Static Behaviour and Earthquake Resistant Design of Welded Tubular Structures

  • Y. Kurobane
Part of the International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 394)


The first half of this chapter deals with the ultimate behavior and design of truss-type structures made of circular hollow sections. It starts with simple tubular joints called X, T, Y and K joints and then proceed to interactions between joint and frame behaviors, in which 3 different methods of designing trusses are shown. Finally the state-of-the-art information on multi-planar tubular joints is provided. The second half of this chapter discusses the earthquake resistant design of multi-story building frames using rectangular hollow section columns. It first describes essentials of seismic design, referring to topics like earthquake forces closely related with the energy absorbing capacity of structures. Subsequently lessons learned from the recent Northridge and Kobe Earthquakes are summarized. The most distinctive feature of these earthquakes was brittle fractures occurred at beam-to-column moment connections of building frames. The last part of this chapter introduce several proposals made based on extensive test results for improvement of moment connections.


Ground Motion Plastic Hinge Local Buckling Kobe Earthquake Panel Zone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.1.
    API: Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, API RP2A-LRFD, American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC, 1993Google Scholar
  2. 2.2.
    AWS: Structural Welding Code/Steel, ANSI/AWS D1. 1, American Welding Society, Miami, Fla., 1996Google Scholar
  3. 2.3.
    CEN: Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, ENV 1993–1–1, Cômite Européan de Normalisation, British Standard Institution, London, 1992Google Scholar
  4. 2.4.
    AIJ: Recommendations for the Design and Fabrication of Tubular Structures in Steel, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, 1990Google Scholar
  5. 2.5.
    AISC: Design of Structural Steel Hollow Section Connections, Australian Institute of Steel Construction, North Sydney, NSW, 1996Google Scholar
  6. 2.6.
    Packer, J.A. and Henderson, J.E.: Design Guide for Hollow Structural Section Connections, Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Toronto, 1992Google Scholar
  7. 2.7.
    Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Packer, J.A., Dutta, D. and Yoemans, N.: Design Guide for Circular Hollow Section (CHS) Joints under Predominantly Static Loading, Cidect ed., Verlag TÜV Rheinland GmbH, Köln, 1991Google Scholar
  8. 2.8.
    IIW Commission XV: Design Recommendations for Hollow Section Joints-Predominantly Statically Loaded, 2nd ed., I1W Doc. XV-701–89, International Institute of Welding, Cambridge, 1989Google Scholar
  9. 2.9.
    Grundlagen für den Bau und die Fertigung Geschweisster Rohrkonstrutionen, Mannesmannröhren AG., Düsseldorf, 1948Google Scholar
  10. 2.10.
    Kurobane, Y.:, Welded truss joints of tubular structural members, Memoirs, Faculty of Engineering, Kumamoto University, 12–1 (1964), 1–39Google Scholar
  11. 2.11.
    Togo, T.: Experimental Study on Mechanical Behavior of Tubular Joints, Ph. D. Thesis, Osaka University, Osaka, 1967, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  12. 2.12.
    Marshall, P.W.: Design of Welded Tubular Connections: Basis and Use of AWS Code Provisions“, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992Google Scholar
  13. 2.13.
    Kurobane, Y., Makino, Y. and Ochi, K.: Ultimate resistance of unstiffened tubular joints, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 110–2 (1984), 385–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 2.14.
    Healy, B.E.: A numerical investigation into the capacity of overlapped circular K-joints, Tubular Structures VI, eds. Grundy, Holgate and Wong, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1994, 563–571Google Scholar
  15. 2.15.
    Dexter, E.M.: Effects of Overlap on Behavior and Strength of Steel Circular Hollow Section Joints, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea, 1996Google Scholar
  16. 2.16
    Kurobane, Y.: Design of Plate-to-Tube Joints, IIW Doc. XV-E-90–158, Kumamoto Univ., Kumamoto, 1990Google Scholar
  17. 2.17.
