ELLIPTICAL HOLLOW SECTION
T AND X CONNECTIONS
by
Tarana Omena Haque
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for
the degree of Master of Applied Science,
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto
© Copyright by Tarana Omena Haque (2011)
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Tarana Omena Haque
Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
2011
ABSTRACT
Elliptical hollow sections (EHS) are the newest steel shape to emerge in the industry, but appropriate
design guidance is lacking, being completely absent from Canadian codes and guidelines. Geometric
property and compressive resistance tables were established to be potentially added to the Canadian
guides. The equivalent RHS method, originally proposed by Zhao and Packer in 2009, was simplified and
modified to validate its use for the design of EHS columns and beams. An experimental programme was
developed to investigate the behaviour of EHStoEHS welded connections. Twelve T and X connection
tests were performed to study the effect of connection angle, orientation type and loading. Two methods
were developed to predict connection capacities and failure modes: the equivalent CHS and the equivalent
RHS approaches. Both methods proved to be conservative on average, but the equivalent RHS approach
proved to be more successful at capturing the actual failure mode of EHStoEHS connections.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to sincerely thank everyone who directly or indirectly helped with the completion of this thesis
and who made this experience both memorable and enjoyable. In particular, I want to first and foremost
thank my supervisor, Prof. Jeffrey Packer. Thank you for being a continuous source of wisdom, guidance,
opportunity and support. To the structural laboratory staff, John MacDonald, Giovanni Buzzeo, Renzo
Basset, Joel Babbin and Alan McClenaghan, thank you for all the invaluable knowledge, experience and
help you gave to me. I would like to acknowledge the financial support received from the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Steel Structures Education
Foundation (SSEF), the Comité International pour le Développement et l’Étude de la Construction
Tubulaire (CIDECT) and an Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS). I would also like to acknowledge
Walters Inc. for generously providing the fabrication for this project. To my friends and colleagues,
especially Nishi Bassi, Rebecca Blackman, Mike Gray, Moez Haque, Tanzim Haque, Ester Karkar, Olta
Kociu, Steve Perkins, Andrew Voth, and my GB213D office mates, thank you for the various forms of
help, motivation and welcomed distractions. Finally, I wish to thank my family for their continuous love
and support.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents .........................................................................................................................................iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................xi
List of Notations .........................................................................................................................................xiv
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 EHS Defined............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Common Applications ................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Advantages of EHS .................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 EHS Properties ........................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Geometric Properties .................................................................................................. 6
2.1.2 Mechanical Properties ................................................................................................ 8
2.2 EHS in Axial Compression ........................................................................................................ 8
2.2.1 Historical Developments ............................................................................................ 9
2.2.2 Buckling of EHS ...................................................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Equivalent CHS Approaches .................................................................................... 15
2.2.4 Elastic Buckling Stress Transition from CHS to Plate ............................................. 18
2.2.5 Experimental Tests on EHS Long Columns ............................................................. 24
2.2.6 Equivalent RHS Approach ....................................................................................... 25
2.3 Bending, Shear and Combined Loading ................................................................................... 26
2.3.1 Bending Resistance .................................................................................................. 26
2.3.2 Shear Resistance ....................................................................................................... 28
2.3.3 Interaction Curves .................................................................................................... 29
2.4 Concrete Filled EHS ................................................................................................................. 30
2.5 Stainless Steel OHS .................................................................................................................. 35
2.5.1 Unfilled..................................................................................................................... 35
2.5.2 Filled......................................................................................................................... 37
2.6 EHS Connections ..................................................................................................................... 38
2.6.1 K Connections .......................................................................................................... 40
iv
...........3 Test Setup and Instrumentation ................... 91 5.3 Gusset Plate End Connections .......................... 49 3............................ 74 5...........................................2....................................................................................2 Specimen Dimensions ............3................................... 67 4................................. 64 4...............................2 EHS Compressive Resistance Tables ....... 77 5...............................3 Previous Material Property Tests ............ 51 3..............................................3 Equivalent RHS Approach ..2 X Connections ...................1 Material Property Tests ...............................................................................................................................................................................4............................ 69 4..............2 Beams ....................1 Material Properties ..........................................1.......................1................4 Branch and Through Plate Connections ............................................................................................................................................................ 