Final Report

5BF-10/98

KK
Title of the Project:

Analysis of Existing and Forthcoming

Data for Multi-Planar KK-Joints with
Circular Hollow Sections

Sponsors:

CIDECT
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan

Research Program:

CIDECT 5BF

Application for research by: Nippon Steel Metal Products

Research carried out by:

Sojo University
Kumamoto University

Date:

July 1998

Period covered:

January 1995-December 1996

Research team:

Prof. Yoshiaki Kurobane

Sojo University
Department of Architecture
Ikeda 4-22-1, Kumamoto 860-0082, Japan
Phone: +81-96-326-3111
Fax: +81-96-325-8321
E-mail: kurobane@arch.sojo-u.ac.jp
Prof. Yuji Makino
Kumamoto University
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering
Kurokami 2-39-1, Kumamoto 860-8555, Japan
Phone: +81-96-342-3593
Fax: +81-96-342-3569
E-mail: makino@arch.kumamoto-u.ac.jp

1. INTRODUCTION
Makino et al. (1984) reported the earliest experimental study on circular tubular KK-joints
under symmetrical axial brace loading. The design formula for multi-planar KK-joints recommended in the current Cidect design guide (Wardenier et al. 1991) was based on these test results.
Paul et al. (1992, 1994) succeeded Makinos research and proposed ultimate strength formulae for
KK-joints under symmetrical loads. Mouty and Rondal (1992) also conducted a series of tests on
KK-joints. However, the latter test results showed KK-joint capacities significantly lower than
those predicted by Pauls formulae. This fact motivated the Cidect working groups to initiate
Research Program 5BF on Analysis of existing and forthcoming data for multi-planar KK-joints
with circular hollow sections. Subsequently Lee and Wilmshurst (1996) completed an extensive
series of numerical analyses of KK-joints under symmetrical loads and proposed new ultimate
strength formulae using both numerical and experimental results. KK-joints under anti-symmetrical axial loads have also been studied extensively by Makino et al. (1994), Yonemura et al. (1996),
Lee et al (1996) and Wilmshurst et al. (1997). The total number of joints studied as of May 1998
reached 156 for joints under symmetrical loads and 112 for joints under anti-symmetrical loads.
This report proposes those further revised new ultimate strength equations for KK-joints
under both symmetrical and anti-symmetrical axial loads, which are developed based on all the
existing test and numerical results. These formulae are applicable only to joints whose failures are
governed by chord wall plastification. The new prediction formulae are compared with the Mouty
and Rondal test results and with the AWS equation.
2. DATABASE

X-JOINTS

The screened database was constructed, by omitting the Mouty and Rondal test results as
well as the test and numerical results for specimens that failed in failure modes other than the chord
wall plastification, from the database of Makino
et al. (1996) (accessible at the web site http://
MULTI-PLANAR JOINTS
UNIPLANAR JOINTS
w w w. a r c h . k u m a m o t o - u . a c . j p / m a k i _ l a b /
N1
N1
N2
database.html). The other failure modes menX
XX
tioned above include flexural and local buckling
of compression braces, cracking at points where
stresses concentrate, and plastic deformation of
N2
braces. The screened database is summarized in
N1
N
Tables 1 and 2, respectively, for joints under sym1
metrical and anti-symmetrical axial loads. The
N1
N1
number designating each data set in Tables 1 and
TT
N1
2 is identical to the serial number in Makinos database. The values of d0, t0, d1, t1, Fy, Fu, and
T
N1u,KK for test specimens shown in these tables
N1
and the values of g and gt for test specimens in
N2
TX
Table 1 are measured ones. The other geometrical
variables are given in nominal values. The defiN2
nition of symbols is shown in Appendix.
T-JOINTS

N1
K-JOINTS

3. DERIVATION OF ULTIMATE
STRENGTH EQUATIONS

N1
N2

N2

KK

3.1 Format of Ultimate Strength Equations

N1

The ultimate strength equations proposed

here have a format of uni-planar K-joint strength
multiplied by a correction factor. The strength of

N2

Fig. 1 Classification of multi-planar joints.

Table 1 Screened database for KK-joints under symmetrical loads.

Data No.

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (deg) (deg) (deg)

DKS-1
DKS-2
DKS-3
DKS-4
DKS-5
DKS-6
DKS-7
DKS-8
DKS-9
DKS-10
DKS-11
DKS-12
DKS-13
DKS-14
DKS-15
DKS-16
DKS-17
DKS-18
DKS-19
DKS-20
DKS-21
DKS-22
DKS-23
DKS-25
DKS-26
DKS-27
DKS-28
DKS-29
DKS-30
DKS-31
DKS-32
DKS-33
DKS-34
DKS-35
DKS-36
DKS-37
DKS-38
DKS-39
DKS-40
DKS-41
DKS-42
DKS-82
DKS-86

216.1
216.1
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
190.8
217.1
217.2
217.1
217.0
165.3
165.0
165.0
165.2
139.8
216.2
216.2
216.0
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.3
139.9
140.5
140.1
215.9
215.9
139.7
88.9

7.90 76.3 6.60

7.90 76.3 6.60
5.21 89.0 5.66
5.21 89.0 5.66
5.21 89.0 5.66
5.21 89.0 5.66
5.21 60.5 5.66
5.21 60.5 5.66
5.21 60.5 5.66
5.21 42.8 5.46
5.21 42.8 5.46
5.21 89.0 5.66
5.21 89.0 5.66
5.21 89.0 5.66
5.21 89.0 5.66
5.21 60.5 5.66
5.21 60.5 5.66
5.21 60.5 5.66
5.21 42.8 5.46
5.21 42.8 5.46
4.41 48.9 3.20
4.41 60.7 4.00
4.41 76.6 4.00
4.45 60.1 4.00
4.39 48.9 3.20
4.29 48.3 3.20
4.21 48.5 3.20
4.21 60.2 4.00
4.37 48.4 3.20
4.48 60.7 3.80
4.54 76.5 4.00
4.49 76.6 4.00
4.32 60.7 3.80
4.42 60.6 3.80
4.32 76.4 4.00
4.41 76.3 4.00
4.12 60.7 3.80
4.08 60.6 3.80
4.05 60.6 3.80
4.36 101.7 5.24
4.36 101.7 5.24
4.00 48.3 3.20
4.00 33.7 2.60

