HSS CONNECTION DESIGN AFTER 2005

Dr. Jeff Packer is Professor of Civil Engineering at the Univ. of Toronto, Canada. He graduated from the University of Adelaide, Australia in 1972, then subsequently received his Masters degree from the Univ. of Manchester (1975) and Ph.D. from the University of Nottingham (1978), in the U.K. Since his initial appointment at JEFFREY A. PACKER the University of Toronto in 1980 he has undertaken research, development and consulting work on tubular steel structures. He has published extensively on this topic, including several co-authored CIDECT Design Guide books. He currently serves on technical committees for the Amer. Welding Society (AWS D1.1), the Amer. Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Comit International pour le Dveloppement et ltude de la Construction Tubulaire (CIDECT), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and the International Institute of Welding (IIW), where he is also on the Board of Directors. He is a licensed Professional Engineer, a Fellow of ASCE, a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers (U.K.) and serves on the Editorial Board of several journals. His recent awards include: Kurobane Prize (International Institute of Welding, 2003), Special Achievement Award (AISC, 2005), H.A. Krentz Research Award (CISC, 2005). Steel Solutions Center as an advisor in the area of conceptual solutions. She is a member of the Engineering Journal review board, the secretary of the AISC HSS committee, a licensed professional engineer in Illinois, a member of ASCE and SEAOI. Her design experience includes the design of structural steel in high temperature flue gas ductwork of fossil power plants, industrial building design including detailed connection design, and residential and commercial buildings in the AISC Steel Solutions Center. ABSTRACT Since the release of the new 2005 AISC Specification and the 13th Edition AISC Manual of Steel Construction the tools available to design with HSS are at your fingertips! With the ability to design HSS-toHSS moment connections through the new section K3 of the specification, HSS can be utilized in more applications than ever before. This paper will expolore HSS connection design in truss connections and moment connections along with addressing the specifics of how Chapter K of the specification is organized, including the accompanying design examples that explain the design of HSS connections. Sources for HSS connection design information beyond AISC will be reviewed, as well as implications from recent HSS connection research work including connections with dynamic loading such as seismic applications. Investigations on cast steel connections in seismic applications are also addressed in addition to standard HSS fabricated connections. These developments in the design and fabrication of HSS connections will only continue to evolve the HSS construction industry for applications that were once thought unfeasible.

Ms. Tabitha S. Stine is the Great Plains Regional Engineer for the American Institute of Steel Construction. She graduated from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale in 2001 in Civil Engineering and received her Masters of Science in Structural Engineering from TABITHA S. STINE Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago in 2003, while consecutively working for Sargent & Lundy, LLC in Chicago until Fall of 2004 when she started working for AISC. At AISC, she worked in the

