Slotted Hollow Section Connections Efficiency Factors

7-1
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH 7: ANALYSIS OF FE AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

CHAPTER 7: ANALYSIS OF FE AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The weakness shown by current design provisions to provide accurate connection
efficiency factors, close to the experimental data and the parametric analysis results, for slotted
CHS and EHS connections, has been illustrated in previous chapters. Therefore, new equations
that model the connection behaviour more accurately, based on either the L
w
/w or /L
w
ratio,
are suggested in this chapter. Moreover, the efficiency factors based on these new equations
are then compared to previous experimental programs and are shown to correlate favourably.
In addition, as seen throughout the experimental program and the parametric analysis of
the slotted gusset plate connections, the attainment of the maximum connection strength was
always associated with excessive distortion of the tube cross-section. For this reason, the use
of a distortion limit has been recommended to control the maximum strength for this connection
type. Hence, ultimate capacity equations providing efficiency factors based on this limit are also
suggested herein.
7.1 CHS connections in tension - CF failure
7.1.1 Shear lag equations suggested for CSA design provision format
7.1.1.1 Equation suggested for slotted CHS to gusset plate connections
In order to provide an equation representing the trend shown for CF failure by parametric
analysis results, where a gradual increase in the connection efficiency (U) occurred at the same
time as the weld length, several equation formats were examined. A very good fit to this data is
given by equation (7-1), which only utilizes the L
w
/w ratio as suggested by the current CSA
(2001), which presumes that this has the primary influence. Moreover, this same behaviour was
seen during both the experimental program and the parametric analysis.
(7-1)
The coefficients a and b were determined by nonlinear regressions with the use of the
software Sigmaplot 9.0 (Systat Software 2004). Despite this software being able to provide
coefficients with four significant figures, it was found that these could be rounded to two or only
one significant figure (in order to simplify the use of these equations for design provisions)
without affecting the accuracy of the equations to predict the connection efficiency.
x'
U 1
1
1
L
w
w
------

a
+
b
-------------------------------- =
7-2
The use of coefficients a=2.4 and b=5.7 can provide a very good prediction of the
connection efficiency for slotted CHS connections, with a mean actual-to-predicted ratio equal
to 1.00 and a coefficient of variation (COV) of 4%. Hence, the recommended expression for a
CSA format can be written as:
(7-2)
Despite the fact that the application of this equation seems appropriate for L
w
/w ratios
below 0.70 (see Figure 7.1), its range of validity has been limited to ratios of L
w
/w , in
accordance with the parametric analysis results, because the transition from a TO failure to a
CF failure took place in a region near this value. Moreover, the failure mechanism involved in a
TO failure diverges from the CF approach. Nevertheless, a convergence on the actual
connection strength with either prediction approach is expected in this low L
w
/w region.
Besides the influence of the L
w
/w ratio on connection efficiency, the parametric analysis
results have also illustrated some effect of the tube D/t ratio on this efficiency. During these
analyses, connections having similar L
w
/w ratios but a lower D/t ratio attained a higher
efficiency than their counterparts with a high D/t ratio. Hence, equation (7-2) can be modified as
follows:
U
CSA sl otted tube
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

2.4
+
5.7
--------------------------------------- =
0.7
N
/
A
F
u
F
E
n
u
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
U suggested
Slotted CHS (no weld return)
Slotted CHS (weld return)
TO Failure
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
CF
L / w w
1
1
1
L
w
w
------
( )
2.4
+
5.7
-------------------------------------- =
CSA-slotted-tube
U
Figure 7.1 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted CHS
7-3
(7-3)
The equation format and coefficients offering the best-fit are given by equation (7-3). The
use of this modified equation does not have a significant impact on the connection efficiency as
the mean remained the same (1.0) and only represented an improvement to the COV (as it
decreased from 4% to 3.6%). Once again, the range of validity for this equation corresponds to
the ratios previously defined for equation (7-2), namely 15 D/t 45 and L
w
/w 0.7. Based on
the results from equation (7-3), it is possible to infer that the connection L
w
/w ratio has the main
influence on the connection efficiency and equation (7-2) favourably represents this general
behaviour. Since the inclusion of the D/t ratio in equation (7-3) does not have a significant
impact on the predicted connection efficiency, the use of the simplified equation (7-2) seems
appropriate for design provisions. The results of these comparisons are summarized in
Table 7.1.
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with .
7.1.1.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on
ultimate strength
In an attempt to generalize the use of equation (7-2), it was also applied to the parametric
analysis results of slotted gusset plate connections resulting in a mean actual-to-predicted ratio
of 1.00 and a COV of 2.9%. Despite this result, a new regression was carried out exclusively
with the data corresponding to the parametric analysis results from the slotted gusset plate
connections as a means to provide an equation following the general trend of this data.
Equation (7-4) shows these new coefficients based on these data points.
(7-4)
The use of coefficients 1.4 and 4.65 provided a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and
a COV of 2.6%. These results are almost identical to the correlation provided by equation (7-2).
Table 7.1 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted CHS
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-2)
FE results /
equation (7-3)
Slotted CHS (no weld return) and
146
1.00 1.00 Mean
4.0% 3.6% COV
U
CSA sl otted tube
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

2.4
+
5.7
---------------------------------------

1.18
D
t
----

0.05

1.0 =

L
w
w 0.7
U
CSA sl otted gusset
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.4
+
4.65
----------------------------------------- =
7-4
The closeness observed between both results is attributed to the range of validity of these
equations. Figure 7.2 shows that, whereas for ratios both curves get closer (as the
predicted connection efficiency scatter diminishes as the L
w
/w ratio increases), for smaller
ratios these curves diverge because equation (7-4) predicts higher values. The scatter in this
data has been attributed to a combination of factors such as a lack of a slot in the tube and the
gusset plate bowing outwards, the latter being especially influential for small L
w
/w ratios.
Since the use of either equation (7-2) or (7-4) provided the same mean (1.0) and a very
small COV, it was decided not to develop an additional equation including the effect of the D/t
ratio. Based on these results (see Table 7.2), the use of equation (7-2) still seems adequate for
slotted gusset plate connections, within the validity limits of 15 D/t 45 and L
w
/w 0.7.
a)
Table 7.2 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted gusset plate connections
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation
(7-2)
FE results /
equation
(7-3)
FE results /
equation
(7-4)
Slotted gusset plate to CHS 63
1.00 1.00 1.00 Mean
2.9% 3.1% 2.6% COV
L
w
w 0.7
N
/
A
F
u
F
E
n
u
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
U suggested (7-2)
Slotted gusset plate
U suggested (7-4)
Necking
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
L /w w
TO Failure
Figure 7.2 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted gusset plate
to CHS connections (based on ultimate strength)

L
w
w 0.7
7-5
7.1.1.3 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate connections based on deformation
limit (0.03D)
As seen throughout the parametric analysis, the attainment of the maximum strength for
this connection type was always accompanied by excessive distortion in the tube cross-section.
Therefore, the use of an ultimate deformation limit of 0.03D (which typically occurs before the
presence of any failure mechanism) has been suggested herein as a means to control this
distortion. Based on the connection strength calculated at this limit throughout the parametric
analysis, equation (7-5) was derived to give a connection efficiency, which is also dependent on
the connection L
w
/w ratio.
(7-5)
The best-fit for the coefficients in equation (7-5) corresponded to 0.23 and 0.55 which
produced a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 7.1%. Figure 7.3 shows the
suggested efficiency factor and the parametric analysis results.
The validity of equation (7-5) has been limited to ratios L
w
/w 0.40. Below this range, it is
expected that TO failure will govern the behaviour of the connection. In contrast, at a ratio of L
w
/
w=1.95, 100% of the connection efficiency is achieved, but the connection efficiency is clearly
limited to 1.0. This follows the behaviour that was seen throughout the parametric analysis
U
CSA sl otted gusset 0.
03D
0.23
L
w
w
------

0.55 1.0 + =
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
L / w w
N
/
A
F
u
F
E
n
u
U
CSA-slotted-gusset-0.03D
0.23
L
w
w
------
( )
0.55 + =
U suggested for 0.03 D
Slotted gusset plate at D 0.03
TO failure
No failure of connection
<1.0
Figure 7.3 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted gusset
plate to CHS connections at 0.03D deformation limit
7-6
results, where the use of a long weld allowed the attainment of the connection maximum
strength at almost the same time as the distortion limit.
It was observed throughout the parametric analysis that the use of stockier tubes
postponed the deformation of the cross-section and permitted the attainment of higher
connection strength at the deformation limit. The influence that the D/t ratio may have on the
connection efficiency has thus been considered, resulting in equation (7-6):
(7-6)
Equation (7-6) provided a mean and COV of 1.01 and 3.5% respectively. Once again, a
lower bound (a ratio of L
w
/w =0.40) has been suggested as a validity limit for this equation since
TO failure will govern for lower values. The attainment of the full efficiency for thinner tubes may
require longer welds than for thicker tubes, but the maximum possible efficiency will be always
limited to 100% of A
n
F
u
. Although the inclusion of the D/t ratio in equation (7-6) improved the
calculated COV (see Table 7.3), it is suggested to use the simplified equation (7-5).
a)
Data corresponding to the connection strength at a deformation limit of 0.03D, for slotted gusset plate connections
to CHS.
7.1.2 Shear lag equations suggested for AISC design provision format
As seen during the parametric analyses, the transition from a TO failure to a CF failure
and the attainment of tube necking were clearly defined by the connection L
w
/w ratios. In order
to transfer these limits (based on L
w
/w) to the AISC design provision, the use of the ratio /L
w
(as used by AISC) was found to be inappropriate since a number of L
w
/w ratios can be
calculated (from a single /L
w
ratio) once several plate thicknesses are considered. Therefore,
the use of a reduced eccentricity ( ) is considered more appropriate because its calculation
provides a unique /L
w
ratio since it accounts for the plate thickness (as the L
w
/w ratio
Table 7.3 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted gusset plate connections using an
ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-5)
FE results /
equation (7-6)
1.00 1.01 Mean
7.1% 3.5% COV
U
CSA sl otted gusset 0.03D
0.23
L
w
w
------

0.55 +

1.81
D
t
----

0.18

1.0 =
x
x
x'
x'
7-7
approach also does). Hence, equations making use of the reduced eccentricity ( ) are
suggested herein.
7.1.2.1 Equation suggested for slotted CHS to gusset plate connections
Equation (7-7) shows the suggested equation to calculate the connection efficiency based
on the /L
w
ratio. The use of coefficients of 3.2 and 9.9 provided a mean actual-to-predicted
ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 3.9%.
(7-7)
This equation is suitable for ratios /L
w
< 0.245. This limit corresponds to the point of
change from a CF to a TO failure during the parametric analysis (see Figure 7.4). Beyond this
ratio, it is expected that a TO failure mechanism governs.
The influence of the D/t ratio was then included in equation (7-8) and a further regression
was carried out to determine the coefficients providing the best-fit. In contrast to previous
experience, the addition of this ratio only provided just a slight modification to the COV (see
Table 7.4). Hence, the sole use of equation (7-7) is suggested in order to simplify the calculation
of the connection efficiency.
x'
x'
U
AISC sl ot ted tube
1
1
x'
L
w
------

3.2
+
9.9
--------------------------------------- =
x'
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
x'/Lw
N
/
A
F
u
F
E
n
u
U suggested
Slotted CHS (no weld return)
TO Failure
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
CF
1
1
L
w
------
( )
3.2 9.9
-------------------------------------- = U
+
X
0.245
AISC-slotted-tube
Figure 7.4 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted CHS (AISC
design provision format)
7-8
(7-8)
a)
7.1.2.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on
ultimate strength
A regression was carried out with the slotted gusset plate connection data and equation
(7-9) shows the new coefficients based on these data.
(7-9)
The use of the coefficients 2.4 and 3.2 in equation (7-9) provided a mean actual-to-
predicted ratio of 1.01 and a COV of 2.4%. In addition, equation (7-7) was also applied to this
data resulting in a similar mean and COV (1.0 and 2.4% respectively). The range of validity for
these equations corresponds to 15 D/t 45 and . In a similar manner to section
7.1.1.2, where the equation suggested for slotted tubes was applied to slotted gusset plates for
the CSA format, these two equations showed closeness for small ratios (see Figure 7.5).
Since the use of either equation (7-7) or (7-9) provided almost the same mean (1.0 &
1.01) and a very small COV, it was decided not to develop an equation including the effect of
the D/t ratio. Based on these results (see Table 7.5), the use of equation (7-7) is recommended
to calculate the connection efficiency of slotted gusset plate connections within the validity limits
of 15 D/t 45 and 0.245.
Table 7.4 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted CHS connections (AISC)
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-7)
FE results /
equation (7-8)
146
1.00 1.00 Mean
3.9% 3.8% COV
U
AISC sl ot ted tube
1
1
x'
L
w
------

