250

Strength of welded joints under combined shear

and out-of-plane bending
Y.K. Kwan, I.R. Gomez, G.Y. Grondin, and A.M. Kanvinde

Abstract: An experimental and analytical research program was conducted with the objective of investigating the response
of welded joints loaded under combined out-of-plane bending and shear. A database of test results, including 60 tests from
the University of California in Davis, eight tests from an early research program at the University of Alberta in Edmonton,
and 24 tests from Universite Laval in Ste.-Foy, was used to evaluate several strength prediction models and the current
North American design approaches. This work was complemented by a reliability analysis to assess the level of safety pro-
vided by these design approaches. It was determined that both the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC) and the
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) approaches provide remarkably conservative predictions of the test results,
especially for cases where the welded plate thickness is large. Although a modified version of an approach proposed by
earlier investigators in 1972 and based on the method of instantaneous centre of rotation provides an accurate prediction
of test results, a simpler strength calculation model that does not require an iterative approach is proposed as a substitute
for the current design approaches. The proposed approach provides the desired level of safety for the design of welded
joints loaded in shear and out-of-plane bending.
Key words: connections, eccentricity, fillet weld, limit states, reliability, root notch, weld.
Resume : Un programme de recherche experimental et analytique eu comme objectif letude du comportement des assem-
blages soudes excentriques en flexion. Une base de donnees de resultats dessais provenant de trois sources differentes, y
compris 60 essais de lUniversite de la Californie a Davis, de huit essais dun programme de recherche prealable a luni-
versite de lAlberta, et de 24 essais de lUniversite Laval, a ete employee pour evaluer plusieurs modeles de resistance
ainsi que les modeles de conception nord-americains. Ces resultats ont revele que les approches de lInstitut Canadien de
la Construction en Acier (ICCA) et de lAmerican Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) fournissent des previsions de re-
sistance dassemblages soudes remarquablement conservatrices, surtout lorsque lepaisseur de la plaque soudee est elevee.
Bien quune version modifiee dune approche proposee par Dawe et Kulak (1972), basee sur le principe du centre instan-
tane de rotation, fournisse une prevision precise des resultats dessai, un modele simple de calcul base sur un modele de
flexion classique est propose comme une alternative a lapproche iterative. Lapproche fournit le niveau desire de surete
pour la conception des assemblages soudes excentriques en flexion.
Mots-cles : assemblages, excentricite, soudure dangle, etats limites, fiabilite, entaille a la racine, soudure.
[Traduit par la Redaction]

Introduction welds are generally subjected to forces in only one direction.

Fillet-welded joints are widely used in civil engineering
construction due to their relatively high strength and the
ease of surface preparation for welding. In many joint con-
figurations used in practice, in-plane or out-of-plane load ec-
centricity is unavoidable, creating more complex stress
distributions than in joints loaded concentrically, where the
Received 18 May 2008. Revision accepted 27 September 2009.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca on
11 February 2010.
Y.K. Kwan and G.Y. Grondin.1 Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
AB, T6G 2G7, Canada.
I.R. Gomez and A.M. Kanvinde. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA,
95616, USA.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 31 July 2010.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: ggrondin@ualberta.ca).
Design methods that account for load eccentricity on welded
joints have been developed for both in-plane and out-of-
plane eccentricity (Dawe and Kulak 1972; Tide 1980).
In welded joints subjected to in-plane eccentricity
(Fig. 1a), the weld is free to deform over its entire length.
In the case of welds subjected to out-of-plane eccentricity
as shown in Fig. 1b, the weld segment in the compression
zone is not free to deform because of direct bearing between
the connected plates. This fundamental difference between
the in-plane and out-of-plane eccentric loading has been rec-
ognized in the derivation of an ultimate limit state formula-
tion for the strength of eccentric joints (Dawe and Kulak
1972). To account for the bearing of the connected plates in
the compression zone, the derivation by Dawe and Kulak
(1972) involved a modification of the method of instantan-
eous centre, originally developed for bolted joints and
welded joints with in-plane eccentricity. The method pro-
posed by Dawe and Kulak was modified by reducing the
predicted joint strength by a reduction factor of 0.67 and
was adopted in the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction
(CISC) Handbook of steel construction for several versions