HSS CONNECTION DESIGN AFTER 2005

INTRODUCTION Chapter K of the AISC (2005) Specification represents a dramatic advance in U.S. design recommendations for the connection types covered and supersedes the earlier guidelines, for such welded connection types, in the HSS Connections Manual (AISC, 1997) and HSS Specification (AISC, 2000). The basis for these design procedures is the recommendations by the International Institute of Welding Subcommission XV-E on Welded Joints in Tubular Structures (IIW, 1989), which are now in the process of being updated again. This technical committee assesses and reviews developments in the field of HSS connections, principally by working in conjunction with the tubeproducers organization CIDECT (International Committee for the Development and study of Tubular Construction) as well as holding periodic Symposia on manufactured hollow sections every 2 to 3 years. The latter conferences occur internationally and the next, or 11th. International Symposium on Tubular Structures (ISTS11), will be held in Canada later in 2006 (see www.ists11.org). The IIW design recommendations referred to above have also been implemented and supplemented in later design guides by CIDECT (Wardenier et al., 1991; Packer et al., 1992), in the design guide by the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC) (Packer and Henderson, 1997) and in the regional steel specification Eurocode 3 (CEN, 2005). All of the foregoing served as resource material for the generation of the new Chapter K. Further information on CIDECT publications and research programs can be obtained from their website: www.cidect.com. The CIDECT design guides on circular (Wardenier et al., 1991) and rectangular (Packer et al., 1992) hollow section connections under predominantly static loading are currently under revision. The correct application of Chapter K, with its many limit state checks and ranges of parameter validity, will entail lengthy calculations by hand, especially for the designer uninitiated in hollow section design. There is one computer program available to assist, HSS_connex, which offers graphical displays of the connection type and connection loads and geometry are entered via on-screen prompts. Databases for the full product range of CSA (2004) and A500 (ASTM, 2003) hollow sections are included, the latter having section properties based on the AISC recommended design wall thickness of 0.93tnominal. The 5th. Edition of this software (version 1.04) is now being distributed, from the University of Toronto Tube Group ([email protected]). Although the program conforms to the CISC book on HSS connections (Packer and Henderson, 1997) the differences to Chapter K are very minor. The new American Institute of Steel Construction Specification for Structural Steel Buildings was adopted on March 9, 2005 with many applicable changes and updates, particularly in the field of hollow structural sections. Chapter K has been completely rewritten and dedicated solely to the design of HSS and box member connections. This chapter covers member strength design considerations pertaining to connections to HSS member and box sections of uniform wall thickness. The additional requirements of bolting to HSS members are within the constraints of Chapter J, Design of Connections. The chapter was written and organized into three separate areas: K1. Connections Forces on HSS K2. HSS-to-HSS Truss Connections K3. HSS-to-HSS Moment Connections As noted before, due to past research in the areas of HSS this specification had been completely rewritten to encompass the new changes as brought forth by various entities and research groups around the world. The latest developments, in terms of static design of HSS elements, have been incorporated into Chapter K. Previously through the separate HSS specification, some connection issues were addressed, but nothing to the extent of this new 2005 AISC Specification. The advancement and applicability of the use of HSS sections throughout the last decade has only given rise to this unified specification, imploring both methodologies of ASD and LRFD, to allow the further use and growth of HSS in building design. Year after year HSS producers see increase volume of sales and application in the field in areas of buildings, architectural elements, and various other structural elements. By advancing the research and publishing design recommendations for the use of the common design engineer, the areas of use and applicability of the material will only continue to grow and develop. Also, the American Institute

of Steel Construction has published the 13th Edition Manual of Steel Construction in 2005 which includes this new 2005 Specification. As an accompaniment to this design manual, a CD includes design examples of mostly all applicable design situations in the Specification. This is especially true as it pertains to Chapter K, where the designer can now have a practical design example for nearly any type of HSS connection type and design philosophy that is addressed in Chapter K. The question remains to be answered that with the availability of these tools to the designer, how will this affect the amount of HSS specified and constructed in the future. The numbers will most likely increase, and this specification has only increased the knowledge base for current designers as well as increasing the curriculum for available for students at the collegiate level studying the design of structural steel. THE SPECIFICS OF THE SPEC As mentioned before, Chapter K is broke into three separate sections that addresses various issues of static design issues of hollow structural sections and box member connections. A basic overview of the three sections is discussed. K1. Concentration Forces on HSS The first section of Chapter K deals with concentrated forces on HSS, whether it be point loads from gusset plates of hangers connected to an HSS beam or the double angle connection of a framed beam connecting to an HSS column. Step by step, the section first addresses the definition of parameters and then looks at the limits of applicability. For instance: (1) Strength: Fy 52 ksi (360 MPa) for HSS (2) Ductility: Fy/Fu 0.8 for HSS (3) Other limits apply for specific criteria The section specifically addresses the criteria for rectangular or round HSS sections with either concentrated forces distributed transversely or concentrated forces distributed longitudinally at the center of the HSS diameter or width, and acting perpendicular to the HSS axis. Sections K1.3 and K1.4, although pertaining to all concentrated forces on HSS, are particularly oriented towards plate-to-HSS welded connections and this application is displayed in tabular form in Table C-K1.1 (a) and (b) and shown on following two pages in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Table C-K1.1 (a) from AISC 2005 Specification, Commentary

Table 2: Table C-K1.1 (b) from AISC 2005 Specification, Commentary Sections K1.5 pertains to longitudinal forces acting in shear on the HSS section. Note that over a wide range of connection types have been tested, but only one limit state had been identified: punching shear failure related to end rotation of the beam, when a thick shear plate is joined to a relatively thin-walled HSS. By satisfying the requirement of equation K1-10, where Fyptp Fut , the punching shear requirement has been satisfied. The final section of K1 deals with concentrated axial forces on the ends of a rectangular HSS section with a cap plate, K1.6. Two limit states are checked for this situation, wall local yielding due to tension or compressive forces and wall local crippling due to compressive loads only. As mentioned, the AISC Manual of Steel Construction (2005) accompanying CD addresses many design issues of Chapter K. The following design example shows the extent of design required when checking HSS sections for forces acting perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the HSS sections.

