__

10A
8
1 J?2f
^f94 K8' 13

(U

02

02

+12

04

06

08 o

10

(b) Based on Wardenier mean strength formula - EQ(1)

FIG.12 : Variation of Strut l%b0 deflection with Branch/Chord

width Ratio

3.34

FRAME NO.

< o

DISTRIBUTION OF MEMBER FORCES TO FA ILURE

WRRI7

POSITIVE SENSE OF
STRESS RESULTANTS

AXIAL LOA D DISTRIBUTION

UNADJUSTED

UNITS
CCRCES
nOIENTS
LENGTHS

(kN)
fkNnO
I)

SCALES
LOCAL ABSCISSA
__J
I
8
1 2

.10

I I
3 1

LOCAL ORDINATE
...SCALE c R O n
RANGE SHOWN

___,

NOTES
13W
47.0

^139
4720

9S22

J9S22

MiSERS IN HOPIZ. PLANE

!IIC
H0
3 1390
10

(a)

N2
1.3

Ml
60C

4720

1725

20 9522

3571

2002
40C4

Axial Forces for Major B racings

FRAME No. C O

DISTRIBUTION OF MEMBER FORCES TO FAILURE

WRR17

P O S I M I / . SEN16 C 5
STRESC RESULTANTS

AXIAL LOA D DISTRIBUTION

UNADJUSTED

UNITS
FORCES
riOi.NTS
LENS'HS

%:

Ck'i)
CkNtnl
(]

SCALES
LOCAL ABSCISSA

.IM

W ay
LOCAI. ORO I NATE
. . SCALE 01
KANCfj SHOWN

NOTE'.
-472-0

-052-2

ri

(b) Axial Forces for Minor Bracings

FIG.13 : Distribution of unadjusted member forces in
Three Dimensional Joint WRR17

7. -3.R

1350

052-2

SKEERS N VERT PLANE

INC

No

-139-0

LS-i

Ut

He

10 -472-C

150-2

-150-0

20 -952-2

30C4

-?0C4

-,,-s

FRAME No. < 3 >

DISTRIBUTION OF MEMBER FORCES TO FAILURE

WRR17

POSITIVE SENSE OF
STRESS RESULTA NTS

INPLANE BENDING MOMENT DISTRIBUTION

UNAOJUSTEO

'

V 5
UNITS
FORCES
nOHFNTS
LENGTHS

(kN)

[J

SCALES
'S,

N"/V

,'

lm umi _J

\ ;^
\
/

!3)

523

_
436 (101

B=TT.^...T

T39I3I

[2d)3989 " " " " "

t
3

.10 f

'
1

LOCAL O K D : N * I E
.
SCALE F R U I
RANSE SHOWN

263 (20

/ n o ) 1201
\

LOCAL AOSCISSA

NOTES
MEMBERS I N THE HOHIZ.
PLANE.
THE

IN-PLANE

5 AT

INTERSECTION AND

FI.ANCE AT LOAD INC 3.

10&30

(c) Moments in plane of Major Bracing

FRAME No . < 3 )

DISTRIBUTION! OF MEMBER FORCES TO FAILURE

.

WRRI7

F 0 S 1 T I V E SENSE CF
STRESS RESULTA NIS

IN-PLANE BENDING DISTRIBUTION

UNAOJOSIEO

V a , >

C V _,

ft-

UNITS
FORCES
5
LENGTHS

N>

[kN)
CkNr.)
[)

SCALES
LOCAL A OSCISSA

"'

*M*M_</ * \ \
<?
N
\

l__J
:

/
2327
(31 823

.rrr=rr.r^

^~-,""^
120)

L"'"'

6637 1 * " ^

1172 (70)
e . s ; oj
s-lb '31

LOCAL ORDINA TE
. . . S C * L E FRCn
RANGF SHOWN

^
/
N^

.10

1....1 i
z j

NOTES
.".EMBtPS !N THE VFRT.
."LANE. INPLA NE V \ A T
THE INTERSECTION A NP
FLANC; A T LCA O !NC 3.10

20

I
(d) Moments in plane of Minor Bracing
FIG.13 (cont) : Distribution of unadjusted member forces in
Three Dimensional Joint WRR17

3.36

FRAME No. < n

DISTRIBUTION! OF MEMBER FORCES TO FAILURE

WRR I 3

POSITIVE SENSE OF
STRESS RESULTANTS

AXIAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION

UNADJUSTED

UNITS
FORCES
ronENTS
LENGTHS

tkN)
CkN^j
Inj

SCALES
LOCAL ABSCISSA .18
2

\f/

/
/

LOCAL ORDINATE
. . .SCALE- FRCn
RANGE SHOWN

-1.5
-49-5

_- " . __
J -49-5

f~

-149-1

-147-1

NOTES
MEMBERS III HOKI PLANE
INC N n
5

M,

-I2-.

.6-7

-6CO

16 -49-5 161-7

-2C0-4

33 -149-1

-440-4

402-0

(a) Axial Forces in Major Bracings

FRAflE

No. <

i)

DISTRIBUTION! OF MEMBER FORCES TO FAILURE

WRR18

POS:

AXIAL

LOAD

:VE

STRESS

DISTRIBUTION

SENSE

OF

RESULTANTS

UNADJUSTED

\ /

//y

UNITS
FORCES
nOHCNTS
LENGTHS

?
(kN
CkNVj
tiJ

SCALES
LOCAL ABSCISSA

/S
\ M *
\ y

LOCAL OROTNATE
. . SCALE FROn
SANTE SHOWN

-12-5
-12-5
-4.9-5 f=__i___r--,T___^r:_f r w j

1495

(b) A xial Forces in Minor Bracings

FIG.14 : Distribution of unadjusted member forces in
Three Dimensional Joint WRR18

3.37

.13

1495

NOTES
MEM3ERS IN VERT PLANE
INC

N0

N6

Mj

125

450

453

16 495 1502

1500

33 1491 3308

33M

FRAME

No. < 3)

DISTRIBUTION! OF MEM3ER FORCES TO FAILURE

WRRIS

P O S H I V E SF NSE CrSTRESS RESULTANTS

IN-PLANE BENDING 101 DISTRIBUTION

UNADJUSTED

____,
UNITS'
FORCES
"OnfNT
LrNO THS

IkH]
[kN*J
[J

SCALES

LOCAL ABSCISSA
I

I
l

1
2

J
3

. if>

LOCAL ORD!N'E
. . SCALE F T O "
RANSE
iu'J,n

NOTES

'? K " ^ \ ' ^MCERS IN THE

899 (33!

mr 1

'

P. ANE. INPLANE DM AT
TlE INTERACTION AND
FI ANSE AT LOAD INC 5.
16 S 33

(c)

Moments i n plane of Major B racing

FRAME NO.

( 3)

DISTRIBUTION OF MEMBER FORCES TO FAILURE

WRR 1*6
T

P0S1 !V_ SENSE C'

STRESS RESULTANTS

[N-PLANE BENDING MOMENT DISTRIBUTION

UNAD.'USTEO
<_

UNITS

' te

FORCES
nC' 1 CN r s
LENGTHS

!kN)
(kN:
OO

SCALES
LOCA!. ABSCISS".

'S

. IH

s
LC. P'"'.*NATC
. . S C A L E KROn
R A N G E SHOW'

311 (16)

\M
151 V2
(16) 1386
(33) 46 55

0S9J5J...
223 (33)

pr
|
~~

NOTES
MEMBERS IN THE VERT.
KANE. INPLANE BM AT
THE INTERSECTION AMD
FLAN.E AT LOA C HC 5,
16 S. 33

(d) Moments in plane of Minor Bracing

FIG.14 (cont) : Distribution of unadjusted member forces in
Three Dimensional Joint WRR18

3.38

Commission of European Communities

Technical Steel Research

Final Project Report

DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF WELDED

JOINTS BETWEEN STEEL STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS OR
BETWEEN STEEL STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS AND H SECTIONS

PART 4:

STRENGTH OF AND X JOINTS IN CHS

A.STAMENKOVIC
K.D.SPARROW

Kingston Polytechnic
K ings ton-upon-ZThame s
SURREY KT2 6LQ

ECSC Agreement No:

7210.SA/814

December 1983

Research carried out with the financial aid of the European Coal and
Steel Community and the Science and Engineering Research Council

CONTENTS - PART 4

PAGE

SYMBOLS
1.

INTRODUCTION

4.1

2.

DETAILS OF TEST SPECIMENS

4.2.

2.1. Material Properties

2.2. Geometric Properties

4.2.

2.3. Instrumentation

4.2.

3.

TEST RIG AND TESTING PROCEDURE

4.3.

4.

TEST RESULTS

4.4.

4.1.
4.2.

5.

General Description of the Specimen Behaviour under load

Individual Test Results
4.2.1. T-Joints

4.4.
4.2.
4.5.

4.2.2.

4.6.

X-Joints

COMPARISON OF TEST RESULTS WITH OTHER PROGRAMMES

4.9.

5.1. T- and Y-joints

4.9.

5.1.1. Axial load

4.9.
5.1.1.1. Existing Design Formulae
4.10
(i) Kurobane's Formula (16)
4.10
(ii) CIDECT Monograph No.6 Formula (22) for T- and -4.10
Joints under Axial Compression Load.
5.1.2. In-plane Moment
4.11
5.1.2.1. General
5.1.2.2. Existing Design Formulae
(i) Gibstein's Formula (18)
(ii) Kurobane's Formula (16)
(iii) Yura's Formula
(17)
(iv) Tebbett's Formula (25)

4.11
4.11

5.1.2.3. Analysis
5.1.2.4. Proposed Strength Formula

4.13
4.13

5.1.3.

Proposed Axial Load and In-plane Moment Interaction

Formula

4.14
4.14

5.2. X-joints
5.2.1. Axial Load
5.2.1.1.
5.2.1.2.
(i)
(ii)

4.14

General
Existing Design Formulae
Kurobane's Formula (16)
CIDECT Monograph No.6 (22)

4
4
4

5.2.2. In-plane Moment

5.2.2.1.
5.2.2.2.
5.2.2.3.

15
15
4 15
15
-15

General
Analysis
Proposed Strength Formula

4a

-l5

416
4

1 6

5.2.3. Proposed Axial Loads and In-plane Moments Interaction

Formula

6.

DESIGN

7.

CONCLUSIONS
7.1. Characteristic Strength under predominantly axial compression
Load: Proposed Formulae.

7.2.

7.3.

7.1.1.

T- and Y-joints.

7.1.2.

X-joints

Characteristic Strength under in-plane Moment: Proposed Formulae

7.2.1.

T- and Y-joints

7.2.2.

X-joints.

Proposed Axial Loads and in-plane Moments Interaction Formulae

7.3.1.
7.3.2.

T- and Y-joints
X-joints.

8.

FUTURE RESEARCH

9.

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.

TABLES
FIGURES
PLATES

4b

TABLE DES MATIERES - *,PARTIE

Symboles
1.

INTRODUCTION

2.

PRECISIONS SUR LES EPROUVETTES

2.1
2.2
2.3

Proprits des matires

Proprits gomtriques
Instruments

3.

MONTAGE D'ESSAI ET MODE OPERATOIRE

4.

RESULTATS DES ESSAIS

4.1
4.2

5.

Description gnrale du comportement des prouvettes en

charge
Rsultats des essais individuels
4.2.1

Assemblages en T simple

4.2.2

Assemblages en T double

COMPARAISON DES RESULTATS DES ESSAIS ET D'AUTRES PROGRAMMES

5.1

Assemblages en T simple et en Y.
5.1.1. Charge axiale
5.1.1.1. Formules existantes pour les calculs
(i) Formule de Kurobane (3 6)
(ii) Monographie CIDECT Formule No. 6 (22) pour les
assemblages en T simple et Y travaillant en
compression axiale
5.1.2.

Moment dans un systme plan

5.1.2.1.
Gnralits
5.1.2.2.
Formules existantes pour les calculs
(i)
Formule de Gibstein (18)
(ii)
Formule de Kurobane (16)
(iii)
Formule de Yura
(17)
(iv)
Formule de Tebbett (25)
5.1,2.3

Analyse

5.1.2.4.

Formule de rsistance propose

5.1.3 Formule propose d'effet rciproque entre charge axiale

et moment d'un systme plan
5.2

Assemblages en T double
5.2.1

Charge axiale

5.2.1.1.
5.2.1.2
(i)
(ii)
5.2.2

Gnralits
Formules existantes pour les calculs
Formule de Kurobane (16)
Monographie CIDECT No.6 (22)

Moment d'un systme plan

5.2.2.1

Gnralits

5.2.2.2.
5.2.2.3.

Analyse
Formule de rsistance propose

4c

5.2.3.
6.

DESIGN

7.

CONCLUSIONS
7.1

Rsistance caractristique pour une charge principalement de

compression axiale. Formule propose.
7.1.1.
7.1.2

7.2

Assemblages en T simple et en Y.
Assemblages en T double

Rsistance caractristique pour un moment de systme plan:

formules proposes
7.2.1
7.2.2.

7.3

Formule propose d'effet rciproque entre charges

axiales et moments d'un systme plan

Assemblages en T simple et en Y
Assemblages en T double

Formules proposes pour effet rciproque de charges axiales

et moments d'un systme plan
7.3.1
7.3.2.

Assemblages en T simple et en Y
Assemblages en T double

8.

RECHERCHES FUTURES

9.

REFERENCES ET BIBLIOGRAPHIE
TABLEAUX
FIGURES
PHOTOGRAPHIES

4d

TIIALTSWRZEICHNIS TEIL LL
SYMBOLE

1.

Einfhrung

2.

Nhere Angaben ber die Probestcke

2.1
2.2

Verkstoffeigenschaften
Geometrische Eigenschaften

2.3

Megerte

3.

Prf Vorrichtung und PrfverfaJiren

LL.

Prfergebnisse
ii.1 Allgemeine B eschreibung des Verhaltens der Yerbindung u n t e r Last
Li. 2 Einzelne Prfe rgebnis se
It. 2.1
ii. 2.2

0.

TVerbindunge n
XYerbindungen

Vergleich der Prfergebnisse mit anderen Programmen

$.1

T und YYerbindungen
$.1.1

Lngsbelastung
$.1.1.1.

