Engineering Strm-tt¢re~.Vol. 19. No. 3. pp. 259 266. 1'..~.

)7
('opyrlghl .~.. 1996 [-Isc'.icr Science [.Id
Prinlcd in Great Brilain. All rights reserved
EI.SEVIER
PII: S0141-0296(96)00101-0 0141-0296/97 5.,17.(X) + ().IX)

AWS vs International Design Rules

for circular tubular K-connections
Yoshiaki Kurobane and Kenshi Ochi
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Kumamoto University, KunlanlotO 860,
Japan
(Received June 1996: revised version accepted August 1996)

The American Welding Society (AWS) rules are compared with the
International Institute of Welding (IIW) rules for circular tubular
connections because of the differences between the two. Subjects
discussed include: accuracy in prediction, effects of size and
material properties, premature failures due to local buckling of
braces and due to fracture at weld toes, and applications to multi-
planar connections, focusing on the ultimate behaviour and design
of K-connections under axial brace loading for the sake of concise-
ness. One important conclusion is that the AWS rules lead to rela-
tively unsafe design for K and KK-connections with stocky chords.
Suggestions to enhance the reliability of the AWS rules are made.
Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords:connection, tubular joint, multiplanar connection,

ultimate capacity, local buckling, size effect

1. Introduction nections, are outside the scope of this study. However. the
multiplanar K-connection (called the KK-connection
The American Welding Society (AWS) Code t provisions hereaftcr) shows behaviour similar to the planar K-connec-
for circular tubular K-connections are compared with simi- tion. Although study of KK-connections is currently in pro-
lar provisions proposed in the International Institute of gress, these connections will be included in the following
Welding (IlW) Design Recommendations -~. Although a few discussion.
differences in scope exist between the two codes, both
codes recommend ultimate limit state criteria for the same
tubular connections. The two criteria differ significantly in Notation
spite of the fact that the existing database is their common The following symbols are used in this paper
basis. These differences are discussed herein. A~ 7r(D - T) 7; cross-sectional area of chord
Direct comparison of the design rules between the two COV coefficient of variation
codes could complicate the points in question because dif- D outside diameter of chord
ferent values of the resistance and load factors and simpli- d outside diameter of compression brace
fying assumptions are adopted in the codes. A comparison E elastic modulus
is made between the ultimate limit state equations on which F,, local buckling strength of compression brace in
the design rules are based. The ultimate resistance equa- K-connection
tions for the IIW Recommendations have been cited by F,i, I'..K/I r r ( d - t ) t ] , shcll bending strength of K-con-
Kurobane et al. 3, while those for the AWS Code are nection
described (with their background) by Marshall 4 as well as fv yield strength of tube material
in the code itself. F, ultimate tensile strength of tube material
The IIW design equations for tubular connections have f function explaining variables in IIW equation
achieved a wide international consensus, and are being g longitudinal gap in K-connection or KK-
adopted for Eurocode 35. Essentially the same equations are connection
also used in Canada 6 and Japan 7. The IIW Design Recom- g! transverse gap in KK-conncction
mendations are fully described in the Comit6 International L longitudinal distance between footprints of two
pour le D6veloppement et I'Etude de la Construction Tubu- braces
laire (Cidect) design guide s, which is easiest to read. N axial force in chord on compression brace side
No great difference is found between the AWS and IIW t/ N/[A,F,] nondimensional axial stress in chord
equations for simple tubular connections besides K-connec- P axial load in brace
tions. These connections, which include T, Y and X con- P, ultimate limit state load for connection