79 5......................................2..............................................................2 Properties About the Axes ......................1 Observations ....................................................2 Test Specimens .............................................................................3..................5 Chord Deformation Profiles ........................3........................................... 96 v ........... 78 5.........................3...................... 80 5.............2 Stub Column Test .................................2 LVDTs . 66 4........................................................................................................................1........6........................................... 65 4.....................5 Lateral Supports ............................................... 77 5..................................................................................2......... 40 2.............................2........................................................................ 59 4.................................................... 45 3.........2 Stub Column Test ........... Shear and Torsional Constants ....................... 77 5......................................................0 Preliminary Work ..............................................................1.....................................1 Design Considerations ...................... 51 3...................... 47 3...............3 Advantages and Summary .................. 43 2..........................3...........1 EHS Dimension and Gross Property Table ............................ 82 5................................ 56 3.....................................................4 MTS Load Frame ...... 50 3................ 81 5...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74 4...................................0 Results and Analysis ..................1.........0 Experimental Programme ..................................4 LoadDisplacement Curves and Failure Modes ............................................................... 47 3.....1 Tensile Coupon Tests ..................................3 LED and LVDT Validation ................1 Tensile Coupon Tests ..................................1 Strain Gauges ...............................1.....................................................................................................6............................................................................................... 64 4.......................... 74 4.......................................................6..........2....................... 64 4..............1...........3 LEDs........................... 72 4....................................................................................................... 47 3.............................1 Columns ................................................................1 Warping...... 70 4............................................................................................................
............................................................1.........................1 X and T Connections from the University of Toronto ..................................................................................................................................... 179 Appendix 5A – Specimen Measurements ........ 143 Appendix 4C – Walters Inc.......................6............ 181 Appendix 5B – Weld Measurements ...................................................... 167 Appendix 4E – LED Locations ............3 Comparison ................................5..............1 Equivalent CHS Approach ..............2..........................................................................1 Type 1 Connections .....1...........2 Equivalent RHS Approach ..................................1.............................................................................................................................. 117 6.............................................. 100 5..................................................................2 45° Connections ......................2...................................................... 187 Appendix 5C – Connection Displacement Measurement................................................................................................. 139 Appendix 4B – Fabrication Drawings .............................. 119 6...................................................................................... 122 References .. 111 6.................2 X and T Connections from the National University of Singapore ..........................2 Equivalent RHS Approach .............3 Type 3 Connections ................................................ 118 6.........................................5......................... 124 Appendices Appendix 3A – EHS Dimension and Gross Property Tables ...................................................................1 90° Connections ........................................................................................................... 192 Appendix 5D – Experimental Summaries ....... 103 5..........................................................................................................................................................3 Summary ................. Fabrication Drawings ............... 117 6........... 113 6........ 108 5........6............................................ 198 vi .............................................................................................................................................................................................0 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................6............................ 111 6......... 111 6.......................3 Comparison ...................................................1 Equivalent CHS Approach ......................................5.....................2............................................................................. 121 7.................................................................6 Brace Stresses .................................... 174 Appendix 4F – T Connection End Frame........................................................................................................................................5......132 Appendix 4A – Tensile Coupon Data Sheets ......................... 102 5........................................ 110 6.......................................................... 120 6..3 Crosssections......................................................................................................................................................................... 156 Appendix 4D – LVDT Instrumentation ........................................0 Capacity Predictions .....2 Type 2 Connections ......................... 129 Appendix 3B – EHS Compressive Resistance Tables......................................................................................................................................... 109 5......................................................................................... 96 5..................................
