Asasa

Department of Civil Engineering
Sydney, NSW 2006

AUSTRALIA
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/
Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering
Strength of Welded T-Joint Truss

Connections between Equal Width
Cold-Formed RHS
Research Report No R831
Lip H. Teh BE PhD

Kim J. R. Rasmussen MScEng PhD

Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/
Strength of Welded T-Joint Truss Connections between Equal

Width Cold-Formed RHS
Lip H. Teh BE, PhD
Kim J. R. Rasmussen, MScEng, PhD
August 2003
Abstract:
The report describes laboratory tests of arc welded T-joints between equal width rectangular
hollow sections. The brace and chord members were cold formed with a nominal yield stress
of 350 MPa. The welds were laid using MMAW and GMAW processes without profiling the
brace ends. The brace of each specimen was loaded in tension to failure with the chord
supported continuously so as not to induce significant bending effects.
The test results showed that the joint strength can be improved by using backing strips for the
butt welds, while backing rods (or filler rods) should not be used as they led to larger
variation in joint strengths, and often, inferior strengths. The test strengths are compared with
the design strengths obtained using the IIW Recommendations and Eurocode3, Part 1.8. It is
shown that for cold-formed tubes with a nominal yield stress of 350 MPa (or above), a design
check on the strength of the butt (or groove) weld is required in addition to the checks on the
strengths of the chord and brace members specified in the current design guidelines. An
equation is proposed for calculating the strength of the weld.
Keywords: butt weld, brace-to-chord connection, cold-formed steel, metal arc welding,
rectangular hollow section, T-joint design
Strength of Welded T-Joint Truss Connections between Equal Width Cold-Formed RHS
August 2003
Copyright Notice
Department of Civil Engineering, Research Report R831

Strength of Welded T-Joint Truss Connections between Equal Width Cold-formed RHS
2003 Lip H. Teh and Kim J. R. Rasmussen

L.Teh@civil.usyd.edu.au
K.Rasmussen@civil.usyd.edu.au
This publication may be redistributed freely in its entirety and in its original
form without the consent of the copyright owner.
Use of material contained in this publication in any other published works must
be appropriately referenced, and, if necessary, permission sought from the
author.
Published by:
The University of Sydney
Sydney NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
August 2003
This report and other Research Reports published by The Department of Civil
Engineering are available on the Internet:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au

August 2003
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4
2 Design equations to be checked ...................................................................... 6
3 Specimen configurations and joint preparations ............................................. 8
4 Material properties of RHS and welding electrodes ....................................... 9
5 Laboratory test set-up .................................................................................... 11
6 Test results of Configuration A specimens ................................................... 12
7 Test results of Configuration B specimens....15
8 Conclusions.......18
9 References.........19
Appendix I Measuring average thickness of butt welds......21
Appendix II Welding procedures22

August 2003
Introduction
Rectangular hollow sections (which include square hollow sections) have not been used as
structural steel members for as long as open sections or even circular hollow sections. Their
industrial production started as late as 1959 in England (Packer et al. 1992). Among the
earliest design recommendations for welded connections between rectangular hollow sections
(RHS) are those proposed by Eastwood & Wood (1970a, 1970b). Since then, the production
methods of structural steel RHS have changed from hot-forming a round section then
squaring it into shape to cold-forming the RHS, which significantly alters the material
response characteristics to loading stress and welding heat input. In addition, new steel
materials such as stainless steel and in-line galvanised steel that may have unique stress-strain
curves are continually being introduced to the construction market in order to achieve higher
strength per tonnage or to provide ambient-resistant structural steel members.
Many current design equations are only valid for the tubular sections which have material
properties and/or dimension ratios similar to those of the specimens used in the experimental
verification of the relevant equations. Therefore, although research and design standards for
statically loaded 2D truss welded connections between tubular sections (IIW 1989, Packer et
al. 1992, Syam & Chapman 1996, Packer & Henderson 1997, AWS 2000) are considered by
some authorities to have reached a mature state (Packer 2000), there is an on-going need for
applied research on the behaviour and strength of such connections between rectangular
hollow sections which have material properties or dimension ratios not considered in the
current standards.
Due to the shape of rectangular hollow sections and the fact that they are closed sections, the
more suitable method of joining them is by welding rather than by bolting, the latter often in
conjunction with the former. There is also a natural preference for simple types of joints
which do not use additional materials such as gusset plates. An example of a simple joint
between rectangular hollow sections is the T-joint produced by butt and fillet welding a brace
member to a chord member, as depicted in Fig. 1.
bb = bc
hb
Brace
Chord
Fillet weld
Butt / groove weld
Fig. 1 Welded T-joint between equal width RHS

August 2003
Recently, arc welded brace-to-chord connections between RHS of equal widths were removed
from the list of pre-qualified full penetration joint configurations specified in the Australian
welding standard AS/NZS 1554.1 (SA/SNZ 2000). In Australia, all RHS are now produced by
the cold-forming technique which often results in larger corner radii and higher yield stresses
than those of hot-rolled RHS. It was deemed that the rounded corners of cold-formed RHS
might result in reduced strength of the butt welded connections due to excessive root gaps
which prevent the formation of full butt welds, unless the connected end of the brace is
profiled to fit the rounded corners of the chord. However, it has been demonstrated by Teh &
Rasmussen (2002) that arc welded brace-to-chord connections between equal width coldformed RHS can be pre-qualified subject to certain conditions, and a recommendation has
been made to the relevant committee for the inclusion of such connections in AS/NZS1554.1
in the list of pre-qualified joint configurations for full penetration butt weld. The
recommendation was based on tensile tests and macro inspections of coupons cut from the
sidewalls of the brace and chord of welded T-joints.
Irrespective of the outcome of the forementioned recommendation, structural applications
involving arc welded T-joints between equal width RHS are becoming more common with
the increasing popularity of cold-formed RHS as truss members owing to their economy and
aesthetic appeal, an example of which is shown in Fig. 2. In light of this, it is desirable to
revisit the existing design equations for determining the strength of a welded T-joint between
equal width RHS loaded in tension through the brace, since the validity of the equations is
dependent on the ability of the members to redistribute stresses within themselves. The ability
of a structural member to redistribute stresses following yielding of the most highly stressed
region is largely dependent on its ductility and its ratio of ultimate stress to yield stress.
Fig. 2 Tree top truss with arc welded brace-to-chord connections between RHS of equal width
(after Packer et al. 1992)