259
260 Design rules for circular tubular K-connections: Y. Kurobane and K. Ochi

ultimate limit state load for K-connection accord-

I:~ = 1 + 0.305n - 0.285n"
ing to equation (3)
V2~
ultimate limit state load for KK-connection ' ." -
Pu.KK
Q function of explaining variables in A W S equations l:=("/"
~./",, /
(3)
Rm mean resistance
R. nominal resistance These equations predict ultimate limit state loads when
7" chord wall thickness K-connections fail by' localized plastic shell bending
t wall thickness of compression brace deflection of the chord walls, although the above A W S
v~ coefficient of variation equations are not applicable to connections with over-
Og chord ovalizing paramcter, or local buckling para- lapping braces. The A W S code provides a separate formula
meter applicable to overlapped K-connections. However. the lat-
/3 d/D, diameter ratio or safety index ter formula, originally used for the allowable stress design.
y D / ( 2 T ) , chord thinness ratio is not assessed herein because the A W S code shows no
0 angle between chord and compression brace reliability analysis on this forlnula. In overlapped K-con-
,t, resistance factor, or out-of-plane angle between nections shell bending deflection is also observed in the
planes in which braces lie brace walls. The IIW equations also give the ultimate
capacity of overlapped K-connections by' a continuous
curve applicable also to the range g < 0 . The primary con-
2. Accuracy in prediction
cern should be how accurate these equations are.
The ultimate strength prediction equations for K-connec- Predicted ultimate capacities are compared with existing
tions used in the A W S and llW codc provisions are desig- test results in Figure I. where the simple chord ovalizing
nated as equations ( I ) - ( 3 ) (see Notation and Figure 6 parameter is used for the A W S predictions. The ultimate
for symbols). capacity represents the nmximum load (the first peak load
The A W S equation with the simple ovalizing parameter if two peak loads exist) determined by chord wall plast-
ce is ificalion, as is defined in the past study 3. The database used
here is reliable not only because it omits inappropriate tests
1.7 0.18'1 F,T e but also because it includes all the reliable test results col-
P,, = 67r/3 + ] Q( f~7 . . . . ') Q / s i n 0 (1) lected from the open literature". The mean values and coef-
• Ot' 13
ticients of variation ( ( ' O V ) of lest-to-prediction ratios are
summarized in Table I. Clearly the A W S predictions scat-
where
ter much more than the IIW predictions.
The resistance factor for the LRFD is approximately
a = 1.0 + 0.7 g / d (1.0 <-- a < 1.7) given by
Qt~ = 1.0 (/3 -< o.6)
d} = (R,,,/R,,) exp( - ().55/3Vu) (4)
0.3
/3 > 0.6)
Q~ =/3( I - 0.833/3) If thc COV, designated by Vk in the above equation,
increases from 0.1 to 0.2, the resistance factor decreases
Qt = 1.0 - 0.03y n-'
by about 25%, which may not be a serious drawback to
overall economy.
while the alternative A W S equauon proposes using the
However, if values of COV become greater than 0.2, it
exponential ovalizing parameter ¢~ written as
is natural to suspect that the prediction models may be suf-

oe= 1 + 0 . 7 10000 I

liill '[ t l l l l i, Iiii

all h,'accs at a .iolnl ] . /i II

= = LI \ D T / 2
[P sin O],~.,~.,,.,,c~.b,,~.,,,~".,hich ,, apphc,

(2) 1000 ILl

IIIIII I
ti- t/
"i i~'~l
, ~....
1111 '
,
I
II
"II
in place of ¢~ in equation ( 1 ).
The llW equation is i till I II
P,,.A =f, f, f2 f, f~ f~ TeF,. Ill 1
f,=2.11 (I + 5 . 6 6 / 3 )
~- " llotq I I II I lll]ollW I
f, = (27)" 20,, • IIIIII I I]I],AWS I

0.00904 (2T) .24

.f2= I + .....
exp (0.508
g - 3.04
7" - 1.33) + 1
10
/ [ [1
10 100 1000 10000
P uPREDICTON (kN)
1 - 0.376cos2# Figure 1 T e s t r e s u l t s c o m p a r e d with predictions f o r all n o n -
f~ = sin O overlapping connections
 Design rules for circular tubular K-connections: Y. Kurobane and K. Ochi 261

Table 1 U l t i m a t e strength: m e a n s and COVs o f t e s t - t o - p r e d i c t i o n ratios

Database Prediction equation Mean COV

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Nonoverlapping c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h D > 139 m m equation ( 1) 1.70 0.243

e q u a t i o n s (1) and (2) 1.74 0.282
equation ( 1) 1.56 0.206
All n o n o v e r l a p p i n g c o n n e c t i o n s e q u a t i o n s (1) and (2) 1.60 0.219
e q u a t i o n (3) 1.00 0.094
All c o n n e c t i o n s e q u a t i o n (3) 1.00 0.104

COV w a s c o m p u t e d using d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m e q u a l to the n u m b e r o f s p e c i m e n s m i n u s o n e