..3: Maximum deformations at ends and midlength (adapted from Zhu and Wilkinson...... 45 Figure 3...................................1: Tensile coupon locations ......................................10: Equivalent RHS for an EHS ........13 (Nowzartash and Mohareb..............2: Threedimensional visualization of local buckling (Chan and Gardner....6: CHS to plate transition (reproduced from RuizTeran and Gardner.... 10 Figure 2.2: Honda exhibit (Corus....................... 21 Figure 2.................... 2003) ......15: EHS X connection (Pietrapertosa and Jaspart................................................ 33 Figure 2.......3: Experimental programme orientation types ....................................4: Buckling wavelengths (reproduced from Bradford and Roufeginejad..................................... 42 Figure 2...............................2: Stub column relevant dimensions and strain gauge locations ............................................. 18 Figure 2...12: Loading conditions on concrete filled EHS (Brienza............. 13 Figure 2..........7: Longitudinal strips and transverse rings of CHS (RuizTeran and Gardner....... 49 Figure 3........................ 67 Figure 4...................... 2 Figure 1..................................... 29 Figure 2...............................................................................LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1........ 2008) ................13: Components of EHStoEHS connection ...................... 2009) .... 70 vii ........................ 62 Figure 3.....................4: Force flow at 2:1 ratio ...... 2007) .. 4 Figure 2........... 44 Figure 2.......................................18: Branch and through platetoEHS connections (Willibald et al..... 68 Figure 4.......... 2008)........................................... 40 Figure 2..............1: International vs..................................................... 65 Figure 4....................... 25 Figure 2..........................................5: Strain gauge locations for 90° specimens ..............................1: Local buckling of EHS according to Kempner (adapted from Chan and Gardner........................... 63 Figure 4...............17: Gusset platetoEHS end connection (reproduced from MartinezSaucedo et al............................ Canadian convention for sectional axes .. 2008) ......16: EHS connection orientation types (reproduced from Choo et al........................................ 2008) .. 39 Figure 2............................................... 13 Figure 2................................................................ 2006b) .................... 2008) ................... 20 Figure 2....... 2005).............3: EHS column design procedure using the equivalent RHS method ................. 2008) ...................... 40 Figure 2...................... 10 Figure 2.........4: EHS beam design procedure using the equivalent RHS method ... 2009)......9: Longitudinal and transverse strip of a plate (RuizTeran and Gardner....... 2003) .............5: Buckling modes (Silvestre................................1: EHS basic dimensions. 2008) ............................11: Interaction surface for EHS with a/b = 2........................... 15 Figure 2.............................. 2003) .......... 2007) .... 64 Figure 4..........14: AXA truss connection (Bortolotti et al............... 2007) ....................................... 20 Figure 2.......................8: CHS buckling nonaxisymmetrically (RuizTeran and Gardner.................. 54 Figure 3.......2: Equivalent RHS using the simple and modified equivalent RHS approach ...........
..............................................14: Loadconnection displacement graph of h) X902T ............................................................. 80 Figure 5....................................................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 5....6: LVDT and LED time synchronization for X902T.................................... 89 Figure 5..................................................9: Loadconnection displacement graph of c) X901C ...................................................7: Loadconnection displacement graph of a) T901C .............. 76 Figure 5...........9: Typical experimental test setup for X connections (X902T) .....................19: Ultimate failure modes . 88 Figure 5............................... 77 Figure 5.......................5: X453C chord and brace dimensions ...................................................... 73 Figure 4................................................................... 78 Figure 5... 95 Figure 5............................................................................8: LVDTCC setting to measure connection displacement ....................................... 88 Figure 5............................ 90 Figure 5.................................................................24: Type 3 connections in compression ...............................................16: Loadconnection displacement graph of j) X453C ..............................22: X902C chord sidewall failure ..................................................... 75 Figure 4............................... 93 Figure 5...................3: EHS220 x 110 x 6 stub column failure ............................................................. 93 Figure 5.........................Figure 4..............................................................................................................................................................................21: Type 2 connections in compression ................... 73 Figure 4.......................................11: Loadconnection displacement graph of e) T902C ...........2: Stub column test results ........................... 84 Figure 5..........................12: Loadconnection displacement graph of f) X452C ...................................... 97 Figure 5..............................................................18: Loadconnection displacement graph of l) X903T ................................. 87 Figure 5....8: Loadconnection displacement graph of b) X451C ............................................................... 86 Figure 5... 87 Figure 5.......................................................17: Loadconnection displacement graph of k) X903C ..............6: Strain gauge locations for 45° specimens ........................15: Loadconnection displacement graph of i) T903C .. 81 Figure 5...............................................................25: Chord deformation profiles of 90° X connections in tension ..... 85 Figure 5.........20: Type 1 connections in compression ..... 84 Figure 5.................. 98 Figure 5............................. 85 Figure 5...................................................................................10: Loadconnection displacement graph of d) X901T ............................ 75 Figure 4..................... 71 Figure 4.. 82 Figure 5.......................................................7: LVDT instrumentation for T901C ..1: Tensile coupon engineering stressstrain curves ...................11: Lateral support for compressionloaded X connections (X452C) ......................... 89 Figure 5.23: X902T brace failure and chord side wall failure .................................................................................26: Chord deformation profiles of 90° X connections in compression .. 92 Figure 5.................................. 99 viii ........4: X901T chord and brace dimensions ........................ 94 Figure 5......... 79 Figure 5........................27: Chord deformation profiles of 90° T connections in compression .........................10: Typical test setup for T connections (T901C) ................................13: Loadconnection displacement graph of g) X902C ...................................................