$.1.2

$.1.3
$.2

Vorliegende KonstruktionsformeIn
a.) Kurobane s che
Formel (16)
b) CIIECT Monograph Nr. 6 Formel (22) fr T und
XVerbindungen u n t e r Lngs druckbe l a s tung

In e i n e r Ebene wirkende Momente

$.1.2.1
$.1.2.2

Allgemeines
Vorliegende Konstruktionsformeln
a) Gibsteinsche Formal (181
b) Kurobanesche Formel (16
c) Yurasche Formel
(17
d) Tebbettsche Formal (2$,

$.1.2.3
$.1.2.ii

Auswertung
Vorschlag e i n e r Formel fr die F e s t i g k e i t

Vorschlag e i n e r Formel fr die Wechselwirkung zwischen

Lngsbelastung und i n e i n e r Ebene wirkenden Moment

XVerbindungen
$.2.1

Lngsbelastung
$.2.1.1 A llgeme ine s
$.2.1.2 Vorliegende Konstruktionsformeln
a) Kurobanesche Formel
b) CIIECT Monograph Nr. 6

4e

$.2.2

In einer Ebene wirkendes Moment

$.2.2.1
$.2.2.2
$.2.2.3

$.2.3

Allgemeines
Auswertung
Vorschlag einer Formel fr die Festigkeit

Vorschlag einer Formel fr die Wechselwirkung zwischen

Lngsbelastung und in einer Ebene wirkendem Moment

6. Konstrukt ion
7.

Schlufolgerungen

7.1

C h a r a k t e r i s t i s c h e F e s t i g k e i t u n t e r vorwiegend a x i a l e r Druckbelastung:
Vorschlag fr Formeln
7.1.1
7.1.2

7.2

C h a r a k t e r i s t i s c h e F e s t i g k e i t u n t e r i n e i n e r Ebene wirkendem Moment:

Vorschlag fr Formeln
7.2.1
7.2.2

7.3

T- und Y-Verbindungen
X-Verbindungen

T- und Y-Verbindungen
X-Verbindungen

Vorschlag von Formeln fr die Wechselwirkung zwischen Lngsbelastung

und i n e i n e r Ebene wirkendem Moment
7.3.1
7.3.2

T- und Y-Verbindungen
X-Verbindungen

8.

Zuknftige Forschungsarbeiten

9.

L i t e r a t u r und B i b l i o g r a p h i e
Tabellen
Abbildungen
Phot o graphien

4f

2.

SYMBOLS

A_

cross-sectional area (mm2 ) of brace (or branch member)

cross-sectional area (mm2 ) of chord

in-plane moment in joint (kNm) = Q -a

Mp.

plastic moment of resistance of brace (kNm)

Mu

ultimate in-plane moment in joint (kNm) = Qu..a

Muk

characteristic in-plane moment strength of the joint

Mum

mean in-plane moment strength of the joint.

Nu

calculated ultimate axial load strength of the joint

Nuk

characteristic axial load strength of the joint

Num

mean ultimate axial load strength of the joint

Nup

punching shear strength of the joint

axial load on brace (kN)

Pu

measured ultimate axial load on brace (kN)

in-plane lateral load on brace (kN)

Qu

measured ultimate in-plane lateral load on brace (kN)

S1

plastic modulus of brace (mm3 )

dx

diameter of brace (mm)

do

diameter of chord (mm)

la.

lever arm measured from the point of application of the in-plane

lateral load Q to the top surface of chord (m)

total length of the chord of the specimen

standard deviation

t^

wall thickness of brace (mm)

to

wall thickness of chord (mm)

dl/do (beta)

do/2to (gamma)

lateral displacement of the brace (mm)

eel

material yield stress in brace (N/mm2) at 0.5% total elongation

oeo

material yield stress in chord (N/mm2) at 0.5% total elongation

oeok

characteristic value of the yield stress of the chord (N/mm2)

oeom

mean value of the yield stress of the chord

aul

material ultimate stress in brace (N/mm2 )

auo

material ultimate stress in chord (N/mm2 )

CHS

circular hollow section

TCC

T-joint specimen in CHS

XCC

X-joint specimen in CHS

angle between brace and chord

ym

material safety factor

yc

joint safety factor.

4g

(N/mm2)

1 . INTRODUCTION
Steel circular hollow sections (CHS) are extensively used in structures
ranging from factory buildings and simple trusses to complex space frames
and offshore structures. This is mainly due to the inherent advantages over
other sections offered by their shape, such as superior strength-to-weight
ratio and lower resistance to wind and wave forces. One of the difficulties
encountered in practice, however, has been a lack of thorough understanding
of load transfer in CHS joints and of their strength under different
geometric configurations and types of loading.
The most common connection in CHS members are , , , N and K-joints
(Fig.l-).
It had been found previously from extensive experimental
investigation that the effect of the geometric configuration on the static
strength of CHS joints is best described by means of joint parameters dl/do,
do/to and tl/to , where do, dl and to, tl are respectively the diameters and
the thicknesses of the chord and the brace. Other parameters which may
affect the joint strength are the gap between the braces in K-joints, the
angle between the brace and the chord, and the magnitude of the axial force
in the chord. Most of the available design formulae described in references
(1 - 31) are based upon these joint parameters.
The majority of the tests on CHS joints in the past fifteen years have
investigated the effect of axial forces on their ultimate strength.
However, since the members are joined by welding, the load transfer often
includes, besides axial forces, in-plane and out-of-plane moments. Very few
tests have studied the effect of moments on the ultimate strength of CHS
joints, and until the authors' previous work (13, 20), no data at all
existed for the load interaction between the axial force and moment.
Two of the most common connections in tubular structures are the T- and
X-joints dealt with here. Considerable stress concentrations occur in these
welded joints. As the load is increased the material yields locally and
redistribution of the stress takes place, until plastic deformations become
excessive and the deflections increase under constant or decreasing load.
Failure in these circumstances is defined by the maximum axial load in the
brace and is called the ultimate strength of the joint. In some cases,
depending on the stiffness of the connection, cracking may occur in the
chord face at brace periphery or in the weld before the complete deformation
pattern has been developed.
Other failure criteria may also be adopted for defining the ultimate
strength of CHS joints, such as excessive deformation limit or the load
associated with first crack (tensile load in the brace). When selecting the
ultimate strength data from the test results there can be some uncertainty
as to the actual ultimate load, especially when more than one peak load is
observed or when failure occurs by a combination of different modes of
failure as in the case of combined axial force and moment.
Previously, in assessing the ultimate strength of CHS joints under
axial loads, predominantly experimental results from small-scale specimens
have been used. For T- and X-joints simplified mathematical models have
been developed (11), such as punching shear and ring model.
It was considered that sufficient test evidence existed for T- and
X-joints loaded in axial compression and the aim of the present
investigation has been
(a)

to study experimentally
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

the effect of the in-plane moment on their ultimate strength

the interaction between axial force and in-plane moment
the effect of specimen size on their behaviour and strength,

4.1

and
(b)

to develop recommendations for the design of T- and X-joints under

(i)
(ii)

2.

in-plane moments, and

combined axial load and in-plane moment.

DETAILS OF TEST SPECIMENS

Details of all specimens and materials tested in this programme are given in
Tables 1 to 3 and Figures 2 to 7.
2.1.

Material Properties

All the test specimens were supplied and manufactured by the Tubes
Division of the British Steel Corporation who also supplied the material.
Welding was carried out under normal conditions and fillet or fillet-butt
welds were used as specified in BS449: Pt2: 1969(26). All specimens were
welded with a welding current of 180-200 amps and a voltage of 45 volts D.C.
The welds were not X-ray tested; however, visual checks on the quality of
the weld were made before testing and when the specimens were cut after
testing.
For the present investigation hot-rolled circular hollow sections were
in mild steel to BS 4360: 1979 Grade 43C (27) (Euronorm 25-72 Grade Fe 430C)
with a 275 N/mm2 minimum specified yield stress, manufactured from the
standard range of BSC sections produced to the requirements of BS 4848: Pt
2: 1975 (28). The yield and ultimate strength and the percentage elongation
on 5.65 /S were obtained from tensile coupons cut from the same length of
section from which the specimens were made and tested according to BS 18: Pt
4: 1971 (29) (Table 3 ) . These tests were undertaken at the Tubes Division
Research Centre.
2.2.

Geometric Properties

Figures 2 to 6 show details of the specimens while Tables 1 and 2 give

the nominal dimensions for the diameter and thickness of the chord and
brace, and values of the joint parameters dl/do and do/to respectively for
T- and X-joints. Measured dimensions are given in Tables 3.
Tests TCC- 8 and 9 were carried out on T-joint specimens similar to the
earlier tests carried out at Kingston Polytechnic (13). Specimen details
are given in Fig.7 and Tables 1 and 3.
The range of values of joint parameters in all the specimens is
summarised as follows:dl/do
do/to
tl/to
2.3.

=
=
=

0.42 to 1.0
18 to 43
0.50 to 1.39

Instrumentations

Load cells were used for reading the magnitude of all applied loads
(Figs.8 to 10).
Dial gauges were used to measure relative deflection of the chord and
brace and any rigid body movement of the specimens (Figs. 11 and 12).

4.2

Linear electrical resistance strain gauges (TML type PLS-10) were used
to provide data to determine the axial loads and bending moments in the
members. The strain gauge positions are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. Within
the limits of the size of the specimens strain gauges were positioned so as
to eliminate as far as possible local effects from the joint itself or the
ends of the members. More extensive strain gauging was used on specimens
TCC- 8 and 9 to give additional information for use with a large deformation
elasto-plastic finite element analysis (14).
Photographs were taken of most specimens after testing, after which all
specimes were sectioned and photographs taken of the deformed profile. The
large-scale specimens were whitewashed before testing to facilitate the
visual observation of local yielding by flaking.
3.

TEST RIG AND TESTING PROCEDURE

Details of the test arrangements are shown in Figs.8 tolO and in Plates
1 and 2 and 3 to 5 for the Kingston and BSC test rigs respectively.
The BSC rig (Fig.10), used for large-scale T- and X-joints, is bolted
on to a strong floor and consists of two ribbed steel plates with profiled
timber pieces between the two upstand plates, placed at the support points
of the chord (Plate 5 ) . The horizontal tension jack is positioned between
the brace and a separate stiffened steel plate fixed into the strong floor
(Plate 3 ) .
The Kingston rig, used for small-scale T- and X-joints, consists of a
closed rectangular steel frame fixed on to the strong floor (Figs.13 and
14). The horizontal axial and in-plane lateral loads are applied to the
brace by jacking off the rig side members. A device slotted inside the end
of the brace (an insert machined to have a tight fit) enabled ball and
socket joints to be used at both ends of the axial jack and at the brace end
of the lateral load jack, as shown in Figs. 7 and 8: this made it possible
to overcome difficulties in loading caused by the rotation of the brace in
combined load tests.
All loads were applied in increments of approximately l/10th of the
estimated failure loads.
In tests with in-plane moment only (denoted by Mu in Table 7 ) , a
lateral load (Q) was applied to the end of the brace and the ultimate moment
(Mu) obtained as the product of the maximum lateral load (Qu) and the lever
arm (la) measured to the outer chord surface (Figs. 8 to 10). (N.B. Bending
moments from a structural analysis are usually calculated at the chord
centre line).
In tests with combined axial load (P) and in-plane lateral load (Q),
first the full amount of the chosen lateral load was applied and then the
axial load: the design of the rig prevented the use of other loading
sequences. Lateral load was applied for a fixed M/Mu ratio, that is, a
predetermined fraction of the ultimate moment Mu (Table 7 ) . In order to plot
an interaction curve, a number of tests (usually four to six) were carried
out for different (but fixed) values of M/Mu, one test was carried out for
the axial load only (Pu) and one test for the in-plane moment only (Mu) ;
the last two tests were used for calculating non-dimensional i sed values of
P/Pu and M/Mu (also providing a point on the coordinate vertical and
horizontal axes). In applying the lateral load first, a lateral
displacement ( > ) was imposed on the brace. In order that no additional
eccentric moment ( 6 ) is introduced when axial load (P) is applied, the

4.3

axial jack was first aligned with the deflected brace to minimise any
eccentric loading. The alignment was easily carried out because of the
provision of ball and socket joints at both ends of the axial jack; this
was readily verified by applying small trial loads (P) and adjusted as
necessary. Axial load was then applied while the position of the lateral
jack was maintained.
At each load increment measurements were taken of the lateral
deflections of the brace and of the strains in the brace and the chord; the
latter made it possible to calculate the axial loads and bending moments in
the members and check equilibrium. The readings were also taken after
failure and unloading of the joint. The mode of failure of the joint and
any cracks were recorded.
A computer program was written to process the results and to plot
load-deflection and strain curves up to failure. These results are shown in
Appendices 5 and 6. A comparison of values of the lateral load measured by
means of load cells and strain gauges was also made.
4.

TEST RESULTS
4.1.

General Description of the Specimen Behaviour under Load

T- and X-joints in CHS members are subject to stress concentration due

to the non-uniform stiffness of the chord surface. Possible modes of
failure, dependent upon the type of joint, joint parameters and the type of
loading (compressive or tensile axial load, in-plane moment) are indicated
in Figure 15.
In specimens under in-plane moment and with larger beta ratios ( > 0.65),
the increasing moment at the joint causes local deformation of the chord:
the chord deflects inwards in the crown region on the compression side of
the bracing and outwards on the tension side; this is accompanied by the
outwards and inwards bulging of the saddle region of the joint, as shown in
Plate 6. The first local yielding occurs at the weld toe-chord intersection
on the compression side of the brace and spreads from the crown region
towards the saddle region.
In previous Kingston Polytechnic tests on axially loaded T-joints (13)
with beta ratios very close to 1.0, the failure is usually asociated with
member strength but for other beta ratios chord deformation is usually the
cause of failure, (Plate 7 ) . Initial local yielding of the joint occurs at
the weld toe-chord intersection at the saddle point (Plate 8 ) . The two
failure modes are nearly independent of each other in the case of combined
axial loads and in-plane moments (Plates 9 and 10).
In specimens under in-plane moment, and with small beta ratios failure
by bending of the brace normally occurs and if a thinner brace section is
used failure may occur by localised buckling of the brace on the compression
face close to the intersection with the chord.
4.2.

Individual Test Results

Geometric, materials and test results for all T- and X-joint

specimens are in Tables 1 to 7.
Deflections, strains, and comparison between loads obtained by
load cells and calculated from strain gauge readings are given in
Appendices 5, 6 and 7 respectively: the former are shown
diagramatically, the last in a tabular form (not part of this report
but can be inspected).

4.4

4.2.1.