1 ~_ ~/~Y =10
ish adoption of thickness squared strength formulation in
the Yura-based American criteria. Test-to-prediction ratios
o8 • s ---- . . . . . . . . . . . for all nonoverlapping K-connections are plotted against
AW S ~ ~ - - ~"----------- D/T (=23,) in Figure 3, which shows that the AWS equa-
IIW 06 ,,, '1 tions allow less margin of safety as D/T decreases while
the IIW predictions cluster tightly around the 1.0 line over
the whole range of D/T. The systematic errors, unless exist-
04
~'-,~. " ' \ Y :40
ing design equations are altered, have to be corrected by
applying a constant bias factor besides a resistance factor,
0.2 ,=25 - - SIMPLE (z which would make the AWS rules more uneconomical.
-- -- -- EXPONENTIAL (z Although accuracy in prediction is one of the leading
0 i i i i factors affecting the reliability of design, any design equ-
0 5 10 15 20 ation should have a simple form and wide range of appli-
g/T cation so that human errors are automatically avoided.
However, an accurate equation is capable of detecting
Figure2 Ratio o f A W S to IIW p r e d i c t i o n s (/3 = 0.5, # = 45 °) unexpected low-strength failures induced by failure modes
different from shell bending failure lbr which both equa-
fering from a lack-of-fit. To see this, the ratio or" AWS to tions already cater, as will be demonstrated later.
IIW predictions is plotted against g/l" in Figure 2 for typi-
cal Warren-type K-connections with the material property 3. Effects of size and material properties
of F,./F, = 2/3. This ratio tends to approach to the AWS
R,,/R,,, factor of 1.8/2.44 = 0.74 (see AWS D1. I Commen- The AWS equations were based on the database from
tary C2.40. I.I) as g/T gets close to about 12. because the which data for small-size specimens had been deleted. Con-
AWS formulae give lower bound predictions of ultimate tinuum mechanics shows that no size effect exists if failures
capacity. However, on the assumption that the llW equa- are governed by the plastic bending deflection of the tube
tions are accurate enough to predict the mean resistance of walls. If failures are governed by brittle failure under ten-
K-connections, the following observations can be made. sion, however, size effects should exist. In the latter case
The errors in AWS predictions possibly contain a system- capacity criteria different from those governing the plastic
atic component caused by ignoring the combined effects of capacity of connections have to be used. The observed con-
g/T and y: that is, the connection strength varies with about nection resistances governed by these two different failure
1.8 power of thickness and is more sensitive to variation modes should not be mixed up when lbrmulating resistance
of g/T as the chord becomes lighter. This was recognized prediction equations.
by Marshall 4 as the difficulty that can be traced to the slav- A possible source of size effect on the resistance of tubu-
lar connections is the fact that small-size specimens tend
to have rclatively larger weld sizes than larger specimens.
4.5 i i _ I *
AWS SIMPLE AWS However, such a size effect can be sorted out in the process
4 / EXPONENTIAL of regression analysis. As seen in equation (3), one of the
explaining variables is the nominal gap size minus
3.04 mm. The value of 3.04 mm was determined by the
regression analysis as the best estimate of one of the para-
meters included in the capacity prediction model. In this
• f \ ~ S MEAN
way the effect of a larger weld size on the gap size is elim-
inated. As seen in Figure 1, ratios of observed to predicted
capacities distribute randomly about the diagonal over the
whole range varying from 30 kN to 3000 kN when the IIW
' IIW MEAN equation is used, which proves that errors are independent
AWS NOMINAL
o of the capacity and, therefore, of the size of a connection.
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 On the contrary, the AWS equation (equation (1)) under-
D/T predicts capacities of small-size specimens, showing a sig-
Figure3 T e s t - t o - p r e d i c t i o n ratios f o r all n o n o v e r l a p p i n g con- nificant size effect.
n e c t i o n s a c c o r d i n g to e q u a t i o n s ( 1 ) - ( 3 ) The K-connections included in the database are made of
262 Design rules for circular tubular K-connections: Y. Kurobane and K. Ochi
various steels ranging from hot-finished mild steel to high-
strength steel with a specified minimum tensile strength of
785 MPa. The effect of material properties is explained by
a function of the yield stress ratio F,//-',, of the chord
materials in the IIW equation. In the A W S equations /", is
limited to not exceed 2F,,/3. Therefore, both eqt, ations tend
to reduce the predicted resistances of connections made of
materials with high-yield stress ratios, liowever, the A W S
2/3 limitation is an historic provision common to most
design codes and restricts the use of modern high-strength
steels. The IIW equations can be adapted for any steel.