    Kurobane, Y and Ochi, K,: AWS vs international design rules for circular tubular joints, Engineering Structures, 19–3 (1996), 259–266Google Scholar
  18. 2.18.
    Kurobane, Y., Ogawa, K., Ochi, K. and Makino, Y.: Local buckling of braces in tubular K-joints, Thin-Walled Structures, 4 (1986), 23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 2.19.
    Ohtake, F., Sakamoto, S., Tanaka, T., Kai, T., Nakazato, T. and Takizawa, T.: Static and fatigue strength of high tensile strength steel tubular joints for offshore structures, Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, (1978) 1747–1755Google Scholar
  20. 2.20.
    Yura, J.A. and Frank, K.H.: Ultimate Load Tests on Tubular Connections, CESRE Report, 78–1, Univ. of Texas, Austin, 1974Google Scholar
  21. 2.21.
    Kurobane, Y., Makino, Y. and Ogawa, K.: Further ultimate limit state criteria for design of tubular K joints, Tubular Structures, eds. Niemi and Mäkeläinen, Elsevier, London, (1989), 65–72Google Scholar
  22. 2.22.
    Machida, S., Hagiwara, Y. and Kajimoto, K.: Evaluation of brittle fracture strength of tubular joints of offshore structures, Proc. 6th Int. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engrg. Symposium, ASME, New York, 3 (1987), 231–237Google Scholar
  23. 2.23.
    Packer, J.A.: Overview of current international design guidance on hollow structural section connection, Proc. 3rd Int. Offshore and Polar Engrg. Conf., Singapore, IV (1993), 1–7Google Scholar
  24. 2.24.
    Kurobane, Y., and Ogawa, K.: New criteria for ductility design of joints based on complete CHS truss tests. Tubular Structures V. eds. M.G. Coutie, and G. Davies, E and FN Spon, London, (1993), 570–581Google Scholar
  25. 2.25.
    Kurobane, Y., Ogawa, K., and Sakae, K.: Behavior and design of composite lattice girders with concrete slabs. Tubular Structures VI. eds. P. Grundy, A. Holgate, and B. Wang, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, (1994), 69–76Google Scholar
  26. 2.26.
    Ogawa, K., Kurobane, Y., and Maeda, T.: Post-buckling behavior of circular tubular struts, J. Struct. Construct. Eng., AIJ, 475 (1995), 137–144, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  27. 2.27.
    Kurobane, Y.: Recent developments in the fatigue design rules in Japan, Fatigue Aspects in Structural Design, eds. J. Wardenier, and J.H. Reusink, Delft Univ. Press, Delft, (1989), 173–183Google Scholar
  28. 2.28.
    AIJ: Recent Research Developments in the Behavior and Design of Tubular Structures, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, 1994, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  29. 2.29.
    Makino, Y., Kurobane, Y. and Ochi, K.: Ultimate capacity of tubular double K-joints, Proc. Int. Conf. IIW on Welding of Tubular Structures, Pergamon, New York, N.Y., (1984), 451–458Google Scholar
  30. 2.30.
    Scola, S., Redwood, R.G. and Mitri, H.S.: Behaviour of axially loaded tubular V-joints, J. Const. Steel Res., 16 (1990), 89–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 2.31.
    Paul, J.C., Valk van der, C.A.C. and Wardenier, J.: The static strength of circular multiplanar X-joints, Tubular Structures, eds. Niemi and Mäkeläinen, Elsevier, London, (1989), 73–80Google Scholar
  32. 2.32.
    Vegte van der, J.G.: The Static Strength of Uniplanar and Multiplanar Tubular T- and X-Joints, Ph. D. Thesis, Delft University Press, Delft, 1995Google Scholar
  33. 2.33.
    Lee, M.M.K. and Wilmshurst, S.R.: A parametric study of strength of tubular multiplanar KK-joints, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 122–8 (1996), 893–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 2.34.