Example - Calculate the available strength of a transverse plate loaded perpendicular to the HSS axis on a round HSS. Given: Refer to Figure K-8. The HSS8.6250.500 is in compression with PD chord = 54.0 kips and PL chord = 162.0 kips. The HSS has negligible flexure.

Material Properties: Chord HSS8.6250.500 Plate Geometric Properties: Chord HSS8.6250.500 Plate Ag = 11.9 in.2 Bp = 5.5 in. D = 8.625 in. t = 0.465 in. Manual Table 1-13 ASTM A500 Gr. B ASTM A36 Fy = 42 ksi Fyp = 36 ksi Fu = 58 ksi Fu = 58 ksi Manual Table 2-3 Table 2-4

Solution: Check the limits of applicability 1) Strength: Fy less than or equal to 52 ksi for HSS 2) Ductility: Fy/Fu 0.8 for HSS 3) 0.2 < Bp/D < 1.0 4) D/t 50 for T-connections Calculate the loads
LRFD

Fy = 42 ksi Fy/Fu= 0.72 Bp/D = 0.64 D/t=18.5

o.k. o.k. o.k. o.k.

Specification Section K1.2 Specification Section K1.3a

ASD

Pu = 1.2(10.0) + 1.6(30.0) = 60.0 kips Pu chord = 1.2(54.0) + 1.6(162.0) = 324.0 kips Determine the utilization ratio for the chord
LRFD

Pa = 10.0 + 30.0 = 40.0 kips P a chord = 54.0 + 162.0 = 216.0 kips

ASD

Pr Ag Fc 0.65

Mr SFc

324 kips 0 11.9 in.2 (42 ksi)

Pr Ag Fc 0.72

Mr SFc

216 kips 11.9 in.2 0.6(42 ksi)

Specification Eqn. K2-2

Determine the chord stress interaction parameter, Qf

LRFD

ASD

Qf

1.0 0.3U (1 U ) 1.0 0.3(0.65)(1 0.65) 0.68

Qf

1.0 0.3U (1 U ) 1.0 0.3(0.72)(1 0.72) 0.63

Specification Eqn. K2-1

Check the limit state of local yielding

LRFD ASD

Rn

Fy t 2

5.5 1 0.81 D
Bp

Qf

Rn

Fy t 2

5.5 1 0.81 D
Bp

Qf

Specification Eqn. K1-1

42(0.465)2

5.5 5.5 1 0.81 8.625

0.68

42(0.465)2

5.5 5.5 1 0.81 8.625

0.63

70.3 kips Rn /

65.1 kips 65.1 kips = 39.0 kips < 40 kips n.g. 1.67

Rn = 0.90(70.3 kips)= 63.3 kips > 60 kips o.k. Therefore, use a 5.5 in. wide plate

Therefore, use a 6 in. wide plate

K2. HSS-to-HSS Truss Connections The specification addresses these connections which are defined as connections that consist of one or more branch members that are directly welded to a continuous chord that passes through the connection, which can be classified as either K (which included N-), Y (which included T-), or cross (also known as X -) connections which are based on the method of force transfer in the connections, not on the physical appearance of the connection. Common examples of particular HSS Connection classification are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Examples of HSS Connection Classification