3.2
+
9.9
---------------------------------------

D
t
----

1.95
+ 1.0 =
x' L
w
0.245
U
AISC sl ot ted gusset
1
1
x'
L
w
------

2.4
+
3.2
--------------------------------------- =
x' L
w
0.245
x' L
w
x' L
w

7-9

a)
limit (0.03D)
In contrast to section 7.1.1.3, the data herein described a nonlinear variation when it was
plotted against the /L
w
ratio. Therefore, a new equation format was suggested and the best-fit
to the data corresponds to equation (7-10). The coefficients 0.26 and 0.40 produced a mean
actual-to-predicted ratio 1.00 and a COV of 7.1%.
(7-10)
This equation is suitable for connections with ratios /L
w
< 0.44. Above this ratio, a TO
failure will govern the behaviour of these connections (see Figure 7.6). In order to attain the full
Table 7.5 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted gusset plate connections (AISC design
provision format)
FE results
a)
FE results / equation
(7-7)
FE results /
equation (7-9)
1.00 1.01 Mean
2.4% 2.4% COV
N
/
A
F
u
F
E
n
u
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
U suggested (7-7)
U suggested (7-9)
X' w / L
TO Failure
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
Necking
0.245
plate to CHS connections (AISC design provision format)
x' L
w
0.245
x'
U
AISC sl ot ted gusset 0.03D
0.26 1
1
x'
L
w
------

0.4
------------------ +

=
x'
7-10
connection efficiency, a ratio of /L
w
=0.073 will be required. This equation will demand the use
of a longer weld length than that recommended by equation (7-5). This discrepancy can be
attributed to the difference in the formulation of these equations; while the first shows a linear
variation, this second one does not.
The influence of the D/t ratio is included in equation (7-11) where the coefficients 1.77 and
-0.17 produced a mean actual-to-predicted ratio equal to 1.00 and a COV of 3.7%.
(7-11)
In a similar manner as equation (7-10), the validity of this equation has been limited to
ratios /L
w
< 0.44 and the maximum attainable connection efficiency is defined as 100% of
A
n
F
u
. In the same way as equation (7-6), the inclusion of the D/t ratio in equation (7-11) has
captured the scatter in the data and improved the prediction of the efficiency factor (see
Table 7.6).
x'
N
/
A
F
u
F
E
n
u
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
U suggested for 0.03D
Slotted gusset plate at 0.03D
X w '/ L
TO failure
U
AISC-slotted-gusset-0.03D
0.26 1
1
x'
L
w
------
( )
0.4
-------------------- +
( )
=
No failure of connection
0.44
Figure 7.6 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted gusset plate
to CHS connections at 0.03D deformation limit (AISC design provision format)
U
AISC sl ot ted gusset 0.03D
0.26 1
1
x'
L
w
------

0.4
------------------ +

1.77
D
t
----

0.17

1.0 =
x'
7-11
a)
to CHS.
7.2 EHS connections in tension - CF failure
As seen in the previous section 7.1, the use of equations initially suggested to predict the
efficiency of slotted CHS connections provided acceptable results (within their validity limits)
when they were applied to slotted gusset plate connections. Therefore, the applicability of these
equations to results from EHS connections is studied herein. As a result, several new equations
are suggested to be used specifically for EHS connections.
7.2.1 Shear lag equations suggested for CSA design provision format
7.2.1.1 Equation suggested for slotted EHS to gusset plate connections
Even though equation (7-2) appears close to the data representing the response of
slotted EHS connections, especially for ratios of L
w
/w ranging from 0.6 to 0.9 (see Figure 7.7), it
shows an early attainment of the full efficiency that contrasts with the trend shown by the EHS
data. Equation (7-2) can provide a mean actual-to-predicted ratio equal to 0.97 and a COV of
4.6% for data having ratios of L
w
/w>0.6. A regression carried out exclusively with the data from
EHS connections produced the coefficients of 1.3 and 3.8 in equation (7-12) which resulted in a
mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 3.7%.
(7-12)
In Figure 7.7, equation (7-12) exhibits a better prediction of the connection efficiency than
equation (7-2), particularly showing accuracy for connections with large L
w
/w ratios. Moreover,
in contrast to the trend shown by equation (7-2), this proximity continues occurring for L
w
/w
ratios below 0.6 where a TO failure is expected to govern. Note also that Figure 7.7 includes
data for slotted EHS in both the major and minor axis directions.
Table 7.6 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted gusset plate connections using an
ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D (AISC design provision format)
FE results
a)
(7-10)
(7-11)
Slotted gusset plate to
CHS
99
1.00 1.00 Mean
7.1% 3.7% COV
U
CSA sl otted tube EHS
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.3
+
3.8
--------------------------------------- =
7-12
A further regression was undertaken to include the influence of the D
avg
/t ratio in equation
(7-13). However, this new equation (with a coefficient of -2.9) resulted in a similar mean actual-
to-predicted ratio and COV as equation (7-12). Since this clearly does not represent an
improvement with respect to the initial equation, the use of the simplified equation (7-12) for this
connection type is recommended. Finally, the results from these comparisons are shown in
Table 7.7.
(7-13)
a)
7.2.1.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on
ultimate strength
The use of equation (7-2) with data corresponding to slotted gusset plate to EHS
connections provided a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 0.99 and a COV of 4.1%. Even though
Table 7.7 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted EHS connections
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-2)
FE results /
equation (7-12)
FE results /
equation (7-13)
Slotted EHS having small
and large
143
0.97 1.00 1.00 Mean
4.6% 3.7% 3.7% COV
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
N
/
A
u
F
E
n
u
F
L /w w
Slotted EHS with small x
Slotted EHS with large x
Suggested for CHS (7-2)
Suggested for EHS (7-12)
TO Failure
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
CF
Figure 7.7 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted EHS
U
CSA sl otted tube EHS
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.3
+
3.8
---------------------------------------

D
avg
t
-----------

2.9

+ 1.0 =
x'
L
w
w 0.6
7-13
this appears to be a good result, it is mainly a consequence of the close correlation of data
located in the range of L
w
/w from 0.6 to 1.0 (see Figure 7.8). Moreover, for ratios of L
w
/w < 0.6
equation (7-2) does not follow the data trend, as has been the philosophy of the equations
provided previously. On the contrary, equation (7-12) can follow this trend, however it
underestimates the efficiency of these connections and provides a mean actual-to-predicted
ratio of 1.03 and a COV of 3.1%. Despite this, the use of this equation may still be accepted as
it offers a lower bound. A further regression undertaken with the data from slotted gusset plate
connections produced the coefficients of 1.2 and 4.3 in equation (7-14), with a mean actual-to-
predicted ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 2.5%.
(7-14)
Since the use of equation (7-14) provided an excellent mean (1.0) and a very small COV,
it was decided not to developed an equation including the effect of the D
avg
/t ratio. Although
equation (7-2) may be also used for this connection type, the use of an equation that is able to
follow the trend of the data (including beyond the CF failure region), such as (7-12) but
especially (7-14), is strongly recommended. The results from these comparisons are shown in
Table 7.8.
U
CSA sl otted gusset EHS
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.2
+
4.3
--------------------------------------- =
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
N
/
A
F
u
F
E
n
u
L /w w
TO Failure
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
CF
Slotted gusset plate to EHS
Suggested for slotted gusset
Gplate to EHS (7-14)
Suggested for slotted EHS (7-12)
Figure 7.8 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results for slotted gusset plate
to EHS connections
7-14
a)
limit (0.03D
2
)
In contrast to slotted gusset plate connections to CHS, where a clear linear increase in the
connection efficiency occurs as the weld length increases (as well as the possibility of attaining
100% of A
n
F
u
), the data from EHS connections did not show a clear tendency (see Figure 7.9).
Despite a gradual increase in the connection efficiency (as the weld length increases), herein
the maximum efficiency attained never exceeded 90% of A
n
F
u
. Moreover, the presence of
shear lag produced a data scatter in the region where this phenomenon has a major influence.
Therefore, a new equation format was suggested in equation (7-15) to fit this data. This
equation has a range of validity between the L
w
/w ratios of 0.2 and 1.5. A regression with this
data provided the coefficients 0.75, 1.5 and 1.2, which resulted in a mean actual-to-predicted
ratio of 1.01 and a COV of 6.8%.
(7-15)
Due to the complex nature of the data distribution, it was decided not to present an
additional equation including the effect of the D
avg
/t ratio. The results from this comparison are
shown in Table 7.9.

a)
Data corresponding to the connection strength at a deformation limit of 0.03D
2
, for slotted gusset plate connections
to EHS.
Table 7.8 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-2)
FE results /
equation (7-12)
FE results /
equation (7-14)
to EHS
76
0.99 1.03 1.00 Mean
4.1% 3.1% 2.5% COV
Table 7.9 Evaluation of suggested equation for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections using
an ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D
2
FE results
a)
FE results / equation (7-15)
1.01 Mean
6.8% COV
L
w
w 0.6
U
CSA sl otted gusset EHS 0.03D
2
0.75
1
L
w
w
------

1.2
1.75
--------------------------

2
+

-------------------------------------------------- =
7-15
7.2.2 Shear lag equations suggested for AISC design provision format
7.2.2.1 Equations suggested for slotted EHS to gusset plate connections
In contrast to the study of slotted EHS for the CSA design format, where all the data
showed close correlation as they were located in a region bounded approximately by L
w
/w
ratios of 0.3 and 1.5, a plot of these results against the /L
w
ratio produces a greater data
scatter as they are grouped based on the eccentricity of each connection type (see Figure
7.10). Several attempts were made in order to provide a single equation format which could
predict the connection efficiency based on the ratio /L
w
and the connection eccentricity.
However, this option was reconsidered because of the differences in applicability limits for each
connection and their data trends. Hence, two equations have been suggested here which can
be applied depending of the connection eccentricity.
For EHS connections with a small eccentricity ( ), a further regression carried out
exclusively with the data of this connection type produced the coefficients of 2.15 and 9.3 in
equation (7-16), with a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 2.7%. The range of
validity for this equation is 0 /L
w
0.14 (where 0.14 /L
w
corresponds to 0.7 L
w
/w, which
delineated the transition in connection behaviour during the parametric analysis, with values
below this producing a TO failure). Moreover, equation (7-16) can also provide a good
prediction of the efficiency of connections near this limit but in the TO failure region.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Slotted gusset plate to EHS at 0.03 D2
Suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS at 0.03 D2
N
/
A
F
u
F
E
n
u
L /w w
Figure 7.9 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results for slotted gusset plate
to EHS connections at 0.03 D
2
x'
x'
x'
x' x'
7-16
(7-16)
For EHS connections with a large eccentricity, a further regression produced the
coefficients 2.1 and 2.8 in equation (7-17), with a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and a
COV of 2.4%. The range of validity for this equation is 0 /L
w
0.33 (where 0.33
corresponds to the transition region defined by 0.6 L
w
/w, beyond which a TO failure is
expected). Nevertheless, equation (7-17) may also provide a close prediction for connections
showing a larger /L
w
ratio but still near this limit (as did equation (7-16)).
(7-17)
Figure 7.10 shows the connection efficiency given by equation (7-7), in an attempt to
generalize this equation (initially developed for CHS). Its use is inappropriate for connections
having a small eccentricity as it would over estimate their real behaviour, but equation (7-7) has
close correlation to the data of EHS connections having a large eccentricity. Here, the
application of equation (7-7) resulted in a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 0.98 and a COV of
2.8%.
U
AI SC sl ott ed EHS smal l x' ( )
1
1
x'
L
w
------