    Kurobane, Y. and Ochi, K.: AWS vs international design rules for circular tubular K-connections, Engineering Structures, 19–3 (1997), 259–266Google Scholar
  35. 2.35.
    Lee, M.M.K. and Wilmshurst, S.R.: Strength of multiplanar KK-joint under anti-symmetrical loading, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 123–6 (1997), 755–764Google Scholar
  36. 2.36.
    Vegte van der, G.J., Koning de, C.H.M., Puthli, R.S. and Wardenier, J.: Numerical simulation of experiments on multi-planar tubular steel X joints, Int. J. Offshore and Polar Engineering, 1–3 (1991), 200–207Google Scholar
  37. 2.37.
    Paul, J.C., The Ultimate Behavior of Multiplanar TT and KK-Joints Made of Circular Hollow Sections. Ph. D. Thesis, Kumamoto Univ., Kumamoto, 1992Google Scholar
  38. 2.38.
    Makino, Y., Kurobane, Y., Ochi, K., Vegte van der, G.J, and Wilmshurst, S.: Database of Test and Numerical Analysis Results for Unstiffened Tubular Joints, II1W Doc. XV-E96–220, Kumamoto Univ., Kumamoto, 1996, also accessible at the web site http:// Scholar
  39. 2.39.
    Kurobane, Y and Makino, Y.: Analysis of Existing and Forthcoming Data for Multi Planar KK-Joints with Circular Hollow Sections, Cidect Final Report 5BF-10/98, 1998Google Scholar
  40. 2.40.
    Yamada, Y.: M.S. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Kumamoto University, to be submitted in March 1999Google Scholar
  41. 2.41.
    Paul, J.C., Makino, Y. and Kurobane, Y.: Ultimate resistance of unstiffened multi-planar tubular TT- and KK-joints, J. Structural Engineering, ASCE, 120–10 (1994), 2853–2870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 2.42.
    Makino, Y., and Kurobane, Y.: Tests on CHS KK-joints under anti-symmetrical loads. Tubular Structures VI, eds. Grundy, Holgate and Wong, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, (1994), 449–456.Google Scholar
  43. 2.43.
    Yonemura, H., Makino, Y., Kurobane, Y. and Vegte van der, G.J.: Tests on CHS Plane KK-joints under anti-symmetrical loads, Tubular Structures VII, eds. Farkas and Jarmai, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1996), 189–195Google Scholar
  44. 2.44.
    Wilmshurst, S.R., Makino, Y. and Kurobane, Y.: Further numerical analyses of KK-joints under anti-symmetrical axial loading, Proc. 7th Int. Offshore and Polar Eng. Conf. Hawaii, (1997), 58–64Google Scholar
  45. 2.45.
    Mouty, J and Rondal, J.: Study of the Behaviour under Static Loads of Welded Triangular and Rectangular Lattice Girders Made with Circular Hollow Sections. Cidect Report 5AS-92/1, 1992Google Scholar
  46. 2.46.
    Paul, J.C., Valk van der, C.A.C. and Wardenier, J.: The static strength of circular multiplanar X-joints, Tubular Structures, eds. Niemi and Mäkeläinen, Elsevier, London, 1989, 73–80Google Scholar
  47. 2.47.
    Rolfe, S and Barsom, J.: Editor’s note, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 122 (1996), 1257–1258Google Scholar
  48. 2.48.
    International Conference of Building Officials: Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Ca., 1991Google Scholar
  49. 2.49.
    AIJ: Ultimate Strength and Deformation Capacity of Buildings in Seismic Design, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, 1990, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  50. 2.50.
    SAC Joint Venture: Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Steel Moment Frame Structures, Report SAC-95–02, SAC Joint Venture, Ca.,1995Google Scholar
  51. 2.51.
    CEN: Eurocode 8-Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, Parts 1–1, 1–2, 1–3, ENV 1998–1–1, 1–2,1–3, European Committee for Standardization, 1994Google Scholar
  52. 2.52.