including high-strength steel, having a yield stress ratio
greater than 2/3.
4. Local buckling of compression braces
Local buckling of compression braces in arcas adjacent to
connections is one of the typical failure modes observed
in both gapped and overlapped K-connections as shown in
I"ig,re 4. When the brace local buckling occurs in over-
lapped K-connections. the failure mode varies with the
diameter-to-thickness ratio of the brace. Namely. the failure
mode varies from dominating local buckles in the com-
pression brace wall ( see bij4ure 4a ) to a mixed failure mode
accompanying shell bending deflection in both the chord
and brace walls as the brace becomes heavier (see I-igure
4b). Nevertheless. local buckling and shell bending failure
modes should be strictly distinguished because the local
buckling strength can be significantly lower than the shell
(a)
(b)
Figure4 Local buckling of compression braces: (a)gapped
connection; (b) overlapped connection
bending strength as well as the local buckling strength
observed in stub-colunm tests.
The local buckling strength is given as a function of the
nondimensional local buckling parameter ct = (Eli",) (tldl
of the compression brace and the joint resistancc to shell
bending failure'", which can be rewritten in a simplilied
form as
/-';;, = 0.217 (t';a (F, +/-',;,) (5)
in which /-,, signifies the local buckling strength and F,,
signifies the shell-bending strength, both being represented
in terms of the average stress on a cross-section of com-
pression brace, while F, used here designates the yield
stress of the compression brace.
The strength interactions between F,, and F,;, are ex-
plained as t\)llows. The compression brace sustains a sec-
ondary bending moment with greater compression on the
toe side than on the heel side ()wing to uneven support
given to the brace by the chord and tension brace. When the
load approaches the brace local buckling load, the bending
moment at the brace end decreases because the moment is
redistributed owing to local buckling or yielding, and then
the compression brace carries a further increase of com-
pressive load. When the shell bending failure mode begins
to appear, however, the redistribution of bending moment
is prevented.
Although equation (5) was first proTx~sed m 1986 based
on test results for 43 specimens, a recent FE analysis was
able to accurately reproduce both failure modes and I o a d -
detk~rmation curves observed in the past tests '~. The sig-
nificance of brace local buckling has also been noted by
another researcher '2. Equation (5) is the basis for an
additional limitation imposed on the design rules for K-
connections in the IIW design rules. The A W S design rules
do not provide such a safeguard against brace local buck-
ling except for ordinary limiting diameter-to-thickness
ratios. As can easily be understood from equation (5), this
may endanger K-connections with thick-walled chords and
thin-walled braces designed according to the A W S code. It
should be noted that /",, does not increase in proportion
to F,,,.
5. Fracture at weld toes
Cracks are frequently observed along the toes of welds
between a tension brace and a chord in the gap region of
the chord wall. In most cases these cracks extend slowly
with no significant effect on load-deformation curves of
connections until the chord wall sustains large plastic
deflection. However, there are a few examples in which
connections lose stability as soon as the first cracks are
found, even before plastic deflection of the chord walls
becomes extensive.
One example of such premature tensile failure is two
replicate tests of identical specimens performed at the
University of Texas ~'. Specimen configuration, loading
arrangements and a load-deformation curve reproduced
from the original report on these tests are shown in l"ieure
5. These specimens are subjected to relatively high tensile
stress in the chords and have an angle of intersection of
30 ° between the tension braces and the chords. The two
specimens showed a sudden reduction in stiffness as soon
as cracks were found at the weld toes (at the load step 8 in
Figure 5). Although the two specimens withstood a further
Design rules for circular tubular K-connections: Y. Kurobane and K. Ochi
400
I:~ -~L~.88 kips
12
~FUL STRENGTH289 kips Y /
3oo s ~ ~ ,o......-----'~ I
~ i r s a E ~ wir. ~SRA~-~.~I
P,o" ~=cE CRACK e,Y~.O,~ 3o" I the ultimate capacity is given by
[kips) 'IE'LDING A BRANCH B
2O0
PgO"
t ~ C~I~ B THRU
IO0
~1- , - - f - ~ - - - ~ P3o'" ZPgo"
2 A
I I I I
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
AXIAL OEFLECTION (in.)
Figure 5 Test results f o r K - c o n n e c t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o Yura ~3 (1 in
= 25.4 m m , 1 kip = 4.45 kN)
increase in load after large plastic deflection of the chord
walls, the load-deformation curve clearly indicates that the
first peak load (this load corresponds to the ultimate