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 37: 250261 (2010) doi:10.1139/L09-150 Published by NRC Research Press
Kwan et al.
Fig. 1. Eccentrically loaded welded joints: (a) in-plane eccentricity;
(b) out-of-plane eccentricity. Arrows indicate applied force, P.
pre-dating the ninth (current) edition. A closed-form proce-
dure proposed by Picard and Beaulieu (1991), which was
adjusted to correlate well with the previous design tables,
was used to derive the design table in the ninth edition of
the CISC handbook (CISC 2006). In contrast with the Cana-
dian design approach, the approach used in the American In-
stitute of Steel Construction (AISC) Steel construction
manual (AISC 2005) considers the joint with out-of-plane
eccentricity equivalent to a joint with in-plane eccentricity,
thereby disregarding the load transfer by bearing on the
compression side of the joint (Tide 1980).
In addition to the effect of bearing between the connected
plates, earlier research (Ng et al. 2002) has indicated that the
presence of the root notch perpendicular to local tensile
stresses may reduce both the strength and the ductility of
welded joints loaded with out-of-plane eccentricity. All de-
sign approaches and models, including those which consider
the effect of bearing, disregard this root notch effect.
In summary, the response of welded joints loaded with
out-of-plane eccentricity is influenced by several complex
phenomena, all of which are not consistently reflected in
current North American design approaches and predictive
models. These inconsistencies provided the impetus for a
comprehensive research program with two interrelated aims:
(i) investigation of the effect of root notch size on cruciform
joint strength (Gomez et al. 2008), and (ii) assessment of the
current design procedures for joints subjected to combined
shear and out-of-plane bending. This paper presents the re-
sults of the second part of this research program.
Experimental studies by others
In contrast with welded connections loaded concentrically
or with in-plane eccentricity, welded joints under combined
shear and out-of-plane bending have received limited atten-
tion. This section summarizes three experimental studies on
these connections which are subsequently used to evaluate
various analytical approaches.
An experimental investigation by Dawe and Kulak (1972)
included eight test specimens that consisted of a wide-flange
section loaded in minor axis bending with its end welded to
an end plate by fillet welds along the outer side of each
251
flange as shown in Fig. 2. The test variables included load
eccentricity and thickness of the connected plate (equal to
twice the flange thickness). The load eccentricity varied
from 381 to 508 mm, resulting in eccentricity ratios (ratio
of load eccentricity to weld length) from 1.03 to 2.56. The
flange thickness included in the test program varied from
13.2 to 19.2 mm. The test specimens were made of Ameri-
can Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A36 steel,
and all test welds were made with American Welding Soci-
ety (AWS) E60 (E41xx) shielded metal arc electrodes with
nominal leg dimension of 6.34 mm (1/4 in.). Although the
study reports the nominal filler metal strength, it does not
report the measured strength of the filler metal. Thus, to
evaluate the test data from this study, weld strength data for
AWS E60 (E41xx) electrodes was indirectly inferred
through various contemporaneous sources (average of 135
tests from three different studies) as 462 MPa. Kwan and
Grondin (2008) describe these sources.
A subsequent test program (Werren 1984; Beaulieu and
Picard 1985) included test specimens with smaller eccentric-
ity ratios (0.31.5) than those investigated previously by
Dawe and Kulak (1972). Twenty-four eccentrically loaded
joints were tested. The specimens were fabricated with 20
and 40 mm thick plates. The load eccentricity was varied
from 75 to 375 mm, corresponding to eccentricity ratios of
0.31.5. Nominal fillet weld sizes of 6 and 12 mm were
used for the specimens with a plate thickness of 20 mm and
8 and 10 mm for the test specimens with a plate thickness of
40 mm. The steel grade used for the plates was not identi-
fied, but the results of coupon tests were reported. In addi-
tion to tests on joints with eccentric shear, double-lapped
splices were tested to determine the strength of welds loaded
transverse and parallel to the weld axis. These ancillary test
specimens used 6 mm welds with a nominal strength of
480 MPa and were used to confirm the load versus deforma-
tion relationships proposed by Butler and Kulak (1971).
However, no direct material tests were conducted on the
weld metal by the researchers. Therefore, for evaluating var-
ious models with respect to these test data, the measured
weld tensile strength was assumed to be either 462 or
552 MPa. The first value is based on weld metal tensile
strengths reported by other researchers for welding electro-
des of the same era used in their work (Kwan and Grondin
2008), whereas the second assumed value was obtained by
comparing the test results on joints with transverse welds
and joints with longitudinal welds reported by Beaulieu and
Picard (1985) with similar tests conducted at the University
of Alberta by Ng et al. (2002) and Callele et al. (2005).
Consequently, the reliability analysis for the Beaulieu and
Picard test data (presented in a subsequent section) is con-
ducted for each estimate of strength. The minimum value of
the safety index is obtained when the weld metal tensile
strength is assumed to be 552 MPa (Kwan and Grondin
2008). Therefore, a tensile strength of 552 MPa is conserva-
tively assumed in the calculations presented in this paper.
Tests on 60 fillet-welded cruciform specimens under com-
bined shear and out-of-plane bending were recently con-
ducted by Gomez et al. (2008). The test specimens
consisted of three-point bend test specimens as illustrated in
Fig. 3. The variables investigated in the test program were
as follows: plate thickness (directly affecting the root notch
Published by NRC Research Press
252
Fig. 2. Typical test specimen used in the Dawe and Kulak (1972) test program.
Fig. 3. Typical test specimen used in the Gomez et al. (2008) test program.
opening) of 31.8, 44.5, and 63.5 mm; load eccentricity of
76, 140, and 216 mm; and filler metals E70T-7 (no tough-
ness rating) and E70T7-K2 (toughness rated as defined by
AWS A5.29 (AWS 2005)) deposited using the flux cored
arc welding process. It is relevant to note that of all the ex-
perimental studies, only this study features filler metal with
a toughness requirement. Three weld passes were used for
the 12.7 mm welds, and only one pass was used for the
7.9 mm welds.
Description and evaluation of existing
analytical models
Several strength prediction models have been proposed
for welded joints under combined shear and out-of-plane
bending. Kwan and Grondin (2008) provide a detailed back-
ground of current design approaches and strength prediction
methods, including a comprehensive evaluation of eight
models. Of these, four models are discussed in this paper,
including the current and prior Canadian design approaches,
the American design approach, and one approach that shows
promising results for predicting joint strengths across all
available experimental data introduced earlier, including
those of Dawe and Kulak (1972), Beaulieu and Picard
(1985), and Gomez et al. (2008).
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
Model 1: method of instantaneous centre of rotation with
the load versus deformation model of Lesik and Kennedy
(1990)
This model, originally proposed by Dawe and Kulak
(1972), is based on the concept of instantaneous centre of
rotation proposed earlier by Crawford and Kulak (1971) for
bolted connections and Butler et al. (1972) for eccentrically
loaded welded joints. The original model was modified in
this study to incorporate the more recent load versus defor-
mation behaviour proposed by Lesik and Kennedy (1990). It
is assumed that, although contact between the plates may
not take place at the start of loading, plastic deformations in
the welds before the ultimate limit state is reached would
cause closing of any weld root gap and establish contact of
the connected plates in the compression zone. A more de-
tailed description of this model is presented by Kwan and
Grondin (2008).
Figure 4a shows that model 1 provides conservative pre-
dictions of the test results, with mean test to predicted
strength ratios of 1.27 and 1.74 for weld metal with no
toughness requirement and weld metal with a toughness re-
quirement, respectively. The corresponding coefficients of
variation (COV) are 0.22 and 0.11, respectively.
Tests conducted on specimens prepared with a filler metal
with toughness requirement, E70T7-K2, have shown higher
Published by NRC Research Press
Kwan et al. 253

Fig. 4. Comparison of test and predicted capacities based on (a) model 1 (Dawe and Kulak 1972), (b) model 2 (Dawe and Kulak 1972),
(c) model 3 (AISC 2005), and (d) model 4 (Picard and Beaulieu 1991; CISC 2006).
(a) (b)
2000 2000
Specimens with no toughness requirement Specimens with no toughness requirement
Number of tests = 55 Number of tests = 55
Mean test/predicted = 1.27 Mean test/predicted = 1.06
COV = 0.22 COV = 0.21
Specimens with toughness requirement Specimens with toughness requirement
1500 Number of tests = 30 1500 Number of tests = 30
Mean test/predicted = 1.74 Mean test/predicted = 1.44

Test capacity (kN)

Test capacity (kN)

