Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HOLLOW SECTIONS IN
STRUCTURAL APPLICATIONS
ISBN 978-90-72830-86-9
CIDECT, Geneva, Switzerland, 2010
The publisher and authors have made careful efforts to ensure the reliability of the data contained in this
publication, but they assume no liability with respect to the use for any application of the material and
information contained in this publication.
Printed by Bouwen met Staal
Boerhaavelaan 40
2713 HX Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
P.O. Box 190
2700 AD Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
Tel.
Fax
E-mail
ii
PREFACE
The global construction market requires a world-wide coordination of product-, testing-, design- and executionstandards, so that contracts for delivery of products and for engineering- and construction services can be
agreed on a common basis without barriers.
The mission of CIDECT is to combine the research resources of major hollow section manufacturers in order to
create a major force in the research and application of hollow steel sections world wide. This forms the basis of
establishing coordinated and consistent international standards.
For the ease of use of such standards, it is however necessary to reduce their content to generic rules and to
leave more object-oriented detailed rules to accompanying non-conflicting complementary information, that
have the advantage to be more flexible for the adaptation to recent research results and to be useable together
with any international code.
The book by J. Wardenier, J.A. Packer, X.-L. Zhao and G.J. van der Vegte "Hollow sections in structural
applications" is such a source, developed in an international consensus of knowledge on the topic. It
incorporates the recently revised design recommendations for hollow sections joints of the International
Institute of Welding, IIW (2009) and CIDECT (2008 and 2009). Both are consistent with each other and are the
basis for the Draft ISO standard for Hollow Section Joints (ISO 14346) and may form the basis for future
maintenance, further harmonisation and further development of Eurocode 3 (EN 1993-1-8), AISC (ANSI/AISC
360) and the CISC recommendations.
For the use together with EN 1993-1-8 and ANSI/AISC 360, both being based on the previous IIW (1989)
recommendations, the main differences to these rules are highlighted.
The authors are all internationally recognized experts in the field of tubular steel structures, three of them
having been chairmen of the IIW-Subcommission XV-E on "Tubular Structures" since 1981. This committee is
the pre-eminent international authority producing design recommendations and standards for onshore tubular
structures.
This book should therefore be an invaluable resource for lecturers, graduate students in structural, architectural
and civil engineering, explaining the important principles in the behaviour of tubular steel structures. It is also
addressed to designers of steel structures who can find in it the special items related to the use of hollow
sections, in particular joints, their failure modes and analytical models as supplements to more general design
codes.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book gives the background to design with structural hollow sections in general and in particular for joints to
hollow sections. For the latter, the recently updated recommendations of the International Institute of Welding
(IIW, 2009) and CIDECT (2008 and 2009) are adopted.
The background to design recommendations with the relevant analytical models is especially important for
students in Structural and Civil Engineering, whereas the design recommendations themselves serve more as
an example. Since the available hours for teaching Steel Structures, and particularly Tubular Structures, vary
from country to country, this book has been written in a modular form. The presentation generally follows
European codes, but the material is readily adapted to other (national) codes.
Since the first edition of this book was used not only by students but also by many designers, this second
edition was needed due to the recent update of the recommendations by IIW and the subsequent revision of
the CIDECT Design Guides Nos. 1 and 3 in 2008 and 2009.
The new IIW (2009) recommendations and the revised CIDECT Design Guides Nos. 1 and 3 (2008 and 2009)
are consistent with each other and are the basis for the Draft ISO standard for Hollow Section Joints (ISO
14346). Although the current Eurocode 3 (EN 1993-1-8, 2005) and AISC (2010) recommendations are still
based on the previous IIW (1989) and CIDECT (1991 and 1992) recommendations, it is expected that in the
next revision these will follow the new IIW and CIDECT recommendations presented in this book.
Besides the static design recommendations and background for hollow section joints, information is given for
member design in Chapter 2, composite structures in Chapter 4, and fire resistance in Chapter 5. These
chapters fully comply with the latest versions of the Eurocodes (EN 1993 and EN 1994). Further, fatigue design
of hollow section joints is covered in Chapter 14.
We wish to thank our colleagues from the IIW Sub-commission XV-E "Tubular Structures" and from the
CIDECT Project Working Group and the CIDECT Technical Commission for their constructive comments during
the preparation of this book.
We are very grateful that Prof. J. Stark and Mr. L. Twilt were willing to check Chapters 4 and 5 respectively on
composite members and fire resistance.
Appreciation is further extended to the authors of CIDECT Design Guides Nos. 1 to 9 and to CIDECT for
making parts of these Design Guides or background information available for this book.
Finally, we wish to thank CIDECT for the initiative to update this book.
iv
CONTENTS
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
Introduction
History and developments
Designation
Manufacturing of hollow sections
1
1
2
2
2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
9
9
10
11
14
14
15
15
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Applications
Buildings and halls
Bridges
Barriers
Offshore structures
Towers and masts
Special applications
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
Composite structures
Introduction
Design methods
Axially loaded columns
Resistance of a section to bending
Resistance of a section to bending and compression
Influence of shear forces
Resistance of a member to bending and compression
Load introduction
Special composite members with hollow sections
37
37
37
37
39
39
39
39
41
41
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
49
49
50
52
53
55
56
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
65
65
65
66
67
68
7.
7.1
7.2
7.3
Behaviour of joints
General introduction
General failure criteria
General failure modes
75
75
77
77
v
7.4
Joint parameters
77
8.
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
81
81
81
81
83
83
84
85
86
87
87
9.
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
103
103
103
104
106
106
107
107
109
109
10.
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
129
129
129
129
131
131
131
11.
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
141
141
141
141
143
143
143
144
12.
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.6
151
151
151
151
153
153
154
13.
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
Bolted joints
Flange plate joints
End joints
Gusset plate joints
Splice joints
161
161
161
162
162
vi
13.5
13.6
13.7
13.8
13.9
13.10
Beam-to-column joints
Bracket joints
Bolted subassemblies
Purlin joints
Blind bolting systems
Nailed joints
162
163
163
163
163
163
14.
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
14.5
14.6
14.7
14.8
175
175
175
176
177
177
177
179
180
15.
15.1
15.2
15.3
15.4
15.5
15.6
Design examples
Uniplanar truss of circular hollow sections
Uniplanar truss of square hollow sections
Multiplanar truss (triangular girder)
Multiplanar truss of square hollow sections
Joint check using the joint resistance formulae
Concrete filled column with reinforcement
193
193
197
197
199
199
200
16.
References
209
Symbols
221
CIDECT
229
vii
viii
1. INTRODUCTION
Design is an interactive process between the
functional and architectural requirements and the
strength and fabrication aspects. In a good design, all
these aspects have to be considered in a balanced
way. Due to the special features of hollow sections
and their joints, it is here even of more importance
than for steel structures of open sections. The
designer should therefore be aware of the various
aspects of hollow sections.
together.
1.2 DESIGNATION
welding rollers
welded CHS
heating
forming rollers
coil
heating
inductor
2. PROPERTIES OF HOLLOW
SECTIONS
f yd
fu
1,25 or
0,8
f yd
fu
fu
1,1
f yd
(2.1b)
(2.1a)
2.3.1 Tension
The design capacity Nt,Rd of a member under tensile
loading depends on the cross sectional area and the
design yield strength, and is independent of the
sectional shape. In principle, there is no advantage or
disadvantage in using hollow sections from the point
of view of the amount of material required. The design
capacity is given by:
Nt,Rd Afyd
(2.2)
A net fu
0,9
M2
fb,Rd =
(2.3)
Nb,Rd
A
(2.6)
(2.7)
where:
2.3.2 Compression
E
(Euler slenderness)
fy
(2.8)
(2.5)
where:
Nb,Rd
f
b,Rd
Npl,Rd
fyd
(2.4)
2.3.3 Bending
In general, I and H sections are more economical
under bending about the major axis (Imax larger than
for hollow sections). Only in those cases in which the
design resistance in open sections is largely reduced
by lateral buckling, hollow sections offer an
advantage.
It can be shown by calculations that lateral instability
is not critical for circular hollow sections, square
hollow sections and for the most commonly used
rectangular hollow sections with bending about the
strong axis. Table 2.8 shows allowable span-to-depth
ratios for the most commonly used sections (EN
1993-1-1, 2005). According to a study of Kaim (2006)
d
235
c
t
fyd
for CHS
(2.9)
b
235
3 c
t
f yd
for RHS
(2.10a)
h
235
3 c
t
f yd
for RHS
(2.10b)
12
(2.13)
(2.14)
2.3.4 Shear
The elastic shear stress in circular and rectangular
hollow sections can be determined with simple
mechanics by:
VEd S f yd
2 It
3
(2.15)
Vpl,Rd A v
fyd
(2.16)
where:
Research by Wilkinson & Hancock (1998) showed
that especially the limits for the side wall slenderness
of RHS need to be reduced considerably. E.g. for
class 1 sections, they suggest reducing the Eurocode
3 limits (EN 1993-1-1) for the side wall slenderness to:
5(b 2t 2r )
(h 2t 2r)
70
6t
t
with
Av A
for RHS
(2.17)
(2.11)
Av
b 2t 2r
30
t
2
A
for CHS
(2.18)
2.3.5 Torsion
b
h
b
34
with
77 0 ,83
t
t
t
h
bh
(2.11a)
13
Mt,Rd Wt
p f yd
f yd
(2.19)
2 It
(d t ) t
dt 2
(2.20)
where:
It
d t 3 t
4
(2.21)
It
t2
(2.22)
Am
A
where:
2
It
t 3 A 4A m t
A
3
(2.23)
A 2 hm b m 2 rm 4
(2.24)
A m b m hm rm2 4
(2.25)
(2.27)
Wt
2t
d 2t
(2.26)
14
2.7 AESTHETICS
15
16
Table 2.1a Hot finished structural hollow sections Non-alloy steel properties (EN 10210-1, 2006)
(2)
Steel
designation
Minimum tensile
strength
2
(N/mm )
Longitudinal
minimum elongation (%)
on gauge
Lo 5,65 So
Charpy impact
strength
(10 x 10 mm)
t 16
mm
16 < t 40
mm
40< t 63
mm
t<3
mm
3 t 100
mm
3 < t 40
mm
40 < t 63
mm
Temp.
C
S235JRH
235
225
215
360-510
360-510
26
25
20
27
S275J0H
S275J2H
275
265
255
430-580
410-560
23
22
0
-20
27
27
S355J0H
S355J2H
S355K2H
355
345
335
510-680
470-630
22
21
0
-20
-20
27
27
(3)
40
(1)
(2)
(3)
Table 2.1b Cold formed welded structural hollow sections Non-alloy steel (EN 10219-1, 2006) Steel
properties different from EN 10210-1 (2006)
Steel designation
S235JRH
24 (1)
S275J0H
S275J2H
20
(2)
S355J0H
S355J2H
S355K2H
20
(2)
(1)
(2)
bh
12,5 the minimum elongation is reduced by 2 to 22%; for t 3 mm the minimum
2t
elongation is 17%.
bh
For d/t < 15 or
12,5 the minimum elongation is reduced by 2 to 18%.
2t
17
Table 2.2a Hot finished structural hollow sections Fine grain steel properties (EN 10210-1, 2006)
Minimum
tensile strength
2
(N/mm )
Steel
designation
Charpy impact
strength
(10 x 10 mm)
Lo 5,65 So
t 65 mm
t 16
mm
16 < t 40
mm
40 < t 65
mm
t 65
mm
Long.
Trans.
Temp.
C
S275NH
S275NLH
265
255
370-510
24
22
-20
-50
40
27
(1)
275
S355NH
S355NLH
345
335
470-630
22
20
-20
-50
40
27
(1)
355
S420NH
S420NLH
400
390
520-680
19
17
-20
-50
40
27
(1)
420
S460NH
S460NLH
440
430
540-720
17
15
-20
-50
40
27
(1)
460
(1)
Corresponds to 27 J at -30 C.
Table 2.2b Cold formed welded structural hollow sections Fine grain steel (EN 10219-1, 2006) Steel
properties different from EN 10210-1 (2006)
Feed stock condition M (1)
Steel designation
Minimum longitudinal
elongation (%) (2)
S275MH
S275MLH
360 - 510
24
S355MH
S355MLH
450 - 610
22
S420NH
S420NLH
520 - 660
19
S460NH
S460NLH
530 - 720
17
(1)
(2)
Table 2.3 Minimum inner corner radii of cold formed RHS according to EN 1993-1-8 (2005)
Maximum wall thickness t (mm)
r/t
25
10
3,0
2,0
1,5
1,0
2
5
14
20
25
33
General
Predominantly static
loading
Fatigue dominating
Aluminium-killed steel
(Al 0,02%)
any
any
24
12
8
4
any
16
12
10
8
4
any
any
24
12
10
6
18
Table 2.4a Hot finished structural hollow sections Tolerances (EN 10210-2, 2006)
Section type
Square/rectangular
Mass
Outside dimension
Thickness
Circular
Welded
-10%
Seamless
Welded
6% on individual lengths
Seamless
-6%; +8%
Straightness
Length (exact)
+10 mm, -0 mm, but only for exact lengths of 2000 to 6000 mm
Out of roundness
Squareness of sides
90 1
Corner radii
3,0t maximum
Outside
Concavity/convexity
1% of the side
Twist
(1)
2 mm + 0,5 mm/m
(1)
For elliptical hollow sections with h 250 mm, the tolerances are twice the values given in this table.
Table 2.4b Cold formed welded structural hollow sections (EN 10219-2, 2006) Tolerances different
from EN 10210-2 (2006)
Section type
Square/rectangular
Circular
t 5 mm: 10%
t > 5 mm: 0,5 mm
Mass
6%
6%
Straightness
t 6 mm:
1,6 to 2,4t
6 mm < t 10 mm: 2,0 to 3,0t
t > 10 mm:
2,4 to 3,6t
Concavity/convexity
Outside dimension
Thickness
Welded
Hexagonal
Octagonal
Shape
19
Flat - oval
Elliptical
Half-elliptical
Table 2.6 European buckling curves according to manufacturing processes (EN 1993-1-1, 2005)
Cross section
bb
t
Manufacturing process
Buckling curves
Hot finished
420 N/mm2 < fy 460 N/mm2
a0
Hot finished
fy 420 N/mm2
Cold formed
Flange
Web
tt
Table 2.7 Limits for b/t, h/t and d/t for cross section classes 1, 2 and 3 (EN 1993-1-1, 2005)
Class
2
2
fyd (N/mm )
Cross
section
RHS
(1)
b/t
Load type
Considered
element
235
Compression
Top face
(2)
235
275
355
fyd (N/mm )
460
235
275
355
460
Bending
Side wall
Compression
and/or
bending
33,5
29,8
c = 38
26,6
41,0
38,1
33,9
c = 42
30,2
45,0
41,8
37,2
33,0
h
235
c
3
t
fyd
(2)
c = 72
69,6
61,6
c = 83
51,8
86,0
79,7
70,5
c = 124
62,3 127,0 117,6 103,9 91,6
d
235
c
t
fyd
tt
c = 50
50,0
(1)
460
c = 33
75,0
CHS
d/t
355
fyd (N/mm )
b
235
c
3
t
fyd
36,0
RHS
(1)
h/t
275
3
2
42,7
33,1
c = 70
25,5
70,0
59,8
46,3
c = 90
35,8
90,0
76,9
59,6
46,0
For all hot finished and cold formed RHS, it is conservative to assume that the width-to-thickness ratio of the "flat" is
b - 2t - 2r b
h - 2t - 2r h
3 or
3 .
t
t
t
t
Wilkinson & Hancock (1998) suggested reducing the Eurocode limits (EN 1993-1-1) for the side wall slenderness of RHS
b
h
b
considerably, e.g. for class 1 in a simplified form to:
with
34 .
77 0 ,83
t
t
t
20
Table 2.8 Allowable span-to-depth ratios L/(h-t) to avoid lateral buckling based on EN 1993-1-1 (2005)
L
ht
bt
ht
bb
Flange
b
tt
S235
S275
S355
S460
0,5
73,7
63,0
48,8
37,7
0,6
93,1
79,5
61,6
47,5
0,7
112,5
96,2
74,5
57,5
0,8
132,0
112,8
87,4
67,4
0,9
151,3
129,3
100,2
77,3
1,0
170,6
145,8
112,9
87,2
Torsion constant It
4
4
4
(10 mm ) or (cm )
UPN 200
25,3
11,9
INP 200
26,2
13,5
HEB 120
26,7
13,8
HEA 140
24,7
8,1
140 x 140 x 6
24,9
1475
168.3 x 6
24,0
2017
Section
21
Actual fy mean
after cold forming
Fig. 2.2 Influence of cold forming on the yield strength for a square hollow section of 100 x 100 x 4 mm
1,00
0,75
0,50
0,25
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
22
Fig. 2.6 Bottom chord laterally spring supported by the stiffness of the members, joints and purlins
23
Mpl
Mel
Me
24
ttffyd
yd
d - 2t
t fyd
Fig. 2.12 Wind flow for open and circular hollow sections
25
paint layers
steel
steel
RHS 304,8x304,8x9,5
nonreinforced
concrete
filling
120.