T-JOINTS

Specimens TCC-1 to 7 are large scale specimens, tested at BSC Corby;

they were whitewashed around the brace-chord intersection to make visual
observation of yielding possible. No weld failure occurred, excepting
specimen TCC-4.
Specimens TCC-8 and 9 and the earlier 104 tests (13) are small-scale
specimens, tested at Kingston Polytechnic.
TEST TCC-1:
Mu only (Plates 11 and 12)
Beta = 0.8; do/to = 22
First yield occurred at a lateral load Q = 105 kN and yielding in the chord
spread from the crown (compression side) to saddle at Q = 125 kN. The test
was stopped at 150 kN, while the maximum load of the load cell (200 kN) was
checked and the test was then continued. The first crack appeared at
Q = 165kN and the recorded ultimate load was 178 kN. The test was
subsequently continued with increasing ram travel, and reducing load, so
that the crack which appeared at Q = 165 kN on the tension side of the
brace-chord intersection opened up more and could be examined more easily
(Plate 11). Pre-load tests showed a 7.8 per cent difference between loads
obtained from the load cell and the strain gauge readings. The maximum
difference during the test, recorded on strain gauges 2 and 4, was
respectively 5 and 8 per cent at Q = 147 kN. Deflection readings of the
tip of the brace (dial gauge 3B) were discontinued at a load Q = 150 kN.
TEST TCC-2:
Beta = 0.80;

Mu only (Plate 13).

do/to = 34

The first yield occurred at a lateral load Q = 50 kN on the compression toe

in the chord adjacent to the weld. Yielding rapidly spread from the crown
to the saddle at Q = 55 kN. At Q = 74 kN a crack appeared in the chord
adjacent to the weld half way between the crown and the saddle. Yielding in
the compression face of the brace occurred at Q = 77 kN. The recorded
ultimate load was 82 kN. Plate 9 shows the deformation of the chord at this
load.
A very good agreement between loads obtained from the load cell and the
strain gauge readings were obtained. The deflection readings of the tip of
the brace (dial gauge 3B) were discontinued at a load Q = 75kN.
TEST TCC-3: Mu only (Plate 14).
Beta = 0.80; do/to= 43
The first yield occurred at Q = 30 kN in the chord on the compression side
of the brace, adjacent to the weld; extensive yielding in the chord
occurred at Q = 50 kN. The recorded ultimate load was 63 kN.
TEST TCC-4: Mu only (Plates 15 to 17).
Beta = 0.42; do/to = 22
At a load Q = 30 kN the tension side of the brace sheared from the weld and
a crack 1.5 mm wide appeared. The maximum recorded ultimate load, however,
was Qu = 69 kN. This was the only specimen in which the weld may have
contributed to the failure. Failure occurred by the tension side of the
bracing shearing away from the weld, as shown in Plates 16 and 17.
TEST TCC-5: Mu only (Plates 18 to 20).
Beta = 0.42; do/to = 34
The first yield occurred at Q = 25 kN at the compression toe; at Q = 35 kN
yielding occurred at the tension toe in the chord adjacent to the weld. A
noticeable pushing in of the compression chord face and pushing out of the
tension face was observed at Q = 32.5 kN. The maximum recorded ultimate
load was Qu = 40.5 kN.

4.5

TEST TCC-6: Mu only (Plates 21 and 22).

Beta = 0.42; do/to = 43
The first yield occurred at Q = 15 kN at the compression toe in the chord
and yielding spread at Q = 17 kN from the crown to the saddle. At Q= 26 kN
a 5 mm long crack appeared in the chord at the weld toe on the tension side
of the brace. A loud bang was heard at Q = 31.5 kN and the maximum recorded
ultimate load was Qu = 33.3 kN.
TEST TCC-7: Mu only (Plate 23).
Beta = 0.45;
The first yield occurred at Q = 8 kN at the compression toe in the chord and
yielding spread at Q = 10 kN from the crown to the saddle. At Q = 12.75 kN
yielding spread to the tension toe of the brace and the chord just outside
the weld. The maximum recorded ultimate load was Q = 13.5 kN.
TEST TCC-8:
Beta = 1.0;

Pu only (Plate 24).

do/to = 23

This specimen was subjected to an axial load on the brace only. The chord
length to diameter ratio 2L/do of 5.25 (= 2 300/114.3) was made
appreciably smaller than 7.17 (= 2 409.75/114.3) in earlier Kingston tests
(13). The recorded ultimate load was Pu = 220 kN for _el = 319 N/mm2 (see R
series' tests in (13) where for the same beta and gamma ratios Pu = 240 kN
and oel = 335 N/mm2 , as shown in Tables 5 to 7 ) , and the failure occurred
by excessive chord deformations. Extensive strain gauging was used on this
specimen for the purpose of comparing strains and stresses with those
obtained by a large deformation elasto-plastic finite element analysis (14).
TEST TCC-9: Pu only (Plate 25).
Beta = 0.67; do/to = 23
In this specimen the 2L/do ratio was 4.90 (= 2 280/114.3) and the recorded
ultimate load Pu = 153 kN for oel = 354 N/mm2 (see J series' tests in (13)
where for the same beta and gamma ratios, but for tl = 4.5 mm instead of 5.0
mm, Pu = 160 kN and oel = 330 N/mm2, as shown in Tables 5 to 7 ) .
4.2.2.

X-JOINTS

XCC-1 to 12 are small-scale specimens corresponding to T-joint

specimens in earlier Kingston tests (Tables 5 to 7;
also Ref.13), with a
wide range of beta ratios and do/to ratios of 18, 23 and 32. The do was
kept constant at 114.3 mm while to was varied. All these specimens were
subjected to in-plane moment only.
XCC-15 to 18 are small-scale specimens subjected to combined axial load (P)
and in-plane moment (M) to determine the load interaction.
XCC-13 and 14 are large-scale specimens corresponding to TCC-3 and 6
specimens respectively, with do/to ratios of 43 and beta of 0.8 and 0.42.
Both specimens were subjected to in-plane moment only due to the
lateral load on the braces. Results of these two tests are presented first.
In all specimens where only moments were applied, lateral loads were applied
simultaneously to both braces.
TEST XCC-13:
Beta = 0.80;

Mu only (Plates 26 to 28)

do/to = 43

The first yield occurred at Q = 30 kN in both braces, at the compression toe

half-way between the crown and the saddle; at Q = 55 kN extensive yielding
occurred at the crown and spread around the braces. The recorded ultimate
load was Qu = 57.5 kN. Loads measured in both braces were the same. Brace
tip deflections were identical at Q = 55 kN.

4.6

TEST XCC-14:
Beta = 0.42;

Mu only (Plates 4, 29 and 30)

do/to = 43

The first yield occurred at Q = 20 kN at the compression toe of the brace 1

(with dial gauges 4, 5 and 6) and at Q = 22.5 kN in the brace 2. At Q = 29
kN first yield occurred at the tension toes. The recorded ultimate load was
Qu = 30.4 kN. Loads measured in both braces differed by up to 12 per cent.
Brace tip deflections showed slight differences in this test.
TEST XCC-1: Mu only (Plates 31 and 32)
Beta = 1.0 ; do/to = 32
The joint failed due to local deformation of the chord between the
branch members at a load Qu = 35 kN. There appeared to be no visible
bending or localised buckling of the braces near or at the failure load.
TEST XCC-2: Mu only (Plates 33 and 34)
Beta = 0.77; do/to = 32
The joint failed due to local deformation of the chord between the
braces, at a load Qu = 21.8 kN. No deformation of braces was seen.
TEST XCC-3; Mu only (Plate 35)
Beta = 0.53; do/to = 32
The joint failed due to local deformation of the chord between the braces at
a load Qu = 11.2 kN. No deformation of braces was seen.
TEST XCC-4: Mu only (Plate 36)
Beta = 0.42; do/to = 32
Load was applied simultaneously to both braces until a load Q = 5.77 kN was
reached. At this point the load in brace 2 began to lag behind the load
in brace 1 by approximately 3% until failure occurred in the chord adjacent
to brace 1, at a load Qu = 7.6 kN. No deformations were observed in the
braces.
TEST XCC-5:
Beta = 1.0;

Mu only (Plates 31 and 32)

do/to = 23

Failure occurred due to deformation of the chord between the braces at a

load Qu = 51.4 kN.
It was noted during the test that although no
deformations occurred in the braces, brace 1 deflected more for each load
increment" until failure occurred in the chord adjacent to brace 1.
TEST XCC-6: Mu only (Plates 33 and 34)
Beta = 0.77; do/to = 23
It was noted at the beginning of this test that the weld around brace 1
appeared to have a crack in it. Failure occurred due to deformation of the
chord between the braces. During this test the deformation appeared to be
more excessive than in previous tests. Failure occurred at a load Qu = 32.5
kN. The crack noted at the beginning of this test did not appear to get any
larger nor did it appear to affect the eventual result.

4.7

TEST XCC-7: Mu only (Plate 35)

Beta = 0.53; do/to = 23
Failure occurred due to deformation of the chord between the braces at a
load Qu = 16.4 kN. It was noted that after a load of 4.92 kN had been
applied to both braces the moment in brace 2 was greater at each load
increment by approximately 4% until eventual failure.
TEST XCC-8: Mu only (Plate 36)
Beta = 0.42; do/to = 23
Failure occurred due to deformation of the chord member between the braces
at a load Qu = 10.4 kN. It was noted that brace 1 deflected more than brace
2 at all times during the test until eventual failure occurred in the chord
adjacent to brace 1.
TEST XCC-9:
Beta = 1.0;

Mu only (Plates 31, 32, and 37,38)

do/to = 18

Failure occurred at a load Qu = 69kN. During the test, as the eventual

failure load was nearing, it was noticed that the weld began to tear in the
tension zone of brace 1. Failure, however, was in fact due to weld failure
in the tension zone of brace 2, where a large crack appeared.
TEST XCC-10:
Beta = 0.77;

Mu only (Plates 33 and 34)

do/to = 18

Failure occurred due to deformation of the chord at a load Qu = 40.9 kN. It

was noticed during the test that brace 1 appeared to yield first with some
apparent localised buckling in the compression face of this brace close to
the joint. The ultimate Qu load was taken to obtain Mu values used to form
M/Mu ratios for plotting the interaction diagram, (see tests XCC-15 to 18).
TEST XCC-11:
Beta = 0.53;

Mu only (Plate 35)

do/to = 18

Failure occurred at a load Qu = 21,6 kN. It was not completely clear which
was the mode of failure since both the chord between the braces and also the
compression faces of the braces close to the joint deformed. At such small
lateral loads local deformations are never very large and therefore
decisions as to mode of failure are difficult to make.
TEST XCC-12:
Beta = 0.42;

Mu only (Plates 2 and 36)

do/to = 18

Failure occurred at a load Qu = 11.9 kN and appeared to be due to the

localised buckling of the brace 1.
TEST XCC-15:

M/Mu = 0.67 (Plate 39 and 40): Interaction Test

Beta = 0.77;

do/to = 18; Ql = 26.80kN; Q2 = 30.00 kN; PI = 61.92kN;

P2 = 50.75kN (Pu = 154. 8kN :XCC-18; Qu = 40 .OkN .-XCC-10 )

The moment ratio for the weaker brace reached the imposed load of M/Mu
0.67. The other brace had corresponding ratio of 0.75.

It can be seen from the deflection graph (Appendix 5) and the plot of v. Q
load (Fig.16) that the moment loads started to fall at P/Pu ratios of 0.4
and 0.25 respectively for M/Mu = 0.67 and 0.75. No visual phenomena were
noted during this test at failure.

4.8

TEST XCC-16:

M/Mu = 0.5 (Plates 39 and 40): Interaction Test

Beta 0.77;do/to = 18; Ql = 17.20kN;

P2 = 65.02kN.

Q2 = 20.00kN; PI = 75.85kN;

It can be seen from the plot of v. Q (Fig.17) that the moment loads
started to fall at P/Pu ratios of 0.49 and 0.42 respectively
for M/Mu = 0.43 and 0.50. No visual failure phenomena were noted during
this test.
TEST XCC-17:

M/Mu = 0.75 (Plates 39 and 40): Interaction Test

Beta = 0.77; do/to = 18; Ql = 30.00kN; Q2 = 32.40kN; PI = 54.18kN;

P2 = 44.89kN.
It can be seen from the plot of v. Q (Fig.18) that the moment loads
started to fall significantly at P/Pu ratios of 0.35 and 0.29 respectively
for M/Mu = 0.75 and 0.81. No visual failure phenomena were noted.
TEST XCC-18:
Beta = 0.77;

M/Mu = 0.25 (Plates 39 and 40): Interaction Test

also Pu only (Pu = 154.8 kN)
do/to = 18; Ql = lO.OOkN; Q2 = 12.40kN; PI = 114.55kN
P2 = 103.72kN.

Figure 19 shows that the moment loads appear to start to fall more
appreciably at P/Pu ratios of 0.74 and 0.67 respectively for M/Mu = 0.25 and
0.31. No visual failure phenomena were observed during this test. Because
very small deflections of the tip of the braces were observed, and in order
to have a point on the interaction diagram for axial load only, this
specimen was used again and axial loads only applied simultaneously to both
braces until failure occurred by local deformation of the chord between the
braces at loads of 168 kN and 154.8 kN in the braces 1 and 2 respectively.
The smaller load was therefore taken as the value of Pu used to form P/Pu
ratios for plotting the interaction diagram.

COMPARISON OF TEST RESULTS WITH OTHER PROGRAMMES

5.1.

T- AND Y-JOINTS.
5.1.1.

AXIAL LOAD

Considerable test evidence exists for T-joints subjected to axial

compression load on the brace (16,17). In the present investigation only
two of these tests have been carried out. These tests were done to
confirm that the adopted chord length, as used also in earlier Kingston
tests (13), eliminated the effect of chord end supports on the joint
strength.
Under axial compression loads on T-and Y-joints, the predominant mode
of failure is the plastic deformation of the chord at the brace-chord
intersection (pushing-in of the chord at the crown and pushing-out at the
saddle). In joints with small beta and gamma ratios the failure may be due
to punching shear. Most of the existing design formulae are therefore based
on the so-called ring and punching shear models, the latter often used as a
check. In joints with beta ratios close to 1.0, chord failure may occur due
to high bending moments in the chord, especially for high L/do ratios of the
test specimens; for low L/do ratios, however, mode of failure may be
influenced by the end support.

4.9

For axial tensile loads on the braces of T- and Y-joints, the

predominant mode of failure is punching shear: the ultimate strength of the
joint may be considerably greater than for a corresponding joint under axial
compression load, and both DnV(4) and API RP2A(21) permit higher loads;
however, there is a great deal more scatter (3) and therefore uncertainty
regarding the effect of individual parameters. Furthermore, chord
deflections are much larger and this can limit the use that can be made of
the increased strength.
The extensive research on T-joints under axial compression loads has
resulted in a number of design formulae for their ultimate strength. In all
the formulae the predominant parameter is the beta ratio, while the gamma
ratio is shown to be of less significance (17). Some of the latest
well-known formulae are presented and discussed here.
5.1.1.1.

Existing Design Formulae

(i)

Kurobane's Formula (16)

The formula was derived using a multiple regression analysis to

determine the best fit equation in terms of beta, do/to and oeo
parameters. It gives a mean ultimate strength for T- and Y-joints subjected
to axial compression loads.
~0-HS

0-2 3 3

Num = 4.83 (1 + 4.9462) . (do/to)

.(L/do)

rJ-^-

sino

,,.
{, L)

For T-joints is of course 90 and a variable in the case of Y-joints.

According to Kurobane, for joints loaded in tension, the value obtained
from the above formula is multiplied by 1.5.
The validity range given for this formula is 0.19 < dl/do <
17 do/to -S102.
(ii)

1.0 and

CIDECT Monograph No.6 Formula (22)

This formula has been developed from Kurobane's mean strength equation
given above, and is presented in terms of the characteristic joint strength.
Nuk = 3.1 oea.to2.(l + 5 . 036 2) . (do/2to) 0"2 . f () .-1
sint
= Nuo/(aeo.Ao)
f () = 1.0

(2)

. . . >. -0.4

f() = 1.2 - 0.5|nI... <-0.4

Here, is negative when the chord is in compression and f(n) is the chord
"pre-load" function.
The characteristic strength is obtained by consideration of the scatter
of experimental data points about the mean formulation and is defined as the
value above which 95 per cent of test results in an infinite population
would fall.

4.10

The validity range of the proposed design strength formula given above
is as follows :0.25 d l / d o 1 . 0

and

do/to

50

The punching shear should also be checked using the following equation

Nup = 7

, J ), . 1 + .g
sine
. to . (

2 sin

These are the formulae currently recommended by CIDECT Monograph No.6

and IIW sub-committee XVE(30) for use in construction.
5.1.2.