85.8 36.0 49.1 49.1 30.0

58.5 89.0 54.7 54.7 45.0
72.8 8.0 49.1 49.1 30.0
51.3 9.0 49.1 49.1 30.0
31.0 8.0 49.1 49.1 30.0
9.5
9.0 49.1 49.1 30.0
52.0 37.0 49.1 49.1 30.0
31.0 40.0 49.1 49.1 30.0
11.0 38.5 49.1 49.1 30.0
30.0 55.0 49.1 49.1 30.0
11.5 55.0 49.1 49.1 30.0
73.0 56.0 54.7 54.7 45.0
52.0 56.0 54.7 54.7 45.0
31.0 56.0 54.7 54.7 45.0
11.3 55.0 54.7 54.7 45.0
53.0 84.0 54.7 54.7 45.0
31.0 83.0 54.7 54.7 45.0
10.5 83.0 54.7 54.7 45.0
31.0 100.0 54.7 54.7 45.0
11.5 100.0 54.7 54.7 45.0
54.0 63.3 63.4 63.4 30.0
40.9 51.6 63.4 63.4 30.0
23.0 35.1 63.4 63.4 30.0
75.0 87.1 63.4 63.4 30.0
28.4 36.9 63.4 63.4 30.0
3.5
9.3 63.4 63.4 30.0
62.2 76.5 63.4 63.4 30.0
41.5 56.4 63.4 63.4 30.0
16.2 24.2 63.4 63.4 30.0
74.9 103.9 90.0 50.6 30.0
47.2 72.2 90.0 50.6 30.0
60.0 90.0 90.0 50.6 30.0
21.6 52.9 90.0 49.1 30.0
30.3 66.3 90.0 49.1 30.0
11.6 50.4 90.0 49.1 30.0
12.0 51.1 90.0 49.1 30.0
7.4 36.2 90.0 49.1 30.0
12.1 42.2 90.0 49.1 30.0
15.2 46.5 90.0 49.1 30.0
52.8 7.9 49.1 49.1 30.0
52.8 7.9 49.1 49.1 30.0
71.4 23.7 45.0 45.0 30.0
41.2 11.9 45.0 45.0 30.0

(MPa) (MPa)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

404
404
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
379
352
352
352
432
385
278
278
278
386
472
472
472
409
409
409
409
371
371
371
388
388
322
320

460
460
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
441
472
472
472
556
490
402
402
402
475
521
521
521
483
483
483
483
469
469
469
470
470
451
448

1u,KK

Prediction

(kN)

(kN)

398
385
224
230
240
285
188
204
228
156
175
242
252
263
291
155
162
182
122
162
83
108
149
114
136
127
71
97
136
106
139
131
139
126
198
179
165
163
152
179
189
112
80

346
344
205
210
236
311
161
181
235
134
171
207
212
239
310
140
158
206
116
150
89
112
180
120
119
137
71
92
139
112
151
141
145
130
215
220
171
155
144
183
183
96
79

Table 1 continued
Data No.
DKS-87
DKS-88
DKS-90
DKS-91
DKS-92
DKS-93
DKS-94
DKS-95
DKS-96
DKS-97
DKS-98
DKS-99
DKS-100
DKS-101
DKS-102
DKS-103
DKS-104
DKS-105
DKS-106
DKS-107
DKS-108
DKS-111
DKS-112
DKS-113
DKS-115
DKS-116
DKS-117
DKS-118
DKS-119
DKS-120
DKS-121
DKS-122
DKS-123
DKS-124
DKS-125
DKS-126
DKS-127
DKS-128
DKS-129
DKS-130
DKS-131
DKS-132
DKS-133
DKS-134

d0
(mm)
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0

t 0
d1
t 1
(mm) (mm) (mm)
5.00 28.8 4.00
5.00 28.8 4.00
5.00 28.8 4.00
4.00 28.8 4.00
2.86 28.8 2.86
2.40 28.8 2.40
2.00 28.8 2.00
1.71 28.8 1.71
1.50 28.8 1.50
5.00 28.8 4.00
5.00 28.8 4.00
5.00 28.8 4.00
6.67 38.4 6.67
5.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
2.86 38.4 2.86
2.40 38.4 2.40
2.00 38.4 2.00
1.71 38.4 1.71
1.50 38.4 1.50
5.00 38.4 4.00
6.67 38.4 6.67
6.67 38.4 9.34
5.00 38.4 4.00
5.00 38.4 6.00
4.00 38.4 2.40
4.00 38.4 4.00
3.33 38.4 4.00
3.33 38.4 2.00
2.86 38.4 2.29
2.86 38.4 4.00
2.40 38.4 2.40
2.00 38.4 2.00
1.71 38.4 1.71
1.50 38.4 1.50
5.00 38.4 4.00
5.00 38.4 4.00
5.00 48.0 4.00
5.00 48.0 4.00
6.67 48.0 6.67
5.00 48.0 4.00
4.00 48.0 4.00
3.33 48.0 3.33
2.86 48.0 2.86

g
g t
1 2 n0 Fy
F u N 1u,KK Prediction
(mm) (mm) (deg) (deg) (deg)
(MPa) (MPa) (kN)
(kN)
18.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
109
118
28.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
104
108
38.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
100
102
38.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
71
70
38.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
41
40
38.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
31
30
38.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
23
22
38.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
17
17
38.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
14
14
48.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
99
99
58.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
99
98
68.0 33.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
99
97
18.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
206
207
18.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
138
141
18.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
104
104
18.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
60
63
18.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
45
48
18.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
34
36
18.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
27
27
18.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
22
22
28.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
126
129
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
182
187
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
181
187
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
120
122
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
120
122
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
86
87
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
87
87
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
66
67
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
67
67
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
53
53
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
53
53
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
42
41
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
32
32
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
26
26
38.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
21
21
48.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
119
119
58.0 23.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
118
117
18.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
159
164
28.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
144
150
38.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
203
218
38.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
135
142
38.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
98
101
38.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
76
77
38.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
61
62