60.
only
RHS
111 min.
steel fibre
reinforced
concrete
filling
50min.
14 min.
1650.
3150.
3150.
26
27
28
3. APPLICATIONS
The applications of structural hollow sections nearly
cover all fields. Hollow sections may be used because
of the beauty of their shape or to express lightness,
while in other cases their geometrical properties
determine their application. In this chapter, examples
are given for the various fields and to show the
possibilities of constructing with hollow sections.
3.2 BRIDGES
As mentioned in the introduction, the Firth of Forth
Bridge is an excellent example of using the hollow
section shape for structural applications in bridges.
Nowadays, many modern examples exist (IISI, 1997).
Figs. 1.4, 3.15 to 3.17 and 3.20 show various
examples of pedestrian bridges; some of these are
movable bridges.
3.3 BARRIERS
29
30
32
Fig. 3.12 Barrel dome grid for the Trade Fair building
in Leipzig, Germany
33
35
36
4. COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
NEd Npl,Rd
(4.1)
where:
design normal force (including load factors)
NEd
(4.2)
where:
Aa, Ac, As cross sectional areas of structural steel,
concrete and reinforcement
fyd, fcd, fsd design strengths of steel, concrete (see
Table 4.1) and reinforcement using the
recommended M factors according to
Eurocode 2 (EN 1992-1-1, 2004) and
Eurocode 3 (EN 1993-1-1, 2005) being a =
1,0 for fy, c = 1,5 for fc, and s = 1,15 for fs
Npl,Rk
Ncr,eff
(4.3)
where:
Npl,Rk resistance of the cross section to axial load
according to eq. (4.2), however, with fyd, fcd and
fsd replaced by fyk, fck and fsk
Ncr,eff elastic buckling capacity of the member (Euler
37
critical load)
Ncr,eff =
(EI)eff
2b
Ec,eff =
Ecm
NG,Ed
1
t
NEd
(4.8)
Npl,Rd
(4.4)
where:
b
buckling length of the column
(EI)eff effective stiffness of the composite section
A a f yd
(4.5)
(4.6)
h/t 52
(4.9)
where:
Ia, Ic, Is
d/t 902
(4.10)
235
fyd
(4.11)
4.3.1 Limitations
4.3.2 Effect of long term loading
(4.7)
where:
38
(4.12)
2
2V
reduced Av = Av 1 Ed 1
Vpl,Rd
Vpl,Rd A v
f yd
3
(4.13)
(4.14)
by:
where:
MEd,|| = k MEd
(4.16)
1
N
1 Ed
Ncr,eff
(4.17)
M||,max M d Mpl,Rd
(4.15)
where:
M||,max design bending moment of the column,
including the imperfection moment and second
order effects
M
0,9 for S235 to S335 and 0,8 for S420 and
S460
d
to be obtained from the interaction diagrams in
Figs. 4.5 to 4.8
M||,max =
1
N
1 Ed
Ncr,eff
(4.18)
(4.19)
N
1 Ed
Ncr,eff
(4.20)
where:
= 0,66 + 0,44r but 0,44
(4.21)
MEd
N e
Ed 0
N
NEd
1 Ed
1
Ncr,eff
Ncr,eff
(4.22)
should be used.
Mz,Ed
dz Mpl,z,Rd
1,0
(4.23)
increased
or steel
41
Table 4.1 Strength classes of concrete, characteristic cylinder strength and modulus of elasticity for
normal weight concrete
C20/25
C25/30
C30/37
C35/45
C40/50
C45/55
C50/60
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
30000
31000
33000
34000
35000
36000
37000
Note: The recommended values a = 1,0, c = 1,5 and s = 1,15 should be used to determine the design values.
Table 4.2 Limits for wall thickness ratios of concrete filled hollow sections for preventing local buckling
under axial compression (EN 1994-1-1, 2004)
Steel grade
S235
S275
S355
S460
h/t
52,0
48,1
42,3
37,2
d/t
90,0
76,9
59,6
46,0
42
S235 / C45
d = 500 mm
t = 10 mm
NEd/Npl,Rd
1,00
0,75
0,50
0,25
0
0
0,25
0,50
0,75
1,00 NEde/Mpl,Rd
43
Fig. 4.3 Three dimensional confinement effect in concrete filled hollow sections
NEd/Npl,Rd
parameter
1,0
A a fyd
Npl,Rd
= 0,45
0,8
0,40
0,6
0,35
0,30
0,275
0,25
0,225
0,20
0,4
0,9
0,8
0,2
0,7
0,6
0,5
0
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
MEd/Mpl,Rd
,
Fig. 4.5 Interaction curve for rectangular hollow sections with bending about the weak axis, b/h = 0,5
44
NEd/Npl,Rd
A a fyd
parameter
1,0
N, pl,Rd
= 0,45
0,8
0,40
0,35
0,6
0,4
0,30
0,275
0,25
0,225
0,20
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,2
0,6
0,5
0,5
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
MEd/Mpl,Rd
1,4
Fig. 4.6 Interaction curve for square hollow sections with b/h = 1,0
NEd/Npl,Rd
parameter
1,0
A a fyd
Npl,R, d
= 0,45
0,40
0,35
0,30
0,8
0,6
0,275
0,25
0,225
0,20
0,9
0,4
0,8
0,7
0,2
0,6
0,5
0
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
MEd/Mpl,Rd
1,4
Fig. 4.7 Interaction curve for rectangular hollow sections with bending about the strong axis, h/b = 2,0
NEd/Npl,Rd
1,0
parameter
A a fyd
Npl,Rd
,
= 0,45
0,8
0,40
0,35
0,30
0,275
0,6
0,4
0,25
0,225
0,20
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,2
0,6
0,5
0
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
MEd/Mpl,Rd
NA,Rd
NE,Rd
NC,Rd
ND,Rd
NB,Rd
MA,Rd
MB,Rd MD,Rd
MC,Rd
Npl,Rd
MB,Rd = Mpl,Rd
MC,Rd = Mpl,Rd
NNC,Rd
C,Rd
MD,Rd = Mmax,Rd
ND,Rd
= 0,5NC,Rd
D,Rd= 0,5NC,Rd
ME,Rd
NE,Rd
-
Fig. 4.10 Stress distributions of selected positions of the neutral axis (points A to E)
46
NEd
Npl,Rd
MEd
Mpl,Rd
d
,
MEd
r MEd
47
1:2,5
1:2,5
d0
concrete
48
5. FIRE RESISTANCE OF
HOLLOW SECTION COLUMNS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
49
5.2.1 Concept
Fire safety precautions are specified with the intent of
avoiding any casualties and reducing economic fire
damage to an acceptable level. As far as building
construction is concerned, it is important that the
construction elements can withstand a fire for a
specified amount of time. In this respect, one should
bear in mind that the strength and deformation
properties of the commonly used building materials
deteriorate significantly at the temperatures that may
be expected under fire conditions. Moreover, the
thermal expansion of most building materials is
considerable. As a result, the structural elements and
assemblies may deform or even collapse when
exposed to fire conditions.
50
5.2.2 Requirements
51
52
Hence, generally:
(5.1)
where:
Nfi,Ed design load in the fire situation
NEd design load at room temperature
fi
reduction factor for NEd to obtain Nfi,Ed
(5.2)
where:
Nfi,Ed design load in the fire situation
Nfi,Rd buckling resistance in the fire situation
Npl,Rd compression resistance of gross cross section
at room temperature
fi
reduction factor for flexural buckling in the fire
design situation, see Fig. 5.4
ky,
reduction factor for the yield strength of steel at
a steel temperature a, see Fig. 5.5
53
(5.3)
(5.4)
where:
Nfi,Ed design load in the fire situation
NRd buckling resistance at room temperature
NRd is calculated according to the room temperature
procedures given in Eurocode 4 (EN 1994-1-1, 2004).
However, the following limitations apply:
- Irrespective of the actual steel grade, the yield
strength of the hollow sections for fire calculations is
limited to a maximum of 235 N/mm2.
- The wall thickness of the steel is limited to a
maximum of 1/25 of the cross sectional dimension
d, b or h.
- Reinforcement ratios higher than 3% are not taken
into account.
- The values given in Table 5.2 are valid for steel
grade S500 used for the reinforcement As.
Levels of assessment
As already explained in Section 5.2.3, Eurocodes 3
and 4 on structural fire design (EN 1993-1-2, 2005;
EN 1994-1-2, 2005) define three different levels of
assessment. This chapter deals with design
information at levels 1 and 2, i.e. "Tabulated data" and
"Simple calculation models". For more general
calculation models, see Twilt et al. (1994).
Nequ
Nfi,Ed
s e
(5.5)
where:
s correction coefficient related to the reinforcement,
see Fig. 5.11.
e correction coefficient related to the eccentricity e,
see Fig. 5.12.
Note: There are some concerns about the Annex H
method. Wang & Orton (2008) pointed out that this
method is rather antiquated. An alternative method,
developed by Wang & Orton (2008), is based on the
well established cold design method for composite
columns in the main part of Eurocode 4 (EN 1994-1-1,
2004), but modified to take into account strength and
stiffness degradations of steel and concrete at high
temperatures. A design software package named
"Firesoft" is now available to assist designers, which
has been verified by Wang & Orton (2008).
1. Unreplenished columns
Simply filling a column with water, with no provision
for replacing any water lost through steam production,
55
5.6 JOINTS
4. Mixed systems
The above mentioned systems can be mixed within a
building and they can be connected to act as a mixed
integrated system. This can be advantageous for
structures containing not only columns, but also water
filled diagonals for bracing, etc.
In the naturally circulating systems described above, a
minimum declination of the diagonals of about 45 is
recommended.
56
57
Requirements
Fire class
One storey
None or low
Possibly up to R30
2 or 3 storeys
None up to medium
Possibly up to R60
Medium
R60 to R120
Tall buildings
High
Table 5.2 Minimum cross-sectional dimensions, reinforcement ratios and axis distances of the
reinforcing bars for fire resistance classification for various degrees of utilisation levels fi,t
As
Ac
us
t
us
t
d
us
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
R30
R60
R90
R120
R180
160
0
-
200
1,5
30
220
3,0
40
260
6,0
50
400
6,0
60
260
0
-
260
3,0
30
400
6,0
40
450
6,0
50
500
6,0
60
260
3,0
25
450
6,0
30
550
6,0
40
Note: In Eurocode 4 (EN1994-1-2), the thickness of the hollow section "t" is called "e".
58
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
Time (min.)
Fig. 5.1 Natural fire curves and the ISO standard fire
curve (ISO 834-1, 1999)
Mode of deformation
Rigid
core
For ffire
ire conditions
in Europe
Europe e.g.:
e.g. :
in
Fire exposed
column
topfloor
f loor : : k =0.7
0,7
top
0,5
otherfloors
f loors: : k =0.5
other
(b) Room
temperature
(c) Elevated
temperature
59
1.0
1,0
0.9
S500
S500
S355
S355
S235
S235
0,8
0.8
fifi
0.7
0,6
0.6
ENV 1993
0.5
0,4
0.4
0.3
0,2
0.2
0.1
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,5
0.5
1,0
1.0
1,5
1.5
2,0
2.0
2,5
2.5
3,0
3.0
(
rela)(a)
Fig. 5.4 Reduction factor fi for flexural buckling in the fire situation for a particular critical temperature a
(for comparison, the previous ENV 1993 lower bound curve is also shown)
1
1,0
0,8
0,8
0,6
0,6
0,4
0,4
0,2
0,2
00
0
200
400
600
800
steel temperature a
1000
1200
Fig. 5.5 Reduction factor ky, for the yield strength of steel at a steel temperature a
60
-1)
Section factor Amm/V (m-1
Time (min.)
Fig. 5.6 Calculated temperature development in an
unprotected steel section as a function of
the shape factor
61
62
1,0
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5 3,0
3,5
4,0 4,5
4,5 5,0
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
/b or /d
/b or /d
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,0
e/b or e/d
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
63
Fig. 5.13 Options for columns with external and internal pipes
Time (min.)
Fig. 5.14 Typical temperature development in a water filled hollow section column, exposed to standard fire
conditions
64
6. DESIGN OF HOLLOW
SECTION TRUSSES
0,5 N
0,5 N
1,0
K joint resistance X joint resistance
65
h sin1 2
h1
h2
g e 0
(6.1)
h1
sin 1 sin 2 h0
h2
e
2 sin 1 2 sin 2
sin1 2 2
(6.2)
68
69
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Moments due to
Nodal eccentricity
(e 0.25d0 or 0.25h0)
Chord design
Yes
Yes
No
Design of braces
No
Yes
No
Design of joints
Yes, influences Qf
Note: For structures subjected to fatigue loading, all primary and secondary bending moments should be
considered, see Chapter 14.
70
a. Warren truss
b. Pratt truss
c. Vierendeel truss
X joints
T and Y joints
N and K joints
KT joints
71
1,2N
1.2N
100%
within tolerance
within tolerance
for:
for:
0,2N sin
sin
0.2N
gap
(a)
0.5Nsin
sin
0,5N
100%
100%
(b)
50% K
50% X
100%
+e
0.5N sin
sin
0,5N
(c)
(d)
0.5 N/sin
0,5N
/ sin
N
100%
0.5
N/sin
0,5N
/ sin
+e
gap
(e)
(f)
N
100%
N
(g)
72
0 100%
100%
0,5N sin
0.5N
sin
0,5N sin
0.5N
sin
0,5N
0.5N
0,5N
0.5N
N cos
N cos
0.5N
0,5Ncos
cos
0,5N
coscos
0.5N
0.5N
0,5Nsin
sin
0.5N sin
sin
0,5N
N1
N2
b1
d1
b2
h1
t1
t2
h2
d2
b0
t0
N0
+e
h0
j
-e
i = 1 or 2 (overlapping member)
j = overlapped member
q
p
Overlap =
q
p
x 100%
73
e>0
e=0
e
e
or
0,25
d0
h0
ee << 00
e<0
For most
overlap joints
Extremely stiff
members
Extremely stiff
members
Pin
Fig. 6.8 Plane frame joint modelling assumptions to obtain realistic forces for member design
74
7. BEHAVIOUR OF JOINTS
1. Plate
The plate end remains straight if loaded by a uniform
loading q per unit length. The deformation is
determined by the plate stiffness for axial stresses,
which is high.
2. Hollow section face
First consider a unit load q1 at a small unit length at
the sides (Fig. 7.2b). The load q1 can flow directly into
the hollow section side walls. Thus, the deformation is
determined by the stiffness of the hollow section side
wall for axial stresses.
75
1. Plate
Fig. 7.6a shows the possible stress distribution in the
plate after yielding and after reaching the ultimate
strain at the sides (location 1). If the chord width-tothickness ratio b0/t0 is low and the material has
sufficient ductility, the yield capacity of the plate can
be attained. In most cases the capacity is lower.
2. Welds
If the strength of the fillet welds (Fig. 7.6b) is lower
than that of the plate, the welds may fail. If plastic
deformation occurs in the welds only, the total
deformation for the joint is small, resulting in a joint
with no deformation capacity (which is generally not
allowed). Therefore, it is recommended that the welds
should preferably be designed to be stronger than the
connected brace members.
3. Chord face
The loading and hence the stresses have to pass via
the top face to the side walls. Especially for thick
material,
cracking
can
occur
due
to
manganese-sulphide (MnS) inclusions, called lamellar
tearing (Fig. 7.6c). To avoid this material problem,
material with good through thickness properties (TTP)
should be used, i.e. steels with low sulphur contents.
76
77
t1
b1
b0
t0
h0
q1
q1
q1
b. RHS loaded
at the sides
a. plate
A1 = b1 x t1
q2
q2
c. RHS loaded
at the centre
q1
q1
stress
deformation
plate
q2
RHS
stress
actual stress
fu,b
b
fu
fy
deformation
plate
engineering
stress
RHS
strain hardening
yield
u
1
78
0,5be
max.