capacity according to the definition in both the AWS and
IIW equations) was controlled by tensile failure.
The IIW equation suggests that these specimens sus-
tained a premature low-strength failure. The predicted
capacity according to the I1W equation is equal to 1620 kN
(364 kips) as compared with 1291 kN (289 kips) observed
in the test. The test-to-prediction ratio is 0.8, which shows
a significant reduction in ultimate resistance. On the con-
trary, the predicted capacity according to the AWS equation
(equation ( 1 )) is 739 kN ( 166 kips), giving the test-to-pre-
diction ratio of 1.75. Thus, the AWS equations cannot cap-
ture an occurrence of premature failure, which may result
in overlooking this important difference in failure mode.
Another example of tensile failure includes a test of large
K-connections performed at Sumitomo Metal Industry ~4. In
these tests cold-tent high-strength steels with measured
yield stresses varying from 739 to 833 MPa were used for
the chords.
A very simple analysis was attempted to predict the criti-
cal load at which tensile failure of this nature started L~.
Namely, a component of axial load in the tension brace
was assumed to be carried by an imaginary tensile strip
accommodated in the gap region. A tentative conclusion
drawn from this study was to limit the minimum gap size
to prevent low-strength tensile failure. A typical value of
the limiting gap size for large K-connections like those
tested at Sumitomo and at the University of Texas was
found to be g/T = 5. This result implies that an American
practice of using the minimum gap size of 2 in ~" could incur
a danger of low-strength tensile failure in large K-connec-
tions.
Many factors are involved in the early developments of
cracks at the weld toes. Initiating cracks were due to ductile
tensile failures in all the existing tests results, although
these cracks may change to fast unstable cracks if adverse
effects are combined ~7. The use of clean, low-carbon and
fine-grained steel may be effective in preventing crack
extension TM. No definite criteria to prevent these cracks are
given in either the AWS or the IIW code provisions except
for general cautions on material selection.
6. A p p l i c a t i o n to m u l t i p l a n a r c o n n e c t i o n s
The design equations for multiplanar connections in the
Cidect design guide have a format of uniplanar joint
263
capacity multiplied by correction terms. These equations
were based on the database ~-2~ obtained as of 1990. The
Cidect design guide recommends a simple constant value
of 0.9 as the correction factor for KK-connections. Thus,
P..KK = 0.9P..K (6)
Since then extensive investigations on the XX, "rr, TX and
KK-connections have teen performed ~--~-'". Subsequent
developments in this area are quite significant and have
reached the stage that warrants devising new useful design
formulae for multiplanar connections. Later in this section,
the AWS equations will be assessed in the light of the most
recent research results.
The AWS code shows definite design criteria for multi-
planar connections. Moreover, the AWS equation (equation
(1) with cr given by equation (2)) is the only exception
that proposes general design criteria applicable to any type
of nonoverlapping multiplanar connections without a need
for joint classification.
The parameter o~ in equation (2) plays a role of incorpor-
ating not only a multiplanar effect due to chord wall ovaliz-
ing (circumferential bending) but also a membrane shell
effect due to loads at position L distant from the reference
brace. The cosine term in equation (2) represents the influ-
ence of braces in other positions around the circumference.
For KK-connections under symmetrical axial brace loading
as shown in Figure 6, the AWS criteria predict that chord
wall ovalizing is suppressed as the out-of-plane angle d~
increases from 0 ° to 90 ° allowing the maximum beneficial
effect when ~b = 90 °. However, this is not the case in actual
KK-connections.
The capacity of KK-connections increases with ~b when
d~ is small. When qb is small, the two compression braces
act as one member and penetrate the chord wall together
(see Figure 7a). As 'b increases further and reaches a cer-
tain value (about 50°), a different failure mode starts to
appear: the chord wall sustains radial deflection between
the two compression braces, eventually creating a fold
between them (see Figure 7b). Paul 22 distinguished
between the former and latter failure modes as failure types
1 and 2, respectively. As soon as the failure mode changes
from type 1 to type 2, the capacity of KK-connections sud-
denly changes. The AWS criteria ignore this dramatic
change in failure mode.
Finite element analysis results were found to reproduce
well the behaviour of KK-connections observed in tests 26.
Accurate ultimate capacity prediction equations have re-
N .P
D
Figure 6 Typical Warren type KK-connection
264 Design rules for circular tubular K-connections: Y. Kurobane and K. Ochi