Table 1 continued
Data No.
DKS-135
DKS-136
DKS-137
DKS-138
DKS-139
DKS-140
DKS-141
DKS-142
DKS-143
DKS-144
DKS-145
DKS-146
DKS-147
DKS-148
DKS-149
DKS-150
DKS-151
DKS-152
DKS-153

d0
(mm)
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0

t 0
d1
t 1
(mm) (mm) (mm)
2.40 48.0 2.40
2.00 48.0 2.00
1.71 48.0 1.71
1.50 48.0 1.50
5.00 48.0 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00
4.00 38.4 4.00

g
g t
1 2 n0 Fy
F u N 1u,KK Prediction
(mm) (mm) (deg) (deg) (deg)
(MPa) (MPa) (kN)
(kN)
38.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
48
48
38.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
37
37
38.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
30
30
38.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
25
25
48.0 13.4 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
133
138
29.7 12.0 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
83
91
29.7 18.0 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
87
91
29.7 24.0 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
90
91
29.7 30.0 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
92
92
29.7 36.0 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
89
90
29.7 42.0 60.0 60.0 30.0 0
355
510
87
89
29.7 24.0 60.0 60.0 33.8 0
355
510
92
91
29.7 24.0 60.0 60.0 37.5 0
355
510
95
91
29.7 24.0 60.0 60.0 41.3 0
355
510
99
91
29.7 24.0 60.0 60.0 45.0 0
355
510
103
91
29.7 31.2 60.0 60.0 33.8 0
355
510
90
92
29.7 38.8 60.0 60.0 37.5 0
355
510
87
90
29.7 46.1 60.0 60.0 41.3 0
355
510
85
88
29.7 53.3 60.0 60.0 45.0 0
355
510
81
85

DKS-154 120.0 5.00

33.6

4.00

18.0

28.6 60.0 60.0 30.0

355

510

127

134

DKS-155 120.0 5.00

33.6

4.00

28.0

28.6 60.0 60.0 30.0

355

510

117

123

DKS-156 120.0 5.00

33.6

4.00

38.0

28.6 60.0 60.0 30.0

355

510

112

116

Note: Numerical results are distinguished from test results by showing them on halftone backgrounds.

Table 2 Screened database for KK-joints under anti-symmetrical loads.

Data No.
DKA-1
DKA-2
DKA-6
DKA-7
DKA-8
DKA-10
DKA-14
DKA-15
DKA-16
DKA-17
DKA-21
DKA-22
DKA-23
DKA-25
DKA-26
DKA-27
DKA-28
DKA-29
DKA-30
DKA-31
DKA-33
DKA-34
DKA-35
DKA-36
DKA-37
DKA-38
DKA-39
DKA-40
DKA-44
DKA-45
DKA-46
DKA-47
DKA-48
DKA-49
DKA-51
DKA-52
DKA-53
DKA-54
DKA-55
DKA-56
DKA-58
DKA-59
DKA-62

(mm)
216.6
217.0
216.6
216.1
216.1
215.9
318.2
318.2
216.3
216.3
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
216.8
216.3
216.5

(mm)
4.30
5.80
4.30
5.80
7.90
4.40
4.50
4.50
6.30
6.30
5.00
5.00
5.00
2.86
2.40
2.00
1.71
1.50
5.00
5.00
4.00
2.86
2.40
2.00
1.71
1.50
5.00
5.00
3.33
2.86
2.40
2.00
1.71
1.50
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.86
2.86
2.86
5.52
5.84
5.39

(mm)
77.7
77.7
77.0
77.0
76.2
101.7
60.5
139.8
89.1
75.7
28.8
28.8
28.8
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
38.4
38.4
38.4
48.0
48.0
48.0
76.9
114.4
76.9

(mm)
3.90
3.90
4.00
4.00
7.00
5.20
3.20
4.50
5.40
5.40
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.86
2.40
2.00
1.71
1.50
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.40
2.00
1.71
1.50
4.00
4.00
3.33
2.86
2.40
2.00
1.71
1.50
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.86
2.86
2.86
3.98
4.49
3.98

g
(mm)
84.8
85.1
58.8
58.5
59.5
52.4
232.6
120.5
69.4
71.4
48.0
58.0
68.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
28.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
48.0
58.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
29.7
29.7
29.7
18.0
28.0
48.0
108.1
54.5
36.2

(mm)
33.8
34.0
88.7
88.3
89.1
7.1
312.4
285.8
21.4
41.9
33.4
33.4
33.4
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
24.0
38.8
53.3
13.4
13.4
13.4
202.7
183.5
202.4

(deg)
49.1
49.1
54.7
54.7
54.7
49.1
45.0
45.0
49.1
49.1
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
45.0
45.0
60.0

(deg)
49.1
49.1
54.7
54.7
54.7
49.1
45.0
45.0
49.1
49.1
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
45.0
45.0
60.0

(deg)
30.0
30.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
30.0
90.0
90.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
37.5
45.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
90.0
90.0
90.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