2.15
+
9.3
----------------------------------------- =
x'
x'
U
AI SC sl otted EHS l e x' ( ) arg
1
1
x'
L
w
------

2.1
+
2.8
--------------------------------------- =
N
/
A
F
u
F
E
n
u
x'/Lw
CF
TO Failure
Slotted EHS with large x'
Slotted EHS with small x'
Suggested for large x' (7-17)
Suggested for small x' (7-16)
TO Failure
Shear lag present
Shear lag
present
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
0.14 0.33
connections (AISC design provision format)
7-17
Since both equations (7-16) and (7-17) provide a good mean (1.0 for both equations) and
a very small COV, it was decided not to develop additional equations including the effect of the
D
avg
/t ratio. The results from these comparisons are shown in Table 7.10.
a)
b)
Based on these results, it is noted that the parameter defining the connection efficiency is
principally the L
w
/w ratio, and the eccentricity merely determines the capacity of each
connection to attain a higher efficiency if L
w
/w is low. Furthermore, the use of the /L
w
ratio to
explain the behaviour of these connections may be inappropriate as it requires two separate
equations.
7.2.2.2 Equations suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on
ultimate strength
In an attempt to generalize the use of the equation (7-7), it was applied to this data. Figure
7.11 shows that this equation can provide an acceptable result as it produced a mean and COV
of 1.03 and 4.2% respectively. Equations (7-16) and (7-17) were also extended to this
connection type. While the prediction from equation (7-16) clearly disagrees with the data trend,
equation (7-17) was able to emulate the behaviour of this connection type. The use of this
equation produced a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.05 and a COV of 3.3%. Since the use
of equation (7-17) can provide a lower bound, its use is recommended for this connection type.
The range of validity of this equation corresponds to 0 /L
w
0.33 (The upper limit
corresponds to a ratio of L
w
/w=0.6 which defined the transition in behaviour during the
parametric analysis, where beyond this value a TO failure is expected to govern). The results
from this comparison are shown in Table 7.11.
Table 7.10 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted EHS connections (AISC design
provision format)
FE
results
FE results/
eq(7-16)
FE
results
FE results/
eq(7-7)
FE results/
eq(7-17)
Slotted EHS
with small
61
a) 1.00 Slotted EHS
with large
76
b)
0.98 1.00 Mean
2.7% 2.8% 2.4% COV x' x'
x' L
w
0.14
x' L
w
0.33
x'
x'
7-18

a)
7.2.2.3 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on
deformation limit (0.03D
2
)
As shown during the study of this data for the CSA format, this data lacks a defined trend
(see Figure 7.12). However, when this data was plotted against the /L
w
ratio, it was possible
to apply a simplified equation format. The use of coefficients of -0.35 and 0.8 in Equation (7-18),
resulted in a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 6.7%.
(7-18)
The range of validity of this equation is 0.13 /L
w
0.52, which corresponds to the
region where the data is available. Beyond these boundaries the use of equation (7-18) is not
recommended. Due to the complex nature of the data distribution, it was decided not to present
an additional equation including the effect of the D
avg
/t ratio. The result from this comparison is
shown in Table 7.12.
Table 7.11 Evaluation of potential equation for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections (AISC
FE results
a)
FE results / equation (7-7) FE results / equation (7-17)
to EHS
76
1.03 1.05 Mean
4.2% 3.3% COV
N
/
A
F
u
F
E
n
u
x /Lw '
TO Failure
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
CF
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40
Slotted gusset plate to EHS
Suggested for CHS(7-7)
Suggested for small x' (7-16)
Suggested for large x' (7-17)
0.33
(AISC design provision format)
x' L
w
0.33
x'
U
AISC sl ot ted gusset EHS 0.03D
2
0.35
x'
L
w
------

0.8 + =
x'
7-19

a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.13 /L
w
0.52.
7.3 CHS and EHS connections in tension - TO failure
To determine the factored tensile resistance (T
r
) of connections failing by block shear,
there are various models currently advocated in design provisions. However, only the accuracy
of the model suggested by CSA and AISC, which combines the tensile resistance of the area in
tension and the shear resistance of the area in shear, is evaluated here. This tensile resistance
is given by:
T
r
= [A
nt
F
u
+ 0.6 A
gv
F
y
A
nt
F
u
+ 0.6 A
nv
F
u
] (7-19)
where, = resistance factor (this is defined by the design provision, but was equated to 1.0 in
this section), A
gv
= gross area subject to shear, A
nv
= net area subject to shear (where A
nv
= A
gv
since these are welded connections), A
nt
= net area subject to tension, F
u
= specified minimum
tensile strength and F
y
= specified minimum yield stress.
Table 7.12 Evaluation of potential equation for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections using an
2
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-18)
Slotted gusset plate to EHS 96
1.00 Mean
6.7% COV
Slotted gusset plate to EHS at 0.03 D2
Suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS at 0.03 D2
N
/
A
F
u
F
E
n
u
x/Lw
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
plate to CHS connections at 0.03D
2
x'

7-20
From the moment when the first model was suggested by Birkemoe and Gilmor (1978),
subsequent research has recognized the importance that the connection type may have on the
stress distribution and consequently the connection strength. Therefore, that model
experienced several modifications (as described in Chapter Two) and nowadays various
coefficients affecting the tensile resistance are recommended in design provisions. In addition,
Cunningham et al. (1995) and Topkaya (2004) have also suggested alternative models for
specific connection types, however their use may be too complicated for practical engineers.
Equation (7-20) shows a modification to the original model recently suggested by Driver et al.
(2006), following the philosophy of adding resistance terms, that combines effective stresses
and mean stress correction factors affecting the tension area (R
t
) and the shear area (R
v
), to
account for non-uniform stress distributions characteristic to each connection type.
T
r
= [R
t
A
nt
F
u
+ R
v
A
gv
] (7-20)
Even though all this research has significantly improved the accuracy of design equations
for bolted connections, the lack of data corresponding to welded connections has been found to
be a potential limitation to the use of these equations for these connection types. Furthermore,
the applicability of these models to slotted end connections to HSS may also need further
attention. Therefore, the FE analysis results failing by TO have been compared against the
predicted strength by equations (7-19) and (7-20) to assess their accuracy. In all cases, the
weld size was considered to calculate the tensile resistance of the net area in tension (A
nt
).
These two models presume that the attainment of the maximum load occurs by fracture
along A
nt
and by shear yielding along A
gv
. As a general rule, these connections show non-
uniform stress distributions along A
nt
as the load increases (see Figure 7.13), however this
distribution becomes fairly uniform at the maximum load as excessive deformation occurs in this
small region (see Figure 7.14). In order to attain fracture of A
nt
the material there must reach a
strain equivalent to the ultimate tensile strain whence it becomes unable to redistribute load to
A
gv
. This increases the magnitude of stresses at A
gv
which continues until fracture of A
nt
occurs.
At fracture the load level at A
nt
is below its expected value ( ) and stresses along A
gv
exceed 0.6 F
y
or , as suggested by current models. The stress level along A
gv
ranges
from 0.6 F
y
to F
u
and in some cases necking will start there

(at the beginning of the weld).
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

A
nt
F
u
F
y
3
7-21
Finally, once the material breaks, a rapid load decrease takes place as the crack continues
propagating to the weld toe and then towards the tube end (along the weld).

(MPa)
Figure 7.13 Typical stress distribution (von
Mises) at the slot region
(MPa)
Figure 7.14 Stress distribution (von Mises) at the
maximum load
7-22
Figure 7.15 shows an ultimate strength comparison between the slotted CHS connections
and the loads predicted by equation (7-19). Even though this data shows some scatter, its trend
clearly exhibits a linear variation that stays close to a ratio of 1.0 (providing a mean actual-to
predicted ratio of 0.99 and a COV of 1.8%). Based on these results, it is possible to suggest that
this model predicts acceptably the strength of connections failing by TO in the range of L
w
/w
ratios from 0.40 to 0.70. Beyond these limits, it is expected that this equation will produce
unsafe results as the governing failure mechanism changes.

As explained before, the attainment of fracture at A
nt
will always be associated with a non-
uniform stress distribution along A
gv
, which in most cases exceeds a value of 0.6 F
y
. For
connections fabricated with materials having a considerable difference in their mechanical
properties (F
y
and F
u
), the model suggested by equation (7-20) can provide a better prediction
as it will raise the effective stress acting along A
gv
. In contrast, this equation will not provide a
significant improvement for connections fabricated with materials showing closeness in their
properties, such as those from the CHS herein (where F
u
/F
y
=1.08). The calculated mean and
COV for correlation with equation (7-20) is 0.99 and 1.8% respectively, which represents no
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
L /w w
N
/
(
A
F
+
0
.
6
A
F
)
u
F
E
n
t
u
n
v
y
D/t=15
D/t=20
D/t=25
D/t=30
D/t=35
D/t=40
D/t=45
TO Failure
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
Figure 7.15 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted CHS connections (no weld return)
7-23
improvement from the previous prediction. In order to increase the mean value to 1.0, a
correction factor R
v
=0.99 could be applied to this equation. Nevertheless, stress correction
factors equal to 1.0 are suggested herein as a means of simplifying the use of equation (7-20)
for this connection type (see Figure 7.16).
For slotted CHS connections having a weld return, the model suggested by equation (7-
19) can also provide a good prediction of the connection strength (see Figure 7.17) in the range
of L
w
/w ratios from 0.40 to 0.70. Once again, the trend shown for the data herein shows a linear
variation which almost becomes constant. Even though the mean and COV are 0.93 and 1.7%
respectively, the inability of these connections to attain a higher mean value (e.g. 1.0) is due to
the inclusion of a Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) during the FE modelling. (This HAZ emulated a
lack of ductility in this region which triggered the premature material failure there affecting the
overall connection strength (especially for small weld lengths)). On the other hand the use of
equation (7-20), with correction factors equal to 1.0, provided a similar outcome as it gave no
significant improvement. The use of a correction factor of R
v
=0.91 would enhance this
prediction equation, changing the average ratio to 1.0 and the COV to 1.5%. Nevertheless, it is
suggested that a further study of this connection type, and the importance that the HAZ may
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
N
/
[
R
A
F
+
R
A
(
(
F
+
F
)
/
2
3
)
]
u
F
E
t
n
t
u
v
g
v
y
u
D/t=15
D/t=20
D/t=25
D/t=30
D/t=35
D/t=40
D/t=45
TO Failure
L /w w
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
Rt = 1.0 Rv = 1.0
Figure 7.16 Correlation of equation (7-20) for slotted CHS connections (no weld return)
7-24
have on the connection strength. be conducted before a stress correction factor is
recommended.
Figure 7.18 shows how equation (7-19) can provide an unsafe strength prediction for
slotted gusset plate connections to CHS having thick tubes and L
w
/w ratios approaching 0.70.
The reason for this behaviour is due to the philosophy behind this model, which expects a
gradual increase in the connection strength as the weld length increases. Nevertheless, it does
not consider the negative effect that the bowing outwards of the gusset plate has on the overall
connection response. As seen during the study of the CF mechanism, gusset plate bowing will
increase the level of strains at the A
nt
region precipitating fracture of the material there (which in
this case defines the attainment of the maximum load by TO failure). For connections with L
w
/
w<0.70, the mean actual-to-predicted ratio for equation (7-19) is 0.98 with a COV of 5.3%. The
use of stress correction factors equal to 1.0 in equation (7-20) will modify this mean to 1.0 and
the COV to 5.5%. However, this improvement is only the result of a shift in the trend previously
calculated by equation (7-19). A real improvement can be made with stress correction factors of
R
t
=0.7 and R
v
=1.65 (see Figure 7.19).
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
D/t=15
D/t=20
D/t=25
D/t=30
D/t=35
D/t=40
D/t=45
Lab
B1
B2
TO Failure
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
CF
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
D/t=15
D/t=20
D/t=25
D/t=30
D/t=35
D/t=40
D/t=45
TO Failure
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
N
/
(
A
F
+
0
.
6
A
F
)
u
F
E
n
t
u
n
v
y
L /w w
Figure 7.17 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted CHS connections (with weld return)
7-25
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
Lw/w
D/t=15
D/t=20
D/t=25
D/t=30
D/t=35
D/t=40
D/t=45
TO Failure
Tension
Failure
Shear Lag
Present
N
/
(
A
F
+
0
.
6
A
F
)
u
F
E
n
t
u
n
v
y
Figure 7.18 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
D/t=15
D/t=20
D/t=25
D/t=30
D/t=35
D/t=40
D/t=45
TO Failure
Tension
Failure
Shear Lag
Present
Rt = 0.7
Rv = 1.65
N
/
[
R
A
F
+
R
A
(
(
F
+
F
)
/
2
3
)
]
u
F
E
t
n
t
u
v
g
v
y
u
L /w w
Figure 7.19 Correlation of equation (7-20) for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections
7-26
When these factors were applied to equation (7-20), the mean and COV changed to 1.04
and 3.6% respectively and it also adjusted the overall correlation. Despite this, the predicted
strength for thick tubes with D/t=15 still remains unsafe. Nonetheless, connections fabricated
with this ratio consistently had weld failure (for small L
w
/w ratios) throughout the parametric
analysis. Thus, the application of a different welding procedure such as full penetration groove
welds may be required for thick tubes.
In contrast to the trend displayed during the strength correlation from slotted CHS
connections (where it almost became constant), the correlation for slotted EHS connections has
exhibited contrasting trends. For EHS connections having a large eccentricity, the comparison
showed that equation (7-19) generally provides conservative strengths values. The actual-to-
predicted ratio will decrease as the L
w
/w ratio increases. This trend is approximately linear (see
Figure 7.20) except for thick tubes. The trend for connections with a small eccentricity follows a
more complex variation (see Figure 7.21). In both cases, the model suggested by equation (7-
19) provides an adequate mean actual-to-predicted ratio and COV. For connections with L
w
/w <
0.60 and a large eccentricity, this equation provided values of 1.06 and 5.8% respectively;
alternatively, a mean of 1.12 and a COV of 5.9% for connections with a small eccentricity.
Despite these favourable results, the predicted strength for connections having a wall
slenderness of D/t=15 will be unsafe.
As could be expected, equation (7-20) predicted better strengths for slotted EHS
connections. The EHS material properties had a ratio of F
u
/F
y
=1.258 which increased the
expected stress acting at A
gv
from 0.6 F
y
to 0.65 F
y
. For connections with a large eccentricity,
the use of stress correction factors (R
t
, R
v
) equal to 1.0 produced a mean actual-to-predicted
ratio of 0.99 and a COV of 5.9%. Even though this mean is practically 1.0, this equation will also
predict unsafe strengths for connections fabricated with thick tubes. In the same way, the use of
factors (R
t
, R
v
) equal to 1.0 (providing a mean and COV of 1.05 and 5.6% respectively) in
connections with a small eccentricity predicts unsafe strengths for thick tubes.
7-27