D / T=42-80
(a) 1.4
•-A-.....~I~ ' / /
1.2 ,~ -.
=,[ r I~OlT=80

u_ 0.8

o 06
U.l
I:I::
rr IT= 18-30
0 0.4 l
0
FAILURE I FAILURE
TYPE 1 l TYPE 2
(b) 0.2 I
] / / 0.215
r
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
g~/ O
Figure8 Correction factor for KK-connections

results showed that: the multiplanar effect due to chord ova-

Figure7 Failure modes for KK-connections: (a)failure type 1;
(b) failure type 2
cently been developed for KK-connections by combining
both test and FEA results > >. Of these, the simplest poss-
ible prediction equations, although less accurate, are selec-
ted and proposed herein.
When a type I failure occurs, the ultimate capacity of
KK-connections is predicted by
P,,.~,,~ = 0.233(27) "*~-' P,,.j, (7 )
with COV = 0 . 0 6 1 9 .
When a type 2 failure occurs, the capacity prediction
equation is
P,,.*,i, = 0.539 (. 1 - 0.31 'g' -7)" 's t,,.~
D I ] ('~ ~ (8)
with COV = 0.0960.
The border between type 1 and 2 failure modes is at ,~,11)
= 0.215 according to Lee e t a / . -~7 The correction factor
given by equations (7) and (8) becomes discontinuous at
the border. Correction factors when D/T = 20. 40 and 80
are plotted against g/D in Figure 8. Numerical results,
classified into four groups according to D/T and the failure
type, arc compared with the correction factors as shown in
I"igure 8. Test results are not included here because they
scatter more than numerical results, although both have the
same mean values. Fi,~ure 8 shows how abruptly the
capacity changes when the failure mode varies from type
1 to type 2.
Multiple regression analyses on both numerical and test
lizmg was strongly correlated with the geometrical variable
,~,/I): and it was difficult to relate the multiplanar effect
with & only. Therefore, the A W S equations involve sig-
nilicant errors in the evalt, ation of multiplanar effects.
However. these errors due to inappropriate modelling of
multiplanar effects are even less inlluential as compared
with systematic errors due to the thickness squared strength
fl~rmulation m the A W S equations.
Test and numerical results divided by A W S predictions
are plotted against DIT in Figure 9. Again this figure
reveals that the A W S predictions not only scatter widely
but also show a systematic component erring on the unsafe
side as I)/T decreases. The systematic component is even
steeper for KK-connections than for K-connections: the
capacity of KK-connections actually' varies as the 1.3 to 1.5
power of thickness. Test and numerical results divided by
predictions according to equations {7 ) and ( 8 ) are also plot-
ted in Figure 9. No doubt these proposed equations com-
pare well with the database, without any systematic errors.
The test and numerical results are divided simply by' the
corresponding K-connection capacities according to equ-
ation (3). The mean and sample standard deviation of these
ratios are calculated at 0.94 and 0.127. This demonstrates
that the current Cidect design equations for KK-connections
are, although less accurate than equations (71 and (8),
still reasonable.
Study on the KK-connections under antisymmetrical
loads is now in progress-'"~°. Data obtained so far shows
that the KK- to K-connection capacity ratios become about
0.85 over a wide range of gJD ratio. This shows that the
Cidect correction factor of 0.9 is also roughly applicable to
KK-connections under antisymmetrical axial loads.
7. Conclusions
Both the A W S and IIW ultimate strength equations for non-
overlapping K-connections have been compared with all
 Design rules for circular tubular K-connections: Y. Kurobane and K. Ochi
2.0
1.8
~ 1.6
~ 1.4
r -
~ 1.2
ego
~ 1.0 I |El
< El
tu
ii 0.8
or
O Japanese Ministry of Education under Grant B05452256
~- 0.6
09
I.IJ
I--
0.4 t~ Eqs.7 & 8
• AWS
0.2 ~ 1/0.74
.... l I
0.0
0 20 40 60 80
D/T
Figure9 Test-to-prediction ratios f o r KK-connections accord-
ing to AWS and p r o p o s e d f o r m u l a e
the existing reliable test results. The AWS equations show
errors signiticantly greater than the ilW equations, suggest-
ing the presence of systematic errors in the former equa-
tions. These errors can bring about relatively unsafe design
lbr connections with stocky chords and very conservative
design for connections with thin-walled chords and small
