EUROSTEEL 2014, September 10-12, 2014, Naples, Italy

ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF WELDED JOINTS MADE OF HIGH

STRENGTH STEEL CFRHS
Niko Tuominen, Timo Bjrk
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Laboratory of Steel Structures
niko.tuominen@lut.fi, timo.bjork@lut.fi

INTRODUCTION
According to the current Eurocode 3 design code (EC3), a reduction factor of 0.8 must be applied
when determining the ultimate capacity of a hollow section joint made of S500 high strength steel.
[1,2] This is a very conservative assumption and greatly reduces the benefits of using high strength
steels. The goal of this study is to determine the ultimate capacity of an S500 steel grade hollow
section joint by laboratory tests and compare it to the capacity determined by Eurocode 3. The
throat thicknesses for fillet welds calculated according to the current design rules for S500 steel
grade tubular joints are often unnecessarily large. The size of fillet weld is tested by making
welding a theoretically critical part of the joint. Large welds make joints economically inefficient
and the control of heat input is becoming more important due to softening of the base material. All
of the tested joints were manufactured from cold formed rectangular hollow sections. The test series
consists of 12 X-joints and 10 K-joints. All tests were carried out at room temperature.

1 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The tubes used in this study were rectangular hollow sections (RHS) fabricated by Voestalpine AG
and Rautaruukki Corporation. The tube dimensions were measured and the average dimensions are
seen in Table 1, including the measured mechanical and most important chemical compositions of
the tubes and filler material. The matching filler material (FM) Union Ni2,5 produced by Bhler
was used for welding. Joints were fabricated in the Laboratory of Steel Structures of Lappeenranta
University of Technology.

Table 1. Measured tube dimensions and mechanical and chemical properties of base materials and filler material (FM)
b=h t fy,true fu,true A5
C Si Mn P(FM Ni) S CEV
[mm] [mm] [MPa] [MPa] [%]
80.05 4.15 557 634 28 0.0640 0.1800 1.4800 0.0100 0.0030 0.33
99.73 4.12 522 624 28 0.0770 0.0160 1.3900 0.0110 0.0033 0.33
99.58 5.99 553 648 26 0.0640 0.1800 1.4800 0.0100 0.0030 0.33
119.85 4.19 574 649 31 0.0640 0.1800 1.5000 0.0130 0.0020 0.34
119.85 6.04 566 640 21 0.0640 0.1800 1.4800 0.0100 0.0030 0.33
150.13 5.15 548 651 28 0.0650 0.1900 1.5200 0.0130 0.0020 0.34
149.78 7.84 595 646 20 0.0500 0.1800 1.2100 0.0090 0.0030 0.28
80.05 4.15 557 634 28 0.0640 0.1800 1.4800 0.0100 0.0030 0.33
Union Ni2,5 1mm wire 510 620 24 0.0800 0.6000 1.0000 2.3500(Ni) - -

1.1 Tested joints

The reduction factor and throat thickness tests were carried out for both joint types, X- and K.
Tables 1-4 present the dimensions of joints and loading types. The angle between the chord and
brace was 90 in X-joints and 60 in K-joints. The angle of K-joint was kept at 60 because fillet
welds were under investigation and that is the smallest allowed angle for a fillet weld according to
EC3 [1]. The nominal sizes of welds are shown in tables 1-4.
 EUROSTEEL 2014, September 10-12, 2014, Naples, Italy

Tables 2-3 present the test data of reduction factor tests carried out for X- and K-joints. These tests
investigate the occurrence and validation of different failure modes considered by EC3. The throat
thicknesses are fixed to prevent failure in filler material.

Table 2. Reduction factor X-joint tests

Chord Brace Throat thickness
Joint Loading
[mm] [mm] [mm]
X1_500 100x100x4 100x100x4 Tensile 6
X2_500 150x150x5 100x100x4 Tensile 6
X3_500 150x150x5 120x120x4 Tensile 6
XB1_500 150x150x5 150x150x5 Compression 4
XB2_500 150x150x5 100x100x4 Compression 4
XB3_500 150x150x5 120x120x4 Compression 4

Table 3. Reduction factor K-joint tests

Chord Brace Gap Throat thickness
Joint
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
K1_500 150x150x5 80x80x4 70 6
K2_500 120x120x6 100x100x6 30 6,5
KGmin_500 150x150x5 80x80x4 35 6
KGmax_500 150x150x5 80x80x4 105 6

In the throat thickness tests, the tube dimensions were chosen to ensure the use of fillet welds in
joints. In many of the joints listed below, the throat thickness of a fillet weld was set to 3 mm or
minimum allowed. The size effect of the throat thickness was investigated with joints X1TT_500,
X5TT_500 and X6TT_500. In those joints, the fillet welds were done with only one run and
therefore the heat input effect was also studied.