Different limit states govern whether the section is a round or rectangular HSS section. The specification begins by stating all limits of applicability, in terms of joint eccentricity, branch angle, chord wall, tension branch wall, and compression branch wall slenderness, width ratio, strength, and ductility, just to name a few for either round or rectangular HSS connection joints. Based on these parameters all being satisfied, the design strengths can then be calculated based on the specification requirements. In the case of round HSS (section K2.2), depending on the type of classification of the connection, limit states for both chord plastification as well as shear yielding (punching) are checked. As with the entire specification, the respective (LRFD) and (ASD) are given for the specific equations depending on the limit state and connection classification. Section K2.3 addressed the criteria for rectangular HSS sections. Similar limits of applicability apply, and again as these are satisfied, the design strength can be checked. For T-, Y-, and X- connections, the design strength of the branch, Pn, or the allowable strength of the branch, Pn/ , shall be the lowest value obtained according to the limit states of chord wall plastification, shear yielding (punching), sidewall strength, and local yielding due to uneven load distribution. K3. HSS-to-HSS Moment Connections HSS-to-HSS moment connections are defined as connections that consist of one or two branch members that are directly welded to a continuous chord that passes through the connection, with the branches loaded by bending moments. A connection shall be classified as wither a T-connection when there is one branch and it is perpendicular to the chord and as a Y-connection when there is one branch but not perpendicular to the chord, or as cross connections when there is a branch on each opposite side of the chord. Note this sections applied to connections under moment loading in frames with PR or FR moment connections, such as Vierendeel girders. These provisions are not applicable to typical planar triangulated trusses. Therefore K-connections with moment loading on the branches are not covered by this specification.

BEYOND THE SCOPE OF AISC (2005) SPECIFICATION CHAPTER K Chapter K of the AISC (2005) Specification deals only with the static design of particular HSS-to-HSS and plate-toHSS welded connections, for building construction. For the fatigue design of on-shore HSS welded connections, synthesized design procedures have recently been published, generally based on the Hot-Spot Stress Method, by Zhao et al. (2000) and IIW (2000). The latter document also became a draft international standard in 2001, as ISO/WD 14347. It is worth noting that fatigue design of welded hollow section connections is also described in Chapter 2 of AWS D1.1. This has been in need of updating and this task was undertaken in 2005, hence an expanded scope and revised presentation will be released in the next edition (AWS, 2008), also with an emphasis on the Hot-Spot Stress Method, which requires the use of Stress Concentration Factors (SCFs). The IIW (2000) recommendations as well as the CIDECT Design Guide (Zhao et al., 2000) contain parametric formulas for calculating SCFs for both round-to-round and square-to-square welded hollow section connections. AWS (2008), on the other hand, will just give guidance on appropriate SCF determination. Another very useful publication is CIDECTs recent 9th. design guide, on connections to hollow section columns, covering simple (shear), semi-rigid and rigid (moment) connections (Kurobane et al., 2004). Of particular note is that this book contains an extensive treatment of wide flange beam-to-HSS column moment connections, for seismic applications. The connection methods utilize through diaphragms or external diaphragms welded to the column, which are popular in Japan, yet meet FEMA (2000a) Design Criteria. The improved details recommended are equivalent to pre-qualified connections conforming to the FEMA (2000b) Acceptance Criteria. Fire resistance is a very popular issue at the moment and CIDECT has released software to evaluate the fire stability of unprotected concrete filled hollow section columns. The program, produced in France by CTICM, is called Potfire and is a free download from www.cidect.com. Although calculations are performed in accordance with the Eurocodes and a standard ISO fire, it serves as a good indicative fire resistance check for a variety of composite columns.

GUSSET PLATE CONNECTIONS TO THE ENDS OF HOLLOW SECTIONS STATIC LOADING Single plates are often inserted into the slotted ends of a round or square HSS, concentric to the axis of the HSS member, both in roof trusses (typically to avoid round-to-round HSS tube profiling associated with directly-welded members) and in diagonal bracing members in braced frames. This inserted plate is frequently then connected to a single gusset plate, usually by bolting. In such situations a bending moment is induced in the joint by the eccentricity between the plates which must be considered. Under compression loads the plates need to be proportioned as beamcolumns, and assuming that both ends of the connection can sway laterally relative to each other. This is frequently overlooked, leading to periodic structural failures, but the HSS Connections Manual (AISC, 1997, Chapter 6) is not guilty of this omission and gives a reasonable and simple design method. With regard to the performance of the HSS in such connections, load is only transmitted initially to a portion of the HSS cross-section, thereby creating a shear lag effect which may result in a lower HSS capacity in both compression and tension. For tension loading on the HSS member, the effective area (Ae ) is determined (AISC, 2005, Chapter D) by the net area (An ) multiplied by a shear lag factor, U, where the latter is specified in Table D3.1 of the AISC (2005) Specification. These U factors have been revised from previously (AISC, 2000) where U had an upper limit of 0.9. Based on the work of Cheng and Kulak (2000) the U factor can now be taken as 1.0 for connections to round HSS with a sufficiently-long inserted plate and weld length (Lw ). Table 3 shows the current AISC U factors for round HSS compared to those from other Canadian codes/guides, and Figure 2 illustrates the geometric parameters used. For the shear lag effect, Eurocode 3 (CEN 2005) only addresses bolted connections for angles connected by one leg and other un-symmetrically connected tension members.