.........................2: Walters Inc.................................... 163 Figure 4C.. 153 Figure 4B.............................Figure 5.............. 149 Figure 4B.............................................. 168 ix ....... fabrication drawing for X903T and X903C ..9: Fabrication drawing for X903T ................................................................6: Walters Inc......................................................... fabrication drawing for X452C ..................................4: Walters Inc....... fabrication drawing for X902T and X902C ................... 102 Figure 5....10: Fabrication drawing for X451C .31: Cutout sections of T connections ............. 104 Figure 5......5: Walters Inc..12: Fabrication drawing for X453C ................................................................................. 144 Figure 4B....... 146 Figure 4B..........8: Walters Inc............................................................................................................................ 101 Figure 5....................................30: Chord deformation profile of X453C ................................................................................... 147 Figure 4B..............7: Fabrication drawing for X901T ..... 154 Figure 4B..... weld detail ....................................6: Fabrication drawing for X903C .....................................................32: Strain gauge designations to their strain gauge location number ...... 106 Figure 5................................................... 115 Figure 4B.......................................8: Fabrication drawing for X902T ................................................. fabrication drawing for X451C ............................................................................. 157 Figure 4C.............................. 150 Figure 4B........................... 107 Figure 6................1: Equivalent RHS approach for EHS connections (all dimensions in mm)..................................................................1: Fabrication drawing for T901C.. fabrication drawing for X453C ................................................4: Fabrication drawing for X901C ....................... 103 Figure 5................................... 145 Figure 4B......................................................................... 148 Figure 4B......................................................................................29: Chord deformation profile of X452C ...............................9: Walters Inc.................................................................................................3: Walters Inc.... 164 Figure 4C..................................................... 101 Figure 5.............1: LVDT locations for T901C ............ 160 Figure 4C............ fabrication drawing for T903C ...............................................5: Fabrication drawing for X902C ....... 158 Figure 4C...................................................................33: Brace stress profiles for Type 1 connections ............................................................. 152 Figure 4B........................ 166 Figure 4D..................................... 151 Figure 4B...................................................................................... 105 Figure 5.............................. 161 Figure 4C...............28: Chord deformation profile of X451C .........................35: Brace stress profiles for Type 3 connections ....................1: Walters Inc...................................3: Fabrication drawing for T903C......................7: Walters Inc................. 165 Figure 4C...........................................11: Fabrication drawing for X452C .........34: Brace stress profiles for Type 2 connections .............................................. 162 Figure 4C...................................................... 159 Figure 4C.............. 155 Figure 4C............ fabrication drawing for T901C ...................................10: Walters Inc....................2: Fabrication drawing for T902C.................... fabrication drawing for T902C .............. fabrication drawing for X901T and X901C .................................................................................
3: LED locations for X903C .....................10: Specimen measurements of T901C ......................................3: Connection displacement measurements for compressiontested X connections at 45º .................... 193 Figure 5C..5: LVDT locations for X902C and X902T ............. 172 Figure 4D....................................5: Specimen measurements of X902C ....4: Connection displacement measurements for compressiontested T connections at 90º .........................................7: Specimen measurements of X451C .........................................................................................................................................................................5: Additional rotation of X902C ........................................................................................ 195 Figure 5C................................... 194 Figure 5C.........6: LED locations for X453C ........................................................2: Specimen measurements of X902T .......8: Specimen measurements of X452C ................................................. 185 Figure 5A..........................................Figure 4D................................................ 196 Figure 5C.......................... 183 Figure 5A....... 175 Figure 4E................ 182 Figure 5A......................................................1: Connection displacement measurements for tensiontested X connections at 90º ............................. 186 Figure 5B.......................... 175 Figure 4E...........................................................................................11: Specimen measurements of T902C .................................................... 180 Figure 5A.............. 182 Figure 5A...............................2: LVDT locations for T902C .........5: LED locations for X452C .....9: LED locations for T903C ... 178 Figure 4E................................................ 197 x ....................................... 178 Figure 4F......................6: Specimen measurements of X903C ...............................4: Specimen measurements of X901C .................................................... 169 Figure 4D....................................6: LVDT locations for X903C and X903T ............................................................................................................................... 188 Figure 5C...............................................1: LED locations for X902T..........................................................................................4: LVDT locations for X901C and X901T .... 183 Figure 5A..............1: T connection end frame ........... 177 Figure 4E.......................................................................................................................................................1: Specimen measurements of X901T ........... 185 Figure 5A. 173 Figure 4E......... 170 Figure 4D............................... 181 Figure 5A..............................7: LED locations for T901C ............................................. 176 Figure 4E...................................3: Specimen measurements of X903T ................................. 184 Figure 5A..................................................................9: Specimen measurements of X453C ................................................................................................................................................. 171 Figure 4D........................................ 176 Figure 4E..................3: LVDT locations for T903C ................................................ 186 Figure 5A................................................................................ 177 Figure 4E.................................................................12: Specimen measurements of T903C .............................4: LED locations for X451C ............ 184 Figure 5A................ 181 Figure 5A...........2: Connection displacement measurements for compressiontested X connections at 90º ........................... 174 Figure 4E..............................................................................8: LED locations for T902C .........1: Location of weld measurements ..............................................2: LED locations for X902C ......................................................................