COV = 0.11 COV = 0.10

1000 1000

No toughness requirement No toughness requirement

(Dawe and Kulak, 1972)
No toughness requirement
500
(Beaulieu and Picard, 1985)
No toughness requirement
(Gomez et al., 2008)
Toughness requirement
(Gomez et al., 2008)
0 0
0 500 1000 1500
Predicted capacity (kN)
(Dawe and Kulak, 1972)
No toughness requirement
500 (Beaulieu and Picard, 1985)
No toughness requirement
(Gomez et al., 2008)
Toughness requirement
(Gomez et al., 2008)
2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Predicted capacity (kN)

(c) (d)
2000 2000
Specimens with no toughness requirement No toughness requirement With toughness requirement
Number of tests = 55 Specimens with a > 0.4 Specimens with a > 0.4
Mean test/predicted 1.19 Number of tests = 50 Number of tests = 30
COV = 0.23 Mean test/predicted = 1.70 Mean test/predicted = 2.32
Specimens with toughness requirement COV = 0.23 COV = 0.10
1500 Number of tests = 30 1500 Specimens with a < 0.4
Mean test/predicted = 1.62 Number of tests = 5
Test capacity (kN)
Test capacity (kN)

COV = 0.15 Mean test/predicted = 1.23

COV = 0.06

1000 1000

No toughness requirement (Dawe

No toughness requirement
(Dawe and Kulak, 1972)
No toughness requirement
500
(Beaulieu and Picard, 1985)
No toughness requirement
(Gomez et al., 2008)
Toughness requirement
(Gomez et al., 2008)
0 0
0 500 1000 1500
Predicted capacity (kN)
and Kulak, 1972) (a>0.4)
No toughness requirement
(Beaulieu and Picard, 1985) (a>0.4)
500 No toughness requirement (Gomez
et al., 2008) (a>0.4)
Toughness requirement (Gomez et
al., 2008) (a>0.4)
No toughness requirement
(Beaulieu and Picard, 1985) (a<0.4)
2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Predicted capacity (kN)

weld strengths and ductility as compared with those from
tests on specimens prepared with filler metals with no
toughness requirement (Gomez et al. 2008). Accordingly,
for each of the models considered, results from the test
specimens with a toughness requirement are discussed sepa-
rately from those with no toughness requirement and are
then compared.
Model 2: modified Dawe and Kulak instantaneous centre
of rotation approach with the load versus deformation
model of Lesik and Kennedy (1990)
This model is similar to model 1 except that a rectangular
stress block is assumed in the compression zone. In contrast
with the Dawe and Kulak (1972) proposal of a triangular
stress block in the compression zone, a rectangular stress
block may provide a better representation of the ultimate
limit state for welded joints, especially for tougher filler
metals, which allow compression yielding to progress
through the depth of the joint. The weld load versus defor-
mation behaviour for model 2 is that proposed by Lesik and
Kennedy (1990); in this respect, model 2 is similar to model
1. As expected, the model with a rectangular stress block is
less conservative than model 1, as shown in Fig. 4b, which
plots the predicted strengths against the experimental