Specification or design guide AISC (2005): Specification for Structural Steel Buildings CSA (1994): Limit States Design of Steel Structures CSA (2001): Limit States Design of Steel Structures Packer and Henderson (1997): Hollow Structural Section Connections and Trusses A Design Guide

Effective net area

x Lw U = 1.0

Shear lag coefficients U = 1for 1.3D > Lw D for Lw 1.3D (only round HSS) for Lw/w 2.0 for 2.0 > Lw/w 1.5 for 1.5 > Lw/w 1.0

Range of validity Lw D

U = 1.0 U = 0.87 U = 0.75 A e = An U

Lw w

U = 1.0 for Lw/w 2.0 U = 0.5 + 0.25 Lw/w for 2.0 > Lw/w 1.0 for Lw/w < 1.0 U = 0.75 Lw/w U = 1.0 U = 0.87 U = 0.75 U = 0.62 for for for for Lw/w 2.0 2.0 > Lw/w 1.5 1.5 > Lw/w 1.0 1.0 > Lw/w 0.6

no restrictions

shear lag not critical for Lw < 0.6w

Tr = Ae Fu (AISC (2005) Specification, = 0.75) or Tr = 0.85 Ae Fu (CSA (2001) Specification, = 0.9), where Tr = factored tensile resistance, Fu = ultimate tensile stress and = resistance factor. Table 3: Shear Lag Design Provisions for Round (and Elliptical) Hollow Sections

w = D - tsl w = D - tp A n = Ag
x= D

for slotted HSS; for unslotted HSS. for unslotted HSS.

x' = x tp 2

An = Ag 2 t * tsl for slotted HSS;

Figure 2: Important Geometric Parameters influencing Connection Design

Specification or design guide AISC (2005): Specification for Structural Steel Buildings CSA (2001): Limit States Design of Steel Structures Eurocode (CEN 2005): Design of Steel Structures - General Rules - Part 1-8: Design of Joints a)
a)

Block shear strength Tr + Vr = Ubs Ant Fu + 0.6 Agv Fy Ubs Ant Fu + 0.6 Anv Fu with = 0.75 and Ubs = 1 Tr + Vr = Ant Fu + 0.6 Agv Fy Ant Fu + 0.6 Anv Fu with = 0.9 T r + Vr =
1 M2 A nt Fu + 1 M0 1 3 A nv Fy

M0 = 1.0 and M2 = 1.25

Design rule for bolted connections differs slightly. Tr = factored tensile resistance, Vr = factored shear resistance, Ant = net area in tension, Anv = net area in shear, Agv = gross area in shear and Fy = yield tensile stress. Table 4: Block Shear (Tear-Out) Design Provisions North American specifications have gone through numerous modifications (Geschwindner, 2004) concerning the design methods for the limit state of tensile fracture affected by shear lag. Table 3 illustrates the two main prevailing methods: based on the connection eccentricity (AISC) or based on the distance between the welds (CSA). In this table it can be seen that the Packer and Henderson (1997) approach is just a modification of the CSA(1994) method. Note that the resistance factor of = 0.75 for AISC (2005) is approximately the same as (0.9)(0.85) = 0.765 for CSA (2001). The other tensile limit state for these connections is block shear (or tear-out) and the current North American and European design provisions are given in Table 4. As can be seen, all use a design model based on the summation of the resistance of the part in tension (where all use the net area in tension multiplied by the ultimate tensile stress) and the resistance of the part in shear. The latter can be calculated based on the net/gross area in shear multiplied by the shear yield stress/shear ultimate stress, depending on the specification. At present the

