REVIEW OF TUBULAR JOINT CRITERIA

P.W. Marshall, Moonshine Hill Proprietary, Texas ABSTRACT

This note reviews and compares four sets of tubular connection design criteria for axially loaded circular tubes. The four criteria are AWS D1.1, API RP2A, ISO/WD 15-1.2, and ANSI/AISC 360-05.

INTRODUCTION The existing American design codes for welded tubular connections are AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code (1990 thru 2002) and the substantially identical AISC Specification for the Design of Steel HSS (1997), the basis of which is documented in the authors book (1). Three new sets of design criteria are in the works. They are: (1) Proposed update to API RP2A, Design... of Fixed Offshore Platforms, based on research conducted by Prof. Pecknold at the University of Illinois, and sponsored the API Offshore Tubular Joint Research Consortium. A lengthy Commentary is included to self-document these criteria. Extensive nonlinear finite element analyses were used to extend the experimental data base, particularly in the areas of overlapped K-joints, a moment-free baseline for T-joints, and chord stress interaction for a wide variety of joint types and loadings. In view of reduced scatter compared to existing criteria, a reduced WSD safety factor of 1.6 is proposed. This update has been approved for publication in the 22nd edition of RP2A, and is in the final stages of editing. (2) Static Strength Procedure for Welded Hollow Section Joints, IIW doc XV-E-03-279, based on CIDECT research. This is also on the fast track to becoming an international standard as ISO/WD 15-1.2, with IIW commission XV as secretariat. The immediate purpose of this note was to provide comments for a Sept. 2003 meeting of IIW s/c XV-E. (3) ANSI/AISC 360-05, Standard Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (draft of August 20, 2003), Chapter K, HSS Connections, being prepared by an ad hoc task group under the direction of Larry Kloiber. This is essentially the same as the CIDECT-based IIW document, except that it gives the characteristic ultimate strength without hiding a partial safety factor therein. Separate safety factors are then given for LRFD and ASD. COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN EQUATIONS Principal results of this review are shown in the Tables and Figures. Table 1 gives a side-byside tabulation of the design criteria for different types of circular joints. The square bracket term is Qu in API, and simply written out in IIW and AISC. AWS criteria have been converted to this format for comparison.

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

457

Table 1. Design equations.

CIRCULAR TUBE JOINTS -- AXIAL LOAD General format T & Y joint K & N gap K & N overlap AWS D1.1-92 and AISC 97 HSS Connection Manual Pu sin = to2 Fyo [*] Qf [*] defined below [*] = (18.8 + 3.4) Q [*] = 32/ + 3.4 with = 1.0 + 0.7 g/di 1.7 [*] = (32 + 3.4) f 1 (q)
+ 3.2 FEXX f 2 (q ) Fy

API RP 2A-WSD Offshore Platforms 22nd edition FS Pa sin = T2 Fyo [*] Qf [*] = 2.8 + (20 + 0.8) 1.6 but 2.8 + 361.6 [*] = (16 +1.2) 1.2 Qg 40 1.2 Qg Qg = 1+ 0.2(1-2.8g/D)3 ** [*] as for gap with Qg = 0.13 + 0.65 and = (tb/Fyb) / (toFyo) [*] = [2.8 + (12 + 0.1) ] Q Stronger alternate for tension Use gap between loaded diagonals Not covered Commentary reference To AWS method Comp.(+), tens.(-) at footprint 2 P M Q f = 1 C1 C2 C3 U Py My

CIDECT IIW-XV-E-03-279 ISO/WD 15-1.2 Pn sin = to2 Fyo [*] Kp [*] = (2.8 + 14.22) 0.2 [*] = (1.8 + 10.2) Kg
0.024 1.2 K g = 0.2 1 + 1 + exp(0.5g/t 0 1.33)
5.2 1 0.81 As for K with eff. = i / 3 Special combo rules & missing cases Check chord gap for shear + axial (no increase over K joint) X-X joints covered General case not covered Compression only Kp = 1 0.3 (1+ )