gaps. Systematic errors were even more pronounced in KK-
connections than in K-connections. New simple capacity
prediction formulae for KK-conncctions are proposed,
which show no systematic error.
The AWS design equation (equations (1) and (2)) has
a format so that the design strength is automatically calcu-
lated for any nonoverlapping connection that has many
members framing into it by using its unique chord ovalizing
parameter, whereas, in the IIW format, engineering judg-
ments have to be exercised when designing complex con-
nections other than those specified in the code. However,
no attempt is made in this paper to enhance the reliability
of the AWS criteria, while retaining the attractive AWS
format.
Low-strength failure events induced by failure mcxtes
other than chord wall plastification were found to be hidden
behind the scatter of data when test results were compared
with the AWS equations. This fact demonstrates that
strength governing factors should vary with the failure
mode. Additional safeguards which are required of the
AWS design rules are those against local buckling of com-
pression braces in areas adjacent to connections and also
against tensile failure from cracks at weld toes. Since, how-
ever, the latter failure mode is difficult to analyse, no defi-
nite criterion has yet been established for either the AWS
or the IIW design rules. This is an issue requiring intensive
study in the future.
Another important issue for the connection design con-
265
terns interactions between connection behaviour and frame
behaviour. This subject affords a basis for establishing
sound design rules for connections and was dealt with in
some detail in recent studies -~1-32. The authors proposed
three different design criteria for tubular connections: the
strength design against static loads; and strength and duc-
tility design against dynamic loads like earthquake loads.
Additional safeguards were required to prevent crack
growth along the weld toes in connections or a sequential
failure of connections tbllowing buckling of members to
provide for the effects of dynamic loads. A similar assess-
ment is also mandatory with regard to the AWS design
rules.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on work partly supported by the
and by Cidect under Research Project 5BF. The authors
wish to thank Professor J. A. Packer, University of Toronto
for valuable comments on this manuscript.
References
"Structural welding codeAteel', ANSI/AWS D I.I, Arnerican Weld-
ing Society. Miami. F[,. 1996
2 "Design recommendations for hollo~ section joints predominantly
statically loaded (2nd edn)'. IIW D~¢'. XV-701-89'. International
Institute of Welding. Cambridge, UK, 1989
3 Kurobane. Y.. Makino. Y. and Ochi, K. "Uhimate resistance of
unstiffcned tubular joints'. J. Struct. Engng. AS('E 1984. I t 0 (21.
385-4(X)
4 Marshall, P. W. lh,sign of welded tubular connection,~: hasi,~ and use
~?iA WS code provisions. Elsevier, Amsterdam. The Netherlands, 1992
5 "Eurocodc 3: l)csign of steel structures', ENV 1993-1-1, C6mitc Eur-
op6an dc Normalisation. British Standards Institution. I,ondon. UK.
1992
6 t"ackcr, J. A. and Henderson. J. I'. "Design guide for hollo~, structural
section connections'. Canadian Institute of Steel Construction. 1992
7 "Recommendationx fi)r the design and fitbrication of tubuhtr ~truc-
tttres in steel'. Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan. 1990
(in Japanese )
8 Wardcnicr. J., Kurobanc. Y.. Packer, J. A.. Durra. D. and Yocmans,
N. "Design guide Ior circular hollow section (CtIS) joints under pre-
dominantly static loading'. Cidect (Ed.) Vcrlag TIJV Rheinland
GmbH. K61n. Germany, 199 I
9 Ochi. K.. Makino, Y. and Kurobanc. Y. "Basis li)r design of unstiff-
cncd tubular joints under axial brace loading'. IIW Doc. XV-561-84.
International Institute of Welding, Cambridge, L!K, 1984
10 Kurobane, Y., Ogwa, K.. Ochi, K. and Makino. Y. "l,¢x:al buckling
of braces in tubular K-joints', Thin-Walled Struct. 1986. 4. 23-40
II I)cxtcr, E. M.. l,cc. M. K. K. and Kirkwcx~. M. G. "Effect of overlap
on strength of K-joints in CHS tubular members', in "l)tbular .~true-
tures VI, P. Grundy, A. tlolgatc and G. B. Wong (Eds). A. A. Balk-