0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
D /t=15 avg
D /t=20 avg
D /t=25 avg
D /t=30 avg
D /t=35 avg
D /t=40 avg
D /t=45 avg
TO
Failure
CF
Shear Lag
Present
N
/
(
A
F
+
0
.
6
A
F
)
u
F
E
n
t
u
n
v
y
L /w w
Figure 7.20 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted EHS connections (large eccentricity)
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
D /t=15 avg
D /t=20 avg
D /t=25 avg
D /t=30 avg
D /t=35 avg
D /t=40 avg
D /t=45 avg
TO failure
CF
Shear Lag
Present
N
/
(
A
F
+
0
.
6
A
F
)
u
F
E
n
t
u
n
v
y
L /w w
Figure 7.21 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted EHS connections (small eccentricity)
7-28
In a similar manner to slotted gusset plate to CHS connections, the bowing outwards of
the gusset plate also modified the strength of their EHS counterparts, as it induced premature
fracture at A
nt
. In general, the trend shown by the comparison with equation (7-19) is
approximately quadratic (see Figure 7.22). Tubes with D
avg
/t = 15 are not considered herein as
weld failure governed the response of these connections when they had a ratio of L
w
/w < 0.60.
For this data, the mean and COV values were 0.89 and 5.4% respectively with the actual-to-
predicted ratio ranging form 0.75 to 0.95.
The use of equation (7-20), with stress correction factors equal to 1.0 produced a mean
and COV of 0.85 and 5% respectively. This equation lowers the mean (from 0.89 to 0.85) and
also decreases the data scatter. The parametric analysis showed that weld failure will govern for
low D
avg
/t ratios and short welds, thereby requiring the need for a different welding procedure.
As a final note, even though the predicted connection strength can be modified by
application of these R
t
and R
v
correction factors, a better TO failure model capable of accurately
capturing the response of slotted gusset plate connections is preferable. Also, as noted before,
equal R
t
and R
v
factors serve the same purpose as one resistance factor applied to the whole
prediction equation.
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
Lw/w
D /t=15 avg
D /t=20 avg
D /t=25 avg
D /t=30 avg
D /t=35 avg
D /t=40 avg
D /t=45 avg
TO failure
CF
Shear Lag
Present
N
/
(
A
F
+
0
.
6
A
F
)
u
F
E
n
t
u
n
v
y
Figure 7.22 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections
7-29
7.4 CHS connections in compression
7.4.1 Equation suggested for slotted CHS to gusset plate connections (under
compression loading)
As explained during the parametric analysis, the strain concentration at the slot may
encourage the development of a local buckle there. When small L
w
/w ratios are used, this may
potentially prevent the attainment of the member design load. However, this phenomenon can
be minimized to the point where the connection strength only depends on the tube D/t ratio and
the slot length (if ratios L
w
/w > 0.92 are used). Equation (7-21) shows the coefficients calculated
based on the data for slotted CHS connections under compression loading. The use of 1.7 and
3.7 herein resulted in a mean and COV of 1.0 and 5.3% respectively.
(7-21)
Figure 7.23 shows the equation following the trend of the data within the validity range
defined here as 15 D/t 45 and 0.4 L
w
/w 1.26.
Since the data used herein corresponds to FE models having a slot length equivalent to
the gusset plate thickness, the use of this equation is only valid for connections emulating this
condition. The use of a longer slot will negatively impact the connection efficiency, as explained
in Section 6.6.1. Considering that the D/t ratio had a significant influence on the efficiency of this
connection detail, this ratio was included in equation (7-22).
U
CSA sl otted tube compressi on
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.7
+
3.7
--------------------------------------- =

N
/
A
F
u
F
E
g
y
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Slotted CHS (C)
U suggested for slotted CHS (C)
Shear lag
present
Tube local buckling of the
entire cross-section
L / w w
0.92
under compression loading
7-30
(7-22)
The use of the coefficients 1.58 and -0.13 herein resulted in a mean and COV of 0.99 and
3.0% respectively. The ranges of validity for this equation are the same as for equation (7-21).
Moreover, the maximum efficiency is limited to 100% of A
g
F
y
. Even though the use of a
simplified equation such as (7-21) may be suggested (especially for small L
w
/w ratios (where
the data tends to gather), the use of equation (7-22) is optional as the inclusion of the D/t ratio
tends to positively improve the calculated efficiency. The results from these comparisons are
shown in Table 7.13.

a)
7.4.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate connections (under compression
loading)
Since the efficiency of these connections increased at a constant rate as the weld length
(see Figure 7.24), it was feasible to simplify the format of the equation used here. The use of the
coefficients 0.24 and 0.5 in equation (7-23) produced a mean and COV of 0.99 and 6.9%
respectively.
(7-23)
In contrast to slotted CHS connections, here the D/t ratio did not have significant influence
on the attainment of a higher efficiency. On the contrary, the data was mainly dependent on the
gusset plate width (B) at the slot region. To consider this, it was decided to relate this parameter
(B) to the tube thickness (t). As a result, the data was ordered in a range of B/t ratios from 11 to
20. Then, further regressions were undertaken with equation (7-23) but with this equation
modified by the B/t ratio according to several formats. However, the final outcome always
resulted in very minor modifications to equation (7-23), which minimized the influence of this
Table 7.13 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted CHS connections (under compression
loading)
FE results
a)
(7-21)
(7-22)
Slotted CHS 54
1.00 0.99 Mean
5.3% 3.0% COV
U
CSA sl otted tube compressi on
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.7
+
3.7
---------------------------------------

1.58
D
t
----

0.13

1.0 =
0.4 L
w
w 1.26 < <
U
CSA sl otted gusset compressi on
0.24
L
w
w
------ 0.5 +

1.0 =
7-31
parameter. The range of validity for equation (7-23) has been limited to 15 D/t 45, 0.4 L
w
/
w and 11 B/t 20. The result from this comparison is shown in Table 7.14.

a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.4 L
w
/w.
7.5 Evaluation of recommended equations against experimental data
The results from previous sections have shown that equation (7-2), initially developed for
CF in slotted CHS connections using the CSA format, may also be applied to slotted gusset
plate connections with good results. Even though the use of this equation for EHS connections
may also provide acceptable results within the defined validity limits, the use of the CF equation
(7-12) is recommended as it can offer a continuous trend in the predicted efficiency for L
w
/w
ratios near the transition region. Figure 7.25 shows the CF connection efficiency suggested by
equation (7-2) in comparison to the data from previous experimental programs. Herein, the ratio
L
w
/w = 0.70 is defined as the transition point from a CF to a TO failure. Nevertheless, it should
be remembered that this value corresponds to a lower bound defined by the CHS connections
and a ratio L
w
/w = 0.60 was exhibited by EHS connections.
Table 7.14 Evaluation of potential equation for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections (under
compression loading)
FE results
a)
Slotted CHS 66
0.99 Mean
6.9% COV

N
/
A
F
u
F
E
g
y
L /w w
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Slotted gusset plate to CHS (C)
U suggested for slotted gusset plate to CHS (C)
under compression loading
7-32
In contrast, CF equations recommended for AISC design provision format offered less
encouraging result. It was found that equation (7-7) can be extended to slotted EHS
connections with a large eccentricity and slotted gusset plate connections. However, its use in
slotted EHS connections with a small eccentricity is clearly inappropriate. The connection
efficiency proposed by CF failure equation (7-7) is plotted in combination with the data from
previous experimental programs in Figure 7.26. Here a ratio of /L
w
= 0.245 specifies the
transition from a CF to a TO failure. Nonetheless, different ratios have been established for EHS
connections.
L / w w
U
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
British
Korol
Cheng
UofT
Zhao-1995
Zhao-1999
CF
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
TO Failure
U - CSA
Figure 7.25 Suggested efficiency factor by equation (7-2) and experimental results
x'
x'/Lw
U
TO Failure
CF
Shear
Lag
Present
CF
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
British
Korol
Cheng
UofT
U-AISC
Zhao-1995
Zhao-1999
0.245
Figure 7.26 Suggested efficiency factor by equation (7-7) and experimental results
7-33
7.5.1 Experimental program by British Steel (1992)
Table 7.15 shows the experimental data by British Steel (1992) and the best prediction
given by the modified AISC(2005) design provision when is used. In addition, the predicted
connection strengths from equations (7-2) and (7-7) are presented. Even though these new
equations seem to have a somewhat poor correlation herein (with a mean of 0.92), there are
several factors directly related to the data affecting these results that must be considered. The
experimental data showed considerable scatter in the region where a high efficiency may be
expected (see Figures 7.25 and 7.26). Based on the data from other experimental programs,
and especially from the parametric analyses, one could expect high efficiency values (i.e.
values above 90% of A
n
F
u
) when a connection has a ratio of L
w
/w > 0.9 or /L
w
< 0.2.
However, the data here exhibited lower values that even reached an efficiency as low as
0.72A
n
F
u
. The inability of these connections to attain higher values has been related to the
likely presence of welding defects, as these connections were fabricated with a weld return,
which may have triggered their premature fracture during testing. Despite these facts, the new
equations provided a better prediction for CHS connections than AISC (modified). The main
reason for the higher AISC mean is that the AISC specification does not allow the full efficiency
attainment for RHS and SHS connections (even with long weld lengths), unlike for CHS
connections. Hence, the AISC predicted efficiency stayed close to the low experimental data for
RHS/SHS connections in the data group.
Table 7.15 Actual and predicted connection strength for British Steel (1992) data
Specimen L
w
/w /L
w
Test
Capacity
N
ux
[kN]
N
ux
/A
n
F
u