(3)

(22)

In-plane Moment

5.1.2.1.

General

Until the previous researchers' work (see Ref.13) very few tests have
been carried out and the available data includes results by Gibstein (18),
Toprac (23) and the JSSC (24). The present investigation has considered
eighteen of these tests (most of whom are given in Ref.17), seventeen
earlier Kingston test results (13) and the present seven results (Tables 1
and 4: TCC- 1 to 7 ) : in all, forty-two test results are considered, but
in three of these brace failure occurred before the joint failed and
they were not considered.
As in the case of axial loads on T- and Y-joints, the criteria of
failure may be defined by the ultimate moment strength (ultimate limit
state) at which failure generally does occur, the excessive deformation, or
the formation of the first crack (serviceability limit state).
At ultimate in-plane moment, provided the members and the welds are
sufficiently strong, the predominant mode of failure is the plastic
deformation of the chord (the pushing-in of the chord at the compression toe
and the pushing-out at the tension toe)although cracking associated with the
rupture of the brace from the chord may sometimes occur when higher grade
steel is used in the chord.
5.1.2.2.

Existing Design Formulae

Design formulae have been proposed by Gibstein (18), Kurobane (16),

Yura (17) and Tebbett (25), derived on the basis of a very limited test
data.
In view of a much larger test sample now available, the present
investigation is proposing a design formula based on a statistical analysis
of thirty-nine tests (Tables 8 and 9 ) .
In all the existing design formulae, the ultimate moment strength is
expressed in terms of the moment at the outer chord surface where the
failure actually occurs.
It should be noted, however, that bending moments
from a structural analysis are usually calculated at the chord centre line.
This gives higher joint moments and the use of formulae based on failure
moments at the chord-brace intersection leads to conservative design.
It has been found by Gibstein (18) and confirmed by the present
investigation that the do/to ratio has a more significant influence on the
joint strength under in-plane moment than it has under axial load.

4.11

(i)

Gibstein's Formula (18)

The formula for the ultimate moment strength of the joint is determined
from an analogy with a plate, using a punching shear criterion of failure.

Mu = 3d,2 .to.(do/2to)

The validity range is 0.25

05

. oeo

0.9

and 14<

. >

*'

do/to < 60.

N.B. This formula has been used,for comparison purposes, for in-plane
moment tests in series Q, R, S(13), with 8 = 1 (see Table 7 ) .
Gibstein carried out nineteen tests on large-scale specimens, of which
several had brace failure and one a weld failure.
(ii)

Kurobane's Formula (16)

The mean ultimate moment strength of T- and Y-joints under in-plane

moments has been obtained using a ring model and a statistical analysis of
available tests.
Mum = (0.3do/to + 5.0)

62.do.to.2 oeo

(5)

The validity range is 0.3 dl/do 0.5 and 35 < do/to^ 95.
N.B. The range was extended to 1.0 in the present investigation to allow a
full comparison between the formulae (Tables 8 and 9 ) .
(iii) Yura's Formula (17)
The ultimate moment strength for T- and Y-joints under in-plane moments
is given by a lower bound expression.

Mu = 0.8 d,.oeo.to2.(3.4 + 196) -^-

1
sine

(6)
'

N.B. No validity range has been given and it was assumed that dl/do ^ 1 is
valid for comparison purposes.
It is of interest to note that, with the exception of the term (0.8dl).
the rest of the expression is the same as that proposed by Yura for axially
loaded T- and Y-joints. The author mentions a considerable scatter in the
statistical analysis of the limited test sample.
(iv)

Tebbett's Formula (25)

In deriving the formula log plots of the test results considered were
made for different groups of beta vs. gamma ratios and the mean strength
formula was then obtained in terms of beta ratio
0-5

. .to2.d,
eo
1
This formula is similar to Gibstein's formula (4) and can be
rewritten a s :
Mu=6.1 (do/2to)

(7)

O'S

Mu = 6. (do/2to)

.to2.d

(8)

4.12

The range of beta and do/to ratios considered was approximately

0.2

<? S

1.0

and

18 < do/to

95

with the majority of tests lying within the range 20 - do/to < 40.

5.1.2.3, Analysis
A statistical analysis of thirty-nine tests (Table 11) gives the
following mean ultimate strength and standard deviation for the four
formulae.
Formula

Mean

Gibstein (18)

.928

.163

.176

.661

Kurobane (16) 1.513

.281

.186

1.052

Yura (17)

1.116

.299

.268

.626

Tebbett (25)

0.913

. 161

. 176

. 649

Standard
Deviation

Coefficient of
Variation

Characteristic
Strength
Coefficient

The above formulae appear to be mean ultimate strength formulae.

The
characteristic strengths are obtained by multiplying the formulae with the
coefficients in the last column which are obtained for a 95 per cent
confidence limit (mean-1.64 standard deviation).
5.1.2.4. Proposed Strength Formula
Since
results, a
(Tables 8,
to predict

the present investigation considers a much larger sample of test

statistical analysis has been carried out of thirty-nine tests
9 _ 11) and the following proposed formula is therefore expected
more accurately the mean ultimate strength.

Mum = 5.9 oeo

to2 .B.[(do/2to)

1.0]

(9)
sine

giving a mean of 1.261, a standard deviation of 0.211 and a coefficient of

variation of 0.167, a better agreement than that obtained by any of the
four formulae considered in the previous section.
The characteristic strength formula can now be obtained by multiplying
the coefficient 5.9 with a value of (mean - 1.64 standard deviation) equal
to 0.915
Muk

5.4 oeo

to2 .[(do/2to)

The validity range is 0.3 < dl/do

1.0]

(10)

1.0 and do/to ^ 50

The comparison between test results and the mean strength eq.(9) is
shown in Fig.20, where a plot of Mu/(_eo.to .dl . (do/to) 0 5 ) against beta
ratio shows a linear relationship and the gradient of the line which passes
through the origin is 5.9. The ratios of experimental and calculated values
of the moment strengths are plotted against dl/do and do/to parameters in
Figs.21 and 22.

4. 13

5.1.3.

Proposed Axial Load and In-plane Moment Interaction Formula

Earlier Kingston tests (13) are the only research known to date in
which T-joints were subjected to combined axial compression load and
in-plane moment (caused by a lateral load). In all, seventy-one tests were
carried out. The effect of geometric properties on the ultimate strength of
T-joints has been studied by varying joint parameters dl/do and do/to.
Tables 5 to 7 provide information on the loading, geometric and material
properties. Fig.2(b) shows the sketch of a typical specimen; Fig.7 shows
the loading arrangement; Plate 1(a) shows a general view of the test rig.
Section 3 gives a detailed description of the way the loading was applied.
It is considered that the investigation carried out in Ref.13 adequately
demonstrated the basically linear relationship between the axial load and
in-plane moment and is considered to be sufficiently comprehensive not to
have to carry out further tests in the present investigation.
Five interaction curves from Ref.13 are plotted in Figs. 23 to 27 in
terms of non-dimensionalised parameters P/Pu and M/Mu for beta ratios of
0.42, 0.53, 0.66, 0.77 and 1.0. Each interaction diagram consists of
different curves plotted for a given do/to ratio, whose values are 18, 21,
23 and 32.
It is generally difficult to determine a specific mode of failure for
combined load tests in T-joints, and at first sight the two modes (for axial
compression load and for in-plane moment) may appear to be independent of
each other. However, some interaction must occur in the crown and saddle
region on the side where axial and bending effects are additive.
The interaction curves suggest the linear relationship for T-joints
between axial compression load and in-plane moment which can be expressed in
terms of ultimate axial and moment strengths.
_P
Pu

5.2.

(11)

+ M_ 1.
Mu

X-JOINTS
5.2.1.

Axial Load

This type of joint (often called DT when

= 90 ) has been extensively
investigated in the past, due mainly to a simpler behaviour than that of
other CHS joints. First investigations date back to the late 50's and early
60's, initially in Germany and the U.S.A.and then in Japan. The Japanese
successfully adapted the concept of punching shear in the design of piping
systems whereby brace loads are substituted by line loads, and developed the
"ring" model, the use of which showed satisfactory agreement with
experimental results (1, 2, 3 ) . The formula derived by Togo (2) in
particular, proved successful in predicting the ultimate strength of CHS
joints.
The new CIDECT Monograph No.6 (22) adopts the latest Kurobane's formula
(16) based on a more refined statistical analysis in which a multiple
regression analysis is used to develop best-fit equations for calculating
the ultimate load of T, Y, X and K-joints. A ring model is assumed, with
material and geometric properties of the chord, in which each of the two
brace loads is substituted by two line loads.
The predominant mode of failure is the plastic deformation of the chord
between the braces, similar to that of T-joints. It has been found (17)
that for low beta values, the ultimate load is similar to that developed in
T-joints, but is reduced in the mid range of beta; at high beta, however,
the joint strength increases significantly because the load is transferred
between the braces, primarily by membrane action rather than bending of the
chord wall.

4.14

It has been found (17) that do/to ratio, as in T-joints, has no

significant effect on joint strength (when it is expressed in the accepted
non-dimensional form). A t beta ratios less than 0.6, a variation of do/to
ratio from 10 to 36 showed no effect and only a slight effect at higher
values of beta.
A very' limited data base exists for axial tension load. Both DnV(4)
and AP1.RP2A(21) permit higher loads in tension, than in compression, but
again there is a great deal more scatter in the test rsults. It is
generally assumed that the effect of uninvestigated parameters is the same
as that observed in compression loaded joints.

5.2.1.1.

General

Many formulae have been derived to predict the ultimate strength of

X-joints and the following cover the most recent developements.
5.2.1.2.

Existing Design Formulae

(i)

Kurobane's Formula (16)

The formula represents a mean value of X-joint test results carried out
on speciments with = 90(DT-joint) and without any preload in the chord.
The formula is obviously less sensitive to the effect of do/to ratio and the
yield to ultimate stress ratio. It has been derived using a ring model and
a mode of failure characterised by excessive chord deformations.
_ 0-0 S

mm

7.46
= 1-0.8126

(do/to)

The Validity range is 0.19 6

_ 01 7 3

. oeo

. oeo.to2

._
(12)

1.0 and 13 do/to 102

(ii) CIDECT Monograph No.6, Formula (22)

This formula has been developed from Kurobane's mean strength equation
given above
2
5.7
,, . 1
Nuk = oeo . to2 . ; - -.. . f(n).
1-0.816 ' v '' sine

(13)

The validity range is 0.25 <: dl/do 1.0 and do/to -$ 50

and f(n) is the same as that defined in eq.(5), Section 5.1.1.1.
This is the characteristic strength obtained from a mean strength
of X-joints in the same way as shown for T-joints (eg.5).
The punching shear should again be checked using eq.(6) in Section 5.1.1.1.
5.2.2. In-plane Moment
5.2.2.1. General
Until this investigation no test results have been published. In the
present investigation fourteen tests have been carried out, twelve on
small-scale specimens (XCC-1 to 12) at Kingston and two tests on large-scale
specimens (XCC-13 and 14) at Corby (Tables 2 and 4 ) .
The criterion of failure is the ultimate moment strength of the joint,
as for T-joints, although generally the joint does not fail at this moment
but attains a maximum value manifested by the peak value in the
load-deflection curves for the braces: as the ram travel increases and the

4.15

lateral load causing the

usually due to a tension
due to excessive plastic
by the pushing-in of the
the tension toe.
5.2.2.2.

in-plane moment reduces, falure finally occurs,

crack in the chord. The mode of failure is thus
deformation of the chord, manifested as in T-joints
chord at the compression toe and the pushing-out at
A nalysis

A statistical analysis of the present fourteen tests (Tables 8,10,12)

gives the following mean ultimate strength and standard deviation for the
four formulae (although these formulae were not recommended for X-joints).
Formula

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Coefficient
of variation

Characteristic
strength coeff.

Gibstein (18)

.971

.149

.153

.727

Kurobane (16)

1.622

.241

J49

1.227

Yura (17)

1.092

.247

.2 26

.687

Tebbett (25)

0.955

.147

.154

.714

The characteristic strength can be obtained by multiplying the formulae

with the coefficients in the last column which are obtained for a 95 per
cent confidence limit (mean - 1.64 standard deviation).
5.2.2.3.

Proposed Strength Formula

The observed behaviour of X-joints has been very similar to that of

T-joints, and the formula derived for T-joints (eq.9) would therefore be
expected to predict satisfactorily the test results: this has been
confirmed and the results are presented in Tables 10 & 12. A statistical
analysis of the present fourteen tests has been carried out using the mean
ultimate strength formula derived for T-joints (eq.9).

Mum = 5 . 9 oeo

. d1.to2

( d o / 2 t o ) 5

1.6}

(9)

giving a mean of 1.349, a standard deviation of 0.181 and a coefficient of

variation of 0.134, a better agreement with the test results than that
obtained by any of the four formulae considered in the previous section.
The characteristic strength formula can now be obtained by multiplying
the coefficient 5.9 in eq.(9) with a value of (mean - 1.64 standard
deviation) equal to 1.052.

Muk = 6.21 oeo . d, . to2 . 6 [(do/2to) '5 - 1.04\

-1sine

(14)

The validity range is 0.3 $ dl/do ^ 1.0 and do/to < 5 0 .

5.2.3.

Proposed A xial Loads and In-plane Moments Interaction Formula

No known published test data exists for this type of loading. In the
present investigation four tests have been carried out at Kingston on
small-scale specimens (XCC-15 to 18, Tables 2 to 4 and Figs.2a, 8 and 3 1 ) .

4.16

The description of these tests is given in Section 4.2.2. Similarly to

T-joints, a predetermined fraction of Mu (obtained in the test XCC-10) has
been applied first (M), by means of the lateral loads on the braces, and
then the axial loads (P) have been applied. When the in-plane moment
started to decrease, the values of and M were recorded and used to
calculate the non-dimensional ratios P/Pu and M/Mu with which the single
interaction curve was plotted. Test XCC-18, in which M/Mu of 0.25 was
applied initially and the 'interaction' values of and M recorded, was
subsequently loaded by axial compression loads only - this was possible
because of the very small deflections of the tip of the braces and in order
to obtain the values of Pu on the braces. Thus this value of Mu obtained
from XCC-10 which has the same beta of 0.77, do/to and tl/to were used to
form the non-dimensionalised ratios P/Pu and M/Mu for the interaction curve,
which is given in Fig.31. Again,this time for an X-joint, a linear
relationship can be observed, (see eq.ll).
11 ^

P_ + M_ 1.0
Pu
Mu

DESIGN

The calculated design axial and moment strengths of T- and X-joints can
be obtained from characteristic strengths using appropriate material (m)
and joint (Yc) partial safety factors as follows (31):-

Nud = - ^ ym.ic

x 1.18

or

Mud = ____?_;
.