(MPa) (MPa)
404
515
387
474
404
515
374
472
404
460
388
470
413
528
413
528
387
472
387
472
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
355
510
330
436
367
474
332
432

1u,KK

(kN)
-119
-186
-126
-189
-311
-212
-108
-235
-270
-220
-78
-77
-76
-50
-35
-25
-19
-15
-113
-105
-70
-38
-28
-20
-16
-13
-101
-98
-74
-57
-42
-30
-23
-18
-75
-77
-80
-68
-59
-55
-223
-385
-190

Prediction
(kN)
122
194
121
187
320
194
108
218
289
200
85
84
83
46
33
23
17
13
116
110
72
39
28
20
15
12
107
106
76
57
42
30
23
18
75
79
81
68
59
57
181
333
178

Table 2 continued
Data No.
DKA-63
DKA-65
DKA-66
DKA-67
DKA-68
DKA-69
DKA-70
DKA-71
DKA-72
DKA-73
DKA-74
DKA-75
DKA-76
DKA-77
DKA-78
DKA-79
DKA-80
DKA-81
DKA-82
DKA-83
DKA-84
DKA-85
DKA-86
DKA-87
DKA-88
DKA-89
DKA-90
DKA-91
DKA-92
DKA-93
DKA-94
DKA-95
DKA-96
DKA-97
DKA-98
DKA-99
DKA-100
DKA-101
DKA-102
DKA-103
DKA-104
DKA-105
DKA-106
DKA-107

d0
(mm)
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5
216.5

t 0
d1
t 1
g
gt
1 2 n0 Fy
F u N 1u,KK Prediction
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (deg) (deg) (deg)
(MPa) (MPa) (kN)
(kN)
6.32 76.3 4.03 36.9 202.6 60.0 60.0 90.0 0
369
504
-224
270
9.02 52.0 10.82 75.8 111.9 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-364
343
9.02 75.8 10.82 75.8 89.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-483
464
9.02 97.4 10.82 75.8 67.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-669
582
9.02 75.8 10.82 108.3 89.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-455
453
9.02 75.8 10.82 75.8 158.4 45.0 45.0 67.5 0
389
540
-520
493
9.02 75.8 10.82 32.5 202.8 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-584
596
9.02 52.0 10.82 75.8 210.2 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-383
374
9.02 75.8 10.82 75.8 202.8 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-515
513
9.02 97.4 10.82 75.8 193.3 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-641
652
9.02 75.8 10.82 108.3 202.8 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-505
501
9.02 97.4 10.82 108.3 193.3 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-627
637
4.33 75.8 5.20 32.5 89.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-150
148
4.33 52.0 5.20 75.8 111.9 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-98
97
4.33 75.8 5.20 75.8 89.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-130
132
4.33 97.4 5.20 75.8 67.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-172
165
4.33 75.8 5.20 108.3 89.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-127
132
4.33 75.8 5.20 32.5 158.4 45.0 45.0 67.5 0
389
540
-157
157
4.33 52.0 5.20 75.8 174.3 45.0 45.0 67.5 0
389
540
-103
103
4.33 75.8 5.20 75.8 158.4 45.0 45.0 67.5 0
389
540
-145
140
4.33 97.4 5.20 75.8 141.3 45.0 45.0 67.5 0
389
540
-182
177
4.33 75.8 5.20 108.3 158.4 45.0 45.0 67.5 0
389
540
-141
140
4.33 75.8 5.20 32.5 202.8 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-155
163
4.33 52.0 5.20 75.8 210.2 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-103
106
4.33 75.8 5.20 75.8 202.8 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-144
146
4.33 97.4 5.20 75.8 193.3 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-184
185
4.33 75.8 5.20 108.3 202.8 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-140
146
2.71 75.8 3.25 32.5 89.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-66
62
2.71 52.0 3.25 75.8 111.9 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-44
44
2.71 75.8 3.25 75.8 89.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-61
60
2.71 97.4 3.25 75.8 67.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-72
75
2.71 75.8 3.25 108.3 89.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 0
389
540
-59
60
2.71 75.8 3.25 75.8 158.4 45.0 45.0 67.5 0
389
540
-64
64
2.71 75.8 3.25 32.5 158.4 45.0 45.0 67.5 0
389
540
-69
66
2.71 52.0 3.25 75.8 210.2 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-44
48
2.71 75.8 3.25 75.8 202.8 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-65
66
2.71 97.4 3.25 75.8 193.3 45.0 45.0 90.0 0
389
540
-84
84
2.71 75.8 3.25 108.3 158.4 45.0 45.0 67.5 0
389
540
-62
64
9.02 75.8 10.82 75.8 35.8 45.0 45.0 30.0 0
389
540
-453
480
9.02 75.8 10.82 75.8 126.5 45.0 45.0 56.3 0
389
540
-513
480
9.02 75.8 10.82 75.8 184.1 45.0 45.0 78.8 0
389
540
-515
505
4.33 75.8 5.20 75.8 35.8 45.0 45.0 30.0 0
389
540
-113
126
4.33 75.8 5.20 75.8 126.5 45.0 45.0 56.3 0
389
540
-141
136
4.33 75.8 5.20 75.8 184.1 45.0 45.0 78.8 0
389
540
-144
143

Table 2 continued

d0
t 0
d1
t 1
g
gt
1 2 n0 Fy
F u N 1u,KK Prediction
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (deg) (deg) (deg)
(MPa) (MPa) (kN)
(kN)
DKA-108 216.5 2.71 75.8 3.25 75.8 35.8 45.0 45.0 30.0 0 389
540
-50
54
DKA-109 216.5 2.71 75.8 3.25 75.8 126.5 45.0 45.0 56.3 0 389
540
-65
62
Data No.