(A
n
=A
g
)
Circumferential Tensile Fracture
AISC
(2005)
using
N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/ N
u
Eq(7-2)
N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/
N
u
Eq(7-7)
N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/
N
u
C-Sep-1 0.94 0.18 256 0.90 285 0.90 277 0.92 274 0.93
C-Sep-2 0.97 0.16 326 0.90 362 0.90 353 0.92 351 0.93
C-Sep-3 1.01 0.14 371 0.89 416 0.89 408 0.91 408 0.91
C-Sep-4 0.91 0.19 522 0.93 561 0.93 541 0.96 533 0.98
C-Sep-5 0.94 0.18 652 0.85 763 0.85 741 0.88 734 0.89
C-Sep-6 0.94 0.18 795 0.84 952 0.84 924 0.86 916 0.87
S-Sep-2 0.94 0.14 274 0.94 251 1.09 283 0.97 286 0.96
S-Sep-3 0.94 0.12 505 0.96 462 1.09 508 0.99 518 0.97
S-Sep-4 0.94 0.16 478 0.85 472 1.01 544 0.88 546 0.88
S-Sep-5 0.96 0.14 833 0.94 759 1.10 864 0.96 868 0.96
S-Sep-6 0.96 0.13 949 0.90 911 1.04 1023 0.93 1033 0.92
R-Sep-3 0.94 0.08 475 0.89 492 0.96 519 0.91 533 0.89
x'
x'
x'
x'
7-34
7.5.2 Experimental program by Korol (1994)
Table 7.16 shows the experimental data by Korol (1994), the predicted connection
efficiency from CSA(2001) and the efficiency from equations (7-2) and (7-7). In contrast to the
British Steel experimental program, here the connections exhibiting a ratio of L
w
/w > 0.95 or /
L
w
< 0.20 were able to attain at least 95% of A
n
F
u
, which is in accord with the trend suggested
by equations (7-2) and (7-7). As a result, these equations provided better predictions than CSA.
In order to establish the efficiency of specimen 5a, these equations were applied beyond their
validity range. However, their predicted efficiencies compared favourably with the specimen
data and the best prediction corresponded to equation (7-7). Despite this positive result, the
check for a TO failure must also be performed for this specimen (5a) as a TO failure mechanism
is expected to govern for this ratio. However, a closeness in the predicted connection strengths
may be expected by either failure mode in this region (from 0.6 to 0.7 L
w
/w).
Table 7.16 Actual and predicted connection strength for Korol (1994) data.
7.5.3 Experimental program by Cheng et al. (1996)
Table 7.17 shows the experimental data by Cheng et al. (1996), the connection strength
predicted by AISC(2005) when is used, and the predicted connection strength based on
R-Sep-5 0.94 0.17 384 0.97 329 1.17 384 1.00 385 1.00
R-Sep-8 0.96 0.07 711 0.72 914 0.78 960 0.74 982 0.72
R-Sep-9 1.04 0.03 913 0.87 1012 0.90 1032 0.88 1047 0.87
R-Sep-10 0.91 0.22 560 1.00 437 1.28 538 1.04 518 1.08
Mean 0.98 0.92 0.92
COV 13.8% 7.6% 8.4%
Specimen L
w
/w /L
w U real
CSA
(2001)
[U]
Ureal /
U
Eq(7-2)
[U]
U real /
U
Eq(7-7)
[U]
U real /
U
1a 1.00 0.20 0.98 0.89 1.11 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.04
1b 0.98 0.20 1.04 0.87 1.19 0.98 1.06 0.94 1.11
2a 0.98 0.16 0.95 0.86 1.10 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.98
2b 1.01 0.15 1.00 0.89 1.13 0.98 1.02 0.98 1.03
3a 0.98 0.09 1.05 0.86 1.23 0.98 1.07 1.00 1.05
3b 1.01 0.08 1.05 0.88 1.19 0.98 1.07 1.00 1.05
5a 0.61 0.26 0.88 0.76 1.16 0.78 1.13 0.88 1.00
Mean 1.16 1.05 1.04
COV 4.1% 5.0% 4.0%
x'
x'
x'
7-35
equations (7-2) and (7-7). Even though these equations provided a mean actual-to-predicted
ratio similar to AISC, there are several advantages related to their use that should be
considered. As seen throughout the parametric analyses, the connections showed a gradual
increase in their efficiency and a clear tendency to converge as their L
w
/w ratios approached
1.0. Moreover, the influence of the D/t ratio during this process was also noted. In general, this
contrasts with the approach by AISC where a ratio of 1.3 L
w
/D guarantees the attainment of the
connection full efficiency but a slightly lower ratio is heavily penalized. Since the first eight
specimens had a ratio of L
w
/D > 1.3, AISC provided them with an efficiency factor of 1.0. But,
AISC clearly failed to suggest an acceptable efficiency for the last specimen (spec2). In
contrast, equations (7-2) and (7-7) predict a close efficiency for the first specimens (as all they
have a ratio L
w
/w > 1.0) and a much better prediction for spec2, which finally resulted in a better
COV.
Table 7.17 Actual and predicted connection strength for Cheng et al. (1996) data
7.5.4 Experimental program by the Authors
Table 7.18 shows the data from the experimental program undertaken at the University of
Toronto, the predicted connection strength by AISC(2005) when is used and the predicted
connection strength based on equations (7-2) and (7-7). In order to facilitate the comparisons,
the data is gathered here based on the structural shape (i.e. CHS versus EHS). In contrast to
the AISC design provision, the use of equations (7-2) and (7-7) for CHS connections predicted
Specimen L
w
/w /L
w
Test
Capacity
N
ux
[kN]
N
ux
/
A
n
F
u
N
ux
/
A
g
F
u
AISC
(2005)
using
N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/
N
u
Eq(7-2)
N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/
N
u
Eq(7-7)
N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/
N
u
pwc1 1.14 0.16 830 1.06 0.98 781 1.06 775 1.07 759 1.09
pwc2 1.14 0.16 869 1.02 849 1.02 843 1.03 825 1.05
pwc3 1.14 0.16 849 1.00 849 1.00 843 1.01 825 1.03
pwc4 1.14 0.16 875 1.03 849 1.03 843 1.04 825 1.06
pwc5 1.00 0.18 645 1.03 624 1.03 612 1.05 598 1.08
pwc6 1.00 0.18 634 1.02 624 1.02 612 1.04 598 1.06
pwc7 1.00 0.18 631 1.01 624 1.01 612 1.03 598 1.06
spec1 1.06 0.17 2160 1.01 2141 1.01 2114 1.02 2064 1.05
spec2 0.85 0.22 2157 1.01 1674 1.29 2025 1.06 1986 1.09
Mean 1.05 1.04 1.06
COV 8.6% 1.9% 1.9%
x'
x'
x'
7-36
strengths close to the experimental data, including connections with ratios below the validity
limit (such as specimens A1 and C1). Moreover, the use of either equation (suggested for
different design provision format) can provide comparable results. Despite equations (7-2) and
(7-7) being developed for CHS connections, their application to EHS connections provides
acceptable results, including specimens located beyond the validity limit (E1 and E3). However,
it must be remembered that the use of equations (7-2) and (7-7) may result in a overestimation
of the connection capacity (the first equation for connections with L
w
/w ratios approaching 0.6,
and the second equation for connections with small eccentricity). Because of this, the use of
equations (7-12), (7-16) and (7-17) is still recommended for these connection types to address
the CF limit state. The evaluation of equations (7-20), (7-22) and (7-23) is also included in this
table Table 7.18.
Table 7.18 Actual and predicted connection strength for data by the Authors
A further comparison is shown in Table 7.19 for equations specifically developed for EHS
connections, which show an improved mean relative to the AISC design provision format.
Specimen L
w
/w /L
w
Test
Capacity
N
ux
[kN]
N
ux
/
A
n
F
u
N
ux
/
A
g
F
u
AISC (2005)
using
N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/
N
u
Eq(7-2)
N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/N
u
Eq(7-7)
N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/
N
u
A1 0.66 0.26 1032 0.87 0.77 880 1.17 988 1.04 1042 0.99
A2 0.81 0.21 1154 0.97 0.86 939 1.23 1109 1.04 1112 1.04
B1 0.71 0.24 1087 0.91 0.81 1013 1167 1203
B2 0.87 0.20 1211 1.02 0.91 1073 1.13 1274 0.95 1265 0.96
C1 0.68 0.25 1107 0.83 999 1.11 1133 0.98 1185 0.93
C2 0.82 0.21 1196 0.90 1055 1.13 1247 0.96 1249 0.96
Mean 1.15 0.99 0.98
COV 4.1% 4.5% 4.1%
E1 0.62 0.32 1109 0.81 0.69 914 1.21 1067 1.04 1047 1.07
E2 0.78 0.26 1236 0.90 0.76 1019 1.21 1256 0.98 1298 1.02
E3 0.62 0.32 1336 0.83 1102 1.21 1275 1.05 1257 1.06
E4 0.74 0.27 1400 0.86 1188 1.18 1447 0.97 1404 1.00
E5 0.79 0.13 1282 0.94 0.79 1187 1.08 1253 1.02 1393 0.96
Mean 1.18 1.01 1.02
COV 4.9% 3.5% 4.6%
N
ux
/ A
g
F
y Eq(7-20) N
ux
/N
u
Eq(7-22) N
ux
/N
u
Eq(7-23) N
ux
/N
u
B1 0.71 0.24 1087 0.81 1221 0.89
A3C 0.87 0.20 -1145 0.93 -1174 0.98
C3C 0.84 0.20 -869 0.71 -935 0.93
x'
x'
7-37
Table 7.19 Actual and predicted connection strength by the Author, continued
a)
Equation (7-12) for slotted EHS connections.
b
) Equation (7-14) for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections.
c)
Equation (7-16) for EHS connections with small eccentricity.
d)
Equation (7-17) for EHS connections with large eccentricity.
7.6 Derivation of reduction (resistance) factors for the recommended equations
In order to provide an adequate level of safety to the equations developed in previous
sections, a simple reliability analysis was undertaken to derive reduction factors ( ) suitable for
these equations which will provide an adequate level of safety. The calculation of the reduction
factors is based on the classic equation derived by Ravindra and Galambos(1978):
(7-24)
Herein , known as the safety index or reliability index, represents the target probability
of failure during a structures service life. In the study by Ravindra and Galambos, a target value
of 4.5 was generally suggested for connections. However, several values were studied herein
as some design bodies now advise smaller values. A value of = 4.0 is now advocated by
AISC specification committee for connections. represents the mean actual-to-predicted ratio
of data against the prediction by equation(s) and represents the coefficient of variation
about that mean.
7.6.1 Reduction factors for CHS connections in tension - CF failure
7.6.1.1 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted CHS connections (CSA
Table 7.20 shows the suggested resistance factors for slotted CHS connections and
several safety indices (3.5, 4.0 and 4.5). In contrast to what may be expected, the use of these
Specimen L
w
/w /L
w
Test
Capacity
N
ux
[kN]
N
ux
/
A
n
F
u
N
ux
/
A
g
F
u
AISC (2005)
using N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/
N
u
Eq(7-12)
a

or (7-14)
b

N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/N
u
Eq(7-16)
c

or (7-17)
d
N
u
[kN]
N
ux
/N
u
E1 0.62 0.32 1109 0.81 0.69 914 1.21 1084 1.02
1052
b
1.05
E2 0.78 0.26 1236 0.90 0.76 1019 1.21 1196 1.03
1172
b
1.05
E3 0.62 0.32 1336 0.83 1102 1.21 1373 0.97
1269
b
1.05
E4 0.74 0.27 1400 0.86 1188 1.18 1451 0.94
1367
b
1.02
E5 0.79 0.13 1282 0.94 0.79 1187 1.08 1190 1.08
1220
a
1.05
Mean 1.18 1.01 1.05
COV 4.9% 4.7% 1.3%
x'
x'
0.55 V
R
( ) exp
m
=
m
V
R
7-38
different safety indices resulted in extremely similar resistance factors. As a result, the use of a
reduction factor equal to 0.90 for both equations is recommended, as this value surpass all
target safety levels considered.