AISC 360-05 Chapter K Kloiber draft 8/03 Pu sin = t2 Fyo [*] Qf [*] = (3.1 + 15.62) 0.2 [*] = (2.0 + 11.33) Qg with Qg same as CIDECT Kg and g negative for overlap

X joint K-T joint K-K joint (delta truss) General multiplanar Chord load effect Qf or Kp Other terms

[*] = (13.3 + 3.4) Q Also can length effect See general multiplanar See general multiplanar (no increase over K joint) [*] = (32/ +3.4) Q0.7( -1) with per Annex L Tension or compression Qf = 1 - 0.03 2
= [(P/Py) +(M/My) ]
2 2 2

[*] =

[*] =

5.7 1 0.81

Not covered Not covered Not covered

Same as CIDECT

= P/Py + M/My Pn includes resistance factor Pu is characteristic ultimate

Q =

0.3 for > 0.6 ** Qg not defined for (1 .833 ) 0.05 > g/D > -0.05

458

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

Details of the AWS conversion to international format for overlap K&N joints are given below, where q = percent overlap as a fraction. In the existing Code, vp is the allowable punching shear and the allowable capacity normal to the chord is given by... Allowable Pn sin = vp to L1 + 2 vw tw L2 For conversion, the following substitutions are made... L1 = D f1(q) L2 = D f2(q) (partial footprint arc) (lap weld to chord) vw = 0.3 FEXX vw = 0.8 FEXX (allowable) (ultimate)

with the resulting international format given by... Ultimate Pu sin = to2 Fyo [*] Qf with
[*] = (32 + 3.4 ) f1 ( q ) + 3.2 FEXX f 2 (q ) Fy

In Figure 1, f1 and f2 shown for 45 N-joint with < 0.5. These values were obtained graphically from a scale layout of joints with varying degrees of overlap.

1.0

f1(q)

0.5

0.0 0.0

0.5

1.0

L2
L
1

1.0

q(D)

f2(q)

0.5

0.0 0.0

0.5

1.0

Figure 1. Layout and functions f1 and f2 for overlapping 45 N-joints with =0.5. It may be noted from Table 1 that the AWS criteria cover a wider variety of design situations than the others, with particular reference to the general multi-planar case. The proposed AISC criteria cover the least, in a deliberate effort to minimize complexity.

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

459

RESULTS Figures 2-5 show parametric comparison of the criteria for T&Y joints and X joints, which was performed on an Excel spreadsheet. The base case is beta of 0.5, tau of 0.5, and gamma of 20. The upper plots show the effect of varying beta, with the other parameters kept at the base case. The authors 1969 and 1975 criteria were subsequently shown to be unconservative for X-joints, but they are very close to the latest OTJRC results for T&Y joints. The lower plots show the effect of varying gamma; there is no effect if the T2Fy format tells the whole story. There was no effect of varying tau in any of these cases.

variations for X joints AWS & AISC Hdbk 40 API proposal AISC proposal

30

Qu

20

10

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Figure 2. Effect of for X-joints with =20.

variations for X joints

AWS & AISC Hdbk 20 15 API proposal AISC proposal

Qu

10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 3. Effect of for X-joints with =0.5.

460

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

variations for T & Y joints

AWS & AISC hDBK 40 API proposal AISC proposal

30

Qu

20

10

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Figure 4. Effect of for T & Y joints with =20.

variations for T & Y joints

AWS & AISC Hdbk 20 15 API proposal AISC proposal

Qu

10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 5. Effect of for T & Y joints with =0.5.

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

461

Figures 6-8 plot plots results for K&N joints. The large-scale plot in Figure 6 shows the effect of gap or overlap for base case beta, tau, and gamma. The single expression in the CIDECT-based AISC proposal, covering both gap and overlap, matches AWS in the gap range, and matches API finite element results in the overlap range, at least for the base case parameters.