0,5be
fu
fy
3%
3%dd
0 0or 3% b0
1
(b)
(c)
(d)
plate
chord
difficult to make
a proper weld
t1
2,5:1
elastic
plastic
ultimate
fy
bw
fu
79
2 0
2
or 0
d0
b0
b
d
b
d1
or 1 or 1 or 1
d0
d0
b0
b0
d1 d2
d d2
b b2
or 1
or 1
2 d0
2b0
2b0
d0
b
or 0
t0
t0
N1
t1
ti
t0
g
g'
t0
0
fy0
N2
N1
t0
N0p
N0
81
mp
1 2
t 0 fy0
4
(8.1)
N1 sin 1 d0 c 1 d1
2
2
2
is given by:
(8.2)
N1 d1 t 0
fy0
or:
N1
2
2 B e / d0 t 0 f y 0
(1 c 1 ) sin 1
(8.3)
in:
N1
t 02 f y 0
c0
Qf
(1 c 1 ) sin 1
(8.5)
N1 0,58 d1 t 0 f y 0
1 sin 1
2 sin 2 1
(8.6)
(8.4)
Vpl,0 A v
82
fy0
3
2
A 0 (0,58 f y 0 )
(8.7)
(8.8)
Ni sin i Ngap,0
Vpl,0 Npl,0
1,0
(8.9)
or:
Ngap,0 A 0 f y 0
Ni sin i
1
0,58 f y 0 A v
(8.10)
N1,Rd f () f ( ) f (g' )
f y 0 t 02
sin 1
Qf
(8.11)
Ni,Rd Qu Q f
fy0 t 02
sin i
(8.11a)
N0
M
0
Npl,0 Mpl,0
(8.12)
83
84
(8.13)
Qu f () f ( ) f ()
(8.14)
1
1 0,4 0,15
Qu 2,2
1 0,7
(8.14a)
(8.14b)
85
Mip,i,Ed
M
op,i,Ed 1,0
Mip,i,Rd
Mop,i,Rd
(8.15)
Efficiency =
Ni,Rd
A i f yi
Ce
fy0 t 0 Q f
f yi t i sin i
(8.16)
d1 d 2
, where di is the diameter of the
2d i
brace considered.
multiplied by
86
fy0 t 0
f yi t i
1,77
87
88
Table 8.1 Design axial resistances of welded joints between circular hollow sections
Type of joint
T and Y joints
Chord plastification
t1
N1,Rd
N1
d0
d1
t0
1
M0
N0
X joints
2,6 17,7
2
sin 1
0,2
Qf
(for d1 d0 - 2t0)
1 sin 1
2 sin2 1
Chord plastification
N1,Rd
t1
N1
d0
d1
t0
N1,Rd 0,58 fy 0
t2
t1
1
N1,Ed sin 1
Ngap,0,Rd A 0 fy 0 1
0,58 fy 0 ( 2 / ) A 0
Chord plastification
N1,Rd
d1
(for d1 d0 - 2t0)
Chord shear
N1
N1
Qf
sin 1 1 - 0,7
N0
d0
fy0t 02
N2
d2
2
+e
N2,Rd
fy0 t02
sin 1
1
(1,65 13,2 1,6 ) 0,3 1
Q
0,8 f
1
,
2
(
g
/
t
)
sin 1
N1,Rd
sin 2
(for di d0 - 2t0)
Qf 1 n
Function Qf
1 sin i
2 sin2 i
with n
N0,Ed
Npl,0,Rd
C1 = 0,45 - 0,25
K gap joints
C1 = 0,25
M0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
in connecting face
Range of validity
ti t 0
e
0,25
d0
i 30
g t1 t 2
Compression
0,2
General
Chord
Braces
(1)
(2)
di
1,0
d0
d0 /t 0 50 (for X joints : d0 /t 0 40 )
Tension
Compression
class 1 or 2
(2)
and di /ti 50
di /ti 50
Tension
For 355 N/mm2 < fy0 460 N/mm2, use a reduction factor of 0,9 for the design resistances.
Class 1 and 2 limits for di/ti are given in Table 2.7.
89
(1)
Ni,Ed Ni,Rd (i = 1 or 2)
with Ni,Rd from K joint given in Table 8.1
Note: In a gap joint, the chord cross section in the gap has to be checked for
shear failure:
2
Ngap,0,Ed Vgap,0,Ed
1,0
Npl,0,Rd Vpl,0,Rd
NN22
N
N11
where:
Ngap,0,Ed = design axial force in gap
Npl,0,Rd A 0 fy 0
Vpl,0,Rd 0,58fy 0
90
2A 0
Table 8.3a Design resistances of welded T joints connecting plates or open sections to CHS chords
Type of T joint
N1,Rd
Mip,1,Rd
Mop,1,Rd
Mip,1,Rd 0
Mip,1,Rd h1 N1,Rd
Mop,1,Rd 0
N1
b1
t1
to
do
N1
h1
t1
t0
d0
N1
h1
1
t0
d0
h1
N1
Mip,1,Rd
h1 N1,Rd
(1 0,4)
b1
t0
d0
(for b1 d0 - 2t0)
N1,Ed
A1
N1,Ed
A1
Mip,1,Ed
Wel,ip,1
Mip,1,Ed
Wel,ip,1
Qf 1 n
Function Qf
Mop,1,Ed
Wel,op,1
Mop,1,Ed
Wel,op,1
with n
0,58 fy0
t0
t1
0,58 fy 0
2t 0
t1
N0,Ed
Npl,0,Rd
M0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
in connecting face
Brace axial load, brace in-plane bending and brace out-of-plane bending
Chord compression stress (n < 0): C1 = 0,25
Range of validity
0,2
General
CHS chord
RHS braces
I section braces
Plates
(1)
(2)
Compression
b1
1,0
d0
fy1 fy0
fy 0,8fu
fy 460 N/mm2
Tension
class 1 or 2
(2)
Compression
class 1 or 2
(2)
Tension
none
Compression
1 90
Tension
Transverse plate:
b1
0,4
d0
Longitudinal plate: 1
For 355 N/mm2 < fy0 460 N/mm2, use a reduction factor of 0,9 for the design resistances.
Section class limitations are given in Table 2.7.
91
h1
4
d0
(1)
Table 8.3b Design resistances of welded X joints connecting plates or open sections to CHS chords
Type of X joint
N1,Rd
Mip,1,Rd
Mop,1,Rd
Mip,1,Rd 0
Mip,1,Rd h1 N1,Rd
Mop,1,Rd 0
2,2 2,2
(1 0,4) 0,15 Q f
N1,Rd fy 0 t 02
1
0,7
Mip,1,Rd
N1
b1
t1
t0
d0
N1
N1
h1
t1
t0
d0
N1
N1
h1
1
t0
d0
N1
N1
h1
b1
h1 N1,Rd
(1 0,4)
t0
d0
N1
Validity range
(1)
For 355 N/mm2 < fy0 460 N/mm2, use a reduction factor of 0,9 for the design resistances.
92
Table 8.4 Correction factors for the design resistance of multiplanar joints
Type of joint
TT joints
General
N1
N1
N1
gt
= 1,0
XX joints
Chord plastification
1 0,35
N1 1
N
N1 1
NN22
1 0,35
N1
N1
General
Members 1: compression
Members 2: tension
= 1,0
N1
A
A
A
A
Validity range
N2
N2
gt
N2,Ed
N1,Ed
but 1,0
Notes:
- Take account of the sign of N1,Ed and N2,Ed, with |N2,Ed | |N1,Ed|
- N2,Ed/N1,Ed is negative if the members in one plane are in tension and
in the other plane in compression
KK gap joints
N1
N1,Ed
N
N 22
N1
N
1
N2,Ed
Note: In a KK gap joint, the chord cross section in the gap has to be
checked for shear failure:
2
Ngap,0,Ed Vgap,0,Ed
1,0
Npl,0,Rd Vpl,0,Rd
where:
Ngap,0,Ed = design axial force in gap
Npl,0,Rd A 0 fy 0
Vpl,0,Rd 0,58fy 0
93
2A 0
Table 8.5 Design moment resistances of welded joints between circular hollow sections
Type of joint brace loading
Chord plastification
Mip,1,Rd 4,3
fy0 t02 d1
sin 1
0,5 Qf
(for d1 d0 - 2t0)
1 3 sin 1
4 sin2 1
Chord plastification
Mop,1,Rd
Qf
sin 1 1 - 0,7
(for d1 d0 - 2t0)
Function Qf
Qf 1 n
3 sin 1
4 sin2 1
with n
N0,Ed
Npl,0,Rd
M0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
in connecting face
T, Y and X joints
C1 = 0,45 - 0,25
C1 = 0,20
Validity range
(1)
(2)
For 355 N/mm2 < fy0 460 N/mm2, use a reduction factor of 0,9 for the design resistances.
The equations in Table 8.5 may also be used for K gap joints, if brace moments have to be considered, by checking that
the brace utilization due to bending plus the brace utilization due to axial load 0,8. For K overlap joints, no evidence
exists.
94
95
Y joint
T joint
d1
d1
N1
t1
N1
t1
t0
d0
X joint
d0
t0
N0
d1
t1
d1
d2
N1
N2
t1
t2
N1
1 t0
N0
d0
N0
1 t0
d0
N1
N joint with overlap
di
dj
Nj
d3
d2
Ni
tj
N2
ti
t2
t3
g2
N0
t0
d0
N0
96
d1
N3
t1
N1
g1
1 t0
d0
or
Fig. 8.5 Failure modes for joints between circular hollow sections
N1
1,Ed
joint
joint
N1
Fig. 8.6 Elastic stress distribution in an X joint
97
N1
c1d1
N1 sin 1
2B e
N1
sin 1
2
Be 2,5 to 3d0
N1
N1
1
Vp
N0
98
N1
sin 1
2
N1
sin 1
2
N2
N1
A
N0
A
Fig. 8.10 Chord shear model
N2
Ngap,0
N1
2
N0
A
N0
N cos N
i
0p
i 1
1
N0p
A
Fig. 8.11 Chord load N0 and chord preload N0p
99
N1/(fy0t02)
= 0,60 2 = 40,0
(mm)
Fig. 8.13 The effect of the element type on numerical results
1
1 0,7
f(N1u) X joints
0
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Fig. 8.14 Comparison of experiments with the mean joint resistance function (X joints)
100
1,0
1,2
0,8
0,6
2 = 63,5
0,4
2 = 25,4
2 = 63,5
2 = 50,8
0,2
2 = 25,4
0,0
-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
N0 / Npl,0
di
dj
ti
tj
Nj
Ni
(1)
4.8
(3)
4.11
Nop
4.11
t0
N0o
d0
4.10
4.10
(2)
(2)
brace
i
=overlapping
member;
brace jj = overlapped
brace i = overlapping
overlapped member
member
brace i = overlapping member; brace j = overlapped member
101
T joint efficiency
X joint efficiency
1,0
0,9
N1,Rd
0,8
A1 fy1
CT
fy 0 t 0
Qf
fy1 t1 sin 1
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
effciency C X
effciency C T
1,0
0,2
0,1
0,0
0,9
N1,Rd
0,8
A1 fy1
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0
Qd
N* fy0 t 0 fQ t d
CK1 C y 0f 0 1 f 2
A i fyi A1 fy1 fyi t i Ksin
2di1
fy1ti1 sin
Ni,Rd
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
f t d Qd
N* fy0 t 0 Q
CK1 C y 0f 0 1 f 2
A i fyi A1 fy1fyi t i Ksin
2di 1
fy1ti1 sin
Ni,Rd
0,9
0,8
effciency C K
0,8
effciency C K
Qf
fy1 t1 sin 1
0,6
1,0
Qd
N* fy0 t 0 fQ t d
CK1 CK y 0f 0 1 f 2
A i fyi A1 fy1 fyi t i sin
2di1
fy1ti1 sin
Ni,Rd
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,1
0,0
0,7
0,6
0,2
f t d Qd
N* fy0 t 0 Q
CK1 CK y 0f 0 1 f 2
A i fyi A1 fy1fyi t i sin
2di 1
fy1ti1 sin
Ni,Rd
0,9
0,8
effciency C K
0,9
0,8
effciency C K
fy 0 t 0
0,7
1,0
0,9
CX
102
2 f y 0 t 02
(1 )
tan
N1 sin 1
1
tan sin 1
dN1
0
d
tan 1
N1 sin 1 i i mp
(9.1)
where:
mp
1 2
t 0 f y 0 per unit length
4
(9.2)
(9.4)
or:
(9.3)
(9.5)
f y 0 t 02 2
1
4 1
1 sin 1
sin 1
(9.6)
104
2 h1
1
t 0
2b e,p
3 sin 1
sin 1
fy0
(9.7)
h
t 0 b i 2c i with c << 1
sin i
3
Ni sin i
fy0
(9.8)
2hi
t 0
2b e,p
3 sin i
fy0
(9.9)
2hi
t 0
b i b e,p
3 sin i
fy0
(9.10)
or
g
1
b0
g
1,5 1
b0
(9.12)
2
2
(9.11)
sin 1
(9.14)
105
Vpl,0
fy0
3
(9.15)
Av
(9.16)
Vgap,0
1
Vpl,0
(9.17)
106
107
(9.18)
(9.19a)
2 f yw t w (t 1 5t p )
(9.19b)
108
N1,Rd
Mip,1,Ed
Mip,1,Rd
1,0
Ni,Rd
A i f yi
Ce
fy0 t 0 Q f
f yi t i sin i
(9.21)
b1 b2
, where bi is the width of the
2bi
brace considered.
multiplied by
N1,Ed
Efficiency
fy0 t 0
f yi t i
(9.20)
Table 9.1 Design axial resistances of welded joints between RHS or CHS braces and RHS chord
Type of joint
T, Y and X joints
N1,Rd
d1
(for 0,85)
fy 0 t 02
2
4
Qf
sin 1 (1 ) sin 1
1
(general check)
b1
t1
1
(for b1 b0 - 2t0)
h1
b0
t0
N1,Rd
h0
2be,p
sin 1 sin 1
Chord shear
See chord shear equations for K gap joints, but with V0,Ed instead of Vgap,0,Ed
(for = 1,0) (1)
N1,Rd
K gap joints
fk t 0 2h1
10 t 0 Qf
sin 1 sin1
(general check)
Ni,Rd 14
2
0,3 fy0 t 0
sin i
Qf
(general check)
N2
b1
d1
1
d2
h2
h1
t1
1
0
b2
t2
b0
2 t 0
h0
N0
+e
(for bi b0 - 2t0)
Ni,Rd
bi be,p
sin i sin i
(general check)
Chord shear
Ni,Rd
0,58 fy0 A v
sin i
Av and Vpl,0,Rd
T, Y and X joints
A v 2h0 t 0
K gap joints
A v 2h0 t 0 b0 t 0
Function Qf
Qf 1 n
and
RHS braces:
with n
N0,Ed
Npl,0,Rd
T, Y and X joints
C1 = 0,6 0,5
K gap joints
be and be,p
10 fy 0 t 0
bi but bi
be
b0 /t 0 fyi ti
fk
1
1 ( 4g2 ) /(3t 02 )
CHS braces: 0
M0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
Tension: fk fy0
Vgap,0,Ed
1
Vpl,0,Rd
in connecting face
Chord tension stress (n 0)
C1 = 0,10
10
bi but bi
be,p
b0 /t 0
Compression: fk fy0 for T and Y joints, and fk 0,8 fy0 sin 1 for X joints
where = reduction factor for column buckling according to e.g. Eurocode 3 (EN 1993-1-1, 2005) using
h
1
the relevant buckling curve and a slenderness 3,46 0 2
t
sin
1
0
(1)
For 0,85 < < 1,0 use linear interpolation between the resistance for chord face plastification at = 0,85 and the
resistance for chord side wall failure at = 1,0.
110
Table 9.1 Design axial resistances of welded joints between RHS or CHS braces and RHS chord
(continued)
T, Y, X and K gap joints with CHS
brace
For CHS braces, multiply the above resistances by /4 (except for chord shear
criterion) and replace bi and hi by di (i = 1 or 2)
Range of validity
T, Y or X joints
Brace-to-chord
ratio
RHS chord
RHS braces
CHS braces
Compression
class 1 or 2
(2)
class 1 or 2
(2)
class 1 or 2
(2)
and b0 /t 0 40 and h0 /t 0 40
b0 /t 0 40 and h0 /t 0 40
Tension
RHS braces
Compression
Tension
CHS braces
Compression
and di /ti 50
di /ti 50
Tension
Gap
N/A
Eccentricity
N/A
Aspect ratio
Brace angle
i 30
Yield stress
fyi fy0
(2)
K gap joints
and g t1 t 2
e 0,25h0
fy 0,8fu
fy 460 N/mm2
(4)
(3)
(4)
For 355 N/mm2 < fy 460 N/mm2, use a reduction factor of 0,9 for the design resistances.
111
(3)
Table 9.2 Design axial resistances of welded joints between square or circular braces and a square
hollow section chord
Joints between square hollow sections
T, Y and X joints
b1
h1
t1
N1,Rd
b0
t0
h0
K gap joints
fy 0 t 02
2
4
Qf
sin 1 (1 ) sin 1
1
N1
N2
b1
d1
b2
1
0
d2
h2
h1
t1
t2
b0
2 t 0
Ni,Rd 14 0,3
fy0 t 02
sin i
Qf
h0
N0
+e
Function Qf
Range of validity
General
SHS braces
CHS braces
T, Y and X joints
b1/b0 0,85
K gap joints
b0 /t 0 15
K gap joints
b0 /t 0 15
112
N1
N1
N1
N2
N2
N1
N2
Ni,Ed Ni,Rd (i = 1 or 2)
with Ni,Rd from K joint given in Table 9.1 or 9.2, but with the actual chord force
N2
N1
1
N1
Ni,Ed Ni,Rd (i = 1 or 2)
with Ni,Rd from K gap joint given in Table 9.1 or 9.2
N2
2
Note: In a gap joint, the chord cross section in the gap has to be checked for
shear failure:
Vgap,0,Ed Vpl,0,Rd 0,58 fy0 A v
N1
N2
1
Vgap,0,Ed
113
N1
2 2,8
N1,Rd fy0 t 02
Qf
1 0,9
b1
t1
t0
h0
b1
t1
t0
h0
N1,Rd 2 fy0 t 0 ( t1 5t 0 ) Q f
N1
b0
N1
(for all )
N1,Rd fy1 t1 be
b0
h1
t1
t0
h0
b0
h1
t
N1,Rd 2 fy 0 t 02 2 1 1 Q f
b
0
N1
t1
t0
h0
b0
N1
(1)
For 0,85 < < 1,0, use linear interpolation between the resistance for chord face plastification at = 0,85 and the
resistance for chord side wall failure at = 1,0.