a)
7.6.1.2 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted gusset plate to CHS
connections based on ultimate strength (CSA design provision format)
The use of the suggested equations ((7-2), (7-3) and (7-4)) for the data from slotted
gusset plate connections produced means equal to 1.0 and very small COVs. As a result, the
calculated reduction factors also are also very close (see Table 7.21). Hence, a reduction factor
of 0.90 is again suggested in an attempt to achieve uniformity with resistance factors previously
suggested for slotted CHS connections.
a)
Table 7.20 Calculated resistance factors for slotted CHS connections
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-2)
FE results /
equation (7-3)
146
1.00 1.00 Mean
4.0% 3.6% COV
3.5 0.923 0.932
4.0 0.913 0.923
4.5 0.903 0.914
Table 7.21 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation
(7-2)
FE results /
equation
(7-3)
FE results /
equation
(7-4)
1.00 1.00 1.00 Mean
2.9% 3.1% 2.6% COV
3.5 0.942 0.940 0.954
4.0 0.934 0.932 0.949
4.5 0.927 0.924 0.942

L
w
w 0.7

L
w
w 0.7
7-39
connections based on deformation limit (CSA design provision format)
The larger COV associated with equation (7-5) ranged produced lower factors ranging
from 0.84 to 0.87 (see Table 7.22). As a result, the use of a reduction factor of 0.80 for this
equation is conservative. On the other hand, the inclusion of the D/t ratio, enhancing the
prediction accuracy of equation (7-5), also improved the reduction factors for equation (7-6), a
reduction factor of 0.90 is conservative (see Table 7.22). Since equation (7-6) can provide a
better prediction and a higher resistance factor, its use may be considered over equation (7-5).
a)
to CHS.
7.6.1.4 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted CHS connections (AISC
The equations suggested for the AISC design provision format have shown their capacity
to predict the connection strength of CHS connections accurately. As a result, the mean and
COV generated reduction factors close to those given by the equations suggested for the CSA
format (always above 0.90). Hence, a resistance factor equal to 0.90 is also suggested for these
equations (see Table 7.23).

a)
Table 7.22 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections using an
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-5)
FE results /
equation (7-6)
CHS
99
1.00 1.01 Mean
7.1% 3.5% COV
3.5 0.869 0.944
4.0 0.853 0.935
4.5 0.836 0.926
Table 7.23 Calculated resistance factors for slotted CHS connections (AISC)
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-7)
FE results /
equation (7-8)
146
1.00 1.00 Mean
3.9% 3.8% COV
3.5 0.926 0.926
4.0 0.917 0.916
4.5 0.907 0.907

x' L
w
0.245
7-40
connections based on ultimate strength (AISC design provision format)
The good results provided by the use of equations (7-7) and (7-9) for slotted gusset plate
connections (see Table 7.24) also suggest the use of a resistance factor at least of 0.9.
a)
connections based on deformation limit (AISC design provision format)
In a similar manner to the CSA equations, equation (7-11) might be preferred over
equation (7-10) as it is more accurate (lower COV) and hence has a higher resistance factor,
with = 0.9 for equation (7-11) still being conservative recommendation.
a)
to CHS.
Table 7.24 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections (AISC)
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-7)
FE results /
equation (7-9)
1.00 1.01 Mean
2.4% 2.4% COV
3.5 0.953 0.960
4.0 0.947 0.954
4.5 0.941 0.947
Table 7.25 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections using an
ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D (AISC)
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-10)
FE results /
equation (7-11)
CHS
99
1.00 1.00 Mean
7.1% 3.7% COV
3.5 0.869 0.929
4.0 0.852 0.920
4.5 0.836 0.910

x' L
w
0.245

7-41
7.6.2 Reduction factors for EHS connections in tension - CF failure
7.6.2.1 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted EHS connections (CSA
The calculated reduction factors are shown in Table 7.26, and again a resistance factor of
= 0.9 would be conservative for equations (7-12) and (7-13)
a)
7.6.2.2 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted gusset plate to EHS
connections based on ultimate strength (CSA design provision format)
Despite equations (7-2) and (7-12) produce a good prediction of the connection efficiency
(see Table 7.27) the use of equation (7-14), with a reduction factor equivalent to 0.9, is
recommended as it provides the best prediction.
a)
connections based on deformation limit (CSA design provision format)
For equation (7-15) a resistance factor of would be adequately conservative (see
Table 7.28).
Table 7.26 Calculated resistance factors for slotted EHS
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-2)
FE results /
equation (7-12)
FE results /
equation (7-13)
Slotted EHS having
small and large
143
0.97 1.00 1.00 Mean
4.6% 3.7% 3.7% COV
3.5 0.885 0.929 0.929
4.0 0.874 0.920 0.920
4.5 0.863 0.910 0.910
Table 7.27 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-2)
FE results /
equation (7-12)
FE results /
equation (7-14)
to EHS
76
0.99 1.03 1.00 Mean
4.1% 3.1% 2.5% COV
3.5 0.917 0.971 0.950
4.0 0.907 0.962 0.944
4.5 0.897 0.954 0.937
x'

L
w
w 0.6

L
w
w 0.6
7-42
a)
Data corresponding to the connection strength at a deformation limit of 0.03D
2
, for slotted gusset plate connections
to EHS.
7.6.2.4 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted EHS connections (AISC
A conservative resistance factor of 0.9 is possible for all equations covered in Table 7.29.
a)
b)
connections based on ultimate strength (AISC design provision format)
The extension of equations (7-7) and (7-17) to this connection type have resulted in the
resistance factors shown in Table 7.30. Therefore, the use of a resistance factor of 0.9 is also
suggested.
Table 7.28 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections using
an ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D
2
FE results
a)
1.01 Mean
6.8% COV
3.5 0.886
4.0 0.869
4.5 0.853
Table 7.29 Calculated resistance factors for slotted EHS equation (AISC)
FE
results
FE results
eq (7-16)
FE results
FE results/
eq (7-7)
FE results/
eq (7-17)
Slotted EHS
with small
61
a)
1.00 Slotted EHS
with large
76
b)
0.98 1.00 Mean
2.7% 2.8% 2.4% COV
3.5 0.945 3.0 0.927 0.955
4.0 0.938 3.5 0.920 0.948
4.5 0.931 4.5 0.913 0.942

x' x'

x' L
w
0.14
x' L
w
0.33
7-43
a)
7.6.2.6 Reduction factors for suggested equation for slotted gusset plate to EHS
connections based on deformation limit (AISC design provision format)
For equation (7-25) a resistance factor of 0.85 is suggested (see Table 7.31).
a)
Table 7.30 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS (AISC)
FE results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-7)
FE results /
equation (7-17)
EHS
76
1.03 1.05 Mean
4.2% 3.3% COV
3.5 0.948 0.988
4.0 0.937 0.979
4.5 0.926 0.970
Table 7.31 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections using an
2
(AISC)
FE results
a)
1.00 Mean
6.7% COV
3.5 0.882
4.0 0.866
4.5 0.850

x' L
w
0.33

0.06 x' L
w
0.25 < <
7-44
7.6.3 Reduction factors for CHS and EHS connection in tension - TO failure
7.6.3.1 Reduction factors for slotted CHS connections - TO failure
Since the behaviour of connections with a weld return was unique, the data from these
connections was separated here (see Table 7.32). However, it was found that a resistance
factor of 0.9 may be used for both connection types.
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.4< L
w
/w<0.7, , R
t
=1.0 and R
v
=1.0.
7.6.3.2 Reduction factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections - TO failure
The improvement in the predicted connection strength by equation (7-20), due to the
application of stress modification factors of 0.7 and 1.65 (for R
t
and R
v
respectively), resulted in
the resistance factor shown in Table 7.33, which suggests the use of a resistance factor equal to
0.9.
a)
w
/w<0.7, , R
t
=0.7 and R
v
=1.65.
7.6.3.3 Reduction factors for slotted EHS connections - TO failure
Despite equation (7-20) improving the prediction accuracy for these connections, the data
from EHS connections with a large eccentricity generated resistance factors ranging from 0.858
to 0.886. Hence, a resistance factor of 0.85 is recommended for these connection types.
Table 7.32 Calculated resistance factors for slotted CHS connections -TO failure
FE
results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-20)
FE
results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-20)
Slotted CHS
(no weld return)
24
0.99
Slotted CHS
(with weld return)
29
0.93 Mean
1.8% 1.7% COV
3.5 0.958 3.5 0.903
4.0 0.953 4.0 0.899
4.5 0.948 4.5 0.895
Table 7.33 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections - TO failure
FE results
a)
Slotted gusset plate to CHS connections 36
1.04 Mean
3.6% COV
3.5 0.972
4.0 0.962
4.5 0.953

0.24 x' L
w
0.44 < <

0.24 x' L
w
0.44 < <
7-45
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with small eccentricity, 0.3< L
w
/w<0.6, , R
t
=1.0 and
R
v
=1.0.
b)
Data corresponding to FE connections with large eccentricity, 0.3< L
w
/w<0.6, , R
t
=1.0 and
R
v
=1.0.
7.6.3.4 Reduction factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections - TO failure
A resistance factor of 0.75 is recommended for this connection type (see Table 7.35).
a)
w
/w<0.6, ,R
t
=1.0 and R
v
=1.0.
7.6.4 Reduction factors for CHS connections in compression
7.6.4.1 Reduction factors for slotted CHS connections in compression
SInce equation (7-22) can provide the best prediction of the connection strength with the
use of a reduction factor of 0.9, the use of this equation is recommended.
Table 7.34 Calculated resistance factors for slotted EHS connections - TO failure
FE
results
a)
FE results /
equation (7-20)
FE
results
b)
FE results /
equation (7-20)
Slotted EHS
with small
24
1.05 Slotted EHS with
large
35
0.99 Mean
5.6% 5.9% COV
3.5 0.943 3.5 0.886
4.0 0.928 4.0 0.872
4.5 0.914 4.5 0.858
Table 7.35 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections - TO failure
FE results
a)
Slotted gusset plate to EHS connections 24
0.85 Mean
5.0% COV
3.5 0.773
4.0 0.762
4.5 0.752
x' x'

0.31 x' L
w
0.66 < <
0.16 x' L
w
0.33 < <

0.31 x' L
w
0.66 < <
7-46
a)
w
/w 1.26.
7.6.4.2 Reduction factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections in compression
Since the calculated resistance factor here ranged from 0.835 to 0.868, a resistance
factor of 0.8 is recommended for this equation.
a)
w
/w.
7.7 Summary of Chapter 7- recommended static design methods
Even though the experimental data and FE analysis data trends suggested the possibility
of using a single equation to cover all stages of the connection tension response, the difference
in failure mechanisms and the parameters involved in each mechanism prevented this option.
However, the gradual transition from a TO failure to a CF failure has allowed the check of each
failure mechanism to be confined to a specific range of L
w
/w ratios. Because of this, the check
for CF failure (with equations developed in previous sections) is recommended for CHS
connections with L
w
/w>0.7 and for EHS connections with L
w
/w>0.6. Below these ratios, it is
expected that TO failure will govern, especially for connections fabricated with thin tubes.
The application of these new CF failure equations can be extended to even lower L
w
/w
ratios as they followed the trend of the data in the TO failure region. This eliminates the
Table 7.36 Calculated resistance factors for slotted CHS connections (compression)
FE results
a)
FE results / equation (7-21) FE results / equation (7-22)
Slotted CHS 54
1.00 0.99 Mean
5.3% 3.0% COV
3.5 0.908 0.934
4.0 0.895 0.926
4.5 0.882 0.918
Table 7.37 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate connections (compression)
FE results
a)
Slotted gusset plate connections to CHS 66
0.99 Mean
6.9% COV
3.5 0.868
4.0 0.852
4.5 0.835