American and Canadian specifications use a common design model but quite different resistance factors. (The Canadian resistance factor is currently under review). A study of both concentric gusset plate-to-slotted tube and slotted gusset plate-to-tube connections, under both static tensile and compression member loadings, using both round and elliptical HSS, has been underway at the University of Toronto since 2002. The connection fabrication details investigated, which include both end return welds and connections leaving the slot end un-welded, are shown in Figure 3. Complete details of the experimental testing program can be found elsewhere (Willibald et al., 2006) but examples of the two classic failure modes are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3: Fabricated Connection Details Investigated

(a) Typical Circumferential Failure of the HSS, induced by Shear Lag

(b) Typical Tear-Out Failure along the Weld

Figure 4: Failure Modes for Gusset Plate-to-HSS Connections in Tension

The experimental program by Willibald et al. (2006) concluded that the block shear design model (Table 3), although based on limited correlations, was suitable, particularly if predictions were calculated using a theoretical fracture path excluding the welds. Yet another proposal has been recently made to improve the general block shear model in Table 3 (Franchuk et al., 2004) by adjusting the shear resistance term. It should be noted, however, that their recommendations are based only on bolted connection data, and specifically from coped steel beams. These experiments also confirmed that both the AISC (2005) and CSA (2001) shear lag factors (Table 3) were excessively conservative, as has been noted by other researchers. The better shear lag factor method was that by AISC, but Willibald et al. (2006) suggested that the existing formulation could be much improved by reducing the connection eccentricity (x-bar) term used to calculate U to x-bar-prime, as shown in Figure 2. This essentially accounts for the thickness of the gusset plate, which is often substantial relative to the tube size. Interestingly, a very similar conclusion has just been reached by Dowswell and Barber (2005) for slotted rectangular HSS connections, whereby they propose an exact x-bar term calculated by using a distance from the edge of the gusset plate to the wall of the HSS. Dowswell and Barber (2005) verify their proposal by showing improved accuracy relative to published test data by others. Following experimental research on the connection types shown in Figure 3, an extensive detailed numerical study followed on the same connections using non-linear Finite Element (FE) Analysis (Martinez Saucedo et al. 2005). A full parameter study expanded the total experimental and numerical database to over 700 connections. The FE models revealed a gradual transition between the failure modes of block shear/tear-out (TO) and circumferential tension fracture (CF), with the latter sometimes influenced by the shear lag phenomenon (see Figure 5). A continual monotonic increase in the connection capacity was achieved as the weld length increased. The transition point between these failure modes depended on factors such as: the connection type, the weld length, the tube diameter-tothickness ratio and the connection eccentricity, x-bar (the latter having a strong influence for elliptical HSS). This gradual transition between the failure modes is in contrast to the behavior given by design models in current specifications, since these specifications do not consider a gradual change between these limit states. Thus, a more unified and less conservative design model for slotted gusset plate HSS connections can be expected in the next AISC specification. Figure 5 also confirms that a value of U = 1.0 (hence 100% of AnFu ) for round HSS with Lw /D 1.3 (AISC, 2005) is indeed correct, and for all practical tube diameter-to-thickness (D/t) ratios. However, the conservative connection capacity predictions by over-estimating the severity of the shear lag effect at Lw /D 1.3 are very apparent.

Figure 5: Results of Parametric FE Analysis and Experiments (A1, A2) for Connection Type A (see Figure 2) [Tension loading; Round HSS with the slot end not filled: a very popular bracing member detail in practice.] NuFE = connection ultimate strength by FE analysis

GUSSET PLATE CONNECTIONS TO THE ENDS OF HOLLOW SECTIONS SEISMIC LOADING If the results in Figure 5 are re-plotted in terms of NuFE /Ag Fy, where Ag is the tube gross area, then it can be shown that long plate insertion lengths can achieve tension capacities very close to Ag Fy, even for this connection type with an open slot end. However, in tension-loaded energy-dissipating braces the connection will be required to resist an even greater load of Ag Ry Fy, where Ry is a material over-strength factor. In compression, such connections can be shown to achieve capacities that also approach Ag Fy , provided the length of the slot is kept short (in the order of the plate thickness) and the tube is relatively stocky (see Figure 6). However, despite the achievement of high compression load capacity this is accompanied by considerable plastic deformation in the tube at the connection, which is likely to also render the connection unsuitable for use in energy-dissipating brace members.