114
N1
h1
t1
t0
h0
t
N1,Rd 4 fy 0 t 02 2 1 1 Qf
b0
b0
h1
t sp 0,5 t0 e3
t1
t sp
bsp t1
with: *
b0 t 0
t0
h0
bsp
b0
Qf 1 n
Function Qf
with n
N0,Ed
Npl,0,Rd
M0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
Longitudinal plate
C1 = 0,20
be and be,p
10 fy 0 t 0
bi but bi
be
b0 /t 0 fyi ti
in connecting face
b0 /t 0
Range of validity
Compression
RHS chord
class 1 or 2
(2)
and b0 /t 0 40 and h0 /t 0 40
b0 /t 0 40 and h0 /t 0 40
Tension
Aspect ratio
Transverse plate
b1/b0 0,4
Longitudinal plate
1 h1/b0 4
Plate angle
1 90o
Yield stress
fy1 fy0
(2)
(3)
fy 0,8fu
fy 460 N/mm2
(3)
115
Table 9.5 Correction factors for the design resistance of multiplanar joints
Type of joint
TT joints
General
2N1
N1
N1
= 1,0
XX joints
1 0,35
N1
(for 0,85)
N2,Ed
N1,Ed
N1
N2
N2
Notes:
- Take account of the sign of N1,Ed and N2,Ed, with |N2,Ed | |N1,Ed|
- N2,Ed/N1,Ed is negative if the members in one plane are in tension and in the
other plane in compression.
Other failure modes
N1
= 1,0
N1
General
Members 1: compression
Members 2: tension
=1,0
N2
N1
A
N1
N1
but in a KK gap joint, the chord cross section in the gap has to be checked
for shear failure according to:
2
Ngap,0,Ed 0,71Vgap,0,Ed
1,0
Npl,0,Rd Vpl,0,Rd
where:
Ngap,0,Ed design axial force in gap
Npl,0,Rd
A 0 fy0
Vpl,0,Rd
Range of validity
116
Table 9.6 Design moment resistances of welded joints between rectangular hollow sections
Type of joint brace loading
Mip,1
(for 0,85)
1
2
Mip,1,Rd fy0 t 02 h1
Qf
2
1 1
b1
b0
t0
b
Mip,1,Rd fy1 Wpl,1 (1 e ) b1(h1 t1) t1
b1
h0
Mip,1,Rd 0,5fk t 0 h1 5t 0 Qf
2
Mop,1
h (1 )
Mop,1,Rd fy0 t 02 b1 1
2b1(1 )
b1
2(1 )
Qf
(1 )
(for 0,85 < 1,0)
h1
t1
1
(for 0,85)
b0
t0
h0
Function Qf
be
10 fy0 t 0
be
b but b1
1
b0 /t 0 fy1 t1
fk
T and Y joints
X joints
T and Y joints
X joints
fk fy 0
fk 0,8 fy 0
fk fy 0
fk 0,8 fy 0
h
3,46 0 2
t
0
Range of validity
(1)
(2)
(3)
(3)
For 0,85 < < 1,0, use linear interpolation between the resistance for chord face plastification at = 0,85 and the
resistance for chord side wall failure at = 1,0.
Chord distortion to be prevented for brace out-of-plane bending.
The equations are conservative for 1 < 90.
117
Y joint
T joint
h1
b1
h1
N1
t1
t1
b0
t0
N1
b0
t0
N0
h0
b1
h0
X joint
h1
h2
t1
N1
b1
t0
b0
t2
b1
t1
N0
N0
N1
N2
b2
t0
b0
h0
h0
N1
hi
bi
hj
bj
Ni
Nj
tj
b3
h2
N2
b2
ti
t2
N0
t0
b0
N0
h0
118
t1
t3
g2
h1
N3
N1
b1
g1
1
t0
b0
h0
119
2b 0
2
mp
(b0 b1 ) cot
4 tan
mp
(1 )
Yield lines 2:
2b1
2
mp
(b0 b1 ) cot
4 tan
mp
(1 )
Yield lines 3:
2(
b b1
h1
2
2 0
cot )
mp
sin 1
2
(b 0 b1 )
4
=
4 cot mp
(1 ) sin 1
Yield lines 4:
2(
h1
2
)
mp
sin 1 (b 0 b1 )
4
mp
=
(
1
)
sin
Yield lines 5:
mp
4 5
5 tan 5 cot
with:
mp
fy20 t 0
4
Total energy Ed
120
8mp
(1 )
tan
(1 )
tan sin 1
0,5be,p
h1
sin 1
L eff 2 (
h1
2 be,p )
sin 1
0,5be,p
,
0,5b
e,p
,
0,5b
e,p
h2
sin 2
Fig. 9.5 Chord punching shear model for a K gap joint (chord face)
121
0,5be
0,5be
0,5be,ov
hi
0,5be,ov
Nj
Ni
bi
Fig. 9.7 Local brace failure model for a 100% overlap joint
122
Fig. 9.9 Four hinge yield line model for chord side wall failure (Packer, 1978)
500
400
300
200
100
100
200
300
400
500
600
Fig. 9.11 Comparison between experiments and the mean ultimate joint strength equation for chord
plastification for K gap joints with 0,85 (Wardenier, 1982)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Fig. 9.12 Comparison between experiments and the analytical yield line criterion for chord plastification for
T, Y and X joints with 0,85 (Wardenier, 1982)
124
hj
tj
bj
hi
bi
Nj
Ni
ti
(1)
j
i
(3)
b0
t0
N0p
N0
(2)
h0
(2)
Fig. 9.14 Comparison of a K joint with a circular brace and an equivalent joint with a square brace
N1
N1
tw
tp
2.5
5tp+tw
t1
s
h1
b1
Fig. 9.15 Load dispersion for a Tee joint on the end of an RHS member
125
TOP
SIDE
Stress trajectory
1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Note: The vertical axis plots the ratio of the ultimate strength N1u(JAA = 0) of a multiplanar joint with unloaded out-of-plane
braces and the ultimate strength N1u of the corresponding uniplanar joint.
Fig. 9.17 Multiplanar geometry effect for an XX joint of square hollow sections (Yu, 1997)
1,5
For = 0,2
= 0,4
= 0,6
= 0,8
1,0
0,5
-1,0
1,5
0,0
1,0
For = 1,0
1,0
0,5
-1,0
0,0
1,0
Note: The vertical axis plots the ratio of the ultimate strength N1u(JAA) of a multiplanar joint and the ultimate strength
N1u(JAA = 0) of the multiplanar joint with unloaded out-of-plane braces.
Fig. 9.18 Multiplanar loading effect for an XX joint of square hollow sections (Yu, 1997)
126
127
N1,Rd
0,8
A1 fy1
CT
fy 0 t 0
Qf
fy1 t1 sin1
0,7
1,0
0,9
N1,Rd
0,8
A1 fy1
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,5
CX
CT
0,6
0,4
0,4
0,3
0,3
0,2
0,2
0,1
0,1
fy 0 t 0
Qf
fy1 t1 sin1
0,0
0,0
0
0,1
0,2 0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7 0,8
0,9
0,9
N1,Rd
A 1 f y1
0,8
CT
Qf
fy1 t1 sin1
0,7
0,5 0,6
0,7
0,8 0,9
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
Qf
0,5
0,4
0,6
0,3
fy 0 t 0
0,1 0,2
CX or CT
CX
0,4
0,3
0,4
0,2
0,3
0,1
0
0,2
-1
0,1
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0
n
0,0
0
0,1 0,2
0,3 0,4
0,5
0,6 0,7
0,8 0,9
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
Qf
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
-1
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0
n
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
Ni,Rd
0,8
A i fyi
CK
fy 0 t 0 Q f b1 b2
fyi t i sin i 2bi
1,0
0,7
CK
0,6
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,5
Qf
0,4
0,3
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,2
0,1
0,1
0,0
0,0
15
20
25
30
35
40
-1
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0
n
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
128
(10.1)
where:
fy0
b e t w 2r 7
f y1
t0
(10.2)
Mpl,f
b 0 t 02
fy0
4
Vpl,f = b0 t0
(10.4)
Vf
Vpl,f
(10.11)
b 0 t 0
b w 2b wf
2t i
10( t 0 r )
sin i
(10.5)
(10.6)
Vf
Vpl,f
where:
1
4g 2
1 2
3t 0
(10.13)
(10.14)
1,0
(10.12)
where:
Mf
Mpl,f
1
4g 2
1 2
3t 0
but:
Mf
(10.10)
(10.3)
hi
5( t 0 r )
sin i
(10.9)
Mf
V 2g
f
Mpl,f
Vpl,f t 0 3
where:
bw
fy 0
(10.8)
(10.7)
fy0
3
(10.15)
Vgap,0
1
Vpl,0
(10.16)
131
Table 10.1 Design resistances of welded joints between RHS or CHS braces and I or H section chords
Type of joint
Ni,Rd 2fyi ti be
h1
N1
d1
t0
b1
b0
tw
h0
Ni,Rd
d1
h1
t2
b1
h2
d2
N2
t1
N1
1
t0
b2
sin i
(for K gap joints; for T joints in member
check; for X joints with cos 1 > h1/h0)
Chord shear
t2
t1
fy 0 t w b w
Ni,Rd
0,58 fy 0 A v
b0
tw
h0
sin i
Vgap,0,Ed
Ngap,0,Rd ( A 0 A v ) fy 0 A v fy 0 1
Vpl,0,Rd
Factors
RHS braces
be
be t w 2r 7t 0
bw
bw
CHS braces
fy 0
fyi
but bi hi 2ti
2t i
hi
5( t 0 r ) but
10( t 0 r )
sin i
sin i
be t w 2r 7t 0
bw
fy 0
fyi
2t i
di
5( t 0 r ) but
10( t 0 r )
sin i
sin i
A v A 0 (2 ) b0 t 0 ( t w 2r ) t 0
AV
Vpl,0,Rd
1
1 ( 4g2 ) /(3t 02 )
Vpl,0,Rd 0,58 fy 0 A v
Range of validity
X joints
I or H section
chord
CHS braces
RHS braces
Compression
T and Y joints
K gap joints
Flange
class 1 or 2
Web
Tension
none
Compression
class 1 or 2 (1)
Tension
di /ti 50
Compression
class 1 or 2 (1)
Tension
Aspect ratio
Gap
N/A
g t1 t 2
Eccentricity
N/A
e 0,25h0
Brace angle
i 30
Yield stress
fyi fy0
(1)
(2)
fy 0,8fu
fy 460 N/mm2
132
(2)
Table 10.2 Design moment resistance of uniplanar RHS braces (beams) to I or H section chord joints
Type of joint
T joints
I or H chord
Mip,1,Rd fy1 t1 be hz
RHS
brace
(beam)
RHS
Beam
be
hz h1
Mip,1
be
Factors
fy 0
be
be t w 2r 7t 0
bw
Range of validity
133
fy1
but b1 h1 2t1
T joint
X joint
h1
b1
t1
h1
t1
t1
b1
t1
d1
d1
b0
t0
t0
tw
h0 r
h0 r
b0
K gap joints
d2
t1
t2
h2
d11
b1
b2
N2
h1
N1
b0
t0
b1
b2
h2
tw
h0
t1
t2
h1
N1
N2
g = 0,1b0
t0
tw
b0
Fig. 10.1 Welded truss joints between hollow section braces and open section chords
134
h0
tw
Fig. 10.2 Welded truss joints between hollow sections and open sections (Packer & Henderson, 1997)
135
Fig. 10.3 Governing failure modes for joints between hollow section braces and I section chords
136
Fig. 10.4 Governing failure modes of joints between hollow section braces and a channel section chord
137
(a)
(b)
bwf
bwf
1 : 2,5
bw
Fig. 10.6 Model for chord web failure
1 : 2,5
700
RI joints
600
500
400
300
200
100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
(a) Joints between RHS braces and an I section chord (RI joints)
600
CI joints
500
400
300
200
100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
(b) Joints between CHS braces and an I section chord (CI joints)
Fig. 10.8 Comparison between test results and eq. (10.15) for joints between hollow section braces and
an I section chord (Wardenier, 1982)
139
Fig. 10.9 Local brace failure criterion for moment loading of RHS beam-to-column joints
bwf
140
(11.1)
(11.2)
N0
Npl,0
f y 0 t 0
f t
yi i
b i but b i
(11.3)
10 f yj t j
b but b i
b e,ov
b j /t j f yi t i i
(11.4)
f yj (2h j b j b ej ) t j
3
sin j
(11.6)
2h b ei t i
f yi 100 i
f yj (2h j b ej ) t j
sin i
sin j
3
3
(11.5)
where bei and be,ov are the effective width parts for the
connected cross walls, being consistent with those for
other joints:
10
b ei
b 0 /t 0
M0 1,0
Mpl,0
(11.7)
where:
bei effective width at the connection between the
overlapping brace cross wall and the chord
according to eq. (11.3)
bej effective width at the connection between the
overlapped brace cross wall and the chord
according to eq. (11.8):
10
b ej
b 0 /t 0
f y 0 t 0
f t
yj j
b j but b j
(11.8)
143
144
Table 11.1 Design axial resistance of uniplanar overlap joints with a CHS, RHS, I or H section chord
Type of joint
di
ti
tj
Nj
Ni
i
t0
dj
hi
tj
bi
ti
N0,Ed
M0,Ed 1,0
Npl,0,Rd
Mpl,0,Rd
hj
Nj
Ni
i
Brace shear
t0
bj
b,eff.
(2)
CHS braces
Ov = 100%
RHS braces
b,eff .
b,eff . (
Ov
)2hi bei be,ov 4ti
50
The efficiency (i.e. design resistance divided by the yield load) of the overlapped
General note
(1)
(2)
A j fyj
brace j shall not exceed that of the overlapping brace i, i.e. Nj,Rd Ni,Rd
A i fyi
145
Table 11.2 Design axial resistance of uniplanar overlap joints with a CHS, RHS, I or H section chord
Range of validity
General
Chord
RHS
I or H
section
di /d j 0,75
ti and t j t 0
bi /b j 0,75
ti t j
i and j 30
fy 0,8fu
Ov 25%
Compression
Tension
d0 /t 0 50
Compression
Tension
b0 /t 0 40 and h0 /t 0 40
Aspect ratio
Compression
Flange
class 1 or 2
Web
Tension
Braces
RHS
(1)
(2)
fy 460 N/mm2
(2)
none
CHS or RHS chord
CHS
(1)
I or H section chord
and d1/t1 50
class 1
Tension
d2 /t 2 50
Compression
class 1
Tension
b2 /t 2 40 and h2 /t 2 40
Aspect ratio
Compression
class 1 or 2
Table 11.3 Design brace shear resistance of uniplanar overlap joints with a CHS, RHS or I section chord
Ns,Rd for brace shear criterion (1)
Ov = 100%
Ov = 100%
(1)
(2)
Ns,Rd
100 Ov
2di dei ti
100
Ns,Rd 0,58fuj
Ns,Rd
(3d j dej ) t j
4
sin j
100 Ov
2hi bei ti
100
Ns,Rd 0,58fuj
(2h j b j bej ) t j
sin j
The expressions for dei, dej, bei and bej are given in Table 11.4.
Ovlimit = 60% and cs = 1 if hidden toe the overlapped brace is not welded.
Ovlimit = 80% and cs = 2 if hidden toe of the overlapped brace is welded.
In the case of overlap joints with hi < bi and/or hj < bj, the brace shear criterion shall always be checked.