7-47
inconsistency exhibited in current design provisions when the governing failure mechanism
changes from a CF failure to a TO failure. In addition, it is expected that the predicted strength
of connections with L
w
/w ratios ranging from 0.6 to 0.7 in CHS and 0.5 to 0.6 in EHS will receive
a comparable strength value when this is calculated by equations from each failure mechanism.
The model for tear out used by AISC and CSA provided good results for slotted CHS
connections. However, it failed to describe the response of slotted gusset plate to CHS
connections. As a result, the use of equation (7-20), with its corresponding correction factors, is
suggested to improve this prediction. Moreover, this same model showed problems in
emulating the behaviour of EHS connections. Because of this, the application of equation (7-20)
is also recommended, as it can provide a better TO strength prediction, especially for small L
w
/
w ratios.
As seen during the parametric analysis, the presence of shear lag under compression
loading may induce local buckling of the tube at the beginning of the welds. Therefore, three
new equations considering this condition are suggested herein.
7.7.1 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in tension
Table 7.38 Design method for slotted CHS connections
CF failure
for L
w
/w 0.7
TO failure for L
w
/w < 0.7
CF failure for 0.245
TO failure for > 0.245
where , A
n
= critical net area of connections with and open slot or A
n
=A
g
when a weld return is used, F
u
=
specified minimum tensile strength, R
t
=1.0 and R
v
=1.0.
T
r CSA
A
n
F
u
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

2.4
+
5.7
---------------------------------------

=

T
r CSA
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ =
T
r AI SC
A
n
F
u
1
1
x'
L
w
------

3.2
+
9.9
---------------------------------------

=
x' L
w

T
r AISC
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ = x' L
w
0.9 =
7-48
Table 7.39 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on ultimate
strength
CF failure for L
w
/w 0.7
TO failure
for L
w
/w < 0.7
where , herein A
n
= A
g
(gross cross-sectional area) as the gusset plate is slotted, F
u
= specified minimum
tensile strength, R
t
=0.7 and R
v
=1.65.
Table 7.40 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on deformation
limit (0.03D)
for 0.4
for 0.245
where , herein A
n
equates to A
g
(gross cross-sectional area) as the gusset plate is slotted and F
u
=
specified minimum tensile strength.
T
r CSA
A
n
F
u
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

2.4
+
5.7
---------------------------------------

=

T
r CSA
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ =
T
r AI SC
A
n
F
u
1
1
x'
L
w
------

3.2
+
9.9
---------------------------------------

=
x' L
w

T
r AISC
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ = x' L
w
0.9 =
T
r CSA 0.03D
A
n
F
u
0.23
L
w
w
------

0.55 +

1.81
D
t
----

0.18

1.0 = L
w
w
T
r AI SC 0.03D
A
n
F
u
0.26 1
1
x'
L
w
------

0.4
------------------ +

1.77
D
t
----

0.17

1.0 =
x' L
w

0.9 =
7-49
7.7.2 Recommended static design method for EHS connections in tension

Table 7.41 Design method for slotted EHS connections
CF failure for L
w
/w 0.6
TO failure
for L
w
/w < 0.6
CF failure
for a small
and
0.14
for a large
and
0.33
TO failure
for a small ,
> 0.14
for a large ,
> 0.33
where 0.9 and 0.85 for CF and TO respectively, A
n
= critical net area of the slotted EHS, F
u
= specified
minimum tensile strength, R
t
=1.0 and R
v
=1.0.
Table 7.42 Design method for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on ultimate
strength
CF failure for L
w
/w 0.6
TO failure
for L
w
/w < 0.6
CF failure for 0.33
TO failure for 0.33
where 0.9 and 0.75 for CF and TO respectively, herein A
n
equates to A
g
(gross cross-sectional area) as the
gusset plate is slotted, F
u
= specified minimum tensile strength, R
t
=1.0 and R
v
=1.0.
T
r CSA
A
n
F
u
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.3
+
3.8
---------------------------------------

=

T
r CSA
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ =
T
r AI SC
A
n
F
u
1
1
x'
L
w
------

2.15
+
9.3
-----------------------------------------

=
x'
x' L
w

T
r AI SC
A
n
F
u
1
1
x'
L
w
------

2.1
+
2.8
---------------------------------------

=
x'
x' L
w

T
r AISC
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ =
x'
x' L
w
x'
x' L
w
=
T
r CSA
A
n
F
u
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.2
+
4.3
---------------------------------------

=

T
r CSA
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ =
T
r AI SC
A
n
F
u
1
1
x'
L
w
------

2.1
+
2.8
---------------------------------------

=
x' L
w

T
r AISC
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ = x' L
w
>
=
7-50

7.7.3 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in compression

Table 7.43 Design method for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on deformation
limit (0.03D
2
)
for
for
where , A
n
equates to A
g
(gross cross-sectional area) and F
u
= specified minimum tensile strength.
Table 7.44 Design method for slotted CHS connections under compression loading
LB
failure
for
where , A
g
= gross cross-sectional area and F
y
= yield stress.
Table 7.45 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections under compression
loading
LB
failure
for
where , A
g
y
= yield stress
T
r CSA 0.03D
A
n
F
u
0.75
1
L
w
w
------

1.2
1.75
--------------------------

2
+

--------------------------------------------------

= 0.2 L
w
w 1.5 < <
T
r AI SC 0.03D
2
A
n
F
u
0.35
x'
L
w
------

0.8 +

=
0.52 x' L
w
0.13 > >
0.85 =
C
r CSA
A
g
F
y
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.7
+
3.7
---------------------------------------

1.58
D
t
----

0.13

1.0 =
1.26 L
w
w 0.4 > >
0.9 =
C
r CSA
A
g
F
y
0.24
L
w
w
------ 0.5 +

1.0 = L
w
w 0.4
0.8 =
8-1
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH 8: CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH
8.1 Overview
Currently, the predicted connection strength and the predicted governing failure
mechanism of slotted end connections to hollow sections loaded in tension, are prescribed by
various general provision in steel design specification and codes. A comparison of these
provisions with data available from experimental programs undertaken specifically with hollow
structural sections, including data from a program carried out at the University of Toronto with
Circular and Elliptical Hollow Sections (CHS and EHS), has shown that the accuracy of their
predictions is strongly determined by the geometrical dimensions of the connection. Despite this
data revealing flaws in these design provisions, appropriate modifications to these provisions
could not be substantiated. A further parametric analysis, based on 891 FE models of slotted
end connections to CHS and EHS, was hence undertaken and this provided a detailed
explanation of the behaviour of these connections. Based on this, it was possible to identify a
gradual increase in the connection strength, with transitions through several failure
mechanisms, as the connection L
w
/w ratio increased. These connections exhibited a Tear-Out
(TO) failure, a Circumferential Fracture (CF) failure strongly influenced by shear lag, a solely CF
without shear lag and, in some cases, the attainment of the tube necking under tension loading.
Moreover, under compression loading it was possible to appreciate a Local Buckling (LB) failure
mode of the tubes, which is strongly influenced by shear lag when a small L
w
/w ratio is used.
As a rule, the TO and CF failure mechanisms have a mutual origin. In both cases, these
failure mechanisms are initiated by the tube material cracking at the point of maximum stress
(which is directly determined by the connection L
w
/w ratio). Once this crack reaches the weld
toe, it will continue extending towards the tube end or around the tube circumference,
depending of the level of stress along the connection which is also defined by this L
w
/w ratio. As
a result, these failure mechanisms can now be confined to a well defined range of L
w
/w ratios,
which is not currently done in existing design methods. Therefore, this Report recommends a
new static design method for slotted end connections to CHS and EHS under tension and
compression loading, with applicability also to RHS. Moreover, some recommendations for
seismic applications are also given.
8-2
8.2 Recommended static design methods
Based on results from the parametric analysis, possible options for design equations were
studied, developed and are now summarized here in the CSA and AISC design provision
formats. Since failure mechanisms occurred in a well defined range of L
w
/w or ratios, the
use of these equations (defining a TO or CF failure) is also suggested based on the validity
ranges given. Finally, this method provides a gradual monotonic increase in the connection
strength as L
w
increases (even for ratios approaching the transition between these failure
mechanisms), thus eliminating the inconsistencies currently found in design provisions.
8.2.1 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in tension
Table 8.1 Design method for slotted CHS connections
CF failure for L
w
/w 0.7
TO failure
for L
w
/w < 0.7
where , A
n
= critical net area of connections exhibiting a slot or A
n
=A
g
when a weld return is used, F
u
=
specified minimum tensile strength, R
t
=1.0 and R
v
=1.0.
x' L
w
T
r CSA
A
n
F
u
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

2.4
+
5.7
---------------------------------------

=

T
r CSA
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ =
T
r AI SC
A
n
F
u
1
1
x'
L
w
------

3.2
+
9.9
---------------------------------------

=
x' L
w

T
r AI SC
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ = x' L
w
0.9 =
8-3
Table 8.2 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on ultimate
strength
CF failure for L
w
/w 0.7
TO failure
for L
w
/w < 0.7
where , herein A
n
= A
g
(gross cross-sectional area) as the gusset plate is slotted, F
u
= specified minimum
tensile strength, R
t
=0.7 and R
v
=1.65.
Table 8.3 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on deformation
limit (0.03D)
for
for
where , herein A
n
equates to A
g
(gross cross-sectional area) as the gusset plate is slotted and F
u
=
specified minimum tensile strength.
T
r CSA
A
n
F
u
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

2.4
+
5.7
---------------------------------------

=

T
r CSA
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ =
T
r AI SC
A
n
F
u
1
1
x'
L
w
------

3.2
+
9.9
---------------------------------------

=
x' L
w

T
r AI SC
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ = x' L
w
0.9 =
T
r CSA 0.03D
A
n
F
u
0.23
L
w
w
------

0.55 +

1.81
D
t
----

0.18

1.0 = L
w
w 0.4
T
r AI SC 0.03D
A
n
F
u
0.26 1
1
x'
L
w
------

0.4
------------------ +

1.77
D
t
----

0.17

1.0 =
x' L
w
0.245
0.9 =
8-4
8.2.2 Recommended static design method for EHS connections in tension
Table 8.4 Design method for slotted EHS connections
CF failure for L
w
/w 0.6
TO failure
for L
w
/w < 0.6
CF failure
for a small
and 0.14
for a large
and 0.33
TO failure
for a small ,
> 0.14
for a large ,
> 0.33
where 0.9 and 0.85 for CF and TO respectively, A
n
= critical net area of the slotted EHS, F
u
= specified
minimum tensile strength, R
t
=1.0 and R
v
=1.0.
Table 8.5 Design method for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on ultimate
strength
CF failure for L
w
/w 0.6
TO failure for L
w
/w < 0.6
CF failure for 0.33
TO failure for 0.33
where 0.9 and 0.75 for CF and TO respectively, herein A
n
equates to A
g
(gross cross-sectional area) as the
gusset plate is slotted, F
u
= specified minimum tensile strength, R
t
=1.0 and R
v
=1.0.
T
r CSA
A
n
F
u
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.3
+
3.8
---------------------------------------

=

T
r CSA
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ =
T
r AI SC
A
n
F
u
1
1
x'
L
w
------

2.15
+
9.3
-----------------------------------------

=
x'
x' L
w

T
r AI SC
A
n
F
u
1
1
x'
L
w
------

2.1
+
2.8
---------------------------------------

=
x'
x' L
w

T
r AI SC
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ =
x'
x' L
w
x'
x' L
w
=
T
r CSA
A
n
F
u
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.2
+
4.3
---------------------------------------