K & N joints
AWS & AISC Hdbk
API proposal
AISC proposal

40

30

Qu

20

10

0 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

(overlap)

g/D

(gap)

Figure 6. Effect of gap/overlap for 45 N-joint with =0.5, =0.5, and =20. Figures 7 and 8 show the effect of varying the parameters , , and at 60% overlap and 0.1D gap, respectively. Here we see that the proposed AISC (and IIW/CIDECT) criteria completely miss the strong effect of tau in the overlap region, as predicted by the AWS strength-of-materials approach and confirmed by the API finite element studies. They also appear to under-predict the beneficial effect of large beta.

462

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

overlap joints
AWS & AISC Hdbk 80 60 API proposal AISC proposal

Qu

40 20 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

overlap joints
AWS & AISC Hdbk 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 API proposal AISC proposal

Qu

overlap joints
AWS & AISC Hdbk 40 30 API proposal AISC proposal

Qu

20 10 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Figure 7. Effects of , , and for overlap N-joints with g/D = -0.3.

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

463

gap joints
overlap joints 80 60 API proposal AISC proposal

Qu

40 20 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

gap joints
AWS & AISC Hdbk 30 API proposal AISC proposal

Qu

20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

gap joints
AWS & AISC Hdbk 30 API proposal AISC proposal

Qu

20 10 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Figure 8. Effect of , , and for gapped N-joints with g/D = 0.1.

464

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

Finally, Figure 9 shows the chord load effect, with the reduction factor called Qf in US specs and kp internationally. All criteria pass through unity at zero chord load. Based on Yuras tests, AWS criteria show the effect of chord buckling tendencies at large gamma, a feature which is missing from the other criteria. The API-OTJRC finite element parameter studies show quite different results for different brace types and loadings, and are represented in the criteria by a quadratic expression with tabulated coefficients; linear terms tilt the parabolas. AISC and IIW proposals simplify this to a single line, which is reasonable representation of the effect on joint strength at chord service loads, for most joint types. The notable exception is equal diameter X joints with compression in the branches, where biaxial membrane stresses at the saddle position make tensile chord loads detrimental and compressive chord loads slightly beneficial.

new API K-axial axial new API T/Y axial axial new API X <.9 axial new API bending axial AWS = 20 axial combined AWS = 20 OPB combined 1.2

new API K-axial IPB new API T/Y comp IPB new API X =1 com ax ial new API bending IPB AWS = 20 IPB combined new AISC all cases all cases

0.8

0.4

0 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Figure 9. Reduction factor (kp or Qf) versus chord utilization. DISCUSSION Q. What are conclusions of the comparison? A. When comparing existing AWS-AISC criteria for circular tubular connections to CIDECT, both in 1992 and today, neither criteria appear to have significantly different errors on the unsafe side. Thus, one may ask the following questions: Why churn the Code by adopting essentially similar criteria but in a different format? Why not look at new API results having a more significant impact on reliability? The issue is not simply whether or not to maintain the American status quo. It is important to keep the Codes evergreen in the sense that they reflect the latest data, with researchers still