146
Table 11.4 Effective width factors (be and de) used in Tables 11.1 and 11.3
Factors for CHS braces to CHS chords
CHS braces
dei
d0 /t 0 fyiti
Overlapped CHS brace to CHS chord
12 fy 0 t 0
d j but d j
dej
d0 /t 0 fyjt j
Overlapping CHS brace to overlapped CHS brace
12 fyjt j
d but di
de,ov
d j /t j fyiti i
RHS braces
dei
b0 /t 0 fyiti
Overlapped CHS brace to RHS chord
10 fy 0 t 0
d j but d j
dej
b0 /t 0 fyjt j
Overlapping CHS brace to overlapped CHS brace
12 fyjt j
d but di
de,ov
d j /t j fyiti i
bei
b0 /t 0 fyiti
Overlapped RHS brace to RHS chord
10 fy 0 t 0
b j but b j
bej
b0 /t 0 fyjt j
Overlapping RHS brace to overlapped RHS brace
10 fyjt j
b but bi
be,ov
b j /t j fyiti i
RHS braces
de,ov
d j /t j fyiti i
be,ov
b j /t j fyiti i
147
hj
bj
Nj
tj
hi
bi
Ni
ti
(1)
j
i
(3)
b0
t0
N0p
N0
(2)
h0
(2)
0,5be,ov
0,5be,ov
0,5bei
b0
t0
h0
Fig. 11.2 Local failure of the overlapping brace for RHS joints with 50% and 100% overlap
hi
bi
hi
hj
bj
ti
tj
ti
tj
j
hj / sinj
0,5hi / sini
0,5bei
hj / sinj
bj
0,5bej
ti
hj
bj
bi
tj
0,5bej
tj
Fig. 11.3 Effective shear area for RHS joints with 50% (no hidden weld) and 100% overlap
148
1,4
Washio '63
1,2
Kurobane '64
1,0
Togo '67
Wardenier-de Koning '77
0,8
Kurobane '80
0,6
Ochi '81
0,4
De Koning-Wardenier '81
0,2
Kurobane '82
Dexter '94
0,0
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Fig. 11.4 Ratio of the experimental joint capacity (database Makino et al., 1996) and the capacity based on
the local brace failure criterion (25% Ov < 100%)
Efficiency
1,0
Brace shear; hidden toe
welded; Ov = 80%
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0
20
d0/t0
40
60
Fig. 11.5 Comparison between the criteria for local brace failure and brace shear with the hidden location
welded or unwelded (for di/ti = 25, di = dj, ti = tj, fyi = fyj, fui = fuj = 1,25fyi, i = j = 45)
149
150
12.1 INTRODUCTION
Connections in beam-to-column joints can be welded
or bolted. This chapter will focus mainly on unstiffened,
welded joints between CHS or RHS columns and I
section beams, as shown in Fig. 12.1. Examples of
some stiffened joints, especially used in earthquake
prone regions, e.g. Japan, are shown in Fig. 12.2.
(12.1)
(12.2)
4
(h t )
M1,Rd f y 0 t 02
1 1 1
151
(12.3)
M1,Rd 2 f y 0 t 0 b wf (h1 t 1 )
(12.4)
where:
b wf t 1 5t 0 but
h1 5t 0
2
(12.5)
The column punching shear strength of I beam-toCHS or RHS joints can be directly determined from
plate-to-CHS or plate-to-RHS joints (Wardenier et al.,
2008a; Packer et al., 2009a). For more detailed
information, see Wardenier (1982) and Voth (2010).
Here, similar to the criterion for local failure of the
beam flange, the flanges are governing because the
webs are located at the softest part of the column face
and are generally not effective.
As shown in Fig. 12.6, the capacity is given by:
fy0
3
(12.7)
or:
2
1
fy f / 3
y
(12.7a)
or:
M1,Rd
M0,Ed V0,Ed
1
Mpl,0,Rd Vpl,0,Rd
(12.7b)
N0,Ed V0,Ed
1
Npl,0,Rd Vpl,0,Rd
(12.7c)
or:
Mpl,V,0,Rd Mpl,0,Rd
1 0,Ed
Vpl,0,Rd
Npl,V,0,Rd Npl,0,Rd
V
1 0,Ed
Vpl,0,Rd
(12.8)
(12.6)
(12.9)
Mpl,V,0,Rd b m hm t 0 f y 0 0,5 h t f
2
m 0 y0
V
1 0,Ed
Vpl,0,Rd
(12.10)
152
V
Npl,V,0,Rd 2 b m t 0 f y 0 2 hm t 0 f y 0 1 0,Ed
Vpl,0,Rd
(12.11)
The formulae (12.10) and (12.11) show the plastic
capacities for axial loading and moment, reduced by
the effect of shear.
In a similar way, the interaction between axial load
and bending moment can be derived (Wardenier,
1982). By introducing Npl,V,0,Rd and Mpl,V,0,Rd instead of
Npl,0,Rd and Mpl,0,Rd, the full interaction can be obtained.
In the standards (EN 1993-1-1, 2005) these formulae
are approximated by simpler formulae. Also, the effect
of small shear loads has been neglected, e.g. for V0,Ed
0,5 Vpl,0,Rd.
153
154
tp
tp
t0
t0
d0
b0
bf
Bf
155
b1 Bf
b. Weld failure
Joint configuration
c. Lamellar tearing
156
0,5be,p
t1
158
0,67
0,50
0,33
159
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
Fig. 12.12 Boundaries for stiffness classification of beam-to-column joints according to Eurocode 3 (EN
1993-1-8)
Ed
d
ti
2
(13.1)
(13.2)
where:
Ai cross sectional area of the CHS or RHS
Wi elastic (or plastic) section modulus of the CHS or
RHS
This procedure will be conservative, especially for
CHS, as it computes the maximum tensile normal
stress in the CHS or RHS and then applies this to the
whole member cross section.
161
N i,Rd f yp t p g 2 (tan 30 o ) p
(13.3)
162
163
Fig. 13.2 Failure modes for bolted CHS flange plate joints
164
Fig. 13.4 RHS flange plate joint with bolts at two sides of the RHS
165
Tension segment
Inclined segments
Shear segments
Total net area for critical section A-A is the sum of the individual segments:
For tension segment
: An = (g1 - d/2) t
For shear segment
: Agv = L t
2
For each inclined segment : An = (g2 - d) t + (s /4g2) t
166
167
Fig. 13.13 Moment joints between open section beams and CHS or RHS columns
170
171
172
173
Fig. 13.20 Flowdrill connection for joining end plates or angles to RHS
174
14.1 DEFINITIONS
Stress range
The stress range (shown in Fig. 14.3) is the
difference between the maximum and the minimum
stress in a constant amplitude loading regime.
Stress ratio R
The stress ratio R is defined as the ratio between the
minimum stress and the maximum stress in a stress
cycle of constant amplitude loading (Fig. 14.3).
-N or Whler line
The relation (on a log-log scale) between the stress
range and the number of cycles N to failure is
presented in a so-called -N or Whler line (Fig.
14.4).
Fatigue strength
The fatigue strength of a welded component is defined
as the stress range , which causes failure of the
component after a specified number of cycles N.
Fatigue life
The number of cycles N to a defined failure is known
Fatigue limit
The fatigue limit is defined as the stress range below
which it is assumed that no fatigue failure occurs for a
constant amplitude loading, see Fig. 14.4. For
Eurocode 3 (EN 1993-1-9, 2005) and the IIW
recommendations for hollow section joints (IIW, 1999),
for example, this occurs at N = 5 x 106 cycles. Note:
IIW (2008) for fatigue design of welded joints and
components has recently changed this limit to 107
cycles.
Cut off limit
The cut off limit is defined as the stress range below
which it is assumed that the stress ranges of a
variable amplitude loading do not contribute to the
fatigue damage. For Eurocode 3 (EN 1993-1-9), for
example, this occurs at N = 108 cycles (see Fig. 14.5).
Note: The recently revised recommendations of IIW
(2008) no longer give a cut off limit for variable
amplitude loading.
Geometric stress
The geometric stress, also called hot spot stress, is
defined as the extrapolated principal stress at a
specified location at the weld toe. The extrapolation
must be carried out from the region outside the
influence of the effects of the weld geometry and
discontinuities at the weld toe, but close enough to fall
inside the zone of the stress gradient caused by the
global geometrical effects of the joint. The
extrapolation is to be carried out on the brace side
and the chord side of each weld (see Fig. 14.6).
Generally the geometric stress (or the hot spot stress)
can be determined by considering the stress normal to
the weld toe since the orientation of the maximum
principal stress is normal or almost normal to the weld
toe.
Stress concentration factor
The stress concentration factor (SCF) is the ratio
between the geometric peak stress, or hot spot stress,
excluding local effects, at a particular location in a
joint and the nominal stress in the member due to a
basic member load which causes this geometric
stress.
175
N C ( m )
(14.1)
or:
(14.2)
80
120 160 N/mm 2
60
176
ni
1,0
Ni
(14.3)
177
SCFi, j,k
(14.4)
where:
i chord or brace
j location, e.g. crown, saddle or in between for CHS
joints
k type of loading
(14.5)
178
179
180
nom,brace
geom
M C (SCF)
min
max
and
Step G:
The configuration now determined should be checked
for ease of fabrication, inspection and the validity
range for joints.
max min
max (1 R)
Thus:
max,nom,brace
geom
M C (1 R ) SCF
Table 14.1 Detail categories for hollow sections and simple joints according to Eurocode 3 (EN 1993-1-9,
2005), IIW (1999) and CIDECT (Zhao et al., 2001)
Details loaded by nominal normal stresses
Detail
category
m=3
Constructional detail
Description
160
140
71
56
71
50
45
40
36
182
Table 14.2 Partial factors M according to IIW (1999) and CIDECT (Zhao et al., 2001)
"Fail-safe" structures
(redundant)
M = 1,00
M = 1,25 (1)
M = 1,15
M = 1,35
(1)
Table 14.4 Multiplication factors to account for secondary bending moments in CHS lattice girder joints
(EN 1993-1-9, 2005), IIW (1999) and CIDECT (Zhao et al., 2001)
Type of joint
Gap joints
Overlap
joints
Chords
Verticals
Diagonals
1,5
1,3
1,5
1,8
1,4
1,5
1,2
1,5
1,65
1,25
Table 14.5 Multiplication factors to account for secondary bending moments in RHS lattice girder joints
(EN 1993-1-9, 2005), IIW (1999) and CIDECT (Zhao et al., 2001)
Type of joint
Gap joints
Overlap
joints
Chords
Verticals
Diagonals
1,5
1,5
1,5
2,2
1,6
1,5
1,3
1,5
2,0
1,4
Table 14.6 Fatigue classes for various pretensioned bolted joints according to Eurocode 3 (EN 1993-1-9)
Constructional detail
Detail category
50
90
112
183
Table 14.3 Detail categories for lattice girder joints based on nominal stresses according to Eurocode 3
(EN 1993-1-9, 2005) and CIDECT (Zhao et al., 2001)
Constructional details
Description
t0/ti 2,0
Circular hollow sections
K and N gap joints
45
t0/ti = 1,0
71
t0/ti 2,0
36
t0/ti = 1,0
Requirements:
-0,5(b0 - bi) g 1,1(b0 - bi)
g 2t0
71
t0/ti 1,4
56
t0/ti = 1,0
71
t0/ti 1,4
50
K overlap joints
Requirements:
30% Ov 100%
N overlap joints
Requirements:
30% Ov 100%
t0/ti = 1,0
General requirements
35 i 50
4 t0 8 mm
4 ti 8 mm
b0 200 mm
d0 300 mm
(b0/t0)(t0/ti) 25
(d0/t0)(t0/ti) 25
(3)
(3)
-0,5h0 e 0,25h0
-0,5d0 e 0,25d0
Note that the detail category is based on the stress range in the braces.
For intermediate t0/ti values, use linear interpolation between nearest detail categories.
This formulation is based on test data and slightly deviates from the IIW (1999) recommendations.
184
Brace wall
Maximum
geometrical
peak stress
Geometrical stress
weld
notch
b
Chord wall
nominal
peak in brace
peak in chord
Fig. 14.2 Geometrical stress distribution in an axially loaded X joint of circular hollow sections
Stress
R>0
R=0
R = -1
1000
Detail category
500
Constant amplitude
fatigue limit
100
50
m=3
10
104
105
106
107
108
Fig. 14.4 N curves for classified details and constant amplitude loading (IIW, 1999; CIDECT, 2001;
EN 1993-1-9, 2005)
1000
Detail category
500
Constant amplitude
fatigue limit
Cut-off limit
100
50
m=3
m=5
10
104
105
106 2
107
108
Fig. 14.5 N curves for classified details and variable amplitude loading (IIW, 1999; CIDECT, 2001;
EN 1993-1-9, 2005)
186
Brace
Brace
Saddle
Crown
Chord
Chord
fy =240 N/mm2
a
30
20
30
c
B
-240
B
240
= 120 N/mm2
residual
stress
at
actual
stress
at max
geom ( t )
geom ( t 16 mm )
16
t
0,402
1000
500
100
t=4
t=8
t = 12,5
t = 16
t = 25
50
(t in mm)
10
104
105
106
5 107
108
109
Fig. 14.8 Basic geom - N design curves for the geometrical stress method for hollow section joints (IIW, 1999;
CIDECT, 2001)
187
2 = 15
24
2 = 30
2 = 50
= 0,5
= 1,0
Brace saddle
20
= 1,0
SCF
16
12
= 1,0
= 1,0
4
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Brace crown
SCF
40
3
2
Chord saddle
36
1
= 1,0
32
0,6
0,8
1,0
24
SCF
0,4
28
8
7
20
Chord crown
= 1,0
6
16
SCF
= 1,0
12
= 1,0
= 1,0
4
3
4
0
0,2
1
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
Fig. 14.9 SCFs for axially loaded circular hollow section X joints (IIW, 1999; CIDECT, 2001)
188
1,0
32
Brace
28
24
Chord
2 = 30
20
2 = 50
SCF/0,75
2 = 15
= 0,25 1,0
Symbol size ~
16
12
20
SCF
16
12
0
Line B
0,2
0,4
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
0,6
0,8
1,0
32
4
28
0
0
Line A, E
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
24
20
SCF/0,75
20
SCF/0,75
16
16
12
12
0
Line D
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
0
Line C
Notes:
- For a T joint, the effect of chord bending due to the axial brace load should be separately included in the analysis.
- For fillet welded joints: multiply SCFs for the brace by 1,4.
- A minimum SCF = 2,0 is recommended to avoid crack initiation from the root.
Fig. 14.10 SCFs for butt welded T and X joints of square hollow sections, loaded by an axial force on the brace
(parametric formulae compared with FE calculations (Van Wingerde, 1992))
189
2 = 15
2 = 30
2 = 50
= 0,5
= 1,0
8
7
6
0
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
SCF
SCF
1,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
SCF/0,24
SCF/0,19
Fig. 14.11 Maximum SCFs for axially loaded K joints of circular hollow sections with gap g = 0,1d0
1
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Line C
0,2
Line D
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Fig. 14.12 SCFs for T and X joints of rectangular hollow sections (chord locations C and D of Fig. 14.6 only),
loaded by an in-plane bending moment or an axial force on the chord
=0,5
Max. SCF
4,7
2= 24 = 0,5
7,0
10,6
190
a1
b1
c1
Good
a2
Bad
b2
Fig. 14.15 Recommended bolted ring flange joint for fatigue loading
191
c2
a. No preload
b. Preloaded
Noding condition
for most
overlap joints
Pin
Extremely
stiff members
Extremely
stiff members
Noding condition
for most
gap joints
192
fy 0 t 0
fyi t i
2,0
i.e.
Design of members
355 7,1
2,0 or ti 4,5 mm
275t i
- Braces:
139,7 x 4,5
88,9 x 3,6
- Top chord:
219,1 x 7,1
- Bottom chord: 193,7 x 6,3
193
Right side:
N0,Ed
A 0 f y0
M0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
N0,Ed
A 0 f y0
M0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
878
- 7,56
N1,Rd
A 1 f y1
0,84
N1,Ed
A 1 f y1
0,82
(o.k.)
M0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
1,0
where:
N0,Ed
A 0 f y0
M0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
878
7,56
k
1189
113,3
338
7,56
-108
-108
-338
-878
-338
+
-259
-432
-404
259
Thus, for
-173
259
N0,Ed
A 0 fy0
404
0,24 compression
4728 0,355
For
N1,Rd
0,88
0,20 2,04
0,57
A 1 fy1
0,625
Due to acting load:
For brace 1:
N1,Ed
173
0,33
A 1 fy1 525,5
N1,Rd
0,93
0,39 2,04
0,82 0,97
A 1 fy1
0,625
N1,Ed
N1,Ed
N1,Rd
259
0,49
525,5
A 2 f y2
0,39 2,55
0,93
1,29 1,0
0,625
0,98 1,0
(o.k.)
N0,Ed
A 0 fy0
(not o.k.)
For brace 2:
N2,Rd
0,33
0,58
0,57
0,49
0,50
0,97
N1,Rd
N1,Ed
d1 139,7
A 1 f y1
d1 139,7
0,64 :
d0 219,1
474
0,28 compression
4728 0,355
195
Thus, for
Joint 3
-108
-108
-878
0
-1148
-878
-1014
+
-86
-259
-259
-134
=
86
For
-173
86
A 0 fy0
N1,Rd
0,77
0,20 2,04
0,50
A 1 fy1
0,625
134
0,08 compression
4728 0,355
N1,Ed
173
0,33
A 1 fy1 525,5
0,34 2,04
A 1 f y1
d1 139,7
N0,Ed
d1 139,7
0,64 :
d0 219,1
0,98
0,82 0,89
0,625
N1,Ed
N1,Rd
0,33
0,66
0,50
N1,Ed
86
0,16
A 1 f y1 525,5
(o.k.)