DKA-110 216.5 2.71

75.8

3.25

75.8 184.1 45.0 45.0 78.8

389

540

-64

65

DKA-111 216.1 6.40 140.3 4.60

16.5 165.1 45.0 45.0 90.0

342

485

-560

655

DKA-112 216.8 4.30 165.2 5.60 -17.0 140.1 45.0 45.0 90.0

379

474

-543

618

Note: Numerical results are distinguished from test results by showing them on halftone backgrounds.

K-joints is given by Kurobanes formula (1984), which afforded the basis for the Cidect design
equation. The Cidect design guide also utilizes the same format for design equations for multiplanar joints. Although Lee and Wilmshurst (1996, 1997) have already derived accurate strength
prediction equations for KK-joints independently of K-joint strength, the new formulae were devised following the above format. The reason for this is that one of the easiest ways to provide
design formulae for various multi-planar joints is to classify them into 3 large groups of uni-planar
X, T and K-joints as shown in Fig. 1 (Vegte
van der 1996). The behavior of each multiplanar joint is similar to that of the uni-planar
counterpart and thus relatively simple correction factors suffice for accurate prediction of
strength of multi-planar joints. Furthermore,
with this format, one can derive the most reliable prediction equations from the smallest database.
3.2 KK-Joints under Symmetrical Axial
Brace Loading
KK-joints under symmetrical loads demonstrate two types of failure mode depending
(a) Failure Type 1
on the out-of-plane angle , as shown in Fig.
2. Paul (1992) distinguished between these
two failure modes and devised two different
ultimate strength equations for the two failure modes. The first failure pattern, which is
called the failure Type 1, shows no local deflection in the chord wall in the region between the two compression braces. Namely,
the two compression braces act as one member and penetrate the chord wall together. The
second failure pattern, which is called the failure Type 2, shows radial deflection of the
chord wall in the region between the compression braces, eventually creating a fold between
them. The Type 1 failure mode occurs when
is small. As soon as the failure mode
(b) Failure Type 2
changes from Type 1 to Type 2, the capacity
Fig. 2 Failure modes for KK-joints under symmetrical
of KK-joints suddenly changes.
axial loads.
Finite element analysis results were

N 1u,KK
= 0.254 (2 ) 0.376
N 1u,K

(1)

1.4
1.2
1.0
correction factor

found to reproduce well the behavior of

KK-joints observed in tests. Accurate ultimate capacity prediction equations have
recently been developed for KK-joints by
combining both test and FEA results (Lee
et al. 1996, Kurobane et al. 1996) Of these,
the following two equations are selected
and proposed herein.
When a Type 1 failure occurs
(gt/d00.215), the ultimate strength of KKjoints is predicted by

0.8
0.6
2=80
2=40

0.4

where

2=20
0.2

COV=0.0613.
When a Type 2 failure occurs (g t /
d0>0.215), the capacity prediction equation
is:

2=42-80

0.215

2=18-36

0.0
0

N 1u,KK
g
= 0.438 (1 +0.833 ) (1 0.340 t ) (2 ) 0.176
N 1u,K
d0

(2)

0.2

0.4

0.6

g t /d 0
Fig. 3 Correction factors plotted against gt/d0
(symmetrical axial loading).

where

2.0

COV=0.0752.

1.8

In the above equations N1u,K and N1u,KK denotes

ultimate strength of K and KK-joints, respectively, given in terms of the maximum load in
the compression brace. The right-hand sides
of these equations signify the correction factors.
The border between Type 1 and 2 failure
modes is at gt/d0=0.215 according to Lee et al.
(1996). The correction factors given by Eqs. 1
and 2 become discontinuous at the border. The
correction factors when 2 =20, 40 and 80 are
plotted against gt/d0 in Fig. 3. Numerical results, classified into 2 groups according to 2,
are compared with the correction factors as
shown in Fig. 3. Test results are not included
here because they scatter more than numerical
results, although both have about the same
mean values. Figure 3 shows how abruptly
the capacity changes when failure mode varies from Type 1 to Type 2. Predicted ultimate
strengths are shown in Table 1. Ratios of test
and analysis results to predictions are plotted
against 2 in Fig. 4. In the same figure are

1.6

test/prediction

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
AWS MEAN
AWS
FORMULA

0.4
0.2

Eqs. 1 & 2

0.0
0

20

40
2

60

Fig. 4 Ratios of Test and analysis results

to predictions plotted against 2
(symmetrical axial loading).

80

also plotted the predictions according to the

AWS formula, which will be discussed in
later part of this report.
3.3 KK-Joints under Anti-Symmetrical
Axial Brace Loading
KK-joints under anti-symmetrical
loads also show two failure types. When gt/
d0 is small, the axial loads in the braces are
transmitted directly through the transverse
gap regions of the chord walls. When gt/d0
becomes large, KK-joints behave more
clearly as two independent K-joints (See Fig.
Fig. 5 Failure modes for KK-joints under anti5). These two failure types are designated as
symmetrical axial loads.
Types 3 and 4 respectively. The ultimate
strength equations for KK-joints under anti-symmetrical axial loads were derived following the
same procedures as those for KK-joints under symmetrical axial loads. The two simple prediction
equations shown by Eqs. 3 and 4 are herein proposed.
When a Type 3 failure occurs (gt/d00.215), the ultimate strength of KK-joints is predicted
by
N 1u,KK
g
= 1.22 2.36 t
N 1u,K
d0

(3)

where
COV=0.0622.

1.4
1.2

correction factor

1.0
0.8
2=80

0.6

2=40
2=20

0.4

2=24-80
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.215

0.2

0.4
0.6
g t /d 0

2=50-80
2=24-30
0.8

1.0

Fig. 6 Correction factors plotted against gt/d0 (anti-symmetrical axial loading).