1-18

(15)

where . of 1.1 is normally adopted and 1.18 takes account of the

variation in the characteristic value of the yield stress. Thus Num and Mum
are calculated using the specified yield stress and the nominal dimensions
of the chord and brace.
The above formulae are valid for mild steel with specified yield stress
less than 360 N/mm2 . The throat thickness of the weld should be equal to
the wall thickness of the brace as this will allow redistribution of stress
in the joint.
The joints will show sufficient deformation and rotation capacity
within the recommended validity range of the formulae, notwithstanding that
at working load condition the deformation should not exceed one per cent of
the chord diameter.
7.

CONCLUSIONS.

A comprehensive experimental investigation of twenty-seven T- and

X-joints is described. The main parameters studied have been the type of
loading and the joint geometry and the effect these have on the ultimate
strength of the joints.
For the first time in-plane moment has been applied to X-joints and load
interaction between axial load and in-plane moment has been obtained.
Load interaction curves have been developed for T- and X-joints which
suggest a linear relationship between axial load and in-plane moment.
Test evidence for T- and X-joints under axial load on the brace has
been examined.
Some of the better known formulae for calculating ultimate strength of
T- and X-joints under axial load and T-joints under in-plane moment have

4.17

been studied. A statistical analysis of T-joints under in-plane moment has

been carried out using the new test evidence in the present investigation as
well as earlier test results obtained at Kingston Polytechnic (13).
On the basis of the present investigation and the survey of existing
data, the following design recommendations are made:
7.1.

Characteristic Strength under predominantly axial

compression load: Proposed Formulae
. 7.1.1.

T- and Y-joints

(a) The formula for the characteristic strength has been developed
(22) from Kurobane's mean strength formula (16).
1
Nuk = 3.1oeo.to 2 (l + 5 . 036 2 ) . (do/2to) 2 . f (n)sine
.

n = Nuo/( oeo.Ao);
f(n)
f(n)

=
=

1.0
1.2

(b)

n is negative when the chord is in compressive

,
n>-0.4
0.5/n/, n <-0.4

The v a l i d i t y r a n g e
oeo < 360 N/mm2

is

0.25

the punching

Nup=

(2)

)
) the

dl/do

shear

chord

< 1.0

should

be

pre-load

function.

and

do/to 4

checked

using

50

the

and

followng

equation

oeo
, , ,
1 + sine
7=- - to . ( , d l ) . 2 s i n , e

7.1.2.

, ,
(3)

X-joints

The characteristic strength is calculated from (22)

Nuk = oeo . to2

- ^ _ . f ( n ) .__!_

(13)

where f(n) is as given above. The punching shear Nup should be checked using
eq.(3) above.
The validity range is 0.25<dl/do
7.2.

l.O

and do/to 50 and oeo < 360 N/mm2

Characteristic Strength under In-plane Moments: Proposed

Proposed Formulae
7.2.1.

T- and Y-Joints

The proposed formula for the characteristic strength has been developed
at Kingston Polytechnic during the present investigation and is based on a
statistical analysis of thirty-nine available tests
5
Muk = 5.4 oeo.d, .to2. 6Rdo/2to)
- l.O]^
u

The v a l i d i t y r a n g e
oeo < 360 N/mm2

is

(10)

sint

0.25 d l / d o 1 . 0

and d o / t o

4.18

50

and

7.2.2.

X-joints

On the basis of fourteen tests, carried out for the first time in the
present investigation, the following formula is proposed for the
characteristic strength
2
0 5
Muk = 6.21 oeo. d. . to , (/2_) - l.cQ-r^r
1
sine

The validity range is 0.25 dl/do 1.0

oeo < 360 N/mm2
7.3.

and do/to

(14)
50

and

Proposed Axial loads and In-plane Moments Interaction

Formula
7.3.1.

T- and Y-joints

On the basis of seventy-one tests carried out for the first time in the
earlier investigation at Kingston Polytechnic (13), a linear relationship
has been observed
N/Nu + M/Mu -S 1.0

(11)

Nu and Mu are calculated from eqs.(2) and (10) respectively. In design,

however, eq.(15) should be used, with and M being ultimate values obtained
from the structural analysis.
7.3.2.

X-joints

On the basis of a single interaction curve and only five tests, a

linear relationship can be tentatively recommended
N/NU + M/Mu 1.0

(ID

Nu and Mu, however, are calculated from eqs.(13) and (14)

8.

FUTURE RESEARCH

In assessing the ultimate strength of CHS joints under axial loads and
moments, predominantly experimental results from small-scale test specimens
have been used and simplified mathematical models have been developed.
Recently, however, a fully theoretical investigation has been carried out at
Kingston Polytechnic (14) for axially loaded T-joints with and without
considering the effects of the weld or the stiffening of the chord: a large
deformation elasto-plastic finite element program has been developed, based
upon an improved semi-loof shell element. Further development of specific
mathematical models using this program could lead to considerable saving in
experimentation costs and improvement of the understanding of the complex
stress distribution around tubular joints at failure. This research could
also be of significant importance for problems in offshore and marine
structures, in particular, the dent-damage due to collisions with supply
vessels.

4.19

9.

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

, T.,
(1)

KATO, ., , . : Experimental Study on Welded Tubular

Connections. Research Institute of Welding. University of
Tokyo, 1964.

WASHIO,K., TOGO, T., MITSUI, N. : Experimental Study on Local Failure of

(2)
Chords in Tubular Truss Joints. Parts I and II. Technology
Reports of Osake University Vol.18 No.850 (1968) and Vol.19
No.874 (1969).
KUROBANE,K., MAKINO, Y., MITSUI, Y. : Ultimate Strength Formulae for
(3)
simple Tubular Joints. IIW Doc. Xv-385-76. Dept. of
Architecture,Kumamoto University. May 1976.
DET NORSKE VERTIAS: Rules for the design. Construction and Inspection
(4)
of fixed offshore Structures (1977).
SG-TC-18:
(5)

Dutch Regulations for the design of Tubular Structures Draft 1977.

NF 22 - 250: Assemblages soudes de profils creux circulaires avec

(6)
dcoupes d'intersection conception et verification des
assemblages. Juin 1976.
PAN, B.P., PLUMMER, F.B., KUANG, J.G. :
(7)
Tubular Joints. CTC 2644 (1976)

Ultimate Strength Design of

WARDENIER, J.: Design Rules for Predominantly statically loaded Welded

(8) J oints in CHS. IIW DEC.XV-79, BRATISLAWA, 1979.
WARDENIER, J., STARK, J.W.B., : The Static
(9)
girder joints in structural hollow
made of circular hollow sections.
Delft University of Technology and
REBER, J.B. :
(10)

strength of welded lattice

sections. Part 3: Joints
Stevin Report 6-76-4.
TNO-IBBC.

Ultimate Strength Design of Tubular Joints. OTC 1664 (1972)

KUROBANE, K., MAKINO, Y., MITSUI, Y. : Ultimate Strength Design

(11)
Formulae for Simple Tubular Joints. IABSE, Tokyo, Sept.76.
STAMENKOVIC, ., SPARROW, K.D., IRVING, D.J. : Existing methods for
(12)
calculating the static strength of welded , , , and X-joints
in CHS. Technical Report Parts 1, 2 and 3. Kingston Polytechnic
June.80.
SPARROW, K.D. : Ultimate Strength of Welded J oints in Tubular Steel
(13)
Structures, Ph.D. Thesis, Kingston Polytechnic, September 1979.
IRVING, D.J. : Large deformation Elasto-plastic Analysis of Tubular Joints
(14)
using Semi-loof shell elements. Ph.D.Thesis, Kingston Polytechnic
MARSHALL, P.W. : A Review of American Criteria for Tubular Structures (15)
and Proposed Revisions. IIW Doc.XV-405-77, London 1977. Rev.
March 1978.
KUROBANE, Y.: New Developments and Practices in the Tubular Joint Design.
(16)
IIW Doc.XV-488-81, Oporto, Portugal, Sept.81.
YURA, J.., ZETTLEMOYER, N., EDWARDS, I.F.: Ultimate Capacity of
(17)
Circular Tubular Joints. ASCE, Vol.107, No.STlO. OCT.81/

4. 20

GIBSTEIN, M.B. : The Static Strength of T-joints Subjected to In-plane

(18)
Bending Moments. Det Norske Veritas, Report No.76-137, Oslo,
Norway, July 1976.
STAMENKOVIC, ., SPARROW, K.D., : A Review of Existing Methods for the
(19)
Determination of the Static Axial Sttrength of Welded , , , K,
and X-joints in Circular Hollow Steel Sections. Joints in
structural steelwork, Proc. of the 1st International Conference
held at Teeside Polytechnic, U.K. April 7th 1981, Pentech Press
Ltd. London.
STAMENKOVIC, ., SPARROW K.D. : Experimental Determination of the Ultimate
(20)
Static Strength of T-joints in Circular Hollow Steel Sections
Subject to Axial Load and Moment. Joints in Structural Steelwork
Proc. of the 1st International Conference held at Teeside
Polytechnic, U.K.
April 7th 1981. Pentech Press Ltd. London,
API RP2A:
(21)

Recommended Practice, January 1980.

CIDECT Monograph No.6 (To be published) "The Strength and Behaviour of

(22)
Statically loaded Welded Connections in Structural Hollow
Sections.
RODABAUGH, E.C. : Review of data relevant to the design of tubular jointd
(23)
for use in fixed offshore platforms. Welding Research Council,
No.256, January 1980.
THE SOCIETY OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION OF JAPAN (JSSC): Study onTubular Joints
(24)
used for Marine Structures. March 1972.
TEBBETT, I.E.: Welded Tubulr Joints - Non formulae for the ultimate Limit
(25)
State. 2nd Int.Conf. on Offshore Welded Structures, London,
Nov. 1982.
BS449: Pt.2:
(26)

1969:

BS4360: 1979:
(27)

The use of structural steel in building

Weldable Structural Steels

BS4848: PT.2: 1975:

(28)

Hot-rolled Structural Steel Sections

BS18:
(29)

Methods for tensile testing of metals (steel tubes)

Pt.4:

IIW SC.XVE:
(30)

1971:

Design Recommendations for Hollow Section Joints Predominantly statically Loaded. IIW Doc.XV-491-81 (Revised)
and XIII 1003-81.

WARDENIER, J.:
(31)

Hollow Section Joints, Delft University Press, 1982.

4.21

TAULE

1 .

ECSC jorriT TESIS - KINGSTON POLYTECHNIC

CHS - CHS T-JOI NT TESI- (Nominal Dimensions)

Ref.
Series

Test Centre

No.

t
0

d, t .

L
i

cl
0

T
TCC8
!
j TCC9

! TCC1
1
1 TCC2

Kingston

Corby

TCC3

No.
of
Tests

_L
:t

Remarks

114.3 x 5

134.3 5

23

114.3 5

76.1 5

0.67

'23

273 12.5

219 12.5

22

Moment loading only t o

273

219

34

determine u l t i m a t e

273

6.3

219

6.3

34

0.8

I1

Effect of chord l e n g t h

moment s t r e n g t h equation

TCC4

273 12.5

114.3 6.3

TCC5

273 8

114.3 6.3

TCC6

273 G.3

114.3 6.3

5 i '

22

79 !

34

0.42

43

TCC7

Notes: 1.

168.3 5

76.1 5

0.45

34

j 1

No chord loads will be applied.

2.

It is assumed that the interaction will not vary with size, i.e. the interaction determined
previously at Kingston will apply ( 1 3 ) .

3.

Series 2 is an increase in size compared with previous work and very similar parameter values
have twen used.

4.
5.

A U material to BS 4360 Grade 43C ( 255 N/rnn2 min.)

eo
6 = 90.

TABLE

2.

ECSC JOINT TESTO - KINGSTON FOLYIfiCHNIC

CHS - CHS
Pel.
V.o.

.
Test Centre

Secies

x t

i di
1
0

o
0

32

fc

.3

Dimensions)

NO. 1
of
Fes ts

Moment loading only

to determine ultimate

114.3 5

XCC-S

114.3 5

114.3 5

xcc-9

114.3 G.3

114.3 x 5

18

XCC-2

114.3 3.6

88.9 5

32

I . 39 1

xcc-6

114.3 5

88.9 5

23

xcc-i o

114.3 x 6.3

88.9 5

18

xcc-3

114.3 x 3.6

60.3 5

32

i._y

xcc-7

114.3 x 5

60.3 5

23

XCC-1 1

114.3 x 6.3

60.3 5

18

.70

XCC-4

114.3 3.6

48.3 5

32

. jy

xcc-8

114.3 5

48.3 5

73

XCC-12

1.14.3 6.3

46.3 5

18

.79

1
1

XCC-13

Corby

XCC-14

XCC-15
to
XCC-18

Notes:

Kingston

Kingston

0.77

0.53

0.42

23

.70 1

.79 1

219 6.3

0.8

43

273 x 6.3

114.3 6.3

0.42

43

0.77

18

114.3 x 6.3

88.9 5

No chord loads w i l l be applied.

2.

All material to BS 4360 Crade 43C [a

3.

1_
- 255 N/imt7- min.)

moment strength equation

273 6.3

1.

90

1.0

Remarks

114.3 3.6

XCC-1

N)

X-JOINT TESTS ( N o m i n a l

.79
1

Interaction tests

MEASURED DIMENSIONS
REF

(mm)

YIELD AND ULTIMATE

PERCENTAGE

STRESSES ( N/mm2 )