N1,Ed
N1,Rd
0,16
0,18
0,89
For brace 2:
N2,Rd
A 2 f y2
14% over-optimistic.
0,34 2,55
0,98
1,29 1,0
0,625
Joint 4
-108
-1148
-1148
-1148
=
-86
-86
0,32 1,0
-1148
N0,Ed
A 0 fy0
1014
0,60 compression
4728 0,355
-86
(o.k.)
-86
54 54
196
15
2
sin 38,7
sin 38,7
2
50,6 mm 7,1t 0
Purlin joints
197
P
108 kN
2 cos 30 o
198
675
0,26
2552
Vpl,0,Rd 0,58 f y 0
2A 0
2 7191
0,58 0,355
943 kN
Vgap,0,Ed
Vpl,0,Rd
467,5
0,50
943
Mgap,0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
33,75
0,20
169,3
Ngap,0,Ed
Npl,0,Rd
Vgap,0,Ed
Vpl,0,Rd
Mgap,0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
b1 b 2 2 120
0,8 :
2b 0
2 150
or:
15 g 45
The eccentricity (e) corresponding to the minimum
gap of 15 mm, giving the minimum value for e, can be
calculated with:
h1
sin 1 sin 2 h 0
h2
e
2
sin
2
sin
1
2
sin 1 2 2
120
sin 38,7 sin 38,7 150
15
8 mm
sin
38,7
2
b1 120
23,8
t0
6,3
15 23,8 40
(o.k.)
b1 b 2 2 120
(o.k.)
i = 38,7 30
(o.k.)
(o.k.)
Ni,Rd 14 0,3
f y0 t 02
sin i
Qf
For tension:
Q f (1 n ) 0,10
b1 b 2 2 120
0,8
2b 0
2 150
150
11,9
2 6,3
199
N0,Ed
Npl,0,Rd
M0,Ed
Mpl,0,Rd
675
675 8
As (16 25) = 16
Ac =
7854
0,355 6,3 2
14 0,8 (11,9)0,3
0,94
sin 38,7
= 498,7 kN > Ni,Ed = 432 kN
Reinforcement ratio
Ni,Rd
25 2 7854 mm 2
4
(o.k.)
Concrete
C20 with c = 1,5
CHS
S275 with a = 1,0
Reinforcement S500 with s = 1,15
= 6,6% > 6%
406,4 2 10013
4
As
6
7854 7140 mm 2
6,6
Ac
A a f yd
Npl,Rd
10013 0,275
0,37 < 0,9
7357
= 3,6 m
= 6000 kN
= 0,5NEd
= 3,0
Npl,Rk
Ncr,eff
Strength
8575 10 3 N 8575 kN
Ncr,eff
(EI)eff
2b
200
(o.k.)
E c,eff
E cm
30000
12000 N/mm 2
NG,Ed
1 0,5 3
1
t
NEd
406,4 2 84
64
8210 10 9 Nmm 2
E s Is 2,1 10 5
69749
53117 kN
3,6
Npl,Rk
Ncr,eff
8575
0,40
53117
235
d 406,4
50,8 90 2 90
76,9
275
t
8,0
(o.k.)
201
fy0
(N/mm2)
355
(1)
N0
(kN)
b
(mm)
Possible sections
(mm)
A0
(mm2)
d0/t0
5400
193,7 x 10,0
219,1 x 7,1
219,1 x 8,0
244,5 x 5,6
244,5 x 6,3
5771
4728
5305
4202
4714
19,4
30,9
27,4
43,7
38,8
1,09
0,94
0,95
0,84
0,84
-1148
(1)
(1)
fy0 A0
(kN)
0,61
0,71
0,71
0,78
0,78
1245
1189
1329
1159
1298
(1)
fyi Ai
(kN)
fy0
(N/mm2)
N0
(kN)
Possible sections
(mm)
A0
(mm2)
d0/t0
fy0 A0
(kN)
355
1215
168,3 x 7,1
177,8 x 7,1
193,7 x 6,3
3595
3807
3709
23,7
25,0
30,7
1276
1351
1317
fyi
(N/mm2)
275
(2)
Ai
(mm2)
2,881
168,3 x 3,6
139,7 x 4,5
1862
1911
0,57
0,69
0,90
0,85
462
448
2,881
114,6 x 3,6
1252
0,85
0,77
266
546
1,08
0,61
92
b
(m)
-432
-259
-86
(1)
Possible sections
(mm)
Ni
(kN)
2,881
88,9 x 2,0
(2)
(1)
fyi
(N/mm2)
275
Ni
(kN)
Possible sections
(mm)
Ai
(mm2)
fyi Ai
(kN)
432
133,3 x 4,0
1621
445
259
88,9 x 3,6
964
265
86
48,3 x 2,3
332
91
202
Member sizes
Joint
Joint parameters
Chord load
Chord (mm)
Braces (mm)
d0/t0
g/t0
219,1 x 7,1
Plate
139,7 x 4,5
0,64
30,9
2,0
-0,20
219,1 x 7,1
139,7 x 4,5
88,9 x 3,6
0,52
30,9
12,8
-0,52
2a
0,52
30,9
3,0
-0,59
219,1 x 7,1
139,7 x 4,5
88,9 x 3,6
0,52
30,9
12,8
-0,68
219,1 x 7,1
88,9 x 3,6
88,9 x 3,6
0,41
30,9
7,1
-0,68
193,7 x 6,3
139,7 x 4,5
139,7 x 4,5
0,72
30,7
2,9
0,51
193,7 x 6,3
88,9 x 3,6
139,7 x 4,5
0,59
30,7
9,4
0,82
193,7 x 6,3
88,9 x 3,6
88,9 x 3,6
0,46
30,7
15,8
0,92
Actual efficiency
Joint
Ni,Ed
A i f yi
fy0 t 0
f yi t i
2,04
Check
Qf
1
sin i
d1 d2
2 di
A i f yi
0,95
1,60
> 1,0
> 1,0
o.k.
Ni,Rd
Ni,Rd Ni,Ed
-0,82
0,82
0,98
0,34
2,04
2,55
0,83
1,60
0,82
1,29
0,76
> 1,0
not o.k.
o.k.
2a
0,82
0,98
0,39
2,04
2,55
0,80
1,60
0,82
1,29
0,84
> 1,0
o.k.
o.k.
0,49
0,32
0,34
2,04
2,55
0,75
1,60
0,82
1,29
0,68
> 1,0
o.k.
o.k.
0,32
0,32
0,35
2,55
2,55
0,75
1,60
1,0
1,0
> 1,0
> 1,0
o.k.
o.k.
0,82
0,82
0,41
1,81
1,81
0,87
1,60
1,0
1,0
> 1,0
> 1,0
o.k.
o.k.
0,98
0,49
0,37
2,26
1,81
0,71
1,60
1,29
0,82
> 1,0
0,62
o.k.
o.k.
0,32
0,32
0,32
2,26
2,26
0,60
1,60
1,0
1,0
0,69
0,69
o.k.
o.k.
0,41
203
Bolted joint
L = 6 x 6000 = 36000 mm
tan = 2,4 / 3 = 0,8 = 38,7
219,1 x 7,1
88,9 x 3,6
139,7 x 4,5
193,7 x 6,3
Fig. 15.3 Initially selected member dimensions and joint numbers for CHS truss.
(In the final design, the top chord is changed to 219,1 x 8,0)
t0
2t0
t0
-338 kN
-878 kN
219,7 x 7,1
139,7 x 4,5
88,9 x 3,6
3t0
M0,Ed
1
Fig. 15.5 Joint 2 (with M0,Ed = 7,56 kNm in chord on both sides of the joint)
80 x 80 x 3,0
Fig. 15.7 Member dimensions and joint numbers for RHS truss (fy0 = fyi = 355 N/mm2)
205
Ni
P
2
Vi
2 cos sin i
2
P
2
ti
Offset 0,25d0
24
00
93,5 kN
108 kN
54 kN
Fig. 15.12 Cross section of the triangular truss with circular hollow sections
206
219,1 x 8,0
88,9 x 3,6
219,1 x 11,0
139,7 x 4,5
Chord:
fy0 = 355 N/mm2
Diagonals: fyi = 355 N/mm2
22,5
207
219,1 x 11
406,4
59,3
155,0
143,2
109,6
8,8
C20
16 25, S500
S275
208
16. REFERENCES
AISC, 2005: Specification for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360-05, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC, 2010: Specification for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360-10, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, USA.
Akiyama, N., Yayima, M., Akiyama, H., & Otake, F., 1974: Experimental study on strength of joints in steel
tubular structures. Journal of Society of Steel Construction, JSSC, Vol. 10, No. 102, pp. 37-68, (in Japanese).
API, 2007: Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms Working
st
stress design. API RP 2A, 21 Edition, Suppl 3, American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, USA.
Aribert, J.M., Ammari, F., & Lachal, A., 1988: Influence du mode d'application d'une charge de compression
locale sur la rsistance plastique de l'me d'un profil cas des assemblages tubulaires. Construction Mtallique
No. 2, pp. 3-30.
Baar, S., 1968: Etude thorique et exprimentale du dversement des poutres membrures tubulaires.
Collection des publications de la Facult des Sciences Appliques de Universit de Lige, No. 10, Lige,
Belgium.
Bergmann, R., Matsui, C., Meinsma, C., & Dutta, D., 1995: Design guide for concrete filled hollow section
columns under static and seismic loading. CIDECT Series "Construction with hollow steel sections" No. 5,
Verlag TV Rheinland, Kln, Germany, ISBN 3-8249-0298-2.
Birkemoe, P.C., & Packer, J.A., 1986: Ultimate strength design of bolted tubular tension connections.
Proceedings Conference on Steel Structures Recent Research Advances and their Applications to Design,
Budva, Yugoslavia, pp. 153-168.
Bjrk, T., Marquis, G., Kemppainen, R., & Ilvonen, R., 2003: The capacity of cold-formed rectangular hollow
th
section K gap joints. Proceedings 10 International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Madrid, Spain, Tubular
Structures X, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 227-234.
Bjrk, T., 2005: Ductility and ultimate strength of cold-formed rectangular hollow section joints at subzero
temperatures. Ph.D. Thesis, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland.
Bolt, H.M., & Billington, C.J., 2000: Results from ultimate load tests on 3D jacket-type structures. Proceedings
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 11941, Houston, USA.
Bortolotti, E., Jaspart, J.-P., Pietrapertosa, C., Nicaud, G., Petitjean, P.D., Grimmault, J.P., & Michard, L., 2003:
th
Testing and modelling of welded joints between elliptical hollow sections. Proceedings 10 International
Symposium on Tubular Structures, Madrid, Spain, Tubular Structures X, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The
Netherlands, pp. 259-264.
Bouwkamp, J.G., 1964: Concept of tubular-joint design. Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 90, No. ST2, pp. 77-101.
Bouwman, L.P., 1982: Bolted connections dynamically loaded in tension. Journal of the Structural Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 108, No. 9, pp. 2117-2129.
British Steel, 1996: Flowdrill jointing system. CIDECT Project 6F Final Reports 6F-13A/96 and 6F-13B/96,
British Steel Tubes & Pipes, Corby, UK.
209
Brodka, J., 1968: Stahlrohrkonstruktionen. Verlagsgesellschaft Rdolf Mller, Kln-Braunsfeld, Germany, ISBN
978-3481109912.
Cao, J., & Packer, J.A., 1997: Design of tension circular flange joints in tubular structures. Engineering Journal,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 34, First Quarter, pp. 17-25.
CEN/TC 250/SC 3-N 1729, 2010: Choice of steel material to avoid brittle fracture for hollow section structures.
Report prepared for amending EN 1993-1-10. Rev. 4, CEN/TC 250 CIDECT - Liaison, Aachen, Germany.
Chan, T.M., & Gardner, L., 2008: Bending strength of hot-rolled elliptical hollow sections. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 64, Issue 9, pp. 971-986.
Chen, Y., Liu, D.K., & Wardenier, J., 2005: Design recommendations for RHS-K joints with 100% overlap.
th
Proceedings 15 International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seoul, Korea, Vol. IV, pp. 300-307.
Choo, Y.S., Liang, J.X., & Lim, L.V., 2003: Static strength of elliptical hollow section X-joint under brace
compression. Proceedings 10th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Madrid, Spain, Tubular
Structures X, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 253-258.
Choo, Y.S., Liang, J.X., & Vegte, G.J. van der, 2004: An effective external reinforcement scheme for circular
hollow section joints. Proceedings ECCS-AISC Workshop "Connections in Steel Structures V", Bouwen met
Staal, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands, pp. 423-432.
Choo, Y.S., Qian, X.D., & Foo, K.S., 2005a: Nonlinear analysis of tubular space frame incorporating joint
th
stiffness and strength. Proceedings 10 International Conference on Jack-up Platform Design, Construction
and Operation, City University, London, UK.
Choo, Y.S., Vegte, G.J. van der, Zettlemoyer, N., Li, B.H., & Liew, J.Y.R., 2005b: Static strength of T joints
reinforced with doubler or collar plates - I: Experimental investigations. Journal of Structural Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, USA, Vol. 131, No. 1, pp. 119-128.
CIDECT, 1984: Construction with hollow steel sections. British Steel Plc., Corby, Northants, UK, ISBN 09510062-0-7.
CSA, 2009: Design of steel structures. CSA-S16-09, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Canada.
Davies, G., & Crockett, P., 1994: Effect of the hidden weld on RHS partial overlap K joint capacity. Proceedings
th
6 International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Melbourne, Australia, Tubular Structures VI, Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 573-579.
Deutscher Dampfkesselausschu, 1975: Glatte Vierkantrohre und Teilkammern unter innerem berdruck.
Technische Regeln fr Dampfkessel (TRD 320), Vereinigung der Technischen berwachungsvereine e.V.,
Essen, Germany.
Dexter, E.M., & Lee, M.M.K., 1998: Effect of overlap on the behaviour of axially loaded CHS K-joints.
th
Proceedings 8 International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Singapore, Tubular Structures VIII, Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 249-258.
Dier, A.F., & Lalani, M., 1998: New code formulations for tubular joint static strength. Proceedings 8th
International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Singapore, Tubular Structures VIII, Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, pp. 107-116.
Dier, A.F., 2005: Tubular joint technology for offshore structures. International Journal of Steel Structures, Vol.
5, No. 5, pp. 495-502.
210
Dutta, D., Wardenier, J., Yeomans, N., Sakae, K., Bucak, ., & Packer, J.A., 1998: Design guide for fabrication,
assembly and erection of hollow section structures. CIDECT Series "Construction with hollow steel sections"
No. 7, TV-Verlag, Kln, Germany, ISBN 3-8249-0443-8.
Dutta, D., 2002: Structures with hollow sections. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany, ISBN 978-3-43301458-5, (also available in German).
st
Eekhout, M., 1996: Tubular structures in architecture. 1 Edition, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands, CIDECT.
Eekhout, M., 2010: Tubular structures in architecture. 2nd Edition, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands, CIDECT.
Efthymiou, M., 1988: Development of SCF formulae and generalised influence functions for use in fatigue
analysis. Proceedings Offshore Tubular Joints Conference, Surrey, UK.
EN 1990, 2002: Eurocode Basis of structural design. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
Belgium.
EN 1992-1-1, 2004: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 1993-1-1, 2005: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 1993-1-2, 2005: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-2: General rules - Structural fire design.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 1993-1-8, 2005: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-8: Design of joints. European Committee
for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 1993-1-9, 2005: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-9: Fatigue. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 1993-1-10, 2005: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-10: Material toughness and throughthickness properties. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 1993-1-12, 2007: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-12: Additional rules for the extension of
EN 1993 up to steel grades S700. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 1994-1-1, 2004: Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 1994-1-2, 2005: Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 1-2: General rules Structural fire design. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 10210-1, 2006: Hot finished structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels Part 1: Technical
delivery conditions. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 10210-2, 2006: Hot finished structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels Part 2:
Tolerances, dimensions and sectional properties. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 10219-1, 2006: Cold formed welded structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels Part 1:
Technical delivery conditions. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
211
EN 10219-2, 2006: Cold formed welded structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels Part 2:
Tolerances, dimensions and sectional properties. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
Fleischer, O., & Puthli, R., 2008: Extending existing design rules in EN 1993-1-8 (2005) for gapped RHS Kjoints for maximum chord slenderness (b0/t0) of 35 to 50 and gap size g to as low as 4t0. Proceedings 12th
International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Shanghai, China, Tubular Structures XII, Taylor & Francis
Group, London, UK, pp. 293-301.
Frater, G.S., & Packer, J.A., 1990: Design of fillet weldments for hollow structural section trusses. CIDECT
Report 5AN/2-90/7, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Grandjean, G., Grimault, J.-P., & Petit, L., 1980: Dtermination de la dure au feu des profiles creux remplis de
bton. Cometube, Paris, France, (also published as ECSC Report No. 7210-SA/302).