August 2003
Research on the behaviour and strength of welded T-joints between equal width hot-formed
and cold-formed RHS having a nominal yield stress of 240 MPa was previously conducted by
Wardenier & de Koning (1974). It was concluded that the manufacturing technique (and the
welding process) did not significantly affect the behaviour and strength of the tested
specimens. However, the ductility and the ratio of ultimate stress to yield stress of more recent
cold-formed steels, especially those of grade C350 or C450 (with a nominal yield stress of
350 MPa or 450 MPa, respectively) manufactured to AS 1163 (SA 1991a), are considerably
less than those of a hot-rolled steel or a cold-formed steel of grade C250. While the current
international design equations are believed by some authorities to be generally conservative or
even excessively conservative (Kurobane 2002), in the present case the opposite may be true.
In recognition of the fact that most previous tests on welded joints were undertaken on
ordinary steel grades, current design guidelines (IIW 1989, Packer et al 1992) require that
the yield stress of the tubes not exceed 355 MPa and 0.8 times the ultimate tensile strength. In
Part 1.8 of the Eurocode3 draft (CEN 2002), the resistance of a welded hollow section joint is
reduced by 10% if the tubes are of steel grade S420 or S460, and the yield stress may not
exceed 460 MPa.
This report describes the experimental test results of welded T-joints between equal width
cold-formed RHS of grade C350 manufactured by OneSteel Market Mills, Pipe & Tube,
Newcastle. The joints were fabricated using Manual Metal Arc Welding (MMAW) and Gas
Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) processes with various joint preparations, and were tested to
failure by applying tension loads to the brace members. The test set-up was such that each Tjoint was required to resist essentially only the brace axial load, i.e. the T-joint was assumed
to be a truss connection rather than a moment connection. The ultimate loads obtained from
the laboratory tests are used to check the design equations found in Packer et al. (1992) and
Syam & Chapman (1996), which are based on the experimental test results obtained by
Davies et al. (1981) for hot-formed RHS having a nominal yield stress of 255 MPa. These
existing design equations are given in the following section. Based on the present test results,
a design check on the weld strength is proposed.
Design equations to be checked
Assuming the welds are satisfactory, the design capacity of a welded T-joint between equal
width RHS loaded in tension through the brace is controlled by either chord side wall
failure
N sw = f yc t c (2hb + 10t c )
(1)
in which
fyc = chord yield stress;
tc
= chord wall thickness;
hb = brace width parallel to the chord side wall;

or brace yielding
N b = f yb t b (2hb 4t b + 2be )

(2)
August 2003
in which
fyb = brace yield stress;
tb
= brace wall thickness;

be =
10 f yc t c
bb bb
bc / t c f yb t b
(3)
where
bc = width of chord face;
bb = brace width across the chord face = bc.
Equations (1) through (3) are given by Packer et al. (1992), and are adopted by Syam &
Chapman (1996). The capacity factor implicit in Equations (1) and (2) is 0.9. The
dimensions of the brace and the chord are defined in Fig. 1.
It is of interest to note that Eurocode 3 (CEN 1992) requires that the throat thickness of a fillet
weld in a tubular T-joint be at least 10% greater than the wall thickness of the brace.
However, such a requirement is largely immaterial to a T-joint between equal width RHS as
in most cases the brace load is mostly resisted by the butt welds rather than the fillet welds. In
this regard, Teh & Rasmussen (2002) have demonstrated that complete penetration butt welds
between equal width RHS can be achieved under certain conditions.
Frater & Packer (1992a, 1992b) made some recommendations for the effective length of fillet
welds in gapped and overlapped K-joints between RHS of unequal widths. Their
recommendations have been extrapolated to other tubular joints including T-joints in some
design guides (Packer et al. 1992). More recently, Packer & Cassidy (1995) conducted
laboratory tests on T-joints between RHS of unequal widths and recommended that the
effective length of the fillet welds around the brace in a T-joint is
l w = 2hb
(4)
Assuming Equation (4) is also valid for the effective length of the butt welds in a T-joint
between equal width RHS, and considering the coupon test results reported by Teh &
Rasmussen (2002), the nominal capacity of the butt welds in a such a joint is
Vw = f uw t b 2hb
(5)
in which fuw is the nominal tensile strength of the weld metal.