Figure 6: Results of Parametric FE Analysis for Connection Type A (see Figure 2) [Compression loading; Round HSS with the slot end not filled: a very popular bracing member detail in practice.] NuFE = connection ultimate strength by FE analysis, lsl = slot length and tp = plate thickness Fabricated end connections to tubular braces hence have great difficulty meeting connection design requirements under typical severe seismic loading protocols. Reinforcement of the connection is then the usual route. It is difficult to plate round HSS members so square HSS with flat sides have become the preferred section, resulting in costly reinforced connections as shown in Figure 7. A drawback of using cold-formed square HSS produced to ASTM A500 (ASTM, 2003) is that they have low ductility in the corners, have a real Fy /Fu ratio which is very high (in the order of 0.85 to 0.90), and are prone to fracture in the corners after local buckling.

Figure 7: Fabricated Square HSS Gusset Plate Connection for Seismic Application [Photo courtesy of Professor R. Tremblay, cole Polytechnique de Montral, Canada]

A clear improvement is to use cold-formed round hollow sections, which thus do not have corners, to select a material with a more favorable Fy /Fu ratio, and to avoid reinforcement. The use of ASTM A53 Grade B (ASTM, 2002) pipe provides a suitably low nominal Fy /Fu ratio of 0.58. This can be compared to the popular ASTM A500 square HSS Grade C which has a nominal Fy /Fu ratio of 0.81 and is also known to have poor impact resistance properties (Kosteski et al., 2005). The use of fabricated, slotted round HSS gusset plate connections, without reinforcement, is hence being further explored at the University of Toronto. Fabrication with the slot end un-welded (i.e. without an end return weld) is a very popular practice in North America, so details are being investigated which still permit this concept yet provide a net area (An ) equal to the gross area (Ag ) at the critical cross-section, such as shown in Figure 8.
Before Assembly After Assembly

Figure 8: Fabricated Connection Detail using an Over-Slotted Round HSS but with An = Ag at the Weld Termination CAST STEEL CONNECTIONS SEISMIC APPLICATIONS Cast steel joints have enjoyed a renaissance in Europe in conjunction with tubular steel construction, mainly as truss-type nodes in dynamically-loaded pedestrian, highway and railway bridges where fabricated nodes would have been fatigue-critical. Another popular application has been in tree-like tubular roof structures where the smooth lines of a cast node have great architectural appeal. The use of cast steel connectors to tubular braces under severe seismic load conditions has not been considered, but cast steel connections represent a solution to the design dilemma of fabricated bracing member connections and these can be specially shaped to provide material where it is particularly needed. Types currently under investigation at the University of Toronto are shown in Figure 9. By mass-producing cast end connectors, to suit popular round HSS bracing member sizes, an economic and aesthetic solution can be reached that still allows the use of regular HSS members and avoids the use of alternatives like buckling-restrained braces. This represents another exciting development that can be anticipated in tubular steel construction.