Table 4. Throat thickness X-joint tests

Chord Brace Throat thickness
Joint Loading [mm]
[mm] [mm]
X1TT_500 150x150x8 100x100x6 Tensile 3
X2TT_500 150x150x5 120x120x4 Tensile 3
X3TT_500 150x150x8 80x80x4 Tensile 3
X4TT_500 120x120x6 80x80x4 Tensile 3
X5TT_500 150x150x8 100x100x6 Tensile 4
X6TT_500 150x150x8 100x100x6 Tensile 5

The throat thickness tests with K-joints were carried out with the minimum and maximum gap
allowed according to EC3. If the brace member angle is fixed, the gap has an influence on joint
eccentricity [1]. In joints K3TT_500 (minG) and K3TT_500 (maxG), different throat thicknesses
were used for each face of the brace member according the force distribution along the brace
perimeter yielding 5 mm and 3 mm throat thicknesses for the gap and heal side of the joint,
respectively.
 EUROSTEEL 2014, September 10-12, 2014, Naples, Italy

Table 5. Throat thickness K-joint tests

Chord Brace Gap Throat thickness
Joint
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
K1TT_500(minG) 150x150x5 120x120x4 15 3
K2TT_500(minG) 150x150x5 100x100x4 25 3
K3TT_500(minG) 150x150x5 80x80x4 35 5/4/3
K1TT_500(maxG) 150x150x5 120x120x4 45 3
K2TT_500(maxG) 150x150x5 100x100x4 75 3
K3TT_500(maxG) 150x150x5 80x80x4 105 5/4/3

2 EXPERIMENTAL TESTS

2.1 Test specimens

The measured joint dimensions are used when calculating the capacity according to EC3. The
longitudinal misalignment of the X-joint was measured using laser to find out the critical corner in
terms of the secondary bending moment of the joint, (see Figure 1). A strain gauge was installed in
that corner as illustrated in Figure 1 b. The strain gauge was placed in the brace tube close to the
weld. For K-joints, the strain gauges were placed on a tension brace and chord as illustrated in
Figure 2 a. The displacement of both K-joint braces was measured with the device shown in Figure
2 b.

a)

b)
Fig. 1. a) Measuring the longitudinal misalignment of the X-joint and b) The strain gauge place for the X-joint

a) b)
Fig. 2. a) Strain gauge places for the K-joint b) The joint displacement device for K-joints
 EUROSTEEL 2014, September 10-12, 2014, Naples, Italy

2.2 Test setup

Figure 3 shows the test set up of both joint types. A 5 MN rig was used for X-joint tests, where the
load was imposed on the joint through pin ended fixings. The joint is welded between two brackets.
The force on the joint is interposed with the hinge support of brackets. The K-joint rig is a
mechanism and due to the hinge support of a chord, compression load on the compression brace is
produced by hydraulic jacks in a tension brace. The chord member can be pre-loaded axially. In
these tests, the chord was pre-loaded with 60% of the chords nominal yield strength.

a)

b)
Fig. 3. Setup of a) X-joint and b) K-joint test

2.3 Measurement during the test

The load and displacement of the joint were measured during the test. The displacement of the joint
is a perpendicular displacement of the brace measured from the middle of the chord. For high
strength steels, the displacement capacity of the joint is important to ensure the safe and predictable
behaviour of the joints because of the decreased ultimate strain value of the base material and
possible softening effect due to welding process. Strain gauges are used to gather information about
local strain state in the joint.

3 THEORETICAL CAPACITY OF THE JOINT

In the next Figures 4a and 4b, the theoretical capacity of the joint is compared with the test results.
Test results are the ultimate capacities of the joints. In some cases, the deformation of the joint
exceeded the deformation limit of 3% of the chord width. This limit is shown in Figure 4a.
Although such a deformation limitation is not an official rule, it is important due to the stiffness
requirement of the structure [5].
3.1 Capacity calculation methods
Eurocode 3 includes several different failure modes for X- and K-joints. The joint dimensions in
tables 1-4 are chosen to cover the majority of EC3 failure modes which would occur in the tests.
Based on an earlier study by Saastamoinen and Bjrk [4], for S420 steel grade RHS joints it can be
pointed out that different failures according to EC3 modes will not necessary be valid. The results
of their research did not always support the requirements of EC3 to increase the throat thickness of
the fillet weld [4].