    Engelhardt, M.D. and Sabol, T.A.: Lessons learned from Northridge Earthquake: Steel moment frame performance, Symposium on a New Direction in Seismic Design, eds. Akiyama and Wada, Tokyo, (1996), 1–14Google Scholar
  53. 2.53.
    Engelhardt, M.D. and Sabol, T.A.: Testing of Welded Steel Moment Connections in Response to the Northridge Earthquake, Progress Report to the AISC Advisory Subcommittee on Special Moment Resisting Frame Research, 1994Google Scholar
  54. 2.54.
    Fisher, J.W.: Improved performance through large scale dynamic testing of structures, Proc. Int. Conf. on Performance of Dynamically Loaded Welded Structures, eds. Madox and Prager, Welding Research Council, New York, (1997), 1–21Google Scholar
  55. 2.55.
    AIJ: The State of the Art Report on the Structural Behavior of Steel Connections, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, 1993, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  56. 2.56.
    AIJ: Recent Research Developments in the Behavior and Design of Tubular Structures, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, 1994 in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  57. 2.57.
    Akiyama, H., Kuwamura, H., Asakawa, T. and Hagiwara, Y.: Fracture in welded joints of cold press-formed square steel pipes, J. Struct. Construct. Eng., AIJ, 471 (1995), 163–171, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  58. 2.58.
    Kuwamura, H., Matsumoto, Y. and Taketani, M.: Brittle fracture of hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel square pipes, J. Struct. Construct. Eng., AIJ, 494 (1997), 129–136, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  59. 2.59.
    AIJ Kinki: Reconnaissance Report on Damage to Steel Building Structures Observed from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, Steel Committee of Kinki Branch, Architectural Institute of Japan, Osaka,1995Google Scholar
  60. 2.60.
    Akiyama, H. and Yamada, S.: Seismic input and damage of steel moment frames, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Kyoto, eds. Mazzolani and Akiyama, (1997), 789–800Google Scholar
  61. 2.61.
    AIJ: Damage and Lessons of Steel Structures in the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, 1996, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  62. 2.62.
    Tanaka, T. and Tabuchi, M.: Fracture on SHS column to beam connection by Hyogoken- Nanbu Earthquake, J. Constructional Steel, JSSC, 4 (1996), 151–158, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  63. 2.63.
    Hasegawa, T.: Inelastic response behavior of beam fractured steel building structure suffered from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake. J. Struct. Construct. Eng., AIJ, 498 (1997), 129–136, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  64. 2.64.
    Sugimoto, H. and Takahashi, Y.: Experimental study on performance of steel beam-tocolumn rigid connections under high speed loading-Seismic damage and retrofitting technique in the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, Report of Obayashi Corporation Technical Research Institute, Special Issue 1996, Obayashi Corporation, Tokyo, (1996), 9297, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  65. 2.65.
    Hashida, T., Fujihira, S., Morikawa, J., Minami, F. and Toyoda, M.: Mechanical properties and fracture toughness of H-shaped built-up girders near column-to-beam joints suffered from Kobe Great Earthquake, J. Constructional Steel, JSSC, 4 (1996), 135142, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  66. 2.66.
    Terada, T., Yabe, Y., Mase, S., Sakamoto, S. and Uno, T.: Structural Behavior of steel beam-to-column connections subjected to dynamic loads, J. Struct. Construct. Eng., AIJ, 492 (1997), 121–129, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  67. 2.67.
    Toyoda, M. and Shimanuki, H.: Fundamental concept of Fracture Toughness Requirement and Case Studies for Steel Framed Structures, IIW Doc. X-1404–97, International Institute of Welding, Cambridge, 1997Google Scholar
  68. 2.68.
    JSSC: Design and Fabrication of Steel Beam-to-Column Connections Based on Lessons Learned from Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake Damage, Japanese Society of Steel Construction, Tokyo, Japan, Technical Report, No. 36, 1996, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  69. 2.69.