In this report, all the above design equations are checked against laboratory test results, using
the measured values of the design variables. The brace wall thickness tb in Equation (5) is
replaced with the average throat thickness of the butt welds, t w,av , measured in the manner
described in Appendix I. The predicted capacity of the butt weld is then
Vw = f uw t w,av 2hb
(6)
in which t w,av is taken as tb in the case of oversize welds where tw,av exceeds tb.
August 2003
Specimen configurations and joint preparations
Two arc welded T-joint configurations between equal width C350 RHS were used in the
present work, as shown in Table 1. The variable R in the table denotes the corner radius of the
chord, and the adjacent column lists the nominal root gap G as a result of a nominal gap g of 2
mm between the chord flange and the connected end of the brace. As illustrated in Fig. 3, the
root gap G is a function of the chord corner radius R, the gap g, and the brace wall thickness t
G=
(R + g )2 + (R t )2
(7)
t
Brace section
g
G
R
Chord section
Fig. 3 Root gap as a function of three variables

Table 1 Two T-joint configurations
Conf.
Chord
Brace
R
(mm)
G
Weaker hbm
(mm) Part* (mm)
125 125 6
125 125 6
15
4.2
Chord
250 150 9
150 150 5
27
9.4
Brace
bcm
(mm)
tb
(mm)
tc
(mm)
Rbrace
(mm)
126
126
5.80
5.80
15
151
152
4.75
8.75
10
*Based on the ultimate tensile strength in the direction of loading
In Table 1, the variable hbm denotes the measured brace width parallel to the chord side wall
across the middle of the section; bcm the measured width of the chord face across the middle
of the section; tb the measured brace wall thickness; and tc the measured chord wall thickness.
The joint Configurations A and B detailed in Table 1 were two of those investigated in the
study by Teh and Rasmussen (2002) that suggested full penetration butt weld could be
achieved in the sidewalls of these joints.
Initially, for each configuration, three MMAW specimens and four GMAW specimens were
fabricated. The three MMAW specimens were welded with the use of backing strips (see Fig.
4a), backing rods (see Fig. 4b) and no backing, respectively. This was also the case with three
GMAW specimens, with a fourth welded using purging gas (see Fig. 4c). Such preparations
only affected the butt welds between the brace and the corner of the chord, and not the fillet
welds between the brace and the chord face. The welding procedures of the butt welds, which
comply with AS/NZS 1554.1 (SA/SNZ 2000) and have been demonstrated by Teh &
Rasmussen (2002) to be satisfactory, are given in Appendix II. The specimen numbers in the
August 2003
appendix correspond to those in Section 6. For these initial specimens, each butt weld and
each fillet weld started and ended at the corners of the brace.
(a) with backing strips
(b) with backing rods
(c) with purging gas
Fig. 4 Joint preparations

Following the destructive tests of the initial specimens, which showed that those fabricated
using the MMAW process failed in the weld metal rather than in the chord or the brace, three
additional Configuration A specimens were fabricated using the MMAW process with the
first welds being laid around the brace corners prior to the butt welds and the fillet welds. The
notion was that the weld metal failure of the initial specimens might have been precipitated by
weld imperfections (in addition to stress concentration) in the corners where the butt and fillet
welds started and ended. (However, it was observed that fractures were also initiated in the
corners even when they took place not in the weld metal, as shown in Fig. 5 for one
Configuration B specimen.)
Fig. 5 Fracture initiation from the brace corner of Specimen 11
Material properties of RHS and welding electrodes
Table 2 shows the yield stress, the ultimate tensile strength, the ratio of ultimate strength to
yield stress, and the elongation at fracture of the tension coupons cut from the C350 RHS
used in the T-joint tests. The RHS tubes were manufactured to AS 1163 (SA 1991a) by
OneSteel Market Mills, Newcastle, Australia.

August 2003
Table 2 Material properties of RHS specimens

Section
Loading
Direction
fy
(MPa)
fu
(MPa)
fu/fy
%
elongation
Gauge
(mm)
125 125 6
Longitudinal
405
485
1.20
30.9
47.5
125 125 6
Transverse
410
475
1.16
38.4
28.5
150 150 5
Longitudinal
375
485
1.29
30.8
42.5
150 150 5
Transverse
375
480
1.28
32.9
42.5
250 150 9
Longitudinal
390
455
1.16
32.5
60.0
250 150 9
Transverse
355
445
1.25
30.2
60.0
The longitudinal coupons were cut from the middle of the adjacent faces of the braces, while
the transverse coupons were cut from the opposite faces of the chords. This is due to the
arrangement of the T-joint specimens as illustrated in Fig. 6. The adjacent and opposite faces
are defined in Fig. 7. The coupons were tested at a strain rate of approximately 10-4 per
second, which is slower than the minimum rate of 2.5 10 4 per second recommended in AS
1397 (SA 1991b). The values shown in Table 2 are the averages of two coupons, and the
stress values are rounded to the nearest 5 MPa. The percentage elongation at fracture of a
coupon is measured over a gauge length of 5.65 times the square root of the cross-section
area, rounded to the nearest 2.5 mm. An exception to this is the transverse coupons cut from
the 125 125 6 RHS, whose length was limited by the section width.
Adjacent face
Brace
Butt / Groove weld

Chord
Opposite face (seam weld face)
Fig. 6 T-joint arrangement with respect to adjacent and opposite faces

As shown in Appendix II, the MMAW electrode is CIGWeld Weldcraft which has a
classification of E4113 according to AS/NZS 1553.1 (SA/SNZ 1995), and the GMAW wire is
CIGWeld Autocraft with a classification of W503AH according to AS/NZS 2717.1 (SA/SNZ
1996). The required tensile strength of the MMAW electrode ranges from 430 MPa to 550
MPa, and the nominal tensile strength of the GMAW wire is 500 MPa. Two tension coupons
of nominal diameter equal to 10 mm were prepared from each of these electrodes and tested
10
August 2003
in accordance with AS 2205.2.2 (SA 2003) and AS 1391 (SA 1991b). For the MMAW
electrodes, only the 4.00 mm one was used in the tension coupon tests. The results are shown
in Table 3.
Opposite
Corner
Adjacent 1
Adjacent 2
seam weld
ERW
R
Fig. 7 Adjacent and opposite faces of a rectangular hollow section