Guiaux, P., & Janss, J., 1970: Comportement au flambement de colonnes constitues de tubes en acier
remplis de bton. Centre de Recherches Scientifiques et Techniques de l'Industrie des Fabrications
Mtalliques, MT 65, Brussels, Belgium.
Herion, S., 1994: Rumliche K-Knoten aus Rechteck-Hohlprofilen. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Karlsruhe,
Karlsruhe, Germany.
Hoadley, P.W., & Yura, J.A., 1985: Ultimate strength of tubular joints subjected to combined loads. Proceedings
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 4854, Houston, USA.
Hnig, O., Klingsch, W., & Witte, H., 1985: Baulicher Brandschutz durch wassergefllte Sttzen in
Rahmentragwerken (Fire resistance of water filled columns). Research Report, Studiengesellschaft fr
Stahlanwendung e.V., Forschungsbericht p. 86/4.5, Dsseldorf, Germany.
Igarashi, S., Wakiyama, K., lnoue, K., Matsumoto, T., & Murase, Y., 1985: Limit design of high strength bolted
tube flange joint Parts 1 and 2. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, Transactions of AIJ,
Department of Architecture Reports, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.
IISI, 1997: Innovation in steel Bridges around the world. International Iron and Steel Institute.
nd
IIW, 1989: Design recommendations for hollow section joints Predominantly statically loaded. 2 Edition,
International Institute of Welding, Sub-commission XV-E, Annual Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, IIW Doc. XV701-89.
IIW, 1999: Recommended fatigue design procedure for welded hollow section joints, Part 1: Recommendations
and Part 2: Commentary. International Institute of Welding, Sub-commission XV-E, IIW Docs. XV-1035-99/XIII1804-99.
IIW, 2008: Recommendations for fatigue design of welded joints and components. International Institute of
Welding, IIW Docs. IIW-1823-07/XIII-2151r4-07/XV-1254r4-07.
rd
IIW, 2009: Static design procedure for welded hollow section joints Recommendations. 3 Edition,
International Institute of Welding, Sub-commission XV-E, Annual Assembly, Singapore, IIW Doc. XV-1329-09.
ISO 657-14, 2000: Hot-rolled steel sections Part 14: Hot-finished structural hollow sections Dimensions and
sectional properties. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 834-1, 1999: Fire resistance tests Elements of building construction Part 1: General requirements.
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
212
ISO 4019, 2001: Structural steels Cold-formed, welded, structural hollow sections Dimensions and sectional
properties. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 19902, 2007: Petroleum and natural gas industries Fixed steel offshore structures. International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jamm, W., 1951: Form strength of welded tubular connections and tubular structures under static loading.
(Translation from German). Schweissen und Schneiden, Vol. 3, Germany.
th
Kaim, P., 2006: Buckling of members with rectangular hollow sections. Proceedings 11 International
Symposium on Tubular Structures, Quebec City, Canada, Tubular Structures XI, Taylor & Francis Group,
London, UK, pp. 443-449.
Kamba, T., & Tabuchi, M., 1994: Database for tubular column to beam connections in moment resisting frames.
IIW Doc. XV-E-94-208, Dept. of Architecture, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Kato, B., & Hirose, A., 1984: Bolted tension flanges joining circular hollow section members. CIDECT Report
8C-84/24-E.
Kitipornchai, S., & Traves, W.H., 1989: Welded tee end connections for circular hollow tubes. Journal of
Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 115, No. 12, pp. 3155-3170.
Koning, C.H.M. de, & Wardenier, J., 1979: Tests on welded joints in complete girders made of square hollow
sections. Stevin Report 6-79-4, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Korol, R.M., El-Zanaty, M., & Brady, F.J., 1977: Unequal width connections of square hollow sections in
Vierendeel trusses. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 190-201.
Kosteski, N., & Packer, J.A., 2003: Longitudinal plate and through plate-to-HSS welded connections. Journal of
Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 129, No. 4, pp. 478-486.
Kosteski, N., Packer, J.A., & Puthli, R.S., 2003: Notch toughness of cold formed hollow sections. CIDECT
Report 1B-2/03. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Khn, B., 2005: Beitrag zur Vereinheitlichung der Europischen Regelungen zur Vermeidung von Sprdbruch.
Ph.D. Thesis, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Kurobane, Y., 1981: New developments and practices in tubular joint design (+ Addendum). International
Institute of Welding, Annual Assembly, Oporto, Portugal, IIW Doc. XV-488-81.
Kurobane, Y., Packer, J.A., Wardenier, J., & Yeomans, N., 2004: Design guide for structural hollow section
column connections. CIDECT Series "Construction with hollow steel sections" No. 9, TV-Verlag, Kln,
Germany, ISBN 3-8249-0802-6.
Lind, N.C., & Shroff, D.K., 1971: Utilization of cold work in light gage steel. Proceedings 1
Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri, Rolla, USA, pp. 10-13.
st
Specialty
Liu, D.K., Yu, Y., & Wardenier, J., 1998: Effect of boundary conditions and chord preload on the strength of
RHS uniplanar gap K-joints. Proceedings 8th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Singapore,
Tubular Structures VIII, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 223-230.
Liu, D.K., & Wardenier, J., 2001: Multiplanar influence on the strength of RHS multiplanar gap KK joints.
Proceedings 9th lnternational Symposium on Tubular Structures, Dsseldorf, Germany, Tubular Structures IX,
Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 203-212.
213
Liu, D.K., & Wardenier, J., 2003: The strength of multiplanar KK-joints of square hollow sections. Proceedings
10th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Madrid, Spain, Tubular Structures X, Swets & Zeitlinger,
Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 197-205.
Liu, D.K., & Wardenier, J., 2004: Effect of the yield strength on the static strength of uniplanar K-joints in RHS
(steel grades S460, S355 and S235). IIW Doc. XV-E-04-293, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Liu, D.K., Chen, Y., & Wardenier, J., 2005: Design recommendations for RHS-K joints with 50% overlap.
th
Proceedings 15 International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seoul, Korea, Vol. IV, pp. 308-315.
Liu, D.K., & Wardenier, J., 2006: Effect of chord loads on the strength of RHS uniplanar gap K-joints.
Proceedings.11th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Quebec City, Canada, Tubular Structures XI,
Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK, pp. 539-544.
Lu, L.H., Winkel, G.D. de, Yu, Y., & Wardenier, J., 1994: Deformation limit for the ultimate strength of hollow
section joints. Proceedings 6th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Melbourne, Australia, Tubular
Structures VI, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 341-347.
Lu, L.H., 1997: The static strength of I-beam to rectangular hollow section column connections. Ph.D. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Makino, Y., Kurobane, Y., Paul, J.C., Orita, Y., & Hiraishi, K., 1991: Ultimate capacity of gusset plate-to-tube
th
joints under axial and in plane bending loads. Proceedings 4 International Symposium on Tubular Structures,
Delft, The Netherlands, Delft University Press, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 424-434.
Makino, Y., Kurobane, Y., Ochi, K., Vegte, G.J. van der, & Wilmshurst, S.R., 1996: Database of test and
numerical analysis results for unstiffened tubular joints. IIW Doc. XV-E-96-220, Kumamoto University,
Kumamoto, Japan.
Mang, F., & Bucak, ., 1983: Hohlprofilkonstruktionen. Stahlbau-Handbuch, Bd. I, Stahlbau-Verlag, Kln,
Germany.
Mang, F., Bucak, ., & Wolfmuller, F., 1983: The development of recommendations for the design of welded
joints between steel structural hollow sections (T- and X-type joints). Final Report on ECSC Agreement 7210
SA/l 09 and CIDECT Programme 5AD, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Marshall, J., 1971: Torsional behaviour of structural rectangular hollow sections. The Structural Engineer, The
Institution of Structural Engineers, London, UK, Vol. 49, Issue 8, pp. 375-379.
Marshall, P.W., & Toprac, A.A., 1974: Basis for tubular joint design. Welding Journal, Vol. 53, No. 5, pp. 192201, (also ASCE preprint no. 2008, April 1973).
nd
Marshall, P.W., 1984: Connections for welded tubular structures. IIW Houdremont Lecture, Proceedings 2
International Conference on Welding of Tubular Structures, Boston, USA. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 154.
Marshall, P.W., 1992: Design of welded tubular connections. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marshall, P.W., 2004: Review of tubular joint criteria. Proceedings ECCS-AISC Workshop "Connections in
Steel Structures V", Bouwen met Staal, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands, pp. 457-467.
Marshall, P.W., 2006: Punching shear and hot spot stress - Back to the future? Kurobane Lecture, Proceedings
th
11 International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Quebec City, Canada, Tubular Structures XI, Taylor &
Francis Group, London, UK, pp. 287-299.
214
Martinez-Saucedo, G., Packer, J.A., & Zhao, X.-L., 2008: Static design of elliptical hollow section endconnections. Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures & Buildings 161, Issue SB2, pp. 103-113.
Mashiri, F.R., Zhao, X.-L., Hirt, M., & Nussbaumer, A., 2007: Size effect of welded thin-walled tubular joints.
International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 101-127.
Mouty, J., 1981: Effective lengths of lattice girder members. CIDECT Monograph No. 4, CIDECT.
Natarajan, M., & Toprac, A.A., 1968: Studies on tubular joints in Japan: Review of research reports. Structures
Fatigue Research Laboratory, The University of Texas, Austin, USA.
Natarajan, M., & Toprac, A.A., 1969: Studies on tubular joints in USA: Review of research reports. Structures
Fatigue Research Laboratory, The University of Texas, Austin, USA.
Noordhoek, C., Wardenier, J., & Dutta, D., 1980: The fatigue behaviour of welded joints in square hollow
sections Part 2: Analysis. Stevin Report 6-80-4, TNO-IBBC Report BI-80-10/0063.4.3821, Delft University of
Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Ono, T., Iwata, M., & Ishida, K., 1991: An experimental study on joints of new truss system using rectangular
hollow sections. Proceedings 4th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Delft, The Netherlands, Delft
University Press, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 344-353.
Packer, J.A., 1978: Theoretical behaviour and analysis of welded steel joints with RHS chord sections. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Packer, J.A., & Haleem, A.S., 1981: Ultimate strength formulae for statically loaded welded HSS joints in lattice
girders with RHS chords. Proceedings Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Annual Conference, Fredericton,
Canada, Vol. 1, pp. 331-343.
Packer, J.A., Bruno, L., & Birkemoe, P.C., 1989: Limit analysis of bolted RHS flange plate joints. Journal of
Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 115, No. 9, pp. 2226-2242.
Packer, J.A., & Wardenier, J., 1992: Design rules for welds in RHS K, T, Y and X connections. Proceedings IIW
International Conference on Engineering Design in Welded Constructions, Madrid, Spain, pp. 113-120.
Packer, J.A., Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Dutta, D., & Yeomans, N., 1992: Design guide for rectangular hollow
st
section (RHS) joints under predominantly static loading. 1 Edition, CIDECT Series "Construction with hollow
steel sections" No. 3, Verlag TV Rheinland, Kln, Germany, ISBN 3-8249-0089-0.
Packer, J.A., 1993: Overview of current international design guidance on hollow structural section connections.
Proceedings 3rd International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Singapore, Vol. 4, pp. 1-7.
Packer, J.A., 1996: Nailed tubular connections under axial loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 122. No. 8, pp. 458-467.
Packer, J.A., & Henderson, J.E., 1997: Hollow structural section connections and trusses A design guide. 2nd
Edition, Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Toronto, Canada.
Packer, J.A., 2006: Tubular brace member connections in braced steel frames. Houdremont Lecture,
Proceedings 11th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Quebec City, Canada, Tubular Structures XI,
Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK, pp. 3-14.
Packer, J.A., Mashiri, F.R., Zhao, X.-L., & Willibald, S., 2007: Static and fatigue design of CHS-to-RHS welded
connections using a branch conversion method. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 63, Issue 1, pp.
82-95.
215
Packer, J.A., Wardenier, J., Zhao, X.-L., Vegte, G.J. van der, & Kurobane, Y., 2009a: Design guide for
rectangular hollow section (RHS) joints under predominantly static loading. 2nd Edition, CIDECT Series
"Construction with hollow steel sections" No. 3, CIDECT, ISBN 978-3-938817-04-9.
Packer, J.A., Wardenier, J., Choo, Y.S., & Chiew, S.P., 2009b: Elliptical steel tubes. Steel News and Notes,
Singapore Structural Steel Society, SN&N 25th Anniversary Issue, pp. 86-90.
Packer, J., Sherman, D., & Lecce, M., 2010: Hollow structural section connections. Steel Design Guide No. 24,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
Paul, J.C., 1992: The ultimate behaviour of multiplanar TT and KK joints made of circular hollow sections. Ph.D.
Thesis, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.
Pecknold, D.A., Marshall, P.W., & Bucknell, J., 2007: New API RP2A tubular joint strength design provisions.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, USA, Vol. 129, No. 3,
pp. 177-189.
Pietrapertosa, C., & Jaspart, J.-P., 2003: Study of the behaviour of welded joints composed of elliptical hollow
th
sections. Proceedings 10 International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Madrid, Spain, Tubular Structures
X, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 601-608.
Puthli, R.S., 1998: Hohlprofilkonstruktionen aus Stahl nach DIN V ENV 1993 (EC 3) und DIN 18 800 (11.90).
Werner Verlag GmbH & Co. KG., Dsseldorf, Germany, ISBN 3-8041-2975-7.
Puthli, R.S., & Herion, S., 2005: Welding in cold-formed areas of rectangular hollow sections. CIDECT Report
1A-1/05. University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Qian, X.D., Wardenier, J., & Choo, Y.S., 2007: A uniform approach for the design of 100% CHS overlap joints.
th
Proceedings 5 International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures, Singapore, Vol. II, pp. 172-182.
Qian, X.D., Choo, Y.S., Vegte, G.J. van der, & Wardenier, J., 2008: Evaluation of the new IIW CHS strength
formulae for thick-walled joints. Proceedings 12th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Shanghai,
China, Tubular Structures XII, Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK, pp. 271-279.
Roik, K., Bergmann, R., Bode, H., & Wagenknecht, G., 1975: Tragfhigkeit von ausbetonierten
Hohlprofilsttzen aus Baustahl. Technisch Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen, Institut fr Konstruktiven
Ingenieurbau, TWM-Heft Nr. 75-4, Ruhr-Universitt Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Roik, K., & Wagenknecht, G., 1977: Traglastdiagramme zur Bemessung von Druckstben mit
doppelsymmetrischem Querschnitt aus Baustahl. Technisch Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen, Institut fr
Konstruktiven Ingenieurbau, Heft 27, Ruhr-Universitt Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Romeijn, A., 1994: Stress and strain concentration factors of welded multiplanar tubular joints. Heron, Vol. 39,
No. 3, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Rondal, J., 1990: Study of maximum permissible weld gaps in connections with plane end cuttings (5AH2);
Simplification of circular hollow section welded joints (5AP). CIDECT Report 5AH2/5AP-90/20.
Rondal, J., Wrker, K.-G., Dutta, D., Wardenier, J., & Yeomans, N., 1992: Structural stability of hollow sections.
CIDECT Series "Construction with hollow steel sections" No. 2, Verlag TV Rheinland, Kln, Germany, ISBN
3-8249-0075-0.
Schulz, G., 1970: Der Windwiderstand von Fachwerken aus zylindrischen Stben und seine Berechnung.
Internationaler Normenvergleich fr die Windlasten auf Fachwerken. CIDECT Monograph No. 3, CIDECT.
216
Sedlacek, G., Feldmann, M., Khn, B., Tschickardt, D., Hhler, S., Mller, C., Hensen, W., Stranghner, N.,
Dahl, W., Langenberg, P., Mnstermann, S., Brozetti, J., Raoul, J., Pope, R., & Bijlaard, F., 2008: Commentary
and worked examples to EN 1993-1-10 Material toughness and through thickness properties and other
toughness oriented rules in EN 1993. JRC 47278, EUR 23510 EN, Luxembourg.
Shanmugam, N.E., Ting, L.C., & Lee, S.L., 1993: Static behaviour of I-beam to box-column connections with
external stiffeners. The Structural Engineer, The Institution of Structural Engineers, London, UK, Vol. 71, Issue
15, pp. 269-275.
Sidercad, & British Steel, 1996: Hollow section connections using Hollo-Fast expansion bolts. CIDECT Project
6G Final Report 6G-14E/96, British Steel Tubes & Pipes, Corby, UK.
Soininen, R., 1996: Fracture behaviour and assessment of design requirements against fracture in welded steel
structures made of cold-formed rectangular hollow sections. Ph.D. Thesis, Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland.
Sopha, T., Chiew, S.P., & Wardenier, J., 2006: Test results for RHS K-joints with 50% and 100% overlap.
th
Proceedings 11 International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Quebec City, Canada, Tubular Structures XI,
Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK, pp. 133-138.