Published by NRC Research Press

254
strengths. Model 2 overestimates the joint capacity for the
specimens tested by Dawe and Kulak, with a mean test to
predicted strength ratio of 0.76 and a COV of 0.10. It is
generally conservative with respect to the results from the
Gomez et al. (2008) test program. For the specimens pre-
pared with weld metal with no toughness requirement, the
mean test to predicted strength ratio for the three test pro-
grams varies from 0.76 to 1.21, and the overall average is
1.06. The COV varies from 0.10 to 0.14 (when considered
within each test program), with an overall value of 0.21
(when all the programs are pooled). The test to predicted
strength ratio and COV for the specimens prepared with
toughness requirement are determined as 1.44 and 0.10, re-
spectively, indicating that even with consideration of the
rectangular stress block, the model is conservative for the
tests with toughness-rated filler metal.
Model 3: current AISC approach
The current method used in the 13th edition of the AISC
steel construction manual (Table 8-4) (AISC 2005) is based
on the instantaneous centre of rotation method and assumes
no stress transfer through bearing in the compression zone,
implying that contact between the plates is absent. The
method therefore reverts to the instantaneous centre of rota-
tion method originally proposed for joints with in-plane load
eccentricity. The load versus deformation relationship for
the weld segments proposed by Lesik and Kennedy (1990)
was adopted for the derivation of the design tables in the
AISC steel design handbook (Tide 1980). The AISC model
is the only model investigated that does not include the ef-
fect of plate thickness in its formulation. A plot of test ca-
pacity versus predicted capacity is shown in Fig. 4c. For the
majority of tests presented in Fig. 4c the model predictions
are conservative. The mean test to predicted strength ratio
for the three test programs ranges from 0.90 to 1.37, with
an overall average of 1.19 for the specimens prepared by
weld with no toughness requirement. The corresponding
COV ranges from 0.12 to 0.20, with an overall value of
0.23. The test to predicted strength ratio and COV for the
specimens with a toughness requirement are determined as
1.62 and 0.15, respectively. Kwan and Grondin (2008) and
Gomez et al. (2008) provide a detailed critique of the AISC
design approach.
Model 4: current CISC approach proposed by Picard
and Beaulieu (1991)
Picard and Beaulieu (1991) proposed a closed-form model
to replace the iterative procedure developed by Dawe and
Kulak (1972) which requires an iterative solution. The
model is based on a rectangular stress distribution both in
the tension and compression zones. The stress in the tension
zone is equal to the strength of fillet welds loaded perpen-
dicular to their axis (angle between axis of weld and line of
action of the applied force q = 908) determined from the re-
lationship proposed by Lesik and Kennedy (1990). However,
the model assumes that this tensile stress is effective over
the leg area rather than the throat area of the weld. In the
compression zone, the stress is assumed uniform and equal
to the yield strength of the weaker of the two plates in con-
tact. The shear resistance of the joint is provided by the por-
tion of the weld in the compression zone. For a small
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
moment to shear ratio, the portion of the weld on the com-
pression side of the joint is no longer sufficiently large to
resist the shear force required to develop the bending mo-
ment resistance of the joint. Therefore, the use of this model
was limited to values of the eccentricity factor (a = e/L,
where e is the load eccentricity and L is the welded joint
length) greater than 0.4. For smaller values of a, it was rec-
ommended that a parabolic interpolation between P0 (the re-
sistance of the joint with no eccentricity, i.e., a pair of welds
loaded in shear along their longitudinal direction) and P0.4
(the resistance of the joint with a = 0.40) be used.
Picard and Beaulieu (1991) subsequently refined their
model by applying a reduction factor of 0.5 to their original
model to obtain a better agreement with the previous CISC
design table, which in itself was very conservative because
of the use of an arbitrary strength reduction factor with the
Dawe and Kulak (1972) approach. A more detailed descrip-
tion of this model can be found elsewhere (Kwan and Gron-
din 2008).
A total of 50 test specimens from all three reference test
programs met the requirement for large eccentricity (a
0.4). The predicted capacity for these test specimens is com-
pared with the observed strength in Fig. 4d (mean test to
predicted ratio = 1.70, COV = 0.23). Only five test speci-
mens are in the category of small eccentricity, all from the
test program presented by Beaulieu and Picard (1985), with
no toughness rating. For these, the average test to predicted
ratio is 1.23, with a COV of 0.06. Lastly, the mean test to
predicted ratio and COV for the test specimens with large
eccentricity and prepared with toughness-rated weld metal
are 2.32 and 0.10, respectively.
Reliability analysis
Each of the four models presented in the previous sections
was evaluated through a reliability analysis, with the objec-
tive of characterizing the resistance factor required to obtain
the target safety index (or failure probability). Traditionally,
the target safety index, b, is taken as 3.0 for structures or
structural elements that show sufficient ductility to provide
warning before failure. On the other hand, it may be as
high as 4.04.5 for parts of structures (such as connections
in steel structures) that show limited ductility and undesir-
able modes of failure, thus requiring a reduced probability
of failure. For a given resistance factor, the safety index for
each predictive model is different because the procedure to
obtain the joint capacity varies between models. The resist-
ance factor, f, that provides the required safety index b is
commonly obtained from a relationship originally proposed
by Galambos and Ravindra (1978) as follows:
1 f CrR exp baR VR
where C is a correction factor for the resistance factor; aR is
a separation variable taken as 0.55, as originally proposed
by Galambos and Ravindra; and rR and VR are the bias
coefficient and coefficient of variation for the resistance, re-
spectively. For the design of connections, Fisher et al.
(1978) proposed the use of a safety index of 4.5 for connec-
tions to ensure that the probability of failure of the connec-
tions is lower than the probability of failure of the members
being connected. The constant C is therefore required to
Published by NRC Research Press
Kwan et al.
modify the resistance factor for cases where b takes a value
other than 3.0. An equation for C, derived using a procedure
proposed by Fisher et al. (1978) for welded and bolted con-
nections, is adopted to calculate the adjustment factor for a
live load to dead load ratio of 3.0:
2 C 0:0078b2  0:156b 1:400 the area measured on the fracture surface, Afracture, accounts
The value of C is not overly sensitive to the live load to
dead load ratio. This equation is applicable for a range of
values of the safety index from 1.5 to 6.0.
The bias coefficient for the resistance, rR, is determined as
3 rR rG rM1 rM2 rP
and the associated coefficient of variation is given by
4 VR2 VG2 VM1
2 2
VM2 VP2
The geometric factor rG is defined as the ratio between
the effective weld leg size based on pretest measurements
of the weld profile and the nominal weld leg size. Based on
the work collected by Li et al. (2007) and the additional data
from the Beaulieu and Picard (1985) and Gomez et al.
(2008) test programs, the mean ratios of the geometric factor
(rG) and associated coefficient of variation (VG) are obtained
by pooling the respective factor from each data group. The
mean value of rG was found to be 1.07, and the coefficient
of variation, VG, was 0.15.
The two material parameters accounting for the variation
of material strength are rM1, which addresses the variation
in the weld metal tensile strength or yielding strength of the
plate, and rM2, which addresses the variation in the conver-
sion from the tensile strength to the shear strength of the
weld metal. The various strength prediction models exam-
ined in this study involve either weld material strength or
plate material strength, or the combination of both. There-
fore, the first material bias coefficient, rM1, can be approxi-
mately taken as the mean value of the measured to nominal
weld metal tensile strength or the measured to nominal static
yield strength of the plate. The material factor (rM1) and its
corresponding coefficient of variation (VM1), collected from
several sources, are summarized in Kwan and Grondin
(2008). For the model that assumes no transfer of load by
plate bearing in the compression zone (model 3), the mate-
rial factor (rM1) is based on the tensile strength of the elec-
trode only. The mean value of the measured-to-nominal
ratio of the ultimate tensile strength, rM1, defined as su/Xu,
is 1.127, with a coefficient of variation VM1 of 0.082 based
on 720 test results from nine different sources (Li et al.
2007). However, a modification has been made to the mate-
rial factor for the models that assume load transfer by bear-
ing in the compression zone. To simplify the statistical
analysis, for models 1, 2, and 4, rM1 is taken as either a
function of the nominal tensile strength of the weld (su/Xu,
rM1 = 1.127, VM1 = 0.082) or the nominal static yield
strength of the plates (sy/Fy, rM1 = 1.124, VM1 = 0.061,
where sy is the measured yield strength, and Fy is the nomi-
nal yield strength), whichever provides the most conserva-
tive result. Consequently, two separate bias coefficients for
the resistance (rR) and associated coefficient of variation
(VR) were calculated, one based on the value of rM1 for the
255
tensile strength of the filler metal and one based on the yield
strength of the plate steel.
The second material bias coefficient, rM2, reflects the ra-
tio of the measured shear strength to the tensile strength and
can be estimated from the results of tests on longitudinal
weld lap splice specimens. The shear strength, tu, based on
for the additional area due to root penetration and weld face
reinforcement. Such test results have only been presented by
Deng et al. (2003). The mean value of the ratio of the meas-
ured shear strength to the measured tensile strength, defined
as tu/0.67su, is 1.161, with a COV of 0.075 (i.e., on average,
tu/su = 0.78).
The professional factor, rP, is the mean ratio of the ob-
served test capacity to the predicted capacity, and VP is the
corresponding COV. The predicted capacity is calculated us-
ing each of the prediction models with the measured values
of the relevant material and geometric properties and the re-
sistance factor, f, equal to 1.0.
Level of safety provided by selected models
The four strength prediction models described earlier are
analyzed to determine the safety index offered by each one.
The results of the analysis and the resistance factors for dif-
ferent values of the safety index are presented in Tables 1
and 2 for filler metal with no toughness requirement and
filler metal with a toughness requirement, respectively. The
bias coefficient for the geometric parameter, the material pa-
rameters M1 and M2, and the professional factor for all the
models are also listed in the tables. The calculations were
repeated for the material factor M1 based on the statistics
for the tensile strength of the weld metal (rM1(Xu) and
VM1(Xu)) and based on the yield strength of the connected
plates (rM1(Fy) and VM1(Fy)). Table 1 (refer to rows that in-
dicate b(Xu) and b(Fy)) shows that the difference in the cal-
culated value of safety index between the two approaches is
less than 2%, which is considered negligible. For a resist-
ance factor f = 0.75, the safety index for model 3 is 4.56.
For a resistance factor f = 0.67, the safety index for models
1, 2, and 4 varies from 4.27 to 6.05. It is noted that the re-
sistance factor used in the AISC design manual is 0.75 and
the shear coefficient is 0.60, and the corresponding values in
Canadian Standards Association standard CAN/CSA-S16-01
(CSA 2001) are 0.67 and 0.67. Therefore, only model 3 was
evaluated for a resistance factor of 0.75.
With a safety index of approximately 6.0, the current
CISC approach (model 4) is determined to be highly conser-
vative. This may be attributed to the arbitrary reduction fac-
tor of 0.67 that was introduced when the Dawe and Kulak
(1972) approach was first adopted and the subsequent addi-
tion of a factor of 0.5 by Picard and Beaulieu (1991) in the
current approach to obtain a good correlation with that from
the earlier model. The other three models all provide a
safety index close to the desired value for weld metals with
no toughness requirement, although model 1 tends to be ex-
cessively conservative. An examination of Table 2 for filler
metal with a toughness requirement indicates that the level
of safety reached for this filler metal category is signifi-
cantly higher than that for filler metal with no toughness re-
quirement. This may reinforce the earlier observations (Ng
Published by NRC Research Press
256 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Table 1. Summary of safety indices for filler metal with no toughness requirement.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 (a < 0.4) Model 4 (a 0.4)