When a Type 4 failure occurs (gt/d0>0.215), the capacity prediction equation is:
(4)

N 1u,KK
g
= 0.376 (1 +1.05 ) (1 + 0.221 t ) (2 ) 0.112
N 1u,K
d0

2.0
1.8

COV=0.0663.

1.6

The correction factors are again compared with numerical results in Fig. 6. Predicted ultimate strengths are shown in Table
2. Ratios of test and analysis results to predictions are plotted against 2 in Fig. 7.

1.4

3.4 Further Assessment of Prediction Equations

test/prediction

where

1.2
1.0
0.8

The ranges of variation of important

geometrical variables included in the screened
database are:

0.6

0.22 0.47
18 2 80
0.03 gt/d0 0.99
45 1 90
60 2 180

0.2

AWS MEAN
AWS
FORMULA

0.4

Eqs. 3 & 4

0.0
0

20

40
2

60

80

Fig. 7 Ratios of Test and analysis results to

The COVs of observed strengths about

predictions plotted against 2 (antithe mean strength equations (Eqs. 1, 2, 3 and
symmetrical axial loading).
4) are even smaller than COV=0.101 found
in K-joints. Therefore, resistance factors to be used for the design of KK-joints may not need to be
smaller than that used for design equations for K-joints.
All the test and finite element analysis results (both under symmetrical and anti-symmetrical
loading) are plotted overall against corresponding predictions in Fig. 8. Correlation between the
two looks excellent. The test or analysis result to prediction ratios give the following statistics:
Data Source
Test
FE Analysis

Mean
1.016
0.997

Sample Standard Deviation

0.099
0.047

No significant difference exists between the means of test and analysis results, while the standard
deviation of analysis to prediction ratios is significantly smaller than that of test to prediction ratios.
Test and numerical results divided simply by corresponding K-joint capacities give the following statistics.
Data Source
KK-Joint under symmetrical axial loads
KK-Joint under anti-symmetrical axial loads

Mean
0.955
0.887

Sample Standard Deviation

0.137
0.115

The above results demonstrate that the current Cidect design equations for KK-joints, which speci-

10

fies a constant value of 0.9 as the correction factor, are found still reasonable, although less accurate than Eqs. 1, 2, 3 and
4.

PREDICTION(KN)

1000

4. KK-JOINTS IN TRIANGULAR
TRUSSES

100

Lets assume a triangular truss (an

inverted delta truss) with 3 chords as
shown in Fig. 9. Under the vertical shear
FEA
load V, the KK-joint sustains axial brace
loads symmetrical about the vertical sysTEST
tem plane. Under the horizontal shear load
H the KK-joint sustains axial brace loads
10
anti-symmetrical about the vertical system
10
100
1000
plane. The strength of KK-joints under the
shear load Q with an inclination of can
TEST AND FEA RESULTS(KN)
be predicted by using the following interpolation technique. When =, the braces
Fig. 8 Test and analysis results compared
with predictions for all KK-joints.
in one plane carry the shear load and the
braces in the other plane are free from any
axial load. The strength of KK-joints with = can be given as that of planar K-joints. The
strength of general KK-joints can be represented by straight lines linking the points at =0 (symmetrical load), = (uni-planar K-joint) and =90 (anti-symmetrical load).
An example calculation is made in the following. Assume KK-joints with d0=300mm,
t0=10mm, d1=d2=100mm, and 1=2=60. All the member axes are assumed to meet at one point
(no eccentricity in the joint). Then the longitudinal gap is calculated as g=57.7 mm. The material
properties of the chord is assumed as Fy=350 kN/mm2 and Fu=500 kN/mm2. The ultimate strength
of a uni-planar K-joint included in these KK-joints is calculated as N1u,K=656 kN from Kurobanes
formula. Now, the out-of-plane angle 2 of KK-joints is varied as 30, 60, 90, 120 and 180.
The nondimensionalized transverse gap gt/d0 is calculated by:
gt
= sin ( sin 1)
d0

(5)

The above equation is valid when the eccentricity et=0 (See Makino et al. 1996). Although, in
some of the joints included in Tables 1 and 2, et is not equal to zero, it is better to design joints with
et=0 in practice. This is to avoid complicating fabrication processes.
The strengths of example KK-joints can be calculated by Eqs. 1. 2, 3 and 4 as follows:

Symmetrical
Loads

Anti-Symmetrical
Loads

2 (degrees)

gt/d0

2 Failure Type

30
60
90
120
180

0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33

-0.08
0.18
0.43
0.65
0.94

30
30
30
30
30

30
60
90
120
180

0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33

-0.08
0.18
0.43
0.65
0.94

30
30
30
30
30

11

Correction Factor

Ultimate Strength (kN)

1
1
2
2
2

0.912
0.912
0.869
0.793
0.692

599
599
570
521
454

3
3
4
4
4

1.404
0.789
0.814
0.850
0.898

921
518
534
557
589

CL

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
H
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA

Fig. 9 Cross section of triangular truss.

The ultimate shear loads can be calculated by the following equations:

Under a symmetrical shear load,
V = 2N 1u,KKsin 1 cos

1000

2=180

800

2=120

Q max (kN)

1200

2=90
600
2=60
400

200

(6)
0

When =,
Q = N 1u,Ksin 1

2=30

20

60

80

100

(degree)

(7)

Fig. 10 Strength of KK-joints under shear load in general.

Under an anti-symmetrical shear load,

H = 2N 1u,KKsin 1 sin

40

(8)

Figure 10 illustrates how ultimate

shear loads vary with the direction of
shear load.