cma. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1994. pp. 581 5 8 8
12 Hcaly, B. E. "A numerical investigation into the capacity of over-
lapped circular K-joints'. "lubular Structure~ VI. 1994. P. Grundy,
A. Holgatc and G. B. Wong (Eds). A. A. Balkema. Rotterdam. The
Netherlands. 1994, pp. 563-571
13 Yura. J. A. and Frank. K. It. "Uhimatc load tests on tubular connce-
lions', CESRE Report. 78-I, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1974
14 Ohtakc, F., Sakamoto, S., Tanaka, T., Kai, T., Nakazato. T. and Taki-
zawa, T. 'Static and fatigue strength of high tensile strength steel
tubular joints for offshore structures', Prof. Offshore Technology
Conf. 1978, Houston, TX. pp. 1747-1755
15 Kurobane. Y., Makino, Y. and Ogav, a, K. "Further ultimate limit state
criteria for design of tubular K-joints', "lubuhtr Structures. 1989. E.
Nicmi and P. M~ikclainen (Eds). Elsevier, London. UK, pp. 65-72
16 'Recommended practice .fi~r phmning, designing alld constructing
fixed offshore platfi~rm.s '. 16th edn. API PR2A, American Petroleum
Institute, I')allas. TX. 1986
17 Machida. S., Hagiwara, Y. and Kaiimoto, K. 'Evaluation of brittle
fracture strength of tubular joints of offshore structures', Proc. 6th
Int. Off~hore Mechanics and Amtic Engineering Syrup.. 1987, Vol.
3, ASME, New York, pp. 231-237
266 Design rules for circular tubular K-connections: Y. Kurobane and K. Ochi
18 Packer. J. A. "Overview of current international design guidance on
hollow structural section connection', Proc. 3rd Int. Offshore and
Polar Engng. Conf, 1993, Singapore, Vol. IV, pp. I-7
19 Makino, Y.. Kurobane, Y. and Ochi, K. 'Ultimate capacity of tubular
double K-joints', Proc. Int. Conf IIW on Welding of Tubular Struc-
tures, 1984, Pergamon, New York, NY. pp. 451-458
20 Paul, J. C.. van der Valk. C. A. C. and Wardenier. J. 'The static
strength of circular multiplanar X-joints', Tubular Structure,~, 1989,
E. Niemi and P. M~ikel~iinen (FAs), 1989. Elsevier. l,ondon, UK,
pp. 73-80
21 Scola, S., Redwood. R. G. and Mitri, H. S. 'Behaviour of axially
loaded tubular V-joints', J. Const. Steel Res. 1990, 16, 89-109
22 Paul. J. C. 'The ultimate behavior of multiplanar TT and KK-joints
made of circular hollow sections'. PhD thesis, 1992. Kumamoto Uni-
versity. Kumamoto. Japan
23 Paul. J. C., Makino. Y. and Kurobane. Y. "Ultimate resistance of
unstiffened multiplanar tubular TT- and KK-joints'. J. Struct. Engng.
ASCE 1994, 121) (10), 2853-2870
24 van der Vegte. J. G. "The static strength of uniplanar and multiplanar
tubular T- and X-joints', PhD thesis, Delft University. Delft. The
Netherlands, 1995
25 van der Vegte. G. J. and Wardenier, J. 'The static behaviour of multi-
planar tubular steel "IT-joints excluding the effect of chord bending',
Int. J. Offshore Polar Engng 1995, 5 (4), 308-316
26 Wilmshurst, S. R. 'The ultimate load behaviour of multiplanar KK-
joints subjected to symmetrical and anti-symmetrical axial loading',
PhD thesis. University of Wales, Swansea. UK. 1995
27 Lee, M. M. K. and Wilmshurst, S. R. "A parametric study of strength
of tubular multiplanar KK-joints'. J. Stru('t. Engtlg. AS('E 1996, 122
( 8 ), 893-904
28 Kurobane, Y.. Makino, Y. and Ochi, K. 'Analysis of existing and
forthcoming data for multi-planar KK-joints with circular hollow sec-
tions', Cidect Report 5BF-11-96. 1996
29 Makino. Y.. Kurobane. Y., Wilrnshurst. S. R. and Lcc, M. M. K.
"Proposed ultimate capacity equations lk~rCHS KK-joints under anti-
,.ymrnetrical loads'. Prm'. 5th Int. OJf~hore and Polar L)~gineering
('otiS, 1995, The Hague. The Netherlands, Vol. 4, pp. 6 - I I
30 l,ee. M. M. K. and Wilmshurst. S. R. 'Strength of multiplanar tubular
KK-joints under anti-syrnmetrical axial loading', "l~bular Structure,~
VII. 1996, J. Farkas and K. Jarmai (Eds). A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
The Netherlands, pp. 149-156
31 Kurobanc. Y. and Ogawa. K. 'New criteria for ductility design of
joints based on complete CHS truss tests', l'uhular Structures V,
1~,.~13. Coutie and Davies (Eds). E & FN Spon. l,ondon. UK,
pp. 570-58 I
32 Kurobane. Y. and Ogawa, K. 'Earthquake resistant design provisions
lor tubular structures', Int. Conf on Tuhular Structures. 1996, Amer-
ican Welding Society. Miami, FI.. pp. 74-85