Table 3 Material properties of weld metal
Classification
fyw
(MPa)
fuw
(MPa)
fuw/fyw
%
elongation
Gauge
(mm)
MMAW
1553.1-E4113
420
520
1.24
18.3
50
GMAW
2717.1-W503AH
400
520
1.30
37.3
50
It can be seen that the MMAW and the GMAW weld metals have the same tensile strength,
but the latter has twice the elongation at fracture of the former. Furthermore, the MMAW
metal is less ductile than the RHS specimens.
Laboratory test set-up
Figure 8 shows the test set-up of one Configuration B specimen used in the present work. A
rigid beam was inserted inside the chord and was anchored with eight bolts on each side of the
T-joint. A T-stub was welded to the upper end of the brace and was gripped by the jaw of a
2000-kN capacity Dartec testing machine. During the test, the loading ram which housed the
jaw moved upwards at a rate of 2 mm/minute, creating axial tension in the brace. It can be
seen that, due to the loading condition and the short length of the chord, the T-joint acted as a
truss connection with negligible bending moment in the chord. (The pair of holes near the
upper end of the brace were previously intended for a bolted grip which was replaced by the
T-stub with the addition of reinforcing plates at the holes.)
The test set-up of Configuration A specimens is the same as that of Configuration B
specimens shown in Fig. 8, except for the different dimensions of the test specimens.

11
August 2003
loading ram
T-stub
brace
chord
rigid beam
Figure 8 Laboratory test set-up of a Configuration B specimen as a truss connection
Test results and discussions of Configuration A specimens
For each Configuration A specimen (see Table 1), the design capacity is determined by either
Equation (1) for chord side wall failure or Equation (5) for butt weld failure, depending on the
relative strength between the chord and the butt weld. Equation (2) for brace yielding leads to
higher design strengths than chord side wall failure for this configuration. The measured
values of yield stress and tube dimensions were used in the following design strength
calculations.
Substituting the relevant values into Equation (1) for chord side wall failure and moving the
capacity factor to the right-hand side, the predicted failure load Pp1 of each Configuration A
specimen is
Pp1 = 410 5.8 (2 126 + 10 5.8) / 0.9 10 3 = 819 kN.
(8)
The capacity of the butt welds as determined from Equation (6) is

Pp2 = 520 t w,av 2 126 10 3 = 131t w,av kN.
(9)
As the maximum value of the butt weld throat thickness tw,av is 5.8 mm, which is the
measured brace wall thickness, the predicted failure loads Pp2 given by Equation (9) are
invariably lower than Pp1 given by Equation (8). The ratios of ultimate test load Pt to
predicted failure load Pp2 are shown in Table 4.
The ratios of ultimate test load Pt to predicted failure load Pp2 shown in Table 4 have to be
viewed in conjunction with the observed failure modes of the specimens. All the MMAW
specimens failed in the weld metal as shown in Fig. 9 for Specimen 3, while all the GMAW
specimens failed in the chord side wall as shown in Fig. 10 for Specimen 6.
12
August 2003
Table 4. Test results of Configuration A specimens, based on Equation (6)

Spec
Welding
Preparation
tw, av
(mm)
Pt (kN)
Pt/Pp2
Failure
MMAW
N/A
4.0
635
1.21
Weld
MMAW
Backing strips
5.8
805
1.06
Weld
MMAW
Backing rods
5.5
640
0.89
Weld
GMAW
N/A
5.8
850
1.12
Chord
GMAW
Backing strips
5.8
875
1.15
Chord
GMAW
Backing rods
5.8
730
0.96
Chord
GMAW
Purging gas
5.8
855
1.13
Chord
Fig. 9 Butt weld failure of Specimen 3 (MMAW)
Fig. 10 Chord side wall failure of Specimen 6 (GMAW)

13
August 2003
It is not surprising that the MMAW specimens failed in the weld metal since the predicted
failure loads Pp2 are lower than Pp1. However, there are at least two reasons why the GMAW
specimens failed in the chord side wall. Firstly, the GMAW butt welds tended to be bulging
out rather than flush with the brace and the chord wall, resulting in a thicker throat section.
Secondly, the GMAW metal is significantly more ductile than the chord material (especially
around the corners) as evident from Tables 2 and 3.
As mentioned in Section 3, three additional MMAW specimens were fabricated with the first
welds being laid around the brace corners prior to the butt welds and the fillet welds. No
backing strips or backing rods were used for these additional specimens. It was thought that
the round the corner welding procedure would result in better butt welds in the vicinity of
the corners leading to higher joint strengths. However, as can be seen from the fifth column of
Table 5 in comparison with Pt = 635 kN for Specimen 1 in Table 4, it could not be definitely
concluded that welding continuously round the corner would consistently lead to a
significantly enhanced joint strength.
Table 5. Additional test results of Configuration A specimens, based on Equation (6)
Spec
Welding
Weld run
tw, av
(mm)
Pt (kN)
Pt/Pp2
Failure
MMAW
Round the corner
5.0
620
0.95
Weld
MMAW
Round the corner
5.5
740
1.03
Weld
10
MMAW
Round the corner
5.0
660
1.01
Weld
In any case, the failure mode of the GMAW specimens provides the opportunity to verify the
applicability of Equation (1) for chord side wall failure to the cold-formed C350 RHS used in
the present work. As computed in Equation (8), the chord side wall failure is predicted to
occur at 819 kN. Neglecting Specimen 6, the GMAW specimens were found to fail in the
chord side wall at approximately 850 kN. Table 6 shows the ratios of ultimate test load to
predicted failure load of the GMAW specimens when Equation (1) is used to predict the
failure loads.
Table 6. Test results of Configuration A specimens, based on Equation (1)
Spec
Welding
Preparation
Pt (kN)
Pt/Pp1
Failure
GMAW
N/A
850
1.04
Chord
GMAW
Backing strips
875
1.07
Chord
GMAW
Backing rods
730
0.89
Chord
GMAW
Purging gas
855
1.04
Chord