=

T
r CSA
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ =
T
r AI SC
A
n
F
u
1
1
x'
L
w
------

2.1
+
2.8
---------------------------------------

=
x' L
w

T
r AI SC
F
u
R
t
A
nt
R
v
A
gv
F
y
F
u
+
2 3
------------------

+ = x' L
w
>
=
8-5

8.2.3 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in compression

The foregoing tables summarize the design recommendations according to variables
used by CSA and AISC specifications. The CSA format is recommended as the connection
behaviour is more accurately captured by the ratio L
w
/w. This should be borne in mind by other
independent (e.g. CEN) code committees, where the inverse of also corresponds closely to
the Eurocode partial safety factor, .
Table 8.6 Design method for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on deformation
limit (0.03D
2
)
for
for
where , A
n
equates to A
g
(gross cross-sectional area) and F
u
= specified minimum tensile strength.
Table 8.7 Design method for slotted CHS connections under compression loading
LB
failure
for
where , A
g
y
= yield stress.
Table 8.8 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections under compression
loading
LB
failure
for
where , A
g
y
= yield stress
T
r CSA 0.03D
A
n
F
u
0.75
1
L
w
w
------

1.2
1.75
--------------------------

2
+

--------------------------------------------------

= 0.2 L
w
w 1.5 < <
T
r AI SC 0.03D
2
A
n
F
u
0.35
x'
L
w
------

0.8 +

=
0.52 x' L
w
0.13 > >
0.85 =
C
r CSA
A
g
F
y
1
1
1
L
w
w
------

1.7
+
3.7
---------------------------------------

1.58
D
t
----

0.13

1.0 =
1.26 L
w
w 0.4 > >
0.9 =
C
r CSA
A
g
F
y
0.24
L
w
w
------ 0.5 +

1.0 = L
w
w 0.4
0.8 =
M
8-6
8.3 Recommendations for further research
Research in the following areas is suggested, to enhance the design efficiency of slotted
end connections to hollow sections:
1.- For connections under tension loading, further refinement of the model used to
account for TO failure in slotted gusset plate to CHS connections is recommended, and
especially for EHS connections and, by extension, RHS connections.
2.- Since the open slot length used during the parametric analysis of slotted CHS
connections under compression loading corresponded principally to the gusset plate thickness,
and only a few connections were analysed with a larger slot, it is recommended to extend this
study to connections considering a greater range of slot lengths, L
w
/w ratios and D/t ratios. For
slotted gusset plate connections, further study of these connections is also recommended.
However, this study must consider the size of gusset plates typically used in practice.
9-1
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH 9: REFERENCES
CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES
Aalberg, A. and Larsen, P.K. 2000. Strength and ductility of bolted connections in normal and
high strength steels. Proceedings IMPLAST_2000, Melbourne, Australia: 487-494.
AISC. 1978. Specification for the design, fabrication and erection of structural steel for
buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 1986. Manual of steel construction, Load and resistance factor design. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 1989. Manual of steel construction, Allowable stress design. American Institute of
Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 1994. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 1999. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 2000. Load and resistance factor design specification for steel hollow structural
sections. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 2005. Specification for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-05. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
Aronofsky, J. 1951. Evaluation of stress distribution in the symmetrical neck of flat tensile
bars. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 3: 75-84.
ASTM. 2003. Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials [Metric], ASTM-
E8M-03. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA.
9-2
ASTM. 2003. Standard specification for cold-formed welded and seamless carbon steel
structural tubing in rounds and shapes, ASTM-A500. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
USA.
Barth, K.E., Orbison, J.G. and Nukala, R. 2002. Behavior of steel tension members subjected
to uniaxial loading. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58: 1103-1120.
Birkemoe, P.C. and Gilmor, M.I. 1978. Behavior of bearing critical double-angle beam
connections. Engineering Journal, AISC, 15(4), 4
th
Quarter: 109-115.
Bridgeman, P.W. 1952. Studies in large plastic flow and fracture. McGraw-Hill, New York,
USA.
British Steel. 1992. Slotted end plate connections, Report No. SL/HED/TN/22/-/92/D.
Swinden Laboratories, Rotherham, England.
CEN. 1994. Hot finished structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain structural
steelspart 1: technical delivery requirements, EN 10210-1. European Committee for
Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN. 1992. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - part 1.1: general rules, prEN1993-1-1:
1992. European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium
CEN. 2005. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - part 1.1: general rules, EN1993-1-1:
2005(E). European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium
CEN. 2005. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - part 1.8: design of joints, EN1993-1-8:
2005(E). European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium.
9-3
Cheng, J.J.R., Kulak, G.L. and Khoo, H. 1996. Shear lag effect in slotted tubular tension
members. Proceedings of the 1
st
CSCE Structural Speciality Conference, Edmonton, Canada:
1103-1114.
Cheng, J.J.R., Kulak, G.L. and Khoo, H. 1998. Strength of slotted tubular tension members.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25: 982-991.
Cheng, J.J.R. and Kulak, G.L. 2000. Gusset plate connection to round HSS tension
members. Engineering Journal, AISC, 37(4), 4
th
Quarter: 133-139.
Chesson, E. Jr. and Munse, W.H. 1963. Riveted and bolted joints: truss type tensile
connections. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 89(1): 67-106.
CSA. 1989. Limit states design of steel structures, CAN/CSA-S16.1-M89. Canadian
Standards Association, Toronto, Canada.
CSA. 1994. Limit states design of steel structures, CAN/CSA-S16.1-94. Canadian Standards
Association, Toronto, Canada.
CSA. 2001. Limit states design of steel structures, CAN/CSA-S16-01. Canadian Standards
Association, Toronto, Canada.
CSA. 2003. Welded steel construction (Metal Arc Welding), CAN/CSA-W59-03. Canadian
Standards Association, Toronto, Canada.
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,
Canada.
9-4
Cunningham, T.J., Orbison, J.G. and Ziemian, R.D. 1995. Assessment of American block
shear load capacity predictions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 35: 323-338.
Driver, R.G., Grondin, G.Y. and Kulak, G.L. 2006. Unified block shear equation for achieving
consistent reliability. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 62:210-222.
Dumoulin, S., Tabourot, L., Chappuis, C., Vacher, P. and Arrieux, R. 2003. Determination of
the equivalent stress-strain relationship of a copper sample under tensile loading. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 133:79-83.
Easterling, W.S. and Giroux, L.G. 1993. Shear lag effects in steel tension members.
Engineering Journal, AISC, 30(3), 3
rd
Quarter: 77-89.
Epstein, H.I. 1992. An experimental study of block shear failure of angles in tension.
nd
Quarter: 75-84.
Epstein, H.I. and Chamarajanagar, R. 1996. Finite element studies for correlation with block
shear tests. Computers and Structures, 61: 967-974.
Epstein, H.I. and McGinnis, M.L. 2000. Finite element modeling of block shear in structural
tees. Computers and Structures, 77: 571-582.
Galambos, T.V., editor. 1998. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures. 5
th
Ed.,
Appendix B.3, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
Geltmacher, A.B., Matic, P. and Everett, R.K. 1999. Integrated experimental-computational
characterization of TIMETAL 21S. Materials Science and Engineering, (A)272:99-113.
9-5
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: 21-26.
Girard, C., Picard, A. and Fafard, M. 1995. Finite element modelling of the shear lag effects
in an HSS welded to a gusset plate. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 22: 651-659.
Gross, J.M., Orbison, J.G. and Ziemian, R.D. 1995. Block shear test in high-strength steel
angles. Engineering Journal, AISC, 32(3), 2
rd
Quarter: 117-122.
Hardash, S.G. and Bjorhovde, R. 1985. New design criteria for gusset plates in tension.
nd
Quarter: 77-84.
Humphries, M.J.R. and Birkemoe, P.C. 2004. Shear lag effects in fillet-welded tension
connections of channels and similar shapes. Proceedings of the ECCS/AISC Workshop:
Connections in Steel Structures V, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 381-392.
Khoo, H.A. 2000. Ductile fracture of steel, Ph.D. thesis. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Kirkham, W.J. and Miller, T.H. 2000. Examination of AISC LRFD shear lag design provisions.
rd
Quarter: 83-98.
Korol, R.M., Mirza, F.A. and Mirza, M.Y. 1994. Investigation of shear lag in slotted HSS
tension members. Proceedings of the 6
th
International Symposium on Tubular Structures,
Melbourne, Australia: 473-482.
Korol, R.M. 1996. Shear lag in slotted HSS tension members. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 23: 1350-1354.
9-6
Kulak, G.L. and Grondin, G.Y. 2001. AISC LRFD rules for block shear in bolted connections -
a review. Engineering Journal, AISC, 38(4), 4
th
Quarter: 199-203.
Kulak, G.L. and Grondin, G.Y. 2002. Limit states design in structural steel. 7
th
Ed., Canadian
Institute of Steel Construction, Toronto, Canada.
Ling, T.W. 2005. The tensile behaviour of gusset-plate welded connections in very high
strength (VHS) tubes, Ph.D. thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Lu, L.H., de Winkel, G.D., Yu, Y. and Wardenier, J. 1994. Deformation limit for the ultimate
strength of hollow sections joints. Proceedings of the 6
th
International Symposium on Tubular
Structures, Melbourne, Australia: 341-347.
Matic, P. 1985. Numerically predicting ductile material behavior from tensile specimen
response. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 4: 13-28.
Orbison, J.G., Wagner, M.E. and Fritz, W.P. 1999. Tension plane behavior in single-row
bolted connections subject to block shear. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 49: 225-
239.
Packer, J.A. and Henderson, J.E. 1992. Design guide for hollow structural section
connections. 1
st
Ed., Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Toronto, Canada.
Packer, J.A. and Henderson, J.E. 1997. Hollow structural section connections and trusses -
a design guide. 2
nd
Ed., Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Toronto, Canada.
Ravindra M.K. and Galambos, T.V. 1978. Load and resistance factor design for steel. Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, 104(9): 1337-1353.
9-7
Ricles J.M. and Yura, J.A. 1983. Strength of double-row bolted-web connections. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 109(1): 126-141.
Salmon, C.G. and Johnson, J.E. 1996. Steel structures: design and behaviour emphasizing
load and resistance factor design. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York, USA.
Shen, W.Q. and Jones, N. 1993. Uniaxial true stress-true strain curve for a ductile material.
Nuclear Engineering and Design, 140: 153-158.
Stout, R.D. 1987. Weldability of steels. Welding Research Council, New York, USA.
Swanson Analysis Systems. 2004. ANSYS release 8.1. Houston, USA.
Swanson, J.A. and Leon, R.T. 2000. Bolted steel connections: tests on t-stub components.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 126(1): 50-56.
Systat Software Inc. 2004. SigmaPlot 9.0. Richmond, USA.
Topkaya, C. 2004. A finite element parametric study on block shear failure of steel tension
members. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 60: 1615-1635.
Tvergaard, V. 1993. Necking in the tensile bars with rectangular cross-section. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 103: 273-290.
Wilkinson, T., Petrovski, T., Bechara, E. and Rubal, M. 2002. Experimental investigation of
slot lengths in RHS bracing members. Proceedings of the 3
rd
International Conference on
Advances in Steel Structures, Hong Kong, China: 205-212.
Yura, A.J., Birkemoe, P.C. and Ricles, J.M. 1982. Beam web shear connections: an
experimental study. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 108(2):311-325.
9-8
Zhang, Z.L., Hauge, M., degrd, J. and Thaulow, C. 1999. Determining material true
stress-strain curve from tensile specimens with rectangular cross-section. International Journal
of Solids and Structures, 36:3497-3516.
Zhao, X.L. and Hancock, G.J. 1995. Longitudinal fillet welds in thin cold-formed RHS
members. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 121(11):1683-1690.
Zhao, X.L., Al-Mahaidi, R. and Kiew, K.P. 1999. Longitudinal fillet welds in thin-walled C450
RHS members. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 125(8):821-828.

Slotted Hollow Section Connections Efficiency Factors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slotted Hollow Section Connections Efficiency Factors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7-1

SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH 7: ANALYSIS OF FE AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

You might also like