1.2

Results of the test by Mouty

and Rondal (1992) and predicted
strengths are shown in Table 3. The
specimens that failed by chord wall
plastification only are selected. Test
to prediction ratios are plotted against
gt/d0 and compared with the database
included in Table 1. As seen in this
figure the Mouty and Rondal test results show not only significantly
lower strengths than the other test and
numerical results but also a tendency
to decrease the strength as gt/d0 increases.
It is suspected that in the tests

test / prediction

1.0

5. COMPARISON WITH
MOUTY AND RONDALS
TEST RESULTS

0.8
0.6
0.4
Mouty and Rondal

0.2

Database in Table 1

0.0
-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

g t / d0
Fig. 11 Mouty and Rondals test results compared with
database included in Table 1.

12

Table 3 Summary of test by Mouty and Rondal (1992).

Data No.
DKS-43
DKS-48
DKS-55
DKS-56
DKS-59
DKS-60
DKS-61
DKS-62
DKS-63
DKS-67
DKS-68
DKS-69
DKS-71
DKS-72
DKS-73
DKS-74

(mm)
139.7
139.7
139.7
139.7
139.7
139.7
139.7
139.7
139.7
88.9
219.1
139.7
139.7
139.7
139.7
139.7

(mm)
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30

(mm)
48.3
48.3
76.1
76.1
76.1
76.1
48.3
33.7
76.1
33.7
76.1
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3

(mm) (mm) (mm) (deg) (deg) (deg)

(MPa) (MPa)
3.20 71.4 23.7 45.0 45.0 30.0 0.00 322
451
3.20 24.9 58.5 60.0 60.0 45.0 0.00 353
494
4.00 32.1 -7.3 45.0 45.0 30.0 0.00 342
479
4.00 32.1 29.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 0.00 323
452
4.00 -7.2 -7.3 60.0 60.0 30.0 0.00 341
477
4.00 -7.2 29.0 60.0 60.0 45.0 0.00 341
477
3.20 71.4 23.7 45.0 45.0 30.0 0.00 322
451
2.60 92.0 38.6 45.0 45.0 30.0 0.00 322
451
4.00 32.1 -7.3 45.0 45.0 30.0 0.00 320
448
2.60 41.2 11.9 45.0 45.0 30.0 0.00 320
448
4.00 111.5 36.8 45.0 45.0 30.0 0.00 331
463
3.20 71.4 23.7 45.0 45.0 30.0 -0.11 322
451
3.20 71.4 23.7 45.0 45.0 30.0 -0.19 322
451
3.20 71.4 58.5 45.0 45.0 45.0 -0.11 367
514
3.20 71.4 58.5 45.0 45.0 45.0 -0.15 367
514
3.20 71.4 58.5 45.0 45.0 45.0 -0.19 367
514

1u,KK

(kN)
151
131
279
215
285
258
80
50
110
68
170
152
117
121
123
117

Prediction
(kN)
183
217
297
280
334
334
96
71
140
79
244
176
171
206
202
199

by Mouty and Rondal the whole loading system became instable as local stiffness of joints decayed
due to plastification of the tube walls. If this was the case, ultimate loads were determined by the
stiffness of joints rather than by plastic shell bending capacity of the chord wall. Further, joints
sustained not only axial loads but also primary bending moments due to eccentricity in joints induced by rigid body rotations of the chords. Thus, strengths of joints could have been lower than
those observed in the tests conducted under axial brace loading conditions (See also Kurobane
1993).
6. COMPARISON WITH AWS EQUATIONS
The AWS code (1996) is one code that shows definite design criteria for multi-planar tubular
joints. The AWS design equation is the only exception that proposes general design criteria applicable to any type of non-overlapping multi-planar joints without a need of joint classification. It is
worth while comparing the AWS equation with the present database.
The AWS equation in ultimate strength format is shown as :

yt 02
0.7( 1)
0.18
1.7
Pu = 6 +
Q
Qf

sin

(9)

with

= 1 + 0.7

all braces
at a joint

P sin cos 2 exp (

P sin

z )
0.6

reference brace for

which applies

13

where
z = L / d 0t 0/2

The parameter in the above equation plays a role of incorporating not only a multi-planar effect
due to chord wall overlizing (circumferential bending) but also a membrane shell effect due to
loads at positions L distant from the reference brace. The value of is evaluated separately for
each brace for which the ultimate limit state capacity is checked (the reference brace), with the
summation being taken over all braces present at the node for each load case. The spacing L is
measured longitudinally between the centers of foot prints of two braces. The symbols and in
the above equation, respectively, are equivalent to 2 and according to the definition in Appendix.
Multiple regression analyses on both numerical and test results showed that: the multi-planar
effect due to chord ovalizing was strongly correlated with geometrical variable gt/d0; and it was
difficult to relate the multi-planar effect with only. Therefore, the AWS equations involve significant errors in the evaluation of the multi-planar effects, especially when 2=180 in anti-symmetrical loading. However, these errors due to inappropriate modeling of multi-planar effects are
even less influential as compared with systematic errors due to thickness squared strength formulation in the AWS equations.
Test and numerical results divided by AWS predictions are plotted against 2 in Figs. 4 and 7.
These figures reveal that AWS predictions not only scatter widely but also shows a systematic
component erring on the unsafe side as 2 decreases. Note that the AWS formula give lower bound
predictions, with the mean equal to 1/0.74 (See AWS D1.1 Commentary 2.40.1.1). The systematic
component is even steeper for KK-joints than for K-joints (See Kurobane et al. 1997); the capacity
of KK-connections actually varies as the 1.3 to 1.7 power of thickness.
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Ultimate strength equations for KK-joints under both symmetrical and anti-symmetrical axial
brace loading were derived from a large database consisting of experimental and numerical results.
These equations have a format of ultimate strength of planar K-joints multiplied by a correction
factor. The correction factors proposed herein are simple functions of geometrical variables but
enable prediction of ultimate strength with good accuracy (COV=0.06-0.08). The database covers
a wide range of geometrical variables. These equations therefore are considered to be readily
applicable to design. The resistance factor and range of application to be assumed for design,
however, should be decided with some other engineering judgments. For example, KK-joints with
a too small transverse gap size may sustain premature development of cracks at the weld toes under
anti-symmetrical loading (See Makino et al. 1997).
Mouty and Rondals test results showed significantly lower strengths than the other experimental and numerical results, probably because their loading system allowed a rigid body motion
of the chord. Since in actual trusses the chord ends are restrained by neighboring braces, Mouty
and Rondals test results are not considered to be reproducing the behavior of KK-joints in a truss.
Although the AWS design formula is unique in its capability to automatically evaluate the strength
of any multi-planar joints, accuracy in prediction was found to be insufficient (COV=0.28). Especially the AWS formula errs on the unsafe side as the chord becomes heavier.
REFERENCES
AWS (1996) Structural welding code/steel. ANSI/AWS D1.1, American Welding Society, Miami,
Fla., USA
Kurobane, Y., Makino, Y. & Ochi, K. (1984) Ultimate resistance of unstiffened tubular joints. J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 110(2), 385-400
Kurobane, Y. (1993) Assessment of double K-joint tests by Mouty and Rondal. IIW Doc. XV-E-93-