....5: Summary of experiments and results ................................8: CHS Class limits (and D can be the equivalent diameter) .Method 1 vs................ 66 Table 5......... 80 Table 5..............................................................6: Loaddisplacement graph and failure mode observations based on orientation type groups ..................................... 65 Table 4........................... 55 Table 3................. 60 Table 4.4: Two methods of specimen categorization ..........2: Connection capacity predictions using the equivalent CHS approach ..............................................3: Measured brace and chord lengths . 79 Table 5..............LIST OF TABLES Table 2.........1: Tensile coupon test results ......................Methods 2a and 2b (experimental results taken from Chan and Gardner (2008)) .....................4: Equivalent RHS properties .......................5: Predicted capacity of beams bending about the major axis using the equivalent RHS approach .....................2: Current vs........ 52 Table 3............ 54 Table 3.................................................................................... 78 Table 5.....1: Relevant CIDECT CHS connection design equations ...................................................2: Test specimens ............................................................................................................................................................................................6: Predicting capacity of beams bending about the minor axis using the equivalent RHS approach ..................3: Predicted capacity of columns buckling about the minor axis using the equivalent RHS approach ...... previously determined material properties ..................................... 8 Table 3............................................... 113 Table 6................ 91 Table 5.............. 57 Table 3........................ 58 Table 3..................................... 95 Table 6..........Methods 1 and 2 (experimental results taken from Chan and Gardner (2009)) .............2: Equivalent RHS approaches .................. where c = H – 2t or B – 2t (and H or B can be equivalent dimensions) ......................3: Relevant CIDECT RHS connection design equations .................Methods 2a and 2b (experimental results taken from Chan and Gardner (2008)) ...................... (b) ...................Method 1 (experimental results taken from Chan and Gardner (2009)) .......................................................................................7: RHS Class limits for bending...............3: EHS mechanical properties ..................................... 114 xi ...........1: Stub column measurements ................................................................................................................................................... 58 Table 3.......................... 8 Table 2.....................2: EHS tolerances .................1: Predicted capacity of columns buckling about the major axis using the equivalent RHS approach ........................... 83 Table 5......1: Dimension and sectional property equations ...................................... Method 2 and (a) vs.................. 112 Table 6...................................................... 60 Table 3.................................................................................... 6 Table 2...........