ELONGATION
ON 5 .65/S

TEST
do

CHORD

BRACE

CHORD
to

t,

eo

uo

BRACE
ei

ui

CHORD

BRACE

A/D

TCC-1

273.4

12.65

219.5

12.40

290

482

316

520

33

30

B/E

272.6

8.00

218.8

8.16

284

430

276

423

39

39

C/F

273

5.95

219

6.27

304

457

290

438

39

34

A/H

273

12.48

114.3

6.0

233

485

367

488

33

28

114.3

6.0

284

430

367

488

39

39

6.0

304

457

367

488

39

39

4.85

353

439

346

454

28

22

B/H

273

7.70

C/H

273

5.98

114.3

G/L

168.3

66.64

76.1

I/I

114.85

5.0

114.68

5.10

311

462

311

462

34

34

I/L

76.6

4.85

76.2

4.90

311

462

346

454

34

22

J/i
J/K

XCC-1

114.32

3.7

114.7

5.0

292

449

311

462

41

34

113.92

3.62

88.9

5.04

292

449

357

487

41

22

J/M

114.92

3.655

60.9

4.85

292

449

363

477

41

25

J/N

114.8

3.59

48.4

4.95

292

449

365

461

41

26

I/I

114.7

4.85

114.25

4.9

311

462

311

462

34

34

I/K

114.0

4.95

89.0

5.0

311

462

357

487

34

22

l/M

115.00

4.71

60.7

5.0

311

462

363

477

34

25

I/N

115.14

4.75

48.3

4.95

311

462

365

461

34

26

Hl/I

114.3

6.10

114.7

4.90

349

478

311

462

26

34

Hl/K

10

114.4

6.01

89.0

5.01

349

478

357

487

26

22

Hl/M

11

114.4

6.155

60.6

5.0

349

478

363

477

26

25

4.95

349

478

365

461

26

26

Hl/N

12

114.60

6.05

48.3

C/F

13

272.1

6.15

218.6

6.30

304

457

290

438

39

34

Cl/H

14

272.4

6.25

114.35

6.20

304

457

367

488

39

28

Hl/K

15

114.4

6.0

89.1

5.10

367

488

357

487

28

22

Hl/K

16

114.4

6.0

89.3

4.95

367

488

357

487

28

22

Hl/K

17

114.4

6.01

89.1

5.0

367

488

357

487

28

22

Hl/K

18

114.42

6.0

89.15

5.1

367

488

357

487

28

22

TABLE 3

4.24

REF

TEST

DATE

Pu

Qu

Ha

kN

kN

PLASTIC
Mpt =
. . S * MODULUS
el
BRACE

kNm

fCic

kNm

IS*
in mm
nominal
TCC-1

A/D

19/2/82

178

0.864

153.8

168.7

534000

B/E

22/3/82

82

0.864

70.8

98.6

357000

C/F

4/2/82

63

0.864

54.4

82.7

285000

A/H

21/7/81

69

0.464

32

27.0

73600

B/H

21/9/81

40.5

0.464

18.8

27.0

73600

C/H

14/10/81

33.3

0.464

15.5

27.0

73600

G/L

9/11/81

12.9

0.516

8
9

I/I

I/L

9/7/81
13/7/81

XCC-1
2
3
4
5
6

J/1
J/K
J/M
J/N
I/I
I/K

11/2/82
1/2/82
7/1/82
11/11/81
16/2/82
21/1/82

35
21.8
11.2
7.6
51.4
32.5

0.310
0.310
0.310
0.310
0.310
0.310

10.85
6.76
3.47
2.36
15.92
10.10

7
8
9

I/M
I/N
1/

26/11/81
4/11/81
10/2/82

16.4
10.4
69

0.310
0.310
0.310

5.09
3.22
21.43

5.55
3.44
18.6

15300
9420
59800

10
11

Hl/K
Hl/M

1/2/82
17/12/81

40.9
21.6

0.310
0.310

12.69
6.70

12.6
5.55

35200
15300

12
13

Hl/N
C/F

22/10/81
8/7/82

11.9
57.5

0.310
0.864

3.70
49.70

3.44
82.7

9420
285000

14

C/H

22/6/82

30.4

0.464

14.11

27.00

73600

15
16
17
18

H/K
H/K
H/K
H/K

26/4/82
6/5/82
14/5/82
25/5/82

0.310
0.310
0.310
0.310

M/Mu
M/Mu
M/Mu
M/Mu

0.67
0.43
0.75
0.25

35200
35200
35200
35200

6.64

8.75

1st yield
_ 105 kN
1st yield
_ 50 kN
1st yield
@ 30 kN
Weld
crack _
30 kN
1st yield
@ 25 kN
1st yield
@ 15 kN
1st yield
_ 8 kN

25300
45000
25300

220
153

P/Pu
P/Pu
P/Pu
P/Pu

COMMENTS

=
=
=
=

0.33
0.42
0.29
0.67

TABLE 4

4.25

=
=
=
<

18.6
12.6
5.55
3.44
18.6
12.6

59800
35200
15300
9420
59800
35200

Weld
crack in
Brace 1
as
supplied
(XCC-6)
Weld
failure
in
tension
side of
Brace no
2 (fig 2)
(XCC-9)
Brace 1
failed
1st
(XCC-11)
1st yield
30kN
1st yield
20 kN
)
)
)
)

Interaction
Tests
(see Figs.
16-19).

TABLE 5
CHS - CHS T-JOINT TESTS
EARLIER KINGSTON TESTS (13) (Nominal Dimensions)

Ref
No.
A
B
C
D

Series

do x to

114.3 x 3.6
5.0
5.4
6.3

di

di

ti

do

48.3 x 4.0

0.42

do
to

ti

32
23
21
18

1.11
.8
.74
.63

6
7
5
5

to

No. of
tests

E
F
G

114.3 x 3.6
5.0
6.3

60.3 x 5.0

0.53

32
23
18

1.39
1
.79

5
5
6

H
J
K

114.3 X 3.6
5.0
5.4

76.1 x 4.5

0.66

32
23
21

1.25
.9
.83

6
7
6

114.3 X 6.3

76.1 x 5.0

0.66

18

.79

M
N
P

114.3 X 3.6
5.4
6.3

88.9 x 5.0

0.77

32
21
18

1.39
.93
.79

7
9
7

Q
R
S

114.3 X 3.6
5.0
6.3

114.3 X 5.0

1.0

32
23
18

1.39
1
.79

5
6
6

4.26

Remarks

In each
series one
test was
carried out
for axial
load only
and one for
in-plane
moment only
Pu and M u ) ;
all other
tests were
carried out
for predetermining
ratios of
M/Mu.

TABLE 6

TEST

GEOMETRIC AND' PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE CHORD

EARLIER KINGSTON TESTS (13) (Measured Values)

THICKNESS (mm)

DIAMETER (mm )

MEASURED
to

ti

MEASURED
di

do

YIELD
STRESS
N/mm2

ULTIMATE
TENSILE
STRENGTH
N/mm 2

%
ELONGATION
ON 50 mm
GAUGE LENGTH

3.99

A/2
B/2

3.44
4.95

C/2
D/2

J/2
K/2

5.41
6.01
3.45
4.92
6.05
3.45
4.92
5.41

L/2
M/2
N/2

6.03
3.42
5.41

4.33
4.40
4.51
5.0
4.85
4.77

P/2

5.96

4.95

Q/2
R/2
S/2

3.42
4.95
5.93

5.02
5.01
4.87

E/2
F/2
G/2
H/2

3.72
4.14
4.03
4.95
4.85
4.71

48.3
48.4

114.2

347

497

27

114.1

329

48.4
48.4
60.7

114.3
113.9
114.1

333
352
388

29
26
26
25

60.9
60.6
76.1

114.1
114.0

320
349
356

480
489
512
507
471
515
492
453
499
498
489
498
504

28
31
26
26
28

76.0
89.0
89.3

114.2
114.1
114.3
114.1
114.2
114.3

89.1
114.1
114.2
114.3

114.0
114.2
114.1
114.1

76.0
75.9

4.27

330
342
362
347
345
361
341
335
359

497
478
506

26
27
27

26
28
24
25

TABLE 7

TEST

TEST DATA FOR T-JOINTS - EARLIER KINGSTON TESTS (13)

CHORD (mm)

BRANCH (mm)

D/T
D

d/D
I

t/T
1

TYPE OF LOAD AND

MAGNITUDE (kN, kNm)

DIA

TH.

DIA.

TH.

A/l

114.3

3.

48.3

4.0

32

0.42

1.1

Pu = 5 8 kN

A/2

114.3

3.6

4.3

4.0

32

0.42

1.1

nu

A/3-6

114.3

3.

48.3

4.0

32

0.42

1.1

0.27.0.4,0.6.
0.6

B/l

114.3

5.0

48.3

4.0

23

0.42

0.6

Pu = 1 0 0

B/2

114.3

5.0

48.3

4.0

23

0.42

0.8

nu

B/3-7

114.3

5.0

48.3

4.0

23

0.42

0.6

0.15,.25,0.5,
0.75,0.85

C/l

114.3

5.4

48.3

4.0

21

0.42

0.74

Pu

= n o

C/2

114.3

5.4

46.3

4.0

21

0.42

0.74

nu

C/3-5

114.3

5.4

48.3

4.0

21

0.42

0.74

= 2 . 2 4 kNr,
M/nu

= 2.06

n/nu

3 5

0.25,0.5,0.75

D/1

114.3

6.3

4.3

4.0

IB

0.42

0.63

Pu

D/2

114.3

.3

46.3'

4.0

IB

0.42

0.B3

Mu

D/3-5

114.3

.3

4.3

4.0

IB

0.42

0.B3

0.25,0.5,0.75

E/l

114.3

3.

BO. 3

5.0

32

0.53

1.39

Pu = 7

E/2

114.3

3.

BO. 3

5.0

32

0.53

1.39

nu

E/3-5

114.3

3.6

60.3

5.0

32

0.53

1.39

F/l

114.3

5.0

60.3

5.0

23

0.53

1.0

Pu

F/2

114.3

5.0

BO. 3

5.0

23

0.53

1.0

Mu

F/3-5

114.3

5.0

BO. 3

5.0

23

0.53

1.0

0.25,0.5,0.75

G/l

114.3

.3

60.3

5.0

IB

0.53

0.79

pu

G/2

114.3

6.3

60. 3

5.0

IB

0.53

0.79

Mu = 5 . 2 2

G/3-6

114.3

6.3

60.3

5.0

16

0.53

0.79

H/1

114.3

3.6

76.1

4.5

32

0.66

1.25

Pu

H/2

114.3

3.6

76.1

4.5

32

0.66

1.25

Mu = 4 . 4 7

H/3-6

114.3

3.6

76.1

4.5

32

0.66

1.25

J/l

114.3

5.0

7B.1

4.5

23

0.B6

0.9

Pu

J/2

114.3

5.0

76.1

4.5

23

0.66

0.9

Mu

J/3-7

114.3

5.0

76.1

4.5

23

0.66

0.9

o.iB,0.3,0.5,
0.9,0.96

4.28

= I

n/nu

2 0

=2.98
n/nu

= 3.87

0 . 2 3 , 0 . 4 6 , 0 . 7 7 n/Mu
= 120
=5.66
n/nu

= 168

0.23,0.46,
0.69,D.86

n/nu

=94.5

0.2,0.5,0.66,
O.B

n/nu

= 160
=7.45
n/nu

TABLE 7

TEST

Cont'd

CHORD < m m )

BRANCH(mm)

D/T

_
o

d/Dc

v\

TYPE OF LOAD AND

MAGNITUDE (kN, kNm)

DIA

TH.

DIA.

TH.

K/l

114.3

5.4

76.1

4.5

21

0.66

0.83

Pu

= 177.5

K/2

114.3

5.4

76.1

4.5

21

0.66

o.e3

Mu

=9.70

K/36

114.3

5.4

76. 1

4.5

21

0.66

0.83

L/l

114.3

6.3

76.1

5.0

IB

0.66

0.71

Pu

= 180.0

L/2

114.3

6.3

76.1

5.0

18

0.66

0.71

=9.09

L/36

114.3

6.3

76.1

5.0

IB

0.66

0.71

M/l

114.3

3.6

68.9

5.0

32

0.77

1.39

pu

= 110.0

n/2

114.3

3.6

8B.9

5.0

32

0.77

1 .39

Mu

=702

n/37

114.3

3.6

BE.9

5.0

32

0.77

1 .39

N/l

114.3

E.4

88. g

5.0

21

0.77

0.95

Pu = 2 2 7 . 0

N/2

114.3

S.4

B8.9

5.0

21

0 . 77

0.93

Mu = 1 2 . 8 1

N/39

114.3

5.4

88. 9

5.0

21

0.77

0.93

P/l

114.3

E.3

86. 9

5.0

18

0.77

0.79

Pu = 2 3 5 . 0

P/2

114.3

6.3

B6.9

5.0

18

0.77

0.79

Mu = 1 2 . 7 4

P/37

114.3

6.3

e8.9

5.0

IB

D.77

0.79

0.24,0.36,
M/Mu
0.45,0.61,0.62

0/1

114.3

5.6

114.3

5.0

32

1.0

1 .39

Pu = 1 6 5 . 0

0/2

114.3

3.6

114.3

5.D

32

1.0

1.39

Mu = 1 2 . 5
0 . 3 1 , 0 . 5 2 , 0 . 8 5 M/Mu

0.15,0.25.0.5,
0.75

M/Mu

0.25,0.5,0.66,
0.82

M/Mu

0.27,0.53,
0.70,0.76,0.67

C.15,0.25,0.4,
0.5,0.6,0.75,
0.B5

M/Mu

M/Mu

Q/35

114.3

3.6

114.3

5.0

32

1.0

1.35

R/l

114.3

5.0

114.3

5.0

23

1.0

1.0

Pu = 2 4 0 . 0

R/2

114.3

5.0

114.3

5.0

23

1.0

1.0

Mu = 1 8 . 9 3

R/36

114.3

5.0

114.3

5.0

23

1.0

1.0

S/l

114.3

6.3

114.3

5.0

16

1.0

0.79

Pu

S/2

114.3

6.3

114.3

5.0

18

1 .0

0.79

Mu = 1 9 . 8 0

S/36

114.3

6.3

114.3

5.0

18

1.0

0.79

J_

4.29

0 . 2 6 , 0 . 5 2 . 0 . 6 3 M/nu
0.82
= 270.0

0.2,0.42,0.62
0.76

M/nu

TEST
NO.

CHORD
DIA

Mu.
KNm

( mm )

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

8.40
15.28
11.90
26. 30
T-Joints
35.60
25.80
58.89
53.40
40.52
98.11
JSSC(24)
14.90
6.08
(T-Joints) 18.04
2.24
Earlier
2.08
2.35
2.98
Kingston
3.87
5.22
Tests(13)
4.47
(T-joints)*
7.45
9.09
7.02
12.81
12.74
12.50
18.90
19.80
72.90
53.30
Toprac
15.40
(T-joints) 87.20
120.95
153.80
70.80
TCC-tests
54.40
18. 80
(Corby)**
15.50
6.64
10.85
6.76
XCC-tests
3.47
2.36
(Kingston)
15.92
10.10
5.09
3.22
21.43
12.69
6.70
3.70
49.70
14.11
Gibstein
(10)

TABLE 8 :

219.1
298.5
219.1
219.1
219.1
219.1
219.1
298.5
219.1
219.1
318.5
457.2
457.2
114.2
114.1
114.3
113.9
114.1
114.0
114.2
114.1
114.1
114.2
114.3
114.0
114.2
114.1
114.1
220.0
219.7
114.6
220.0
219.7
273.4
272.6
273.0
273.0
273.0
168.3
114.3
113.9
114.9
114.8
114.7
114.0
115.0
115.1
114.3
114.4
114.4
114.6
272.2
272.4

BRANCH
DIA
( mm)
71.60
101.60
101.60
101.60
101.60
139.70
139.70
193.70
177.80
177.80
139.80
89.10
165.20
48.30
48.40
48.40
48.40
60.70
60.60
76.10
76.00
76.00
89.00
89.30
89.10
114.10
114.20
114.30
220.00
219.70
114.60
220.00
219.70
219.50
218.80
219.00
114.30
114.30
76.10
114.70
80.90
60.90
48.40
114.20
89.00
60.30
48.30
114.70
89.00
60.60
48.30
218.60
114.35

CHORD
THICK
(mm)
6.30
7.20
5.50
8.40
10.00
6.00
8.80
7.30
5.90
8.60
4.40
4.80
4.80
3.44
4.95
5.41
6.01
3.45
6.05
3.45
4.92
6.03
3.42
5.41
5.96
3.42
4.95
5.93
7.10
8.20
5.90
7.10
7.60
12.65
8.00
5.95
7.70
5.98
6.64
3.70
3.62
3.65
3.59
4.85
4.95
4.71
4.75
6.10
6.01
6.16
6.05
6.15
6.25

eo

314.
294.
311.
374.
417
314.
422.
296.
314.
422.
441.
402.
402.
347.
349.
333.
352.
388.
349.
356.
330.
362.
347.
345.
361.
341.
335.
359.
284.
181.
224.
384.
332.
290.
284.
304.
284.
304.
353.
292.
292.
292.
292.
311.
311.
311.
311.
349.
349.
349.
349.
304.
304.