rG 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070
VG 0.154 0.154 0.154 0.154 0.154
r M1 (Xu) 1.127 1.127 1.127 1.127 1.127
VM1 (Xu) 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082
r M1 (Fy) 1.124 1.124 1.124 1.124
VM1 (Fy) 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061
r M2 1.161 1.161 1.296 1.161 1.161
VM2 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
rP 1.269 1.062 1.192 1.226 1.704
Vp 0.221 0.210 0.230 0.062 0.228
r R (Xu) 1.777 1.487 1.863 1.716 2.386
VR (Xu) 0.291 0.283 0.298 0.200 0.297
r R (Fy) 1.772 1.483 1.712 2.379
VR (Fy) 0.286 0.278 0.192 0.292
b (Xu) (f = 0.67) 4.88 4.27 5.93 5.98
b (Xu) (f = 0.75) 4.56
f (b = 4.5) 0.74 0.63 0.76 0.90 0.98
f (b = 4.0) 0.84 0.72 0.87 1.00 1.12
b (Fy) (f = 0.67) 4.92 4.31 6.05 6.04
f (b = 4.5) 0.75 0.64 0.91 0.99
f (b = 4.0) 0.85 0.72 1.13

Table 2. Summary of safety indices for filler metal with a tough- surfaces through strain hardening, which is not directly ac-
ness requirement. counted for in the models.
Once again, results of the reliability analysis are highly
Model 4 insensitive to the choice of the material factor, i.e., if it is
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 (a 0.4)
based on the tensile strength of the weld metal or the yield
rG 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070
strength of the base metal. Since the University of California
VG 0.154 0.0.154 0.154 0.154 at Davis test program is the only one that included test
r M1 (Xu) 1.127 1.127 1.127 1.127
specimens with weld metal with a toughness requirement,
VM1 (Xu) 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082 there are no data for joints with a small eccentricity ratio.
r M1 (Fy) 1.124 1.124 1.124
VM1 (Fy) 0.061 0.061 0.061
r M2 1.161 1.161 1.296 1.161 Proposed new model
VM2 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 Based on the reliability analysis presented in the previous
rP 1.742 1.440 1.615 2.317 section, model 4 (the current CISC approach) is the most
VP 0.108 0.102 0.147 0.103 conservative, providing a safety index (b & 6.0) that far ex-
r R (Xu) 2.439 2.016 2.524 3.244 ceeds the target level (b & 4.04.5). The method of instan-
VR (Xu) 0.218 0.216 0.240 0.216 taneous centre of rotation with a rectangular stress block and
r R (Fy) 2.432 2.011 3.235 weld metal deformation characteristics proposed by Lesik
VR (Fy) 0.211 0.208 0.209 and Kennedy (1990) (model 2) provides the desired level of
b (Xu) (f = 0.67) 7.44 6.48 9.30 safety with a resistance factor of 0.72.
b (Xu) (f = 0.75) 6.60 Although model 2 provides the desired level of safety
f (b = 4.5) 1.22 1.01 1.19 1.63
based on a rational approach, it is relatively tedious to im-
f (b = 4.0) 1.36 1.13 1.34 1.82
b (Fy) (f = 0.67) 7.58 6.60 9.56
plement because it requires an iterative approach and the
f (b = 4.5) 1.23 1.03 1.65
use of a computer program to calculate the strength of
f (b = 4.0) 1.38 1.14 1.84 welded joints. Although the use of design tables circumvents
this problem for the majority of applications, a simple
closed-form solution similar to that proposed by Picard and
Beaulieu (1991) is more desirable. However, closer exami-
et al. 2002; Gomez et al. 2008) that the strength of filler nation of model 4 (the closed-form model) reveals some
metals with a toughness requirement seems to be higher problems. The first one is an inconsistency with the calcula-
than that of filler metals of the same nominal tensile tion of the weld strength on the tension side of the connec-
strength with no toughness requirement. Alternatively, it tion, since it is based on the leg size rather than the throat
suggests that the toughness-rated filler metals allow the de- size of the weld. Earlier research on welded joints (Ng et
velopment of greater rotations before fracture in the joint, al. 2002) has indicated that fillet weld strengths should be
resulting in higher stresses in both the welds and the bearing calculated based on the throat area for any angle of loading.