... 202 Table 5D...... 206 xii .........................................................................12: Weld measurements for T902C....................5: Equivalent CHS approach vs.......................... 120 Table 6.1: Weld measurements for X901T ........ 201 Table 5D................................................................................................................................... 118 Table 6.............. 119 Table 6......................................................................9: Weld measurements for X453C ...................................4: Weld measurements for X901C .2: Experimental summary of X902T ....................................... 140 Table 4A..................................................................7: Weld measurements for X451C ....................................................................6: Experimental programme from NUS (Packer et al........................ 117 Table 6........................................ equivalent RHS approach .3: Experimental summary of X903T .................................................................. 191 Table 5B..7: Experimental summary of X451C ............................ 121 Table 3A............................... 189 Table 5B.....................6: Weld measurements for X903C .........................................6: Experimental summary of X903C .................Table 6........................................................... 116 Table 6................1: Experimental summary of X901T .....................................................1: EHS dimension and gross property table ................................... 188 Table 5B...............................1: EHS compressive resistance table ................................... 191 Table 5D..........................4: Experimental summary of X901C ................................................... equivalent RHS approach for NUS tests .................. 188 Table 5B..... 190 Table 5B....................................................... 204 Table 5D............................... 130 Table 3B...............................................................................................................................4: Connection capacity predictions using equivalent RHS approach ............................................5: Experimental summary of X902C ..... 203 Table 5D................................................................................................................................................ 141 Table 4A.......10: Weld measurements for T901C............................................................................................................................... 189 Table 5B........................................ 142 Table 5B............ 120 Table 6.......5: Weld measurements for X902C .................... 190 Table 5B........... 205 Table 5D................2: Tensile coupon 2 data sheet..................................9: Equivalent CHS approach vs...........................10: Summary of University of Toronto and NUS predictions................................2: Weld measurements for X902T ..................................................................8: Experimental summary of X452C ...................................................... 199 Table 5D.....................8: Weld measurements for X452C ........................ 191 Table 5B.................................................... 190 Table 5B.......................................7: Equivalent CHS approach to predict NUS experiments.. 189 Table 5B...............................................3: Weld measurements for X903T .................................................. 2011) ..............11: Weld measurements for T902C.................................................3: Tensile coupon 3 data sheet....................8: Equivalent RHS approach to predict NUS experiments ..................................................................................... 133 Table 4A...........................1: Tensile coupon 1 data sheet.............................................................................................................................. 191 Table 5B.................................................................. 200 Table 5D....
..11: Experimental summary of T902C ................................................................. 207 Table 5D...................... 210 xiii ......................................................12: Experimental summary of T903C ...................................................................10: Experimental summary of T901C .........Table 5D..................................... 208 Table 5D............................................................9: Experimental summary of X453C ................... 209 Table 5D..............
Standard Deviation TC Tensile Coupon UL Ultimate Limit UT University of Toronto VARIABLES 0 As a subscript.LIST OF NOTATIONS ACRONYMS 3%DL 3% Deformation Limit CDP Chord Deformation Profile CF Concrete Filled CHS Circular Hollow Section CIDECT Comité International pour le Développement et l’Etude de la Construction Tubulaire CISC Canadian Institute of Steel Construction COV Coefficient of Variation CS Carbon Steel CSM Continuous Strength Method EC3 Eurocode 3 EHS Elliptical Hollow Section FE Finite Element HSS Hollow Structural Section LED Light Emitting Diode LVDT Linear Variable Differential Transformer NUS National University of Singapore OHS Oval Hollow Section RHS Rectangular Hollow Section SG Strain Gauge SHS Square Hollow Section SS Stainless Steel St. refers to the brace a Half of the larger dimension of elliptical hollow section (mm) am Parameter to calculate mean perimeter (mm) xiv . refers to the chord 1 As a subscript.Dev.
eq Equivalent brace diameter (mm) D Diameter (mm) De Equivalent diameter (mm) De.CHS Coefficient for elastic buckling stress of a circular hollow section Cx. Width (mm) b0 Chord width (mm) b0.A Crosssectional area (mm2) Ac Area of concrete (mm2) Aeff Effective area (mm2) AEHS Area of an elliptical hollow section (mm2) Agv Gross shear area (mm2) Ah Enclosed area of a hollow structural section (mm2) An Net area (mm2) Ant Net area in tension (mm2) As Area of steel (mm2) Av Shear area (mm2) b Half of the smaller dimension of elliptical hollow section (mm).eq Equivalent chord diameter (mm) d1 Brace diameter (mm) d1.RHS Equivalent rectangular hollow section depth (mm) xv .new New equivalent diameter (mm) De.EHS Coefficient for elastic buckling stress of an elliptical hollow section d0 Chord diameter (mm) d0. equal to H – 2t or B – 2t (mm) Cr Compressive resistance (kN) Crt Shear constant Ct Torsional modulus constant Cw Warping constant Cx Coefficient for elastic buckling stress that is dependent on the relative length of a section Cx.eq Equivalent chord width (mm) b1 Brace width (mm) bm Parameter to calculate mean perimeter (mm) B Smaller dimension of elliptical hollow section (mm) Beq Smaller dimension of equivalent rectangular hollow section (mm) c Element length for crosssectional classification.