    Inoue, K., Ogawa, K. Tada, M., and Yanagihara. H.: Earthquake responses of member plastic deformation of rigid frame with RHS column, J. Construct. Steel 2 (1994), 916, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  70. 2.70.
    Kurobane, Y and Ogawa, K.: Earthquake-resistant design provisions for tubular structures. Proc. Int. Conf. on Tubular Structures, Vancouver, AWS/WIC, (1995), 74–85Google Scholar
  71. 2.71.
    Kurobane, Y., Ogawa, K. and Ueda, C.: Kobe Earthquake damage to high-rise apartment Buildings: Brittle tensile failures of box section columns, Tubular Structures VII, eds. J. Farkas and K. Jarmai, 277–284, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1996), 277–284Google Scholar
  72. 2.72.
    Hasebe, S., Kawaguchi, Y. and Arimochi, K.: A proposal on quality assessment of weld bond of structural steel plate in relation to brittle fracture initiation, J. Japan Welding Society, JWS, 44–1 (1975), 77–84, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  73. 2.73.
    AIJ: Standard for Ultrasonic Testing of Welded Joints in Steel Building Structures, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, 1979 in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  74. 2.74.
    Kasamatsu, Y., Kono, M., and Matsuoka, M.: Relationship between Charpy V-notch impact characteristics and brittle fracture initiation temperature in deep notch test, J. Japan Welding Society, JWS, 44–6 (1975), 59–64, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  75. 2.75.
    Barsom, J.A.: Developments of the AASHTO fracture-toughness requirements for bridge steels, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 7 (1975), 605–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 2.76.
    Sonoda, K. and Kobayashi, H.: On impact-like failure of reinforced concrete structures by Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake, Proc. 1st Int. Symposium on Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures, Thessalonoki, 1996Google Scholar
  77. 2.77.
    AIJ Kinki: Full-Scale Test on Plastic Rotation Capacity of Steel Wide-Flange Beams Connected with Square Tube Steel Columns, Committee on Steel Building Structures. the Kinki Branch of the Architectural Institute of Japan. Osaka, 1997, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  78. 2.78.
    AIJ: Technical Recommendations for Steel Construction for Buildings Part 1 Guide to Steel-Rib Fabrications, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, 1995, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  79. 2.79.
    Kurobane, Y., Ochi, K., Yamashita, Y., Tokutome, Y. and Tanaka, M.: Testing of new bolted moment connections between RHS columns and I-section beams, Structural Technology, 11–115 (1998), 37–43, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  80. 2.80.
    Igarashi, S., Wakiyama, K. and Kawada, E.: Preliminary Report of IABSE Symposium, Lisboa, 1977Google Scholar
  81. 2.81.
    Tanaka, A. and Takanashi, K.: Monotonic and cyclic behaviors of H.S. bolted moment connections in wide flange beams, Trans. AIJ, 346 (1984), 101–111, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  82. 2.82.
    Takeuchi, I., Inoue, I. and Uno, N.: Experimental study on high strength bolted connections of H-shaped beams, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting of AIJ, C-1 (1997), 257–262, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  83. 2.83.
    Taniguchi, H., Takanashi, K., Tanaka, S. and Tanaka, A.: Non-linear earthquake response analysis of structures by a computer-actuator on-line system Part IV Response analyses of one bay-one story frames with high strength bolted connections, Trans. AIJ, 291 (1980), 33–41, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  84. 2.84.
    Kaneta, K. and Nishizawa, H.: Earthquake response analysis of steel frames with high strength bolted connection-Part 1 On the results of the on-line hybrid simulation, Trans. AIJ., 330 (1983), 78–85, in JapaneseGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. Kurobane
    • 1
  1. 1.Kumamoto Institute of TechnologyKumamotoJapan

Personalised recommendations