Published by NRC Research Press

Kwan et al. 257

The second problem is the inclusion of an arbitrary reduc- fessional factor presented in Table 3 is based on the actual
tion factor of 0.5. As discussed earlier, this was done to ob- shear strength of the weld metal rather than the nominal
tain values similar to earlier CISC handbook (8th and earlier value of 0.67 times the tensile strength. Therefore, to carry
editions) values. A modified version of model 4 is therefore out a reliability analysis, eqs. [5] and [6] should be ex-
proposed as an alternative to the more complex model 2. pressed in terms of the weld shear strength, tu, which is
The proposed new model (model 5) is represented by equal to the empirical value of the shear factor, 0.78 (Deng
three equations to address various situations that may arise et al. 2003), times the measured tensile strength of the weld
in eccentrically loaded welds. These include (i) failure due metal. Equations [5] and [6] may be rewritten in terms of
to weld rupture under large eccentricity, (ii) failure due to the measured shear strength tu as follows:
weld rupture under small eccentricity, and (iii) failure due
1:061Fy tt u DL a
to plate rupture. The eccentricity ratio is described as a/Q, 8 Pu for > 0:53
where a = e/L is the ratio of the weld eccentricity to the a Fy t 2:121 t u D Q
weld length, and Q = Fyt/XuD is defined as the ratio of the
plate yield strength to the weld tensile strength per unit joint a
9 Pr Pr0 1  1:89a=Q 1:89a=QPr53 for  0:53
length, in which t is the welded plate thickness as shown in Q
Fig. 5a and 5b, and D is the weld size. The derivation of the
equations is presented in detail by Kwan and Grondin where
(2008). 10 Pr0 20:707 t u DL

Welded joints with thick plates (weld failure) and

For a/Q > 0.53 1:061 Fy tt u DL

For values of the ratio of the eccentricity ratio, a, to the
strength ratio, Q, greater than 0.53, failure of the joint is
governed by bending rather than shear. Figure 5a illustrates
the assumed stress distribution in the joint at the ultimate
limit state. The maximum stress in the weld segments in the
tension zone is 1.5 times the shear strength of the weld
metal, 0.67Xu. This is consistent with the weld model pro-
posed by Lesik and Kennedy (1990). Since the stress in the
compression zone (Fy) is developed through bearing of the
plates, the weld in the compression zone can provide up to
its full shear capacity to resist the applied shear force, P.
However, for a large load eccentricity, the shear resistance
of the weld in the compression zone is more than sufficient
to resist the force P developed at flexural failure of the joint.
From the stress distribution shown in Fig. 5a, the welded
joint capacity can be expressed as
0:711 Fy t L
5 Pu
aQ 1:421
For a/Q 0.53
For a lower eccentricity, shear becomes the dominant fail-
ure mode. For this situation, the stress distribution shown in
Fig. 5b is used to predict the combined shear and moment
capacity. The strength equation for the assumed stress distri-
bution is quite complex, as shown in Kwan and Grondin
(2008). Thus, a simpler approach using a linear interpolation
between P0 (the strength of the two fillet welds loaded in
direct shear) and P0.53 is proposed:
6 Pu P0 1  1:89a=Q 1:89a=QP0:53 iting stress, the proposed model substitutes this by the ulti-
where
7 P0 20:670:707DXu L of the experimental capacities, since plate rupture rather
and P0.53 is obtained using eq. [5] for an eccentricity ratio a
that yields a value of a/Q of 0.53 for the applicable value of Q.
Equations [5] and [7] are based on a shear factor (ratio of
shear strength to tensile strength) of 0.67. However, the pro-
11 Pr53
0:53Q Fy t 2:121t u D
where Pr53 represents the strength at the transition between
the low and high triaxiality obtained by substituting a/Q =
0.53 into eq. [8].
Welded joints with thin plates (plate failure)
When the outstanding plate is thin, failure may occur by
plate rupture. To address this, a simple interaction equation
originally presented by Chen and Han (1988) is reintroduced
here. The equation considers failure only due to material
yield. Failure by plate instability was not considered in this
research project. Kwan and Grondin (2008) show that the re-
sulting interaction equation can be solved for the capacity
(Pu) of the joint, resulting in the following strength equation:
q 
2Vp a2 L2 Vp2 3Mp2  aLVp
12 Pu
3Mp
where
1
13 Mp tL2 Fu
4
1
14 Vp tLFu
2
where Fu is the is the tensile strength of the plate material..
Although the interaction equation originally presented by
Chen and Han (1988) is based on the yield strength as a lim-
mate tensile strength in the plastic moment and plastic
shear calculations. This results in more accurate predictions
than plate yielding was observed as the failure mode in the
limited number of test specimens that failed in this mode.
The ratios of test values to predicted values for the pro-
posed model (model 5) are presented in Table 3. The speci-
mens are grouped according to the filler metal toughness

Published by NRC Research Press

258 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010

Fig. 5. Proposed simplified strength prediction model: (a) joints with large load eccentricity; (b) joints with small load eccentricity.

Table 3. Summary of data source, sample size, professional factor (mean ratio of observed test capacity to
predicted test capacity), and coefficient of variation for the proposed model (model 5).

Sample Professional Coefficient of

Failure mode Source of data size, n factor, rP variation, VP
No toughness requirement
Weld failure
a/Q > 0.53 Dawe and Kulak 1972 6 0.721 0.076
Beaulieu and Picard 1985 6 0.829 0.173
Gomez et al. 2008 19 1.153 0.097
All sources 31 1.007 0.217
a/Q 0.53 Dawe and Kulak 1972 2 0.667 0.194
Beaulieu and Picard 1985 11 1.026 0.140
Gomez et al. 2008 11 1.032 0.245
All sources 24 0.999 0.219
Plate failure
All a values Dawe and Kulak 1972
Beaulieu and Picard 1985 5 1.027 0.155
Gomez et al. 2008
All sources 5 1.027 0.155
With toughness requirement
Weld failure
a/Q > 0.53 Dawe and Kulak 1972
Beaulieu and Picard 1985
Gomez et al. 2008 20 1.350 0.084
All sources 20 1.350 0.084
a/Q 0.53 Dawe and Kulak 1972
Beaulieu and Picard 1985
Gomez et al. 2008 10 1.260 0.193
All sources 10 1.260 0.193

requirement. For filler metal with no toughness requirement,
the ratios of the test values to predicted values are further
divided according to the failure mode (weld failure and plate
failure). A total of 31 specimens from three datasets fall into
the group that represents weld failure with a large eccentric-
ity (a/Q > 0.53). The mean test to predicted value is 1.007,
and its COV is 0.217. A total of 24 test specimens meet the
requirement for small eccentricity ratio (a/Q 0.53). The
mean test to predicted value and COV for this group are
0.999 and 0.219, respectively. Lastly, only five test speci-
mens from the Beaulieu and Picard (1985) test program
failed by plate rupture. The mean test to predicted value
and the COV for these five test specimens are 1.027 and
0.155, respectively.
The same categories are used for specimens prepared with
weld metal with a toughness requirement. The Gomez et al.
(2008) test program included 20 specimens with a high ec-
centricity ratio. The mean test to predicted value for this set
of data is 1.350, and its COV is 0.084. Ten specimens fall
into the low eccentricity ratio group. The mean test to pre-
dicted value and COV are 1.26 and 19%, respectively.
A comparison of the data presented in Table 3 for model
5 with those from the other four models shows that the pro-
posed model gives the best predictions of the test results,