14
August 2003
Test results and discussions of Configuration B specimens
Unlike Configuration A specimens, the design capacity of each Configuration B specimen

(see Table 1) is determined by either Equation (2) for brace yielding [rather than Equation (1)
for chord side fall failure] or Equation (6) for weld failure. However, it will be seen that
Equation (2) for brace yielding by itself is not sufficient.
The effective width be of the brace as computed using Equation (3) is
10
355 8.75
151 bb
151 / 8.75 375 4.75
= 152 mm.
be =
(11)
Substituting the relevant values into Equation (2) and moving the capacity factor to the
right-hand side, the predicted failure load Pp1 of each Configuration B specimen is
Pp3 = 375 4.75 (2 151 4 4.75 + 2 152) / 0.9 10 3 = 1162 kN.
(12)
However, it is not possible for the brace yielding load to exceed the following load
Pp3 = f yb t b 2(hb + be )
(13)
= 375 4.75 2 (151 + 152) 10 3 = 1079 kN.

The capacity of the butt welds as determined from Equation (6) is
Pp2 = 520 t w,av 2 151 10 3 = 157 t w,av kN.
(14)
As the maximum value of the butt weld throat thickness tw,av is 4.75 mm, which is the brace
wall thickness, the predicted failure loads Pp2 given by Equation (14) are invariably lower
than Pp3 given by Equation (13). The ratios of ultimate test load Pt to predicted failure load
Pp2 are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Test results of Configuration B specimens, based on Equation (6)
Spec
Welding
Preparation
tw, av (mm)
11
MMAW
N/A
4.5
995
1.41
Weld/Brace
12
MMAW
Backing strips
4.75
1135
1.52
Weld/Brace
13
MMAW
Backing rods
4.5
1010
1.43
Weld/Brace
14
GMAW
N/A
4.75
915
1.23
Brace
15
GMAW
Backing strips
4.75
1335
1.79
Brace
16
GMAW
Backing rods
4.75
1130
1.51
Brace
17
GMAW
Purging gas
4.75
920
1.23
Brace

Pt (kN) Pt/Pp2
15
Failure
August 2003
It is evident from Table 7 that Equation (6), which assumes that only the butt welds resist the
brace axial load, is conservative for Configuration B specimens. It appears that, for a
Configuration B specimen, the fillet welds across the chord face are also effective in resisting
the brace axial load due to the much thicker chord section relative to the brace. This indication
is supported by the fact that fracture initiation was observed along the fillet weld of Specimen
15, as shown in Fig. 11.
fracture at the edge
of backing strip
fracture initiation
along the fillet weld
Fig. 11 Fracture initiation along the fillet weld of Specimen 15

The fracture at the edge of the backing strip shown in Fig. 11 was due to the necking of the
yielded brace. It was observed that the welded connections of Configuration B specimens
were so strong that the braces experienced necking as they yielded prior to reaching the
ultimate loads. Figure 12 shows that, even for Specimen 17, which failed at a load lower than
the full brace yielding load, necking of the brace took place.
Fig. 12 Brace necking of Specimen 17

Using Equation (13) for brace yielding, the ratios of ultimate test load to predicted failure load
of Configuration B specimens are given in Table 8. It can be seen that, while Equation (6)
leads to considerable underestimation of the load capacity of all Configuration B specimens,
16
August 2003
Equation (13) leads to significant overestimation for some specimens but significant
underestimation for others. This inconsistency is due to the large variation in the ultimate test
loads of Configuration B specimens.
Table 8. Test results of Configuration B specimens, based on Equation (13)
Spec
Welding
Preparation
Pt (kN)
Pt/Pp1
Failure
11
MMAW
N/A
995
0.92
Weld/Brace
12
MMAW
Backing strips
1135
1.05
Weld/Brace
13
MMAW
Backing rods
1010
0.94
Weld/Brace
14
GMAW
N/A
915
0.85
Brace
15
GMAW
Backing strips
1335
1.24
Brace
16
GMAW
Backing rods
1130
1.05
Brace
17
GMAW
Purging gas
920
0.85
Brace
The Configuration B specimens fabricated using the MMAW process consistently failed by
fracture through the weld and the brace member, as shown in Fig. 13 for Specimen11. The
Configuration B specimens fabricated using the GMAW process failed by fracture in the
brace member, as shown in Fig. 14 for Specimen 14. For both types of specimen, the fracture
in the brace member propagated through the heat-affected zone adjacent to the root of the
weld.
Fig. 13 Weld/brace fracture of Specimen 11
Fig. 14 Brace fracture of Specimen 14