0 Yield stress of chord (MPa) fy.eff Effective yield stress (MPa) g Gravitational constant = 9.avg Average yield stress (MPa) fy.m) Mpl Plastic moment capacity (kN.m) xvi . Length of connection (mm) M Moment (kN. Mass (kg) M0 Moment in chord (kN. Venant’s torsional constant k k Buckling coefficient * Alternative buckling coefficient L Length (mm) Lc Chord length (mm) Lw Wavelength (mm).81N/kg G Shear modulus (MPa) h Height (mm) h0 Chord height (mm) h0.E Young’s modulus (MPa) Eavg Average Young’s modulus (MPa) f Parameter for new equivalent diameter equation f’c Compressive strength of concrete (MPa) fk Term in connection design equations to account for limiting material strength fu Ultimate stress (MPa) fy Yield stress (MPa) fy.m) Mel Elastic moment capacity (kN.m).eq Equivalent chord height (mm) h1 Brace height (mm) hc Effective height (mm) hm Parameter to calculate mean perimeter (mm) H Larger dimension of elliptical hollow section (mm) Heq Larger dimension of equivalent rectangular hollow section I Moment of inertia Ix Moment of inertia about the major axis (mm4) Iy Moment of inertia about the minor axis (mm4) J Torsional inertia constant or St.
m) Mr Moment resistance (kN.m) My Moment applied about the minor axis (kN.0 Load to cause chord to reach plastic moment capacity (kN) Pm Mean perimeter (mm) Pu Ultimate load (kN) Py Yield load (kN) Q Statical moment of area (mm3) Qf Factor to account for chord normal stresses r Radius (mm). Value used in compressive resistance equation.0 Plastic moment capacity of the chord (kN. Radius of curvature (mm).m) Mu Ultimate moment (kN.Mpl.m) Mx Moment applied about the major axis (kN. Radius of gyration (mm) rcr Critical radius (mm) re Equivalent radius (mm) ri Inner radius (mm) rmax Maximum radius of curvature (mm) rmin Minimum radius of curvature (mm) ro Outer radius (mm) rp Radius of a circle with perimeter P (mm) rx Radius of gyration about the major axis (mm) ry Radius of gyration about the minor axis (mm) s Point along the circumference S Elastic section modulus (mm3) Seff Effective elastic section modulus (mm3) xvii . Stress ratio in chord N Axial load (kN) Brace load or Connection load (kN) N1 N1 * Connection resistance (kN) N1(3%) Brace load at the 3% deformation limit (kN) N1u Brace load at the ultimate limit (kN) P Perimeter (mm).m) Mpred Predicted moment capacity (kN. Load (kN) Ppl.m) n Number of half longitudinal waves.
CHS Critical or elastic buckling stress of a circular hollow section (MPa) σcr. Plate width (mm). Unconnected material length (mm) X Position along xaxis on Cartesean coordinate system Y Position along yaxis on Cartesean coordinate system Z Plastic section modulus (mm3) Zx Plastic section modulus about the major axis (mm3) Zy Plastic section modulus about the minor axis (mm3) α Fraction for inward buckling length. Torsional twist θ1 Brace angle to chord (degrees) λ Member slenderness ̅ Normalized slenderness λ0 Limiting slenderness λ1 Euler’s slenderness ξ Eccentricity of the section ρ Density (kg/m3) σc Axial compressive stress (MPa) σCcr Corusbased critical buckling stress (MPa) σKcr Kempnerbased critical buckling stress (MPa) σcr. Brace widthtochord width ratio ∆1 Connection displacement (mm) ∆1(3%) Connection displacement at 3% deformation limit (mm) ∆1u Connection displacement at ultimate limit (mm) ε Class limit parameter εu Elongation at fracture (%) η Brace heighttochord width ratio θ Angle measured counterclockwise from yaxis. Imperfection factor for buckling curves β Localization parameter.m) V Applied shear force (kN) w Lateral deformation local buckle (mm).PLATE Critical or elastic buckling stress of a plate (MPa) xviii .EHS Critical or elastic buckling stress of a elliptical hollow section (MPa) σcr.Sx Elastic section modulus about the major axis (mm3) Sy Elastic section modulus about the minor axis (mm3) t Thickness (mm) T Applied torque (kN.