Published by NRC Research Press

Kwan et al. 259

Table 4. Safety indices for proposed model (model 5).

Thick plate (weld failure)

a/Q > 0.53 a/Q 0.53 Thin plate
Non-tough Tough Non-tough Tough (plate failure)a
rG 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070
VG 0.154 0.154 0.154 0.154
r M1 (Xu) 1.127 1.127 1.127 1.127
VM1 (Xu) 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082
r M1 (Fy) 1.124 1.124 1.124 1.124 1.210
VM1 (Fy) 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.048
r M2 1.161 1.161 1.161 1.161
VM2 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
rP 1.007 1.350 0.999 1.260 1.027
Vp 0.217 0.084 0.219 0.193 0.155
r R (Xu) 1.410 1.890 1.399 1.764
VR (Xu) 0.288 0.208 0.290 0.271
r R (Fy) 1.406 1.885 1.395 1.759 1.243
VR (Fy) 0.283 0.200 0.285 0.265 0.162
b (Xu) (f = 0.67) 4.02 6.29 3.98 5.08
f (b = 4.5) 0.59 0.97 0.58 0.77
f (b = 4.0) 0.67 1.08 0.67 0.88
b (Fy) (f = 0.67) 4.05 6.41 4.01 5.13 4.82
f (b = 4.5) 0.60 0.98 0.59 0.78 0.71
f (b = 4.0) 0.68 1.09 0.67 0.88 0.78
a
Non-tough (no data available for tough).

with the professional factor closest to 1.0 of all the models
investigated. However, the COV is still relatively high. The
professional factors for the test programs by Dawe and Ku-
lak (1972) and Beaulieu and Picard (1985) are significantly
lower than 1.0. It is recalled that no direct weld metal ten-
sion test results were available for these two test programs,
and material properties representative of the reported weld-
ing electrodes for the test period were used in lieu of meas-
ured material properties. For the Beaulieu and Picard tests,
two weld metal strengths were investigated (Kwan and
Grondin 2008), namely, one that was obtained from the re-
sults of tests on weld metal of that era and one deduced
from a comparison between recent lap joint test results (Ng
et al. 2002) and lap joint tests reported by Beaulieu and Pic-
ard. The larger of the two values, namely those deduced
from lapped joint tests, is presented in this paper because it
leads to more conservative results. The tensile strength cal-
culated from lapped splice tests can be significantly affected
by the actual weld penetration and weld face convexity un-
less these are specifically measured and accounted for in the
calculations. Since these dimensions were not reported in
the Beaulieu and Picard test program, the estimated strength
is expected to be overestimated if the root penetration and
face convexity of the welds are not as large as those in the
test program from Ng et al. (2002). Because different weld-
ing processes were used in the two test programs (shielded
metal arc welding in the Beaulieu and Picard test program
compared to flux cored arc welding in the Ng et al. test pro-
gram), the root penetration is expected to be different,
although no correction was made for this factor. It is noted
that the COV for the professional factor is significantly
lower within each program than for the aggregate sample.
Since the aggregate value is used for the reliability analysis,
the results are expected to be conservative.
A summary of the reliability analysis conducted for model
5 is presented in Table 4. The current resistance factor of
0.67 provides a minimum safety index of 3.98 for the weld
failure mode and 4.82 for the plate failure mode for joints
welded with filler metal with no toughness requirement. As
expected, the safety index for filler metal with a toughness
requirement is higher than the value for weld metal with no
toughness requirement. The minimum value of b is 5.08 for
joints with small eccentricity and 6.29 for joints with large
eccentricity.
Summary and conclusions
The current design tables for the calculation of the
strength of fillet-welded joints under combined shear and
out-of-plane bending were derived from a closed-form
model proposed by Picard and Beaulieu (1991) and cali-
brated to be in excellent agreement with the earlier design
tables that were based on the method of instantaneous centre
of rotation proposed by Dawe and Kulak (1972). Although
the work that led to the current design tables was performed
after the work of Lesik and Kennedy (1990), the current de-
sign tables are still based on the loaddeformation relation-
ship proposed by Butler and Kulak ( 1971).
Several strength prediction models account for plate
thickness as it affects the bearing resistance of the welded
joint, but they do not account for a possible reduction in the
strength of the weld due to an increase in weld root notch
size as the plate thickness is increased. A reliability analysis
of the current design approach for welded joints under com-