17
August 2003
Conclusions
Laboratory tests on arc welded T-joints between equal width brace and chord RHS members
have been reported. The nominal yield stress and the nominal fy/furatio of the chord and
brace members were 350 MPa and 0.81, respectively. The welds were laid using the MMAW
and GMAW processes in conjunction with various joint preparations, including the use of
backing strips, backing rods, and purging gas inside the brace member. In all cases, the brace
was cut square leaving relatively large root gaps between the brace member and the corner of
the chord. Two joint configurations were tested, one with uniform thickness of the brace and
the chord (Configuration A), and another with a brace thickness of about half the chord
thickness (Configuration B).
The consistent results of the experiment are:
1. The specimens welded with the aid of backing strips for the butt weld (Specimens 2,
5, 12 and 15) were superior to the other comparable specimens, irrespective of the
failure modes. It appears that the backing strips not only resulted in better butt welds,
but also reduced the welding heat input into the braces and chords.
2. The test strengths of the specimens welded with the use of backing rods (Specimens 3,
6, 13 and 16) were associated with large variability and were in some cases less than
the strengths of specimens fabricated using other joint preparations. This finding is
consistent with the study by Teh and Rasmussen (2002) which concluded that the use
of backing rods should not be accepted as a pre-qualified welding procedure for full
penetration butt weld. It is therefore recommended that backing rods not be used in the
welding of equal width rectangular hollow section joints.
The test strengths have been compared with the design strengths calculated according to
current design strengths obtained using the IIW Recommendations, which have been included
in Part 1.8 of the Eurocode3 draft. The design calculations checked against the failure modes
of chord side wall failure and brace yielding, of which the former was critical for
Configuration A specimens while the latter was critical for Configuration B specimens. The
tests showed that the design strengths obtained using these equations were higher than the test
strengths in many cases, particularly for Configuration B specimens, and that failure was by
fracture of either the weld or the heat-affected-zone. It is apparent that the additional failure
mode associated with fracture of the weld or the heat-affected-zone needs to be checked for
equal width T-joints between cold-formed rectangular hollow sections with a nominal yield
stress of 350 MPa or above. Equation (5) of this report is suitable for calculating the design
strength corresponding to fracture of the weld. It assumes that the axial force in the brace is
transferred solely through the sidewalls.
In conclusion, excluding joints fabricated using backing rods, the design strengths of the test
specimens presented in this report can be conservatively and reasonably predicted as the
minimum of the chord side wall failure strength, the brace yielding strength and the weld
strength. A reliability analysis of the joint strength equations has not been undertaken in view
of the limited test data.

18
August 2003
Acknowledgments
The work reported herein was undertaken as part of a Research Project of the Cooperative
Research Centre for Welded Structures (CRC-WS). The CRC-WS was established and is
supported under the Australian Government's Cooperative Research Centres Program. The
report presents some of the results of the CRC project 2000-91 entitled Welding of
Rectangular Hollow Section Members of Equal Width. The financial support provided by the
CRC Welded Structures is greatly acknowledged as is the financial and in-kind support
provided by OneSteel Market Mills . All the welded connections were fabricated by Grant
Holgate in the Civil Engineering workshop at the University of Sydney. The WeldPrint
monitoring equipment was provided by Steve Simpson of the School of Electrical and
Information Engineering at the University of Sydney. The tests were conducted in the J. W.
Roderick Laboratory for Structures and Materials at the University of Sydney. The writers
also thank Kim Pham for the prompt production of some illustrations used in the paper.
References
AWS (2000) Structural Welding Code Steel, D1.1-98, 16th ed., American Welding Society
and American National Standards Institute, Miami, Florida, USA.
CEN (1993) Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.1 General Rules and Rules for
Buildings. European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN (2002) Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.8 Design of Joints. European
Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium.
Davies, G., Wardenier, J., and Stolle, P. (1981) The effective width of branch crosswalls for
RR cross joints in tension, Stevin Report No. 6-81-7, Delft University of Technology,
The Netherlands.
Eastwood, W, and Wood, A. A. (1970a) Welded joints in tubular structures involving
rectangular hollow sections, Proc., Joints in Structures, Sheffield, England.
Eastwood, W, and Wood, A. A. (1970b) Recent research on joints in tubular structures,
Proc., Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, Toronto, Canada.
Frater, G., and Packer, J. A. (1992a) Weldment design for RHS truss connections. I:
Applications, J. Struct. Engrg., 118 (10), 2784-2803.
Frater, G., and Packer, J. A. (1992b) Weldment design for RHS truss connections. I:
Experimentation, J. Struct. Engrg., 118 (10), 2804-2820.
IIW (1989) Design Recommendations for Hollow Section Joints Predominantly Statically
Loaded, 2nd ed., International Institute of Welding.
Korol, R. M., and Mirza, F. A. (1982) Finite element analysis of RHS T-joints, J. Struct.
Div., ASCE, 108 (ST9), 2081-2098.
Kurobane, Y. (2002), Connections in tubular structures, Prog. Struct. Engrg. Mat., 4 (1), 3545.
Packer, J. A., and Cassidy, C. E. (1995) Effective weld lengths for HSS T, Y and X
connections, J. Struct. Engrg., 121 (10), 1402-1408.
Packer, J. A., and Henderson, J. E. (1997) Hollow Structural Section Connections and
Trusses: A Design Guide, Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Willowdale, Ontario.
Packer, J. A., Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Dutta, D., and Yeomans, N. (1992) Design Guide
for Rectangular Hollow Section (RHS) Joints under Predominantly Static Loading,
Verlag TUV Rheinland, Koln.
Ravindra, M.K., and Galambos, T.V. (1978), Load and resistance factor design for steel, J.
Struct. Div., ASCE, 104 (ST9), 1337-1353.
19
August 2003
SA (1991a) Structural Steel Hollow Sections, AS 1163-1991, Standards Australia, Sydney.