IN-PLANE MOMENT TEST DATA: T- AND X--JOINTS

(Note that measured geometry used).

*
**

Two tests with brace failure omitted (See Table 1]

TCC-4 with brace failure omitted (See Table 4 ) .

4.30

ei

336.
417.
417.
417.
417.
415.
415.
340.
399.
399.
500.
500.
500.
347.
329.
333.
352.
388.
349.
356.
330.
362.
347.
345.
361.
341.
335.
359.
284.
181.
224.
284.
332.
316.
276.
290.
367.
367.
346.
311.
357.
363.
365.
311.
357.
363.
365.
311.
357.
363.
365.
290.
367.

BRANCH
THICK
(mm)
18.50
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
17.50
17.50
7.10
16.00
16.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.99
3.72
4.14
4.03
4.95
4.71
4.33
4.85
4.77
4.95
5.02
5.01
4.87
7.10
8.20
5.90
7.10
7.60
12.40
8.16
6.27
6.00
6.00
4.85
5.00
5.04
4.85
4.95
4.90
5.00
5.00
4.95
4.90
5.01
5.00
4.95
6.30
6.20

M*pl
18.2358
49.4576
49.4576
49.4575
49.4575
109.1913
109.1913
84.0953
167.6729
167.6729
45.4483
17.7028
64.1808
2.7257
2.4489
2.7085
2.8004
5.9850
5.1468
7.9497
7.5431
9.1392
11.9306
11.7712
12.6683
20.5842
20.0241
20.9499
91.4303
66.4245
15.6310
91.4303
113.5578
168.2624
99.9765
82.3093
25.8534
25.8534
8.7293

KUROBANE

GIBSTEIN

YURA

TEBBET

KINGSTON

MU(TESTS)

4.5004
9.1905
7.5132
15.6469
20.0650
16.0650
36.2970
34.2352
25.4552
56.9353
13.9965
5.3998
18.5626
1.2548
1.9720
2.2648
2.7942
2.2253
4.3837
3.2082
4.8358
7.1141
4.2276
7.9876
9.5892
6.8283
11.1790
15.5712
45.0262
34.8611
9.6750
45.0262
57.6022
93.9150
48.5907
35.4793
12.5998
9.7263
6.8265

7.2959
14.3978
11.8688
26.4355
34.4311
25.8145
61.6232
53.7897
40.7743
96.4359
18.9110
6.6593
22.8924
2.0505
3.3712
3.8953
4.8297
3.6386
7.5786
5.2451
8.2619
12.2972
6.9016
13.7382
16.5697
11.1473
19.1108
26.9006
74.3834
58.7193
16.7086
74.3834
96.1036
161.3020
79.0535
54.3366
20.3564
14.9133
11.5687

6.8595
12.2231
9.3370
25.7007
36.5231
19.6001
56.6635
38.4474
29.2578
83.5443
11.2098
4.6892
12.5655
1.8145
3.5769
4.3193
5.6485
3.0292
8.3605
4.1432
7.7978
12.8491
5.2615
13.1605
16.6813
8.1491
16.8105
25.8960
56.4411
47.9153
16.0131
56.4411
75.4976
152.0128
59.3361
35.1503
17.4832
11.2875
11.4906

7.4175
14.6378
12.0668
27.3887
35.6708
26.2448
62.6503
54.6862
41.4538
98.0432
19.2261
6.7703
23.2739
2.0847
3.4274
3.9602
4.9102
3.6992
7.7049
5.3325
8.3996
12.5021
7.0167
13.9672
16.8459
11.3330
19.4293
27.3490
75.6231
59.6979
16.9870
75.6231
97.7054
163.9904
80.3711
55.2422
20.6957
15.1618
11.7615

5,,5124
11,.6378
9,,1448
19,,0415
23,,9757
19,,6456
44,,0057
41,,5932
31,,1063
69,,1625
15,,6099
5 ,6317
19,.3598
1 .5383
2 .3718
2 .6920
3 ,2588
2 .7280
5 .1069
3 .9330
5 .8195
8 .2946
5 .1822
9 .4941
11 .2040
8 .3700
13 .4450
18 .2139
55 .1928
42 .5013
11 .3372
55 .1928
70 .4901
112 .0037
59 .5433
42 .6548
15 .4246
11 .6996
8 .2890

8.4000
15.2800
11.9000
26 . 3000
35 . 6000
25.8000
58.8900
53.4000
40.5200
98.1100
14.9000
6.0820
18.0400
2.2400
2.0800
2.3500
2.9800
3.8700
5.220
4.4700
7.4500
9.0900
7.0200
12.8100
12.7400
12.5000
18.9800
19.5000
72.9000
53.3000
15.4000
87.2000
120.9500
153.8000
70.8000
54.4000
18.8000
15.5000
6.6400

TABLE 9: IN-PLANE MOMENT; CALCULATED Mu VALUES; T-JOINTS

*
M pi =

.S
el
(brace plastic modulus is calculated from measured data)
c

4.31

M pi

KUROBANE

GIBSTEIN

YURA

18.7260

6.5643

10.8489

12.6687

3.8335

5.5448

TEBBET

KINGSTON

Mu(TESTS)

8.2397

11.0298

8.0462

10.8500

6.3181

4.9603

6.4243

4.6998

6.7600

1.8169

2.9949

2.5597

3.0448

2.2275

3.4700

3.4257

1.1207

1.8424

1.6627

1.8731

1.3740

2.3600

18.2175

10.0603

17.1617

14.9155

17.4477

12.1350

15.9200

12.6099

6.3056

10.7803

9.8927

10.9600

7.5830

10.1000

5.5656

2.6886

4.5731

4.4473

4.6494

3.2536

5.0900

3.4100

1.7447

2.9697

3.0829

3.0192

2.1099

3.2200

18.3844

15.8761

27.4511

26.7716

27.9086

18.4745

21.4300

12.6321

9.3484

16.1562

16.3186

16.4255

10.9124

12.6900

5.6259

4.4887

7.7631

8.6306

7.8925

5.2148

6.7000

3.4100

2.7780

4.8017

5.6309

4.8817

3.2396

3.7000

82.3700

36.8949

56.9743

37.5184

57.9238

44.5203

49.7000

26.6432

9.6256

9.6256

11.5450

15.1643

11.6320

14.1100

TABLE 10: IN-PLANE MOMENT: CALCULATED Mu VALUES: X-JOINTS

M*pl = ,.S
c
el
(brace plastic modulus is calculated from measured data)

4.32

M*
0.4606
0.3090
0.2406
0.5318
0.7198
0.2363
0.5393
0.6350
0,2417
0.5851
0.3278
0.3436
0.2811
0.8218
0.8494
0.8676
1.0641
0.6466
1.0142
0.5623
0.9996
0.9946
1.0883
1.0057
0.6133
0.9479
0.9451
0.7973
0.9530
0.9852
0.9537
1.0651
0.9140
0.7082
0.6609
0.7264
0.5995
0.7606

KUROBANE

GIBSTEIN

1.8665
1.6626
1.5839
1.6494
1.7411
1.6060
1.6224
1.5598
1.5918
1.7232
1.0646
1.1263
0.9718
1.7851
1.0548
1.0376
1.0665
1.7391
1.1908
1.3933
1.5408
1.2777
1.6037
1.3286
1.8306
1.6978
1.2716
1.6191
1.8158
1.5917
1.9366
2.0997
1.6377
1.4571
1.5333
1.4905
1.5936
0.9727

1.1513
1.0613
1.0026
0.9763
1.0146
0.9994
0.9556
0.9928
0.9938
1.0174
0.7879
0.9133
0.7880
1.0924
0.6170
0.6033
0.6170
1.0636
0.6888
0.8522
0.9017
0.7392
0.9324
0.7689
1.1214
0.9932
0.7360
0.9801
1.0780
0.9217
1.1723
1.2585
0.9535
0.8956
1.0012
0.9226
1.0393
0.5740

YURA
1.2246
1.2501
1.2745
1.0042
0.9565
1.3163
1.0393
1.3889
1.3849
1.1743
1.3292
1.2970
1.4357
1.2345
0.5815
0.5441
0.5276
1.2775
0.6244
1.0789
0.9554
0.7074
0.9733
0.7637
1.5339
1.1291
0.7646
1.2916
1.3211
0.9617
1.5450
1.6020
1.0118
1.1932
1.5476
1.0742
1.3732
0.5779

TEBBET
1.5017
1.3843
1.3078
1.2734
1.3235
1.3036
1.2465
1.2949
1.2962
1.3270
1.0277
1.1913
1.0279
1.4249
0.8048
0.7869
0.8048
1.3873
0.8984
1.1116
1.1762
0.9642
1.2162
1.0029
1.4626
1.2954
0.9601
1.2783
1.4061
1.2022
1.5291
1.6416
1.2437
1.1682
1.3059
1.2033
1.3557
0.7486

KINGSTON
1.5238
1.3699
1.3013
1.3553
1.4571
1.3133
1.3382
1.2839
1.3026
1.4185
0.9545
1.0800
0.9318
1.4562
0.8770
0.8730
0.9144
1.4186
1.0221
1.1365
1.2802
1.0959
1.3493
1.1371
1.4934
1.4117
1.0871
1.2108
1.4894
1.3584
1.5799
1.7158
1.3732
1.1891
1.2754
1.2175
1.3248
0.8011

MU(TESTS)
8.4000
15.2800
11.9000
26.3000
35.6000
25.8000
58.8900
53.4000
40.5200
98.1100
14.9000
6.0820
18.0400
2.2400
2.0800
2.3500
2.9800
3.8700
5.2200
4.4700
7.4500
9.0900
12.8100
12.7400
12.5000
18.9800
19.8000
72.9000
63.3000
15.4000
87.2000
120.9500
153.8000
70.8000
54.4000
18.7800
15.5000
6.6400

TABLE 11: RATIO OF EXPERIMENTAL TO CALCULATED VALUES OF Mu: T-JOINTS

M* =

Mu(test)/M*pl

4.33

M"

KUROBANE

GIBSTEIN

YURA

TEBBET

KINGSTON

MU(TEST)

0.5794

1.6529

1.0001

1.3168

0.9837

1.3485

10.8500

0.5337

1.7638

1.0702

1.3632

1.0527

1.4387

6.7617

0.6266

1.9123

1.1601

1.3574

1.1411

1.5598

3.4745

0.6893

2.1072

1.2817

1.4202

1.2607

1.7186

2.3614

0.8737

1.5821

0.9274

1.0671

0.9122

1.3116

15.9161

0.8010

1.6019

0.9370

1.0211

0.9216

1.3321

10.1010

0.9140

1.8921

1.1123

1.1438

1.0941

1.5635

5.0869

0.9457

1.8483

1.0859

1.0460

1.0681

1.5284

3.2248

1.1656

1.3498

0.7806

0.8005

0.7678

1.1600

21.4295

1.0047

1.3576

0.7855

0.7777

0.7727

1.1630

12.6913

1.1908

1.4925

0.8630

0.7762

0.8488

1.2847

6.6993

1.0860

1.3331

0.7713

0.6577

0.7586

1.1432

3.7034

0.6034

1.3471

0.8723

1.3247

0.8580

1.1163

49.7000

0.5296

1.4659

0.9460

1.2222

0.9305

1.2130

14.1100

TABLE 1 2 : RATIO OF EXPERIMENTAL TO CALCULATED VALUES OF

MU = X-JOINTS
M* = Mu(test)/M*pl

4.34

 AND JOINT

XJOINT

tij

__

__3

N AND K-JOINT

i y

KTJOINT

Md^^

FIGURE 1 .

F = ^

/
9j___J,L___3?

TYPES OF CHS JOINTS.

4.35

<

4 0 9 mm

409 mm

*~

>

f^
^~
:

i^e

OD

1 2 . 5 mm Grade
43C S t e e l

Ul

3
3

F i l l e t Weld

1145 mm DIAJAETLX
TT4]CkNESS VARIES
rv>
IS

CP

01
3
3
M^

fc

8195 mm A

TYPIC&U X-TOIUT SPECIMENCJf,'s ^ u ' 5

CHOILD TmocMES6E6 ( t o ) : &&, 5 . 0 , _,*> mm.
B,RAKJ<_U blMAEfE/b ( d i j ) :4&3,<20.51fi-31)l4.5wvi

FIGURE 2: SPECIMEN DETAILS FOR TESTS XCC1-12

and XCCI5 - 18.

4.36

409 mm

409 mm

|A
"^

*_.
_ 12.5

mm Grade
43C Steel
Fillet Weld
(Both Ends)

rt

M
/

o
v^

V 114.3

mm dia. chor-thickness vari

Branch dia. varies
819.5 mm

/A

"3

FIGURE 3 : SPECIMEN DETAILS FOR T-JOINT TESTS,

4.37

IQ POET
BRACE
END
DETAIL

UI
00

LARGE SPECIMENS
SPEG CHORD
NO.
SIZE
TCO i 273 xl25

BRACE
SIZE
2131x12 5

TCC2 273 8
TCC3 273x63
TCC4 273x125

2191x8
2191x6 3
1143x63

TGC5j 273x 8
TCC& 273x63

TCC7

1683x5

761x5

BRACE END
BRACE
LENGTH. L DETAIL
FlCuZC. 5
1000
DETAIL W

600
>
If

FioeE. e>
DETAIL '*
II

F i6fOet 4

DETAIL'C'

DETAIL 'C'

CHORD/BRACE WELD F I L L E T / B U T

FIGURE 4=

SPECIMEN DETAILS FOR TESTS TCC17.

ft- _M_T

IQRlLEf

\0

DETAIL 'A'

DETAIL 'B'
FIGURE 5:

BRACE END DETAILS FOR TESTS TCC1-7

tfc

DETAIL g

3?

l?7o

j?

~
&MM FllULJ

CHOep/EsRACE. WCUD FIOET/B ^

^OEJAILi
L^fcGE >PE_:jN\EU>.

CHnPD

EAiSe.

X66I& 7 * . *_.*>
XC_.| i n * &%

i_>.U_._>
1143 * & *

. UO

DETAtL C
^

flU-tf

PS
%J

I nun*ft*
*. Y_.
Up
4o
>

FIGURE 6:

bEfAJLl

PEfAIL _f

bBJAUA

DETAIL C
Pe*IL>
E.EA_>W

pfcfAH
6EE FI6.6

bEfAIL

4DJO]_

rl

&EAC.
UEi~i_rT44
iooo
CxO

e. FILLET

_E__JJE|i
IO PIUUET
& FIUE-t

Iti

4 o JJA .

SPECIMEN DETAILS FOR TESTS XCC13 and 14.

4.40

4__x_J__
&OUT ClAB AW-fi,

SMALL SPECIMENS
SPEC. CHORD
NO
SIZE
TCC 1143x5
TCC5

BRACE
SIZE
IIA 3x5
764x5

CHORD
LENGTH L
300
2 80

CHORD/FLANGE WELD 6mm FILLET

CHORD/BRACE WELD FILLET/BUTT

FIGURE 7:

SPECIMEN DETAILS FOR TESTS TCC8 and 9

4.41

Test Rig Member

/

Rear Swivel
Joint

Front Swivel Joint

o
II

_)
O

FIGURE 8:

LOADING ARRANGEMENTS FOR T-JOINT TESTS.