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

465

active into the future who remember where it all comes from. Q. There are obviously parameters that are treated very differently (tau overlapped and overlap) and others that vary much less between the standards. Why? A. Tau: All the criteria capture the effect of tau (t/T) in the same way, but without explicit expression in point load criteria for T, Y, and X connections. This is not to say that tau is unimportant; indeed, its primary importance was more obvious to the user in the old AWS punching shear format. When one gets called in after the fact on structural failures and tubular projects in trouble, one of the first things to look for is excessive tau ratios. Tau effect in overlapped connections: In the old AWS-API-AISC criteria, this is captured by mechanistic consideration of both punching at the partial footprint (L1) and shear in the overlap weld (L2). In Pecknolds new API criteria, this is based on an extensive inelastic finite element parameter study, with totally separate Qg expressions for gap and overlap joints. Pecknolds indicated higher strength for large beta and large tau is also consistent with the unexpectedly good performance of same-size overlapped K-bracing in Hurricane Andrew. In CIDECT-IIW-ISO criteria, overlap is treated as an extension of the behaviour of gap connections in which tau has no effect; a single Kg expression for both is curve-fit to the smaller empirical test data base. This makes computerized design easier, but gives the designer no insight into the physical mechanism of load transfer. Effect of overlap amount: Both Pecknold (new API) and CIDECT agree that there is a significant, but nearly constant, beneficial effect beyond g/D of -0.1. The old AWS-API approach (dating back to 1975) was apparently intuitively appealing but wrong, while remaining on the safe side for moderate amounts of overlap. Pecknold gives no equations for |g/D| smaller than 0.05, and suggests interpolation in this region. In older codes, this was a prohibited zone, due to concern over creating a weak hard spot and awkward welding conditions. The smooth transition shown in the CIDECT strength criteria (and in Efthymious SCF criteria) may simply be an artefact of curve-fitting. This issue needs to be re-examined, seeking data in the prohibited zone. Welded connections with tensile strains over 2% in inelastic finite element solutions may be considered vulnerable to fracture. Effect of chord loading: The 1972 AWS Code included a modest Qf penalty for compressive chord loads, based on Japanese data. Existing AWS-AISC criteria reflect further effects of gamma and chord load type, based on Yuras X-joint data. CIDECT criteria are simpler, with Kp close to being on the safe side of Yura. Pecknolds criteria, based on extended finite element results, reflect effects of both chord and brace load type (but not gamma). This is reasonably consistent with CIDECT for K and N connections, but its better prediction for other types of connections has a significant effect on reliability, prompting a modest reduction in working stress design safety factor in API. One common design case in which both CIDECT and AWS-AISC are significantly on the unsafe side is equal size X-braces with equal but opposite loads and no joint can. A caveat for this case is urgently needed. Q. Do we need more data to choose the right direction for the parameters that vary widely? A. Pecknolds API data base includes both the CIDECT physical tests and his extended finite element results. It could be readily compared to CIDECT-IIW-ISO criteria, to quantify the reliability consequences of adopting these into AISC. Gathering additional research data must be left to the future. In order to meet its ambitious publication schedule, AISC should select one set of criteria and stick with it no mix-and-match. For circular connections at this point in time, Pecknolds criteria have not been as widely vetted as CIDECT, while CIDECT does not have the extensive set of worked examples and familiarity to American designers as the existing AWS-AISC criteria.
466 Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

Q. Are the difference due to the wide difference in the type of structures the standards are based on and do these variances really show variances due to exceeding testing limits i.e. do the API people test 48 dia 1 inch connections while the CIDECT people test 4 in x 1.4 tube? A. The differences are not always that great. D/t of 48 is quite typical for offshore structures, so punching at the material shear strength rarely governs. Most CIDECT tests are in the D/t range of standard weight structural tubing, which ranges from 6 to 34. European bridge designers seem to favor the 3 to 13 D/t range of double extra strong. American designers use D/t up to 120 for fabricated large diameter chord members, with much thicker joint cans at the nodes. None of the design criteria show an adverse size or thickness effect on static strength, although fracture mechanics and some of the tension test data suggest one. AWS criteria give no bonus for tension. Q. What is the effect on joints designed and built routinely? A. People generally want to know the impact on cost and safety before they change a design code. AISC should get a feel for this while re-working all the example problems and tabulated results in the HSS manual. Bridges and offshore structures are also influenced by fatigue, so the impact of a static strength change is muted. CONCLUSION Although this paper may be regarded as a stream of consciousness examination of ongoing design code developments, it is already drawing worthwhile discussion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The foregoing Q&A discussion was prompted by thoughtful review of an earlier draft of this note from Tom Schlafly at AISC. Drafting of the figures has been performed by Dakang Liu at TU Delft. The author is grateful to the conference organizers for accommodating this paper.

REFERENCE (1) P. W. Marshall, Design of Welded Tubular Connections, Developments in Civil Engineering #37, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1992 (limited availability at civilbooks.com)

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

467

468

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004