Apart from EC3, the joint capacity was estimated according to the so called General(ized) yield line
theory which takes into account the interaction between the plastic mechanism of the chord flange
and brace walls. The theory of the general yield line theory is presented in [3]. The theory is valid
only for tension loaded X-joints but it is an important basis for the future derivation of more
accurate design rules.
 EUROSTEEL 2014, September 10-12, 2014, Naples, Italy

4 TEST RESULTS
The experimental tests are presented in Figure 4b. For X-joints, the plastic deformation is assumed
to take place symmetrically on both sides of the joint. If this plastic deformation exceeds the
previously defined deformation limit, i.e. 3% of the chord width, it will set the limit for plastic
capacity as illustrated in Figure 4a. Although it is not an official way to limit the joint capacity, the
tests have shown that the practical limit of joint capacity is often before ultimate strength capacity,
especially with very slender joints [5]. All the results here are calculated with the measured
dimensions and mechanical properties presented in Table 1.
4.1 Test results vs. EC3
Figure 4b presents the test results of joints. The lines represent the EC3 capacity of the joint with
and without the reduction factor for the material. Figure demonstrates the significant scatter
between experimental and calculated results. The greatest difference between EC3 and the test
result is seen in compression test XB1_500. The best match appears in the case of K-joints with
critical sized fillet welds and K2_500. The typical failure modes of X- and K-joints are presented in
Figure 5a and 5b.

a) b)
Fig. 4. a) The use of the 3% deformation limit for X-joints and b) experimental test results compared to the
EC3 capacities. Markers in Figure 4b indicates different test type: Reduction factor X-joint tensile test, o
Reduction factor X-joint compression test, Reduction factor K-joint test, Throat thickness X-joint test and
+ Throat thickness K-joint test.

X2TT_500

KGmin_500
a) b)
Fig. 5. Typical failure modes of a) the X-joint and b) the K-joint

4.2 Throat thickness tests

Apart from some K-joint results, the weld was not the critical part of the joint. Figure 4 illustrates
that with a smaller weld, the capacity of the joint was decreased but was on the safe side. The
increase in the throat thickness of X-joints mentioned above did increase the ultimate capacity of
 EUROSTEEL 2014, September 10-12, 2014, Naples, Italy

the joint, although the weld was not a critical part of the joint. Figure 6 shows the true throat
thicknesses and penetrations of the welds. From Figure 5a it can be seen that even with a
theoretically critical weld, the failure took place in the toe of the weld on the brace member. The
failure shown in Figure 5b for KGmin_500 was a general failure mode for the joints with those tube
dimensions in the joint ( = 0.53).

a) b)
Fig. 6. True throat thickness and penetration of fillet weld a) X2TT_500 and b) X3_500

5 DISCUSSION
According to the laboratory test results, it can be stated that there is no research evidence for the
usage of an additional reduction factor for S500 grade steel. Welds are seldom a critical part of
joints, but the issue calls for further study in future, and the penetration shown in Figures 6a and 6b
must be considered when determining the capacity of a fillet weld.

The reduction factor tests indicate that the experimental capacities of joints are well above the
capacities according to EC3. The scatter is high due to the different joint types and failure modes.
The slender joint in tensile X-joint tests with small a -ratio had much more capacity than the more
rigid ones with a high -ratio due to additional capacity from large deformations. The highest
distinguishing between EC3 calculations and the test results occurred in compression tests in joint
with = 1. The results of the K-joint tests matched better with the theoretical capacities calculated
according to EC3. In some K-joints, the failure took place on the compression side of chord. This
occurred in the joints, whit the smallest -ratio. The failure in the chord face on the compression
side took place before any significant yielding on the tension side occurred. This is shown in Figure
5b. The failure mode in the X-joint was often distinguishing from the mode predicted by EC3. This
partly explains the significant difference between the test results and the EC3 capacity.

REFERENCES
[1] Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures - Part 1-8, Design of joints.
[2] Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures - Part 1-12, Additional rules for the extension of EN
1993 up to steel grades S 700.
[3] Bjrk, T., 2005. Ductility and ultimate strength of cold-formed rectangular hollow section
joints at subzero temperatures, Dissertation Thesis, Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis
233.
[4] Bjrk, T., Saastamoinen, H., 2012. Capacity of CFRHS X-joints made of double-grade S420
steel, Proc 14th International Symposium on tubular structures, edited by Gardner, L.,
London.
[5] Zhao, X., 2000. Deformation limit and ultimate strength of welded T-joints in cold-formed
RHS sections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 53(2), pp. 149-165.