Published by NRC Research Press

260
bined shear and out-of-plane bending was therefore con-
ducted to determine the level of safety offered by current
design approaches for welded joints with plates of various
thicknesses.
A total of 92 test results were collected from various test
programs on joints under combined shear and bending. The
test results cover a wide range of parameters, including plate
thickness (also equal to root notch size), base metal strength,
weld metal strength, weld metal classification (with and
without a toughness requirement), weld size, and load ec-
centricity. From the two earlier test programs of Dawe and
Kulak (1972) and Beaulieu and Picard (1985), strength pre-
diction models were proposed, one using an extension of the
instantaneous centre of rotation previously used for bolted
connections, and the other a closed-form solution proposed
as an alternative to the more complex instantaneous centre
method.
The database of available test results was used to evaluate
four strength prediction models. Two of these models were
proposed previously by other researchers, including the cur-
rent Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC) ap-
proach. One is the current American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) design approach, and the other is a
modified version of the original model of Dawe and Kulak
(1972). A reliability analysis was conducted on the models
to determine the level of safety offered by each model.
Based on a reliability analysis, the safety index provided
by the current AISC approach and the CISC approach is sig-
nificantly higher than the target value of 4.0, although the
AISC model is less conservative than the CISC model.
Although the modified Dawe and Kulak (1972) approach,
which is based on the instantaneous centre of rotation, pro-
vides an acceptable level of safety, the computational proce-
dure is time-consuming. Moreover, none of the existing
models considers plate rupture, which is a critical failure
mode, especially as the plate thickness is reduced. There-
fore, a simpler, closed-form model that is applicable to both
weld and plate failure modes was proposed. The new pro-
posed model consists of three equations, namely eq. [5] for
weld failure with large eccentricity (a/Q > 0.53), eq. [6] for
weld failure under small load eccentricity, and eq. [8] for
plate failure. This model provides a satisfactory safety index
(b = 4.0) for a resistance factor of 0.67, which is currently
used in CAN/CSA-S16-01 (CSA 2001).
Acknowledgements
The research presented in this paper was funded by the
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) and the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Can-
ada. Supplementary graduate student support was provided
by the University of California at Davis. In addition, con-
structive comments during the test planning by Tom Schla-
fly of AISC and Duane Miller of Lincoln Electric Company
are gratefully acknowledged.
References
AISC. 2005. Steel construction manual. 13th ed. American Institute
of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, Ill.
AWS. 2005. Specification for low alloy steel electrodes for flux
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 37, 2010
cored arc welding. ANSI/AWS A5.29-2005. American Welding
Society, Miami, FL.
Beaulieu, D., and Picard, A. 1985. Resultats dessais sur des as-
semblages soudes excentriques en flexion. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 12(3): 494506.
Butler, L.J., and Kulak, G.L. 1971. Strength of fillet welds as a
function of direction of load. Welding Journal, Welding Re-
search Supplement, 36(5): 231s234s.
Butler, L.J., Pal, S., and Kulak, G.L. 1972. Eccentrically loaded
welded connections. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
98(ST5): 9891005.
Callele, L.J., Grondin, G.Y., and Driver, R.G. 2005. Strength and
behaviour of multi-orientation fillet weld connections. Structural
Engineering Report 225, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Chen, W.F., and Han, D.J. 1988. Plasticity for structural engineers.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
CISC. 2006. Handbook of steel construction. 9th ed. Canadian In-
stitute of Steel Construction (CISC), Toronto, Ont.
Crawford, S.F., and Kulak, G.L. 1971. Eccentrically loaded bolted
connections. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 97(ST3):
765783.
CSA. 1994. Limit states design of steel structures. Standard CAN/
CSA-S16.1-94, Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Toronto,
Ont.
CSA. 2001. Limit states design of steel structures. Standard CAN/
CSA-S16-01, Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Toronto,
Ont.
Dawe, J.L., and Kulak, G.L. 1972. Behaviour of welded connec-
tions under combined shear and moment. Structural Engineering
Report 40, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Al-
berta, Edmonton, Alta.
Deng, K., Driver, R.G., and Grondin, G.Y. 2003. Effect of loading
angle on the behaviour of fillet welds. Structural Engineering
Report 251, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Fisher, J. W., Galambos, T.V., Kulak, G.L., and Ravindra, M.K.
1978. Load and resistance factor design criteria for connectors.
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 104 (ST9): 1427
1441.
Galambos, T. V., and M. K. Ravindra, 1978. Load and resistance
factor design for steel. Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, 104 (ST9): 13371353.
Gomez, I.R., Kwan, Y.K., Kanvinde, A.M., and Grondin, G.Y.
2008. Strength and ductility of welded joints subjected to out-
of-plane bending. American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC), Chicago, Ill.
Kwan, Y.K., and Grondin, G.Y. 2008. Strength of welded joints
under combined shear and out-of-plane bending. Structural En-
gineering Report 280, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Lesik, D.F., and Kennedy, D.J.L. 1990. Ultimate strength of fillet
welded connections loaded in plane. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 17(1): 5567.
Li, C., Grondin, G.Y., and Driver, R.G. 2007. Reliability analysis
of concentrically loaded fillet welds. Structural Engineering Re-
port 271, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Miazga, G.S., and Kennedy, D.J.L. 1989. Behaviour of fillet welds
as a function of the angle of loading. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 16(4): 583599.
Neis, V.V. 1980. Factored resistance of welded connections subject
to shear and moment. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
7(1): 8492.
Published by NRC Research Press
Kwan et al. 261

Ng, A.K.F., Driver, R.G., and Grondin, G.Y. 2002. Behaviour of Pr53 value of P0.53 calculated with the measured
transverse fillet welds. Structural Engineering Report 245, De- weld shear strength
partment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pu strength of eccentrically loaded joint
Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. Q plate yield strength to weld strength ratio
t welded plate thickness as shown in Fig. 5a
Picard, A., and Beaulieu, D. 1991. Calcul des charpentes dacier.
and 5b.
Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC), Toronto, Ont. V shear force carried by the weld segments be-
Tide, R.H.R. 1980. Eccentrically loaded weld groups AISC de- low the tension zone
sign tables. Engineering Journal, AISC, 17(4): 9095. VG, VM1, VM2, VP coefficient of variation of the geometry, ma-
Werren, A. 1984. Comportement experimental et calcul des assem- terial strength, shear factor, and professional
blages soudes excentriques en flexion. M.Sc. thesis, Faculty of factor, respectively
Sciences and Engineering, Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, Que. Vp plastic shear capacity
VR coefficient of variation for the resistance
List of symbols Xu tensile strength of weld metal
y distance between the tension and compres-
a eccentricity ratio = e/L sion zones in the proposed joint strength
Afracture fracture surface area model
Aw weld throat area yo length of weld in the compression zone
C correction factor for the resistance factor aR coefficient of separation
D weld leg size b safety index
e load eccentricity f resistance factor
Fu nominal tensile strength r G , r M1 , r M2 , r P bias coefficient for the geometry, material
Fy nominal yield strength strength, shear factor, and professional fac-
l* depth of tension zone tor, respectively
L welded joint length rR bias coefficient for the resistance
Mp plastic moment capacity su measured tensile strength
n sample size sy measured yield strength
P applied shear force tu measured shear strength
P0 resistance of a joint with no load eccentricity q angle between axis of weld and line of action
P0.53 resistance of a joint with a = 0.53 of the applied force
Pr0 value of P0 calculated with the measured
weld shear strength

Published by NRC Research Press