14

194, Kumamoto Univ., Kumamoto, Japan

Kurobane, Y., Makino, Y. & Ochi, K. (1996) Analysis of existing and forth coming data for multiplanar KK-joints with Circular hollow sections. Cidect Report 5BF-11-96
Kurobane, Y. & Ochi, K (1997) AWS vs international design rules for circular tubular K-connections. Engineering Structures, 19(3), 259-266
Lee, M.M.K. & Wilmshurst, S.R. (1996) A parametric study of strength of tubular multiplanar KKjoints. J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 122(8), 893-904.
Lee, M.M.K. & Wilmshurst, S.R. (1997) Strength of multiplanar KK-joint under anti-symmetrical
loading. J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 123(6), 755-764.
Makino, Y., Kurobane, Y. & Ochi, K. (1984) Ultimate capacity of tubular double K-joints. Proc.
Int. Conf. IIW on Welding of Tubular Structures, Pergamon, New York, N.Y., 451-458
Makino, Y., & Kurobane, Y. (1994) Tests on CHS KK-joints under anti-symmetrical loads. Tubular Structures VI, Grundy, Holgate and Wong eds., A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands,
449-456
Makino, Y., Kurobane, Y., Ochi, K., Vegte van der, G.J, & Wilmshurst, S. (1996), Database of Test
and numerical analysis results for unstiffened tubular joints. IIW Doc. XV-E-96-220, Kumamoto
Univ., Kumamoto
Makino, Y., Wilmshurst, S., Lee, M.M.K. & Kurobane, Y. (1997) Test and numerical analysis results for CHS KK-joints under anti-symmetrical axial brace loads. Memoirs, Fac. Eng.,
Kumamoto Univ., Kumamoto, Japan
Mouty, J & Rondal, J. (1992) Study of the behaviour under static loads of welded triangular and
rectangular lattice girders made with circular hollow sections. Cidect Report 5AS-92/1
Paul, J.C. (1992), The ultimate behavior of multiplanar TT and KK-joints made of circular hollow
sections. Ph. D. Thesis, Kumamoto Univ., Kumamoto, Japan
Paul, J.C., Y. Makino & Y. Kurobane (1994), Ultimate resistance of unstiffened multi-planar tubular TT and KK-joints. J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 120(10), 2853-2870
Vegte van der, J.G. (1995) The static strength of uniplanar and multiplanar tubular T- and X-joints,
Ph. D. Thesis, 1995, Delft University Press, Delft, Netherlands
Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Packer, J.A., Dutta, D. & Yoemans, N. (1991) Design guide for circular hollow section (CHS) joints under predominantly static loading, Cidect ed., Verlag TV
Rheinland GmbH, Kln, Germany
Wilmshurst, S.R., Makino, Y. & Kurobane, Y., (1997), Further numerical analyses of KK-joints
under anti-symmetrical axial loading, Proc. 7th Int. Offshore and Polar Eng. Conf. Hawaii,
USA, pp. 58-64
Yonemura, H., Makino, Y., Kurobane, Y. & Vegte van der, G.J. (1996) Tests on CHS Plane KKjoints under anti-symmetrical loads. Tubular Structures VII, Farkas and Karoly, eds., A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 189-195
APPENDIX Notation
0,1,2
COV
d
et
Fy
Fu
g
gt
H
L
N1u,K
N1u,KK
n0

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

subscripts signifying chord, compression brace and tension brace respectively

coefficient of variation
outside diameter of tubes
eccentricity between intersection of brace axes and chord center
yield strength of chord material
ultimate tensile strength of chord material
longitudinal gap in K or KK-joint
transverse gap in KK-joint
horizontal shear load applied to KK-joint
longitudinal distance between foot prints of two braces
ultimate strength of K-joint given in terms of axial load on compression brace
ultimate strength of KK-joint given in terms of axial load on compression brace
axial to yield stress ratio in chord

15

Pu
Q
Qf, Q
t
V

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

ultimate strength of tubular joints according to AWS Code

shear load applied to KK-joint
functions of explaining variables in AWS equations
wall thickness of tubes
vertical shear load applied to KK-joint
chord ovalizing parameter
d1/d0: diameter ratio
d0 / (2t0): chord thinness ratio
inplane angle between chord and braces
out-of-plane angle between planes in which braces lie
angle between direction of shear load and vertical plane

SY

ST

EM

PL

AN

E
N1

d1
t1

g
gt
et

gt

L
t0

16

d0