Venant’s shear stress at most external surface (MPa) τmax Maximum shear stress (MPa) υ Poisson’s ratio φ Resistance factor φSD Parameter for buckling coefficient of an elliptical hollow section χ Strength reduction factor for columns xix .τ' Parameter to increase concrete strength due to confinement τ0 St.
Chapter 5 gives the results and analysis of the experiments work. and finally. but some international guides. 2007). The motivation for research on EHS is to establish both safe and economical design guidelines and equations. EHS have been implemented into various structures found worldwide for their aesthetic appeal and some structural advantages. 2) to introduce EHS to Canada by developing basic geometric property and compressive resistance tables to be potentially added to a future edition of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction Handbook of Steel Construction. the need to establish these design guidelines and equations for EHS welded connections becomes crucial.0 INTRODUCTION Elliptical hollow sections (EHS) are the latest steel shape to emerge in construction. the focus of the research and thesis. 2008). Chapter 6 examines methods to predict T and X connection capacities. applications and advantages. Chapter 3 gives the author’s contributions to EHS research that is not related to EHS connections. Currently.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Introduction 1. Chapter 2 gives a literature review of EHS related work from EHS buckling modes to EHS connections. Chapter 1 gives a background to EHS including motivation for research. More specifically. noncorporate publication of mechanical and geometric properties will increase their utilization (Packer. Finally. EHS are absent from Canadian codes and guidelines. In this thesis. The objectives of this thesis are: 1) to provide a comprehensive overview of EHS research to date including the latest research on EHS welded connections. have recently adopted conservative design equations. such as that published by the Steel Construction Institute and British Constructional Steelwork Association (SCI/BSCA. 3) to establish a base for finite element modelling and parametric analyses of EHS connections by studying the behaviour of various EHStoEHS T and X connections and the effects of various parameters on the connection. Chapter 7 gives concluding remarks and recommendations for future research. 1. but this implementation has been done without appropriate design guidelines or equations.1 EHS DEFINED EHS are a type of Hollow Structural Section (HSS) that are a relatively new shape to the steel construction world. including the establishment of tables to implement into Canadian guides and examining methods to design for EHS columns and beams. structural design guidance is required in order for EHS to be more widely and more efficiently used (Chan and Gardner. Chapter 4 gives the experimental programme and setup for the EHS T and X connection tests. As EHS popularity has been growing for trussbased systems. key terms. EHS 1 . Despite being adopted in a variety of applications. 4) to develop preliminary design guidelines for EHS T and X connections. An ellipse is a specific oval shape which has two different axes of symmetry. 2008).
and as such. Weld manufacturing involves bending flatrolled steel into a tubular shape and then seam welding the edges (CSA. and a and b are the half of the large and small outer dimensions of the EHS.2104 (CSA. they meet G40. EHS are like CHS in terms of many general properties and behaviour. Seamless manufacturing involves an extrusiontype process that pierces solid material to form the tube shape.2004/G40. The aspect ratio of all currently manufactured EHS = 2 (Packer. however. In general. In general. 2008).1) where x and y are the Cartesian coordinates. 2008): 1 (1. they are different since EHS has a changing radius of curvature whereas CHS does not. are manufactured only by the hotfinishing process. EHS. respectively (see Figure 1.1: EHS basic dimensions The behaviour of EHS is a mixture between that of Circular Hollow Sections (CHS) and Rectangular Hollow Sections (RHS). HSS can be manufactured by a seamless process or a welding process. The ratio of the large dimension (H = 2a) to the small dimension (B = 2b) is referred to as the aspect ratio. The general equation for an ellipse is (RuizTeran and Gardner. EHS are currently manufactured by electric resistance welding from a plate and then hotfinishing to the final shape (Corus. 2008). 2007) standards in North America (Packer.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Introduction are defined as having one large dimension and one small dimension. Figure 1.1). HSS are tubular sections that can be either coldformed or hotformed (or hotfinished). 2005). 2004) Class H or A501 (ASTM. however. 2003). EHS are like 2 .
2008). Viguier (Packer et al. the wind loads.. The minimum radius of curvature. EHS are also used as columns. Another structural application of EHS is in the Jarold Department Store in Norwich. that is.. as seen in the Swords office at the Airside Business Park in Dublin Airport. 2009a) and a trussgirder glass system in the AXA building in Paris (Bortolotti et al.. 2008). 2009a) where θ is shown in Figure 1. Currently. 2005). 2007). EHS have become popular for glazing systems (glass façades and glass roofs) because