Brace is inserted into casting

Casting protrudes into brace member

Figure 9: Cast Steel Connections to Tubular Braces for Seismic Load Applications

Further research on cast steel nodes, oriented to wide flange beam-to-column moment connections and primarily for seismic applications, is also underway at present at the University of Arizona. Another innovative connection solution for wide flange beam-to-HSS columns has been launched by California-based ConXtech Inc., termed the SMRSF. With this, a pre-engineered collar connection is fitted around 4 or 8 square HSS columns and bolted together on site, resulting in very fast construction times. Although it uses machined components that are shopwelded in place, rather than cast components, this connection is also pre-qualified for use as a fully-restrained, Special Moment Resistant Frame connection under the latest FEMA and AISC seismic provisions. Novel connection solutions such as these herald a potential paradigm shift in HSS construction technology. REFERENCES AISC. 1997. Hollow Structural Sections Connections Manual, American Institute of Steel Construction / Steel Tube Institute of North America / American Iron and Steel Institute, Chicago, IL. AISC. 2000. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for the Design of Steel Hollow Structural Sections, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. AISC. 2005. Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-05, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. ASTM. 2002. Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless. ASTM A53/A53M-02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM. 2003. Standard Specification for Cold-Formed Welded and Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing in Rounds and Shapes. ASTM A500-03a, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. AWS. 2008. Structural Welding Code Steel, 21st. ed. ANSI/AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2008, American Welding Society, Miami, FL. CEN. 2005. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures Part 1.8: Design of Joints, EN 1993-1-8: 2005(E), European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium. Cheng, J.J.R. and Kulak, G.L. 2000. Gusset Plate Connection to Round HSS Tension Members, Engineering Journal, AISC, 37(4), pp. 133-139. CSA. 1994. Limit States Design of Steel Structures, CAN/CSA-S16.1-94, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, ON. CSA. 2001. Limit States Design of Steel Structures, CAN/CSA-S16-01, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, ON. CSA. 2004. General Requirements for Rolled or Welded Structural Quality Steel/Structural Quality Steel, CAN/CSA-G40.20-04/G40.21-04, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, ON. Dowswell, B. and Barber, S. 2005. Shear Lag in Rectangular Hollow Structural Sections Tension Members: Comparison of Design Equations to Test Data, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, 10(3), pp.195-199. FEMA. 2000a. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment Frame Buildings, Prepared by SAC Joint Venture, FEMA-350, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. FEMA. 2000b. Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications. Prepared by SAC Joint Venture, FEMA-353, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.

Franchuk, C.R., Driver, R.G. and Grondin, G.Y. 2004. Reliability Analysis of Block Shear Capacity of Coped Steel Beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 130(12), pp. 1904-1912. Geschwindner, L.F. 2004. Evolution of Shear Lag and Block Shear Provisions in the AISC Specification, Proceedings of the ECCS/AISC Workshop: Connections in Steel Structures V, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. IIW. 1989. Design Recommendations for Hollow Section Joints Predominantly Statically Loaded, 2nd. ed., IIW Doc. XV-701-89, International Institute of Welding Subcommission XV-E, IIW Annual Assembly, Helsinki, Finland. IIW. 2000. Fatigue Design Procedures for Welded Hollow Section Joints, IIW Doc. XIII-1804-99, IIW Doc. XV1035-99, Recommendations of IIW Subcommission XV-E, edited by X.L. Zhao and J.A. Packer, Abington Publishing, Cambridge, UK, ISBN 1-85573-522-9. Kosteski, N., Packer, J.A. and Puthli, R.S. 2005. Notch Toughness of Internationally Produced Hollow Structural Sections, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131(2), pp. 279-286. Kurobane, Y., Packer, J.A., Wardenier, J. and Yeomans, N. 2004. Design Guide for Structural Hollow Section Column Connections, CIDECT and Verlag TV Rheinland, Kln, Germany, ISBN 3-8249-0802-6. Published in English, German, French and Spanish editions. Martinez Saucedo, G., Packer, J.A., Willibald S. and Zhao, X.-L. 2005. Finite Element Modelling of Gusset Plateto-Tube Slotted Connections, Proceedings of the 33rd. Annual General Conference of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering, Toronto, ON. Packer, J.A. and Henderson, J.E. 1997. Hollow Structural Section Connections and Trusses A Design Guide, 2nd. ed., Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Toronto, Canada, ISBN 0-88811-086-3. 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, 1st. ed., CIDECT and Verlag TV Rheinland, Kln, Germany, ISBN 3-8249-0089-0. Published in English, German, French and Spanish editions. Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Packer, J.A., Dutta, D. and Yeomans, N. 1991. Design Guide for Circular Hollow Section (CHS) Joints under Predominantly Static Loading. 1st. ed., CIDECT and Verlag TV Rheinland, Kln, Germany, ISBN 3-88585-975-0. Published in English, German, French and Spanish editions. Willibald, S., Packer, J.A. and Martinez Saucedo, G. 2006. Behaviour of Gusset Plate to Round and Elliptical Hollow Structural Section End Connections, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 33, accepted and in press. Zhao, X.L., Herion, S., Packer, J.A., Puthli, R., Sedlacek, G., Wardenier, J., Weynand, K., van Wingerde, A.M. and Yeomans, N. 2000. Design Guide for Circular and Rectangular Hollow Section Welded Joints under Fatigue Loading, CIDECT and Verlag TV Rheinland, Kln, Germany, ISBN 3-8249-0565-5. Published in English, German, French and Spanish editions.