SA (1991b) Methods for Tensile Testing of Metals, AS 1391-1991, Standards Australia,
Sydney.
SA (2003) Methods for destructive testing of welds in metal. Method 2.2: All-weld-metal
tensile test, AS 2205.2.2-2003, Standards Australia, Sydney.
SA/SNZ (1995) Covered Electrodes for Welding Low Carbon Steel Electrodes for MMAW
of Carbon Steels and Carbon-Manganese Steels, AS/NZS 1553.1:1995, Standards
Australia/Standards New Zealand, Sydney.
SA/SNZ (1996). Welding Electrodes - Gas Metal Arc - Ferritic Steel Electrodes, AS/NZS
2717.1:1996, Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, Sydney.
SA/SNZ (2000) Structural Steel Welding Part 1: Welding of Steel Structures, AS/NZS
1554.1:2000, Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, Sydney.
Syam, A., and Chapman, B. (1996) Design of Structural Steel Hollow Section Connections,
Vol. 1: Design Models, Australian Institute of Steel Construction, North Sydney,
Australia.
Teh, L. H., and Rasmussen, K. J. R. (2002) Strength of butt welded connections between
equal width rectangular hollow sections, Research Report No. R817, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia.
Wardenier, J., and de Koning, C. H. M. (1974) Static tensile tests on T-joints in structural
hollow sections, Stevin Report No. 6-74-7, Delft University of Technology, The
Netherlands.
Wilkinson, T. (1999) The Plastic Behaviour of Cold-Formed Rectangular Hollow Sections,
PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia.
Zhao, X. L. (2000) Deformation limit and ultimate strength of welded T-joints in coldformed RHS sections, J. Constr. Steel Res., 53 (2), 149-165.

20
August 2003
Appendix I. Measuring average thickness of butt welds

Following the destructive tests of the Configuration A specimens which were fabricated using
the MMAW process (see Section 6), it became apparent that full penetration was not achieved
for most of the butt welds of these specimens. For the purpose of determining the predicted
failure load of such a specimen based on the weld strength, as defined in Equation (6), the
average thickness of its butt welds t w,av was measured from the macros of the intact butt weld
(the specimens invariably fractured only on one side of the T-joint).
Three fillets were cut off from the intact side of each specimen as illustrated in Fig. I.1, giving
six macros as each fillet has two sides. The weld thickness of each macro was taken as the
thickness of its minimum cross section, rounded to the nearest 0.5 mm as shown in Table I.1
for MMAW specimens, except for full butt welds in which case the wall thickness of the
brace member is assumed. The average thickness t w,av of a T-joint specimen was then
computed from the thickness of these six macros, also rounded to the nearest 0.5 mm.
Adjacent face
Brace
Cut for
macros
Butt / Groove weld
Chord
Opposite face (seam weld face)
Fig. I.1 Three fillets cut off from the intact side
Table I.1 Weld thicknesses of MMAW specimens
1
4.5
4.5
3.5
(full butt welds)
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
4.5
4.5
11
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
12
13
(full butt welds)

4.5

4.5
4.5
4.5
21
August 2003
Appendix II. Welding procedures

The passes listed in the following tables are for the butt weld on one side of the corresponding
specimens only. The procedures for a few specimens are not available.
Specimen Number:
Preparation:
2-mm gap
Welding Position:
Flat (1F)
Welding Process & Machine:
MMAW, Transarc 500
Polarity:
AC
Electrode Trade Name:
CIGWeld Weldcraft
Electrode Diameter (mm) :

Weld
3.25
Electrode Classification
Pass 1
AS 1553.1.E4113
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
21
140
140
1.26
Pass 2
21
140
145
1.22
Pass 3
21
140
140
1.26
Pass 4
21
140
160
1.10
Specimen Number:
Preparation:
2-mm gap, backing strips
Welding Position:
Flat (1F)
MMAW, Transarc 500
Polarity:
AC
CIGWeld Weldcraft

Weld
3.25
Pass 1
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
21
140
150
1.18
Pass 2
21
141
160
1.11
Pass 3
21
142
140
1.28
Pass 4
21
140
160
1.10

AS 1553.1.E4113
22
Specimen Number:
August 2003
Preparation:
2-mm gap, backing rods
Welding Position:
Flat (1F)
MMAW, Transarc 500
Polarity:
AC
CIGWeld Weldcraft

Weld
3.25
Pass 1
AS 1553.1.E4113
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
21
140
150
1.18
Pass 2
20
140
150
1.12
Pass 3
21
140
140
1.28
Pass 4
21
140
150
1.18
Specimen Number:
Preparation:
2-mm gap
Welding Position:
Flat (1F)
Welding Process:
GMAW, short-arc transfer
Welding Machine:
CIG Transmig 330 transformer; Transmig 2Rse feeder
Polarity:
DCEP
Stick-out:
15 mm
CIGWeld Autocraft
Gas Trade Name:
Argoshield 51
Gas Composition:
16% CO2, 81.5% Ar, 2.5% O2
Gas Flow Rate (L/min):

Weld
25
Wire Speed
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
195
805
0.29
Pass 2
190
850
0.27
Pass 3
195
800
0.29
Pass 4
195
1100
0.21
mm/min
Pass 1
0.9 mm ES4-GC/M-W503AH

12500
23
20
August 2003
Specimen Number:
Preparation:
Welding Position:
Flat (1F)
Welding Process:
Welding Machine:
Polarity:
DCEP
Stick-out:
15 mm
CIGWeld Autocraft
Gas Trade Name:
Argoshield 51
Gas Composition:
16% CO2, 81.5% Ar, 2.5% O2