Struik, J.H.A., & Back, J. de, 1969: Tests on bolted T-stubs with respect to a bolted beam-to-column
connection. Stevin Report 6-69-13, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Syam, A.A., & Chapman, B.G., 1996: Design of structural steel hollow section connections. 1
Australian Institute of Steel Construction, Sydney, Australia.
st
Edition,
Theofanous, M., Chan, T.M., & Gardner, L., 2009: Flexural behaviour of stainless steel oval hollow sections.
Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 47, Nos. 6-7, pp. 776-787.
Thiensiripipat, N., 1979: Statical behaviour of cropped web joints in tubular trusses. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Tissier, P., 1978: Resistance to corrosion of the interior of hollow steel sections. Acier, Stahl, Steel 2/1978.
Togo, T., 1967: Experimental study on mechanical behaviour of tubular joints. Ph.D. Thesis, Osaka University,
Osaka, Japan, (in Japanese).
Twilt, L., & Haar, P.W. van de, 1986: Harmonization of the calculation rules for the fire resistance of concrete
filled SHS-columns. CIDECT Project 15F-86/7-0; IBBC-TNO Report B-86-461, Delft, The Netherlands.
Twilt, L., & Both, C., 1991: Technical notes on the realistic behaviour and design of fire exposed steel and
composite structures. Final Report ECSC 7210-SA/112, Activity D: "Basis for Technical Notes", TNO Building
and Construction Research, BI-91-069, The Netherlands.
Twilt, L., Hass, R., Klingsch, W., Edwards, M., & Dutta, D., 1994: Design guide for structural hollow section
columns exposed to fire. CIDECT Series "Construction with hollow steel sections" No. 4, Verlag TV
Rheinland, Kln, Germany, ISBN 3-8249-0171-4.
Vegte, G.J. van der, Back, J. de, Wardenier, J., 1989: Low cycle fatigue of tubular T- and X-joints. Proceedings
rd
3 International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Lappeenranta, Finland, pp. 266-277.
Vegte, G.J. van der, 1995: The static strength of uniplanar and multiplanar tubular T and X joints. Ph.D. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
217
Vegte, G.J. van der, & Makino, Y., 2006: Ultimate strength formulation for axially loaded CHS uniplanar T-joints.
International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, ISOPE, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 305-312.
Vegte, G.J. van der, Makino, Y., & Wardenier, J., 2007: New ultimate strength formulation for axially loaded
CHS K-joints. Proceedings 5th International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures, Singapore, Vol. II, pp.
218-227.
Vegte, G.J. van der, Wardenier, J., Zhao, X.-L., & Packer, J.A., 2008: Evaluation of new CHS strength formulae
to design strengths. Proceedings 12th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Shanghai, China,
Tubular Structures XII, Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK, pp. 313-322.
Vegte, G.J. van der, Wardenier, J., & Puthli, R.S., 2010a: FE analysis for welded hollow section joints and
bolted joints. Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures & Buildings (to be published).
Vegte, G.J. van der, Wardenier, J., Qian, X.D., & Choo, Y.S., 2010b: Re-evaluation of the moment capacity of
CHS joints. Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures & Buildings (to be published).
Virdi, K.S., & Dowling, P.J., 1976: A unified design method for composite columns. International Association for
Bridge and Structrural Engineering (IABSE), Zrich, Switzerland, Mmoires Vol. 36-II, pp. 165-184.
Voth, A.P., 2010: Branch plate-to-circular hollow structural section connections. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Wang, Y.C., & Orton, A.H., 2008: Fire resistant design of concrete filled tubular steel columns. The Structural
Engineer, The Institution of Structural Engineers, London, UK, Vol. 86, Issue 19, pp. 40-45.
Wang, Y.C., & Ding, J, 2009: The robustness of joints between steel beams and concrete filled tubular (CFT)
columns under fire conditions. CIDECT Final Report 15S-14/09, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Wanke, J., 1966: Stahlrohrkonstruktionen. Springer Verlag, Vienna, Austria, ISBN 978-3211807910.
Wardenier, J., & Mouty, J., 1979: Design rules for predominantly statically loaded welded joints with hollow
sections as bracings and an I- or H-section as chord. Welding in the World, Vol. 17, No. 9/10.
Wardenier, J., 1982: Hollow section joints. Delft University Press, Delft, The Netherlands.
Wardenier, J., & Giddings, T.W., 1986: The strength and behaviour of statically loaded welded connections in
structural hollow sections. CIDECT Monograph No. 6, CIDECT.
Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Packer, J.A., Dutta, D., & Yeomans, N., 1991: Design guide for circular hollow
st
section (CHS) joints under predominantly static loading. 1 Edition, CIDECT Series "Construction with hollow
steel sections" No. 1, Verlag TV Rheinland, Kln, Germany, ISBN 3-88585-975-0.
Wardenier, J., Dutta, D., Yeomans, N., Packer, J.A., & Bucak, ., 1995: Design guide for structural hollow
sections in mechanical applications. CIDECT Series "Construction with hollow steel sections" No. 6, Verlag
TV Rheinland, Kln, Germany, ISBN 3-8249-0302-4.
st
Wardenier, J., 2002: Hollow sections in structural applications. 1 Edition, Bouwen met Staal, Zoetermeer, The
Netherlands.
Wardenier, J., & Choo, Y.S., 2006: Recent developments in welded hollow section joint recommendations.
Advanced Steel Construction, The Hong Kong Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 109-127.
Wardenier, J., 2007: A uniform effective width approach for the design of CHS overlap joints. Proceedings 5
International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures, Singapore, Vol. II, pp. 155-165.
218
th
Wardenier, J., Vegte, G.J. van der, & Liu, D.K., 2007a: Chord stress function for rectangular hollow section X
and T joints. Proceedings 17th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol.
IV, pp. 3363-3370.
Wardenier, J., Vegte, G.J. van der, & Liu, D.K., 2007b: Chord stress functions for K gap joints of rectangular
hollow sections. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, ISOPE, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 225-232.
Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Packer, J.A., Vegte, G.J. van der, & Zhao, X.-L., 2008a: Design guide for circular
nd
hollow section (CHS) joints under predominantly static loading. 2 Edition, CIDECT Series "Construction with
hollow steel sections" No. 1, CIDECT, ISBN 978-3-938817-03-2.
Wardenier, J., Vegte, G.J. van der, Makino, Y., & Marshall, P.W., 2008b: Comparison of the new IIW (2008)
CHS joint strength formulae with those of the previous IIW (1989) and the new API (2007). Proceedings 12th
International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Shanghai, China, Tubular Structures XII, Taylor & Francis
Group, London, UK, pp. 281-291.
Wardenier, J., Vegte, G.J. van der, & Makino, Y., 2009: Joints between plates or I sections and a circular
hollow section chord. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, ISOPE, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 232239.
Weynand, K., Busse, E., & Jaspart, J.-P., 2006: First practical implementation of the component method for
th
joints in tubular construction. Proceedings 11 International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Quebec City,
Canada, Tubular Structures XI, Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK, pp. 139-145.
Whitmore, R.E., 1952: Experimental investigation of stresses in gusset plates. Bulletin 16, Engineering
Experiment Station, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA.
Wilkinson, T., & Hancock, G., 1998: Compact or class 1 limits for rectangular hollow sections in bending.
th
Proceedings 8 International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Singapore, Tubular Structures VIII, Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 409-416.
Willibald, S., Packer, J.A., & Puthli, R.S., 2002: Experimental study of bolted HSS flange-plate connections in
axial tension. Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 128, No. 3, pp. 328336.
Willibald, S., Packer, J.A., & Puthli, R.S., 2003a: Design recommendations for bolted rectangular HSS flangeplate connections in axial tension. Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 40, First
Quarter, pp. 15-24.
Willibald, S., Packer, J.A., & Puthli, R.S., 2003b: Investigation on hidden joint connections under tensile
th
loading. Proceedings 10 International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Madrid, Spain, Tubular Structures X,
Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 217-225.
Willibald, S., Packer, J.A., & Martinez-Saucedo, G., 2006: Behaviour of gusset plate connections to ends of
round and elliptical hollow structural section members. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 33, pp. 373383.
Wingerde, A.M. van, 1992: The fatigue behaviour of T- and X-joints made of square hollow sections. Heron,
Vol. 37, No. 2, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Wingerde, A.M. van, Delft, D.R.V. van, Wardenier, J., & Packer, J.A., 1997: Scale effects on the fatigue
behaviour of tubular structures. Proceedings IIW International Conference on Performance of Dynamically
Loaded Welded Structures, San Francisco, USA, pp. 123-135.
219
Winkel, G.D de, 1998: The static strength of I-beam to circular hollow section column connections. Ph.D.
Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Yeomans, N.F., 1994: I-Beam/rectangular hollow section column connections using the Flowdrill system.
Proceedings 6th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Melbourne, Australia, Tubular Structures VI,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 381-388.
Yeomans, N.F., 1998: Rectangular hollow section column connections using the Lindapter HolloBolt.
Proceedings 8th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Singapore, Tubular Structures VIII, Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 559-566.
Yu, Y., 1997: The static strength of uniplanar and multiplanar connections in rectangular hollow sections. Ph.D.
Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Zhao, X.-L., 1992: The behaviour of cold formed RHS beams under combined actions. Ph.D. Thesis, The
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Zhao, X.-L., Herion, S., Packer, J A., Puthli, R.S., Sedlacek, G., Wardenier, J., Weynand, K., Wingerde, A.M.
van, & Yeomans, N.F., 2001: Design guide for circular and rectangular hollow section welded joints under
fatigue loading. CIDECT Series "Construction with hollow steel sections" No. 8, TV-Verlag, Kln, Germany,
ISBN 3-8249-0565-5.
Zhao, X.-L., Wilkinson, T., & Hancock, G.J., 2005: Cold-formed tubular members and connections. Elsevier
Science, London, UK, ISBN 978-0080441016.
Zhao, X.-L., Wardenier, J., Packer, J.A., & Vegte, G.J. van der, 2008: New IIW (2008) static design
th
recommendations for hollow section joints. Proceedings 12 International Symposium on Tubular Structures,
Shanghai, China, Tubular Structures XII, Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK, pp. 261-269.
Zhao, X.-L., & Packer, J.A., 2009: Tests and design of concrete-filled elliptical hollow section stub columns.
Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 47, Nos. 6-7, pp. 617-628.
Zhao, X.-L., Han, L.H., & Lu, H., 2010: Concrete-filled tubular members and connections. Taylor & Francis
Group, London, UK, ISBN 978-0-415-43500-0.
220
SYMBOLS
Abbreviations of organisations
AISC
AWS
CEN
CIDECT
CSA
IIW
ISO
Other abbreviations
CHS
CTOD
FE
RHS
SCF
SHS
TTP
General symbols
A
Aa
Ac
Agv
Ai
Am
An
Anet
As
Av
Be
Bf
C
Ce
CK
CT
CX
C1
E
Ea
Ecm
Ec,eff
Ed
Efi,d,t
Es
(EI)eff
(EI)eff,||
F
I
Ia
Ib
Ic
Is
It
JAA
Kb
L
Lb
Leff
Lo
Lw
M
Mb
Mc,Rd
Me
Mel
MEd
MEd,||
Mf
Mgap,0,Ed
Mi
Mi,Rd
Mip,i
Mip,i,Ed
Mip,i,Rd
Mj
Mj,Ed
Mj,Rd
Mmax,Rd
Mop,i
Mop,i,Ed
Mop,i,Rd
Mpl
Mpl,f
Mpl,V,0,Rd
Mpl,Rd
Mpl,y,Rd
Mpl,z,Rd
Mpl,0
Mpl,0,Rd
MRd
Mt,Rd
My,Ed
Mz,Ed
M0
M0,Ed
M1
M||,max
N
Nb,Rd
Ncr,eff
NEd
Nequ
Nfi,Ed
Nfi,Rd
NG,Ed
Ngap,0
Ngap,0,Ed
Ngap,0,Rd
Ni
Ni
Ni,Ed
Ni,Rd
Nj
Nj,Ed
Npl
Npl,V,0,Rd
Npl,Rd
Npl,Rk
Npl,0
Npl,0,Rd
NRd
Ns,Rd
Nt,Rd
N0
N0,Ed
N0p
N1u
N1u(JAA)
N1u(JAA = 0)
P
Ov
Ovlimit
Qf
Qu
R
RAZ
Rfi,d,t
R(t)
S
Sj
Sj,ini
So
V
VEd
Vf
Vgap,0,Ed
Vi
Vp
Vpl,f
Vpl,Rd
Vpl,0
Vpl,0,Rd
V0
V0,Ed
Weff
Wel
Wel,ip,i
Wel,op,i
Wi
Wpl
Wpl,i
Wt
a
a
b
be
bei
bej
be,ov
be,p
bf
bi
bj
bm
bsp
bw
bwf
b
b0
b1
c
c, c0, c1, c2
cs
d
dei
dej
de,ov
di
dj
dw
d
d0
e, e0
e1
e2
fb,Rd
fc
fcd
fck
fck,cub
fck,cyl
fk
224
fs
fsd
fsk
fu
fu,b
fui
fuj
fu0
fy
fya
fyb
fyd
fyi
fyj
fyk
fyp
fyw
fy0
g, g1, g2
g
g1
g2
g
h
hi
hj
hm
hn
hz
h0
h1
i
k
ky,
l,
A
b
b,eff.
i
lx
m
mp
n
n
ni
p
q
q, q1, q2
r
rj
rm
s
t
tf
ti
tj
tp
tsp
tw
t0
t1
us
w
d
fi
, 1
, j
a
c
F
M, M0, M1, M2
s
fi
fi,t
d1 d2
d d2
b b2
(K or N joints);
or 1
or 1
2d0
2b 0
2b 0
d1 d2 d3
b b2 b3
(KT joints)
or 1
3d0
3b 0
226
e
i
s
t
d
dy
dz
a
i
j
s
a
c
joint
max
min
nom
peak
r
0
1,Ed
Rd
Tcf
geom
nom
Subscripts
a
c
e, eff
el
fi
i
ip
227
j
k
max
min
n
nom
op
p
pl
s
t
u
v
w
y
Ed
Rd
Rk
subscript used to denote the overlapped brace member for K and N overlap joints; subscript
used to indicate the location where the SCF is given
subscript used to indicate the type of loading for which the SCF is given
maximum
minimum
net
nominal
out-of-plane
plate; preload
plastic
referring to reinforcement in a composite column
tension; torsion; time
ultimate
shear
web; weld
yield
design value of action
design value of resistance
characteristic value of resistance
Symbols not shown here are specifically defined at the location where they are used.
In all calculations, the nominal (guaranteed minimum) mechanical properties should be used.
228
Technical activities
The technical activities of CIDECT have centred on the following research aspects of hollow steel section
design:
The results of CIDECT research form the basis of many national and international design requirements for
hollow steel sections.
229
CIDECT Publications
The current situation relating to CIDECT publications reflects the ever increasing emphasis on the dissemination
of research results.
The list of CIDECT Design Guides, in the series "Construction with Hollow Steel Sections", already published, is
given below. These Design Guides are available in English, French, German and Spanish.
1. Design guide for circular hollow section (CHS) joints under predominantly static loading (1st edition 1991 and
2nd edition 2008)
2. Structural stability of hollow sections (1992, reprinted 1996)
3. Design guide for rectangular hollow section (RHS) joints under predominantly static loading (1st edition 1992
and 2nd edition 2009)
4. Design guide for structural hollow section columns exposed to fire (1994, reprinted 1996)
5. Design guide for concrete filled hollow section columns under static and seismic loading (1995)
6. Design guide for structural hollow sections in mechanical applications (1995)
7. Design guide for fabrication, assembly and erection of hollow section structures (1998)
8. Design guide for circular and rectangular hollow section welded joints under fatigue loading (2001)
9. Design guide for structural hollow section column connections (2004)
In addition, as a result of the ever-increasing interest in steel hollow sections in internationally acclaimed
structures, two books have been published, i.e. "Tubular Structures in Architecture" by Prof. Mick Eekhout (1st
edition 1996 and 2nd edition 2010) and "Hollow Sections in Structural Applications" by Prof. Jaap Wardenier (1st
edition 2002) and this 2nd edition by Prof. Jaap Wardenier et al. (2010).
Copies of the Design Guides, the architectural book and research papers may be obtained through the CIDECT
website: http://www.cidect.com
"Hollow Sections in Structural Applications" by Prof. Jaap Wardenier et al. (2010) is available in hard copy
colour print from the publisher:
Bouwen met Staal
Boerhaavelaan 40
2713 HX Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
P.O. Box 190
2700 AD Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
Tel.
+31(0)79 353 1277
Fax
+31(0)79 353 1278
E-mail info@bouwenmetstaal.nl
230
Disclaimer
Care has been taken to ensure that all data and information herein is factual and that numerical values are
accurate. To the best of our knowledge, all information in this book is accurate at the time of publication.
CIDECT, its members and the authors assume no responsibility for errors or misinterpretations of information
contained in this book or in its use.
231
232