4.42

T e s t Rig Member
______ /

/ / / y y y / / / y / s s
Rear Swivel
Joint
Load Cell

Axial
Load JackFront Swivel Joint

Load Application
Device
II

s
N
N
N
-

M
O

KJ.B>.
LOADING SYSTEA\
E.EPEAT5 FOE. OTU_.e
,

2
ai
d-

XJoint
Specimen

\
N

UA02.
OPP&lTE E ur>

\
~ \~
N
N

FIGURE 9:

LOADING ARRANGEMENTS FOR TESTS XCC112

AND XCC 1518

4.43

FIGURE 10: LOADING ARRANGEMENTS FOR TESTS TCC1-7 and XCC13 andl4-

4 ;
I '

'I

I E

27_________Hatc_,
_,\^> _ e 114., pA
e>e.A__.

_r

FOE. XCCl_> 14, LAOlNt

DETAILS A$> 410WKI fiDJ KEffiAT
7_L.Pl__.HOW6
ffcas. 7 0 DIA J>IM

TEST

Li

XCC 1,5,9
*0_2,_,IO

lij
250

X-C.5.7,11
VCCA,?,, 12
xc_-i5,it>,i7,ia

_>5>
_2_
iso

* ^

16-

12
_ li_
C

-*-

Ze
la

_!_>

~tn5"
_ ib

4-

\u>

2__>

I6_>

I
'

FIGURE 1 1 :

114

I2<_

I
I
UK) 3

DEFLECTION GAUGE AND STRAIN GAUGE POSITIONS

FOR TESTS XCC1-12 and XCC15-18.

4.45

12

'72
isa
-4
ft-.

5>

FIGURE 1 2 : DEFLECTION GAUGE AND STRAIN GAUGE POSITIONS FOR TESTS TCC17

io<7

Q\90

ioc7
CMS I f )

XCO\4-)

I"

____

24

_______

______

, *

560

&_

j__l

___>

*>_.
__7i

__f__L
5
'CJJ

_I5 I 7
(is> 0*>
1 6 _ 20

/ V S T

I
1 2

ftgg

5oo
12

~\2
_3
(10
10

^*J>-

fc_s.

550

fc2l

^ 7

_ i o __

^"PT
1_

tPLU G>A .UOE5 A l&O DUPLICA TE

>W OTHCeBIUCE A $ 4 . 5 , < _ ,
6A_.f> A *& e~uuMeeex_ 7"^

(t__Fl,TU &A UOC5 6 * 7 M_r| (*> O " XCC-IS}

'lb

-.11 ,
C'5> 09J
_fe _ _ 0

O)

we.
FOR XCE>*M DUPLICATE
5_ 6AUG5> !_ OW OTUEIL
&B.ACE AUE> WU/A&E 2124.

DEFlECTlOkJ AMD STRAlU GADGE6 FOE.

T C G 1 , Z 4 _ > AW& XCC1)

1>2L

14

_a _s_
OO

5-*-.

6oo

b_.FlECT.OU AUD _T_.AlU GAUGe RD2,

T C C - 4 , 5 , G 17 A M O XGC-14
( e c r u . &AUOES c

* 7

uq UEO O U

XCC-I")

_ E u F_ r r> o?

MOLDIUG

Down

BOLT

--

^~^=

p^
?

_____

TTT

ff
f4
A '

,,rftu__M_

____.fltj_

_ft_

\ < Uo. ','

^ FlXIUft fcQl.'
rte. o>uwc._noil.

"

^ >

PLATES'

M,

l' S

MOV F. A S L
CP.057 / A f . M E . C I

__

__i
:-f>1

j t p o u AA
CULt'lG t>ov/u tov
\ ')

LiL_.

aiJ

J1 * i'i'

TPldAl ECTIO.J
( co,\\iOi>iTf. i E c p o i r j
( jf ''AHI MtA^bt HO

"TIF

FIGURE 13:

.
tip

qr

__---_-[e

<>

TESTING RIG AT KINGSTON POLYTECHNIC

ia

U C L D .' &

DOWW

FIGURE 14: DEVICE TO RESTRAIN THE BENDING LOAD JACK

4.48


c) encre tecE
loilurE

mtion

__3&^3

b)

punching

sneeu

. p c s i c e i c c c i c n ? c*
local tucKiinc

O
ci!

Icmeltcr
t parine

FIGURE I S :

c!

lecci

buckl.n

MODES OF FAILURE.

4.49

Pu = 154.8
Qu = 40 kN

50.

i 25.

130.

Q1 = 26.80
Q 2 = 30.00

._
\^
c_
ir

-J

50. :

Mx/Mu = O.67,
M2/Mu = 0 . 7 5 ,

fC

16

?.P,
ZJ.
SENDING LACD(KN)

FIGURE 16: AXIAL vs.BENDING LOAD FOR TEST XCC-15

4.50

(M/MU=0.67)

I-.2.

L2

123.

G.

60. ..

40.

20. ..

Qj = 17.20

Pj = 75-85

Q- = 20.00

P 2 = 65.02

Mj/Mu = 0 . 4 3 ,

P./Pu = 0.49

M-/MU = 0 . 5 0 ,

P-/PU = 0 . 4 2

BENDING LOACXKN)

FIGURE 17:

AXIAL VS.BENDING LOAD FOR TEST XCC-16 (M/Mu^0.5)

4.51

I S.

\ i

12?. +
\

i \

100.

50
o
_l
X

<
4fl

Qj = 3 0 . 0 0

Pj = 54.18

Q2 = 3 2 . 4 0

P 2 = 44.89

Mj/Mu = 0 . 7 5

Pj/Pu = 0 . 3 5

M2/Mu = 0 . 8 1

P 2 /Pu

0.29

\
j

FIGURE 1 8 :

15.

23.
23.
BINDING LOAD(KN)

31

AXIAL vs.B ENDING LOAD FOR TEST XCC-17 (M/Mu=0.75

4.52

120.

tec.

10.00
12.40

P 2 = 103.1

M.- 0 . 2 5 , ?1 = 0.74
80.

Pu

M2= 0 . 3 1 , P 2 = O.67
M_

G.

P_

..

40.

20.

BLNDING LOAD.KN)

FIGURE 19:

AXIAL vs.BENDING LOAD FOR TEST XCC-18 (M/Mu=0.25)

4.53

ia.8 ,

2
0 5

Mu = 590 o e o . g . d i . t o ( ( d o / 2 t o )

1.0)

(19).
|

9.8 .

8.0 .

i
*

7. ,

lo

_i

_
6.8 .

5.8 .

*y^

1.8 .

y*

3.8 j

!
|
i

*Jy^
ry*

2.8 .

^y
1.8 .

.8
.8

.1

.2

.3

.4
BETA ( d l / d o )

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1.8

JOINT

FIGURE 20: GRAPH OF Mu/d 1 . t o . Oeo. ( d o ^ t o f 5 vs . (d / d o ) FOR TJOINT TESTS.

PROPOSED FORMULA FOR Mum.

4.54

2
1 .98
1 .88
1 .78
1 .68
1 .58

'

A
A

A
A
A

2 .

I'

.38
.28
1 .18
.88
1
.98
.88
.78
.S8
.58
.18
.38
.28
.18
.88

*
* _

A
A

KA

A
A

tA

"
A*

*;

A
A

'

.88

1
.28

.68

.90

1.08

BETA <dl/do)
HURATIO .V. BETA

FIGURE 2 1 : RATIO OF EXPERIMENTAL TO CALCULATED Mum v s C d M d o ) FOR

TJOINTS USING THE PROPOSED KINGSTON FORMULA
(eg.9)

4.55

2.8
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
M
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.8
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.1
.3
.2
.1
.8

'
A
A

*4 ir

_ %_
A*

*
A

1
1
1
1
1

t
1
+
.88.8 28.8 38.8 tfl. 38.8 68.8 78.8 0.8 90.8
do^o
tlURATIO .V. dono

1-

FIGURE 2 2 : RATIO OF EXPERIMENTAL TO CALCULATED Mum v s . ( d o / t o ) FOR

T-JOINTS USING THE PROPOSED KINGSTON FORMULA ( e q . 9 )

4.56

d 0 /t 0 = 21, ti/to =0.74

d 0 /t 0 = 32, ti/t- = 1 . 1
d 0 /t 0 = 23, ti/to = 0 . 8
d 0 /t 0 = 18, ti/to = 0.63

1.00

.80

,
D

.60

D.
ra

.40

.20

.00
.00

FIGURE 2 3 :

20

.40
.60
M(appliec)/Mu

.80

INTERACTION CURVES FOR T-JOINTS ( =

4.57

0.42)

1.00

1.00

.80

y - d 0 /t o == 3 2 , t l / t o == 1.34

NS.

.
o

P(applied)/P

/y

vv. ///

_/ "== 21 38 ,,

t i / t == 1.00
t ^ t == 0 . 7 9

.40

.20

.00
.00

.20

.40
.60
M(applied)/Mu

.80

FIGURE 24 INTERACTION CURVES FOR TJOINTS ( = 0.53)

4.58

1.00

1.00 g.

^v
\ V

/do/to
= IS, ti/t 0
y y
d 0 /t 0 = 32, ti/to
y y/
0/t0 = 23, t!/t0
/ / //
d /t = 2 1 , t-/t

=
=
=
=

0.71
1.25
0.9
0.83

\v^ y y y y
-80

a,
g .60 .
<-\

CO

CL,

.40

.20

.00
.00

FIGURE 25 :

1
.20

1
.40
-60
M(applied)/Mu

1
.80

INTERACTION CURVES FOR T-JOINTS ( = 0.66)

4.59

-S
1.00

1 .00

d0/t0

= 21,

ta/t-

0.79
1 . 39
= 0.93

.80

CL)

.60

D.

ra

. 4 0 ,.

.20

.00
.00

FIGURE 26:

.20

.40
.60
M(applied)/M,,

.80

INTERACTION CURV ES FOR T-JOINTS ( g = 0.77)

4.60

1.00

1.00
yd_/t

Yfcv
*.

,
==
o = 23:

32

ti/t
ti/t0

=
=

139
1.00

18 .

tj/t

0.79

do/t ;
vs.
/y~~
_ d / t o = =
VVMM

80 .

n.

CD

60

40

20

00

1
.00

FIGURE 27:

.20

.40
.60
M(applied)/Ku

.80

INTERACTION CURVES FOR TJOINTS (

4.61

=1.0)

___
1 .00

18.8

9.8 .
5.90 O e o d . t o 2 ( ( d o / 2 t o )

Mu =

0.5

~1.0)

8.8

7.8 .

rf

6.8 .

s
\

"

5.0 ,

Tg

4.0 ,

A
A

'

3.8 .

^y^
2.8 .
y ^ ^ A

1.8 .

!
.8
.8

.1

.2

.3

BETA ( d l / d o )

.5

.o

.7

.8

..

JO INT

FIGURE 28: GRAPH OF Mu/d, .to2 ,. (do/2to) 5 vs. (d../do) FOR X-JO INT
TESTS: PROPOSED FORMULA FOF Mum.

4.62

1.8

2.00
1.90
1.88
1.78
1.68
1.58

.
.
.
.
.

1. .
1.38 .
1.28 .
1.10 .

_A

1.08 ,
.98 .
.80 .
.78 .
.68 .
.58 .
.48 .

*A

A
A

.38
.28 .
.18 .

.08
.00

1
.20

1
.40

t
.68

.88

1.00

BETA
HU RATIO VERSUS BETA FOR XJOINTS

FIGURE 2 9 :

RATIO OF EXPERIMENTAL TO CALCULATED Mum v s . ( d . / d o ) FOR

XJOINTS USING THE PROPOSED KINGSTON FORMULA
(eq.9)

4.63

2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.8

i"
A

+-+- -+- + t + + +
.0.8 28.0 30.8 48.8 58.0 60.0 78.0 88.8 98.0
DO/TO
VERSUS OO/TO FOR X JOINTS

FIGURE 3 0 : RATIO OF EXPERIMENTAL TO CALCULATED Mum v s . ( d o / t o ) FOR

XJOINTS USING THE PROPOSED KINGSTON FORMULA ( e q . 9 )

4.64

. .1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

IVtKuLilmtt)
INTERACTION GRAPHS FOR X JOINTS <=8.77)

FIGURE 3 1 : INTERACTION CURVES FOR X-JOINTS ( 3 =

4.65

0.77)

1 .

PLATE 1 : KINGSTON POLYTECHNIC RIG

4.66

PLATE 2:

KINGSTON POLYTECHNIC RIG

4.67

PLATE 3 :

BSC RIG

4.68

(CORBY)

PLATE 4 :

BSC R I G

4.69

(CORBY)

PLATE 5 :

BSC RIG

4.70

(CORBY)

PLATE 6:

MODE OF FAILURE:

IN-PLANE MOMENT (Beta = 0.77)

4.71

PLATE 7:

MODE OF FAILURE: AXIAL LOAD (Beta = 0.42 to 1.0)

4.72

PLATE 8:

MODE OF FAILURE: AXIAL LOAD (Beta = 0.77)

4.73

PLATE 9:

MODE OF FAILURE: COMBINED AXIAL LOAD AND IN-PLANE MOMENT (Beta = 0.66)

4.74

PLATE 10:

MODES OF FAILURE (Beta = 0.42), FROM LEFT IN-PLANE MOMENT,

AXIAL LOAD, COMBINED LOADS

4.75

PLATES 11 a n d 1 2 :

4.76

TCC-1

PLATE 1 3 :

4.77

TCC-2

PLATE 1 4 :

4.78

TCC-3

TCC-

PLATE 1 5 :

4.79

TCC-4

C-

PLATES 16 a n d 1 7 :

4.80

TCC-4

PLATE 1 8 :

4.81

TCC-5

PLATES 19 a n d 2 0 :

4.82

TCC-5

PLATES 21 a n d 2 2 :

4.83

TCC-6

PLATE 2 3 :

4.84

TCC-7

PLATES 24 a n d 2 5 :

4.85

TCC- 8 a n d 9

PLATES 26 a n d 2 7 :

4.86

XCC-13

PLATE 2 8 :

4.87

XCC-13

PLATES 29 a n d 3 0 :

4.88

XCC-14

XCC-1 XCG
XCC-5

XCC-1 XCC-S
XCC-5

PLATES 31 a n d 3 2 :

4.89

XCC-1 - 5 - 9

XCC-2 XCC-O
XXC-G

PLATES 33 a n d 3 4 :

4.90

XCC-2 - 10 - 6

ycc-3 xccxcc-7

XCC-4 XCC-12

xcc-b
PLATES

35 and 36: XCC-3-7-11 and XCC-4-8-12

4.91

PLATES 37 a n d 3 8 :

4.92

XCC-9

XCC-15 XCC-IG
xcc-17 XCC-I&

PLATES 39 a n d 4 0 :

XCC-15-16-17-18

4.93

CDNA09462ENC