Weld
25
Wire Speed
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
205
530
0.46
Pass 2
205
500
0.49
Pass 3
205
610
0.40
mm/min
Pass 1
12500
20
Specimen Number:
Preparation:
Welding Position:
Flat (1F)
Welding Process:
Welding Machine:
Polarity:
DCEP
Stick-out:
15 mm
CIGWeld Autocraft
Gas Trade Name:
Argoshield 51
Gas Composition:
16% CO2, 81.5% Ar, 2.5% O2

Weld
25
Wire Speed
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
205
505
0.49
Pass 2
205
500
0.49
Pass 3
205
550
0.45
mm/min
Pass 1

12500
24
20
August 2003
Specimen Number:
Preparation:
2-mm gap, purging gas
Welding Position:
Flat (1F)
Welding Process:
Welding Machine:
Polarity:
DCEP
Stick-out:
15 mm
CIGWeld Autocraft
Gas Trade Name:
Argoshield 51
Gas Composition:
16% CO2, 81.5% Ar, 2.5% O2

Weld
25
Wire Speed
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
180
755
0.29
Pass 2
190
700
0.33
Pass 3
185
810
0.27
Pass 4
185
980
0.23
mm/min
Pass 1
12500
Specimen Number:
Preparation:
2-mm gap
Welding Position:
Horizontal (2F)
MMAW, Transarc 500
Polarity:
AC
CIGWeld Weldcraft

Weld
20
3.25
Pass 1
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
21
140
180
0.98
Pass 2
21
140
195
0.90
Pass 3
21
140
190
0.93
Pass 4
21
140
180
0.98
Pass 5
21
140
250
0.71

AS 1553.1.E4113
25
Specimen Number:
August 2003
11
Preparation:
2-mm gap
Welding Position:
Flat (1F)
MMAW, Transarc 500
Polarity:
AC
CIGWeld Weldcraft

Weld
4.00
Pass 1
AS 1553.1.E4113
N/A
N/A
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
N/A
N/A
Pass 2
Pass 3
Pass 4
Pass 5
Pass 6
Pass 7
Pass 9
Pass 10
Specimen Number:
12
Preparation:
Welding Position:
Flat (1F)
MMAW, Transarc 500
Polarity:
AC
CIGWeld Weldcraft

Weld
4.00
Pass 1
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
21
140
125
1.41
Pass 2
21
140
130
1.36
Pass 3
21
140
125
1.41
Pass 4
21
140
120
1.47
Pass 5
21
140
125
1.41

AS 1553.1.E4113
26
Specimen Number:
August 2003
13
Preparation:
Welding Position:
Flat (1F)
MMAW, Transarc 500
Polarity:
AC
CIGWeld Weldcraft

Weld
4.00
Pass 1
AS 1553.1.E4113
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
21
140
110
1.60
Pass 2
21
140
130
1.36
Pass 3
21
140
135
1.31
Pass 4
21
140
145
1.22
Pass 5
21
140
135
1.31
Specimen Number:
15
Preparation:
Welding Position:
Flat (1F)
Welding Process:
Welding Machine:
Polarity:
DCEP
Stick-out:
15 mm
CIGWeld Autocraft
Gas Trade Name:
Argoshield 51
Gas Composition:
16% CO2, 81.5% Ar, 2.5% O2

Weld
25
Wire Speed
Welding
Speed
Arc
Energy
mm/min
kJ/mm
220
670
0.39
Pass 2
220
705
0.37
Pass 3
215
620
0.42
Pass 4
220
680
0.39
Pass 5
235
805
0.35
mm/min
Pass 1

12500
27
20

28
August 2003

Asasa

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Asasa

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Department of Civil Engineering

Sydney, NSW 2006

Strength of Welded T-Joint Truss

Lip H. Teh BE PhD

Department of Civil Engineering

Strength of Welded T-Joint Truss Connections between Equal

Department of Civil Engineering, Research Report R831

2003 Lip H. Teh and Kim J. R. Rasmussen

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Sydney

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Sydney

Fig. 1 Welded T-joint between equal width RHS

The University of Sydney

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Sydney

Design equations to be checked

= chord wall thickness;

hb = brace width parallel to the chord side wall;

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Sydney

= brace wall thickness;

in which fuw is the nominal tensile strength of the weld metal.

The University of Sydney

Specimen configurations and joint preparations

Fig. 3 Root gap as a function of three variables

*Based on the ultimate tensile strength in the direction of loading

The University of Sydney

(a) with backing strips

(b) with backing rods

(c) with purging gas

Fig. 4 Joint preparations

Fig. 5 Fracture initiation from the brace corner of Specimen 11

Material properties of RHS and welding electrodes

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Sydney

Table 2 Material properties of RHS specimens

Butt / Groove weld

Opposite face (seam weld face)

Fig. 6 T-joint arrangement with respect to adjacent and opposite faces

The University of Sydney

Fig. 7 Adjacent and opposite faces of a rectangular hollow section

Laboratory test set-up

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Sydney

Figure 8 Laboratory test set-up of a Configuration B specimen as a truss connection

Test results and discussions of Configuration A specimens

The capacity of the butt welds as determined from Equation (6) is

The University of Sydney

Table 4. Test results of Configuration A specimens, based on Equation (6)

Fig. 9 Butt weld failure of Specimen 3 (MMAW)

Fig. 10 Chord side wall failure of Specimen 6 (GMAW)

The University of Sydney

Round the corner

Round the corner

Round the corner

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Sydney

Test results and discussions of Configuration B specimens

Unlike Configuration A specimens, the design capacity of each Configuration B specimen

= 375 4.75 2 (151 + 152) 10 3 = 1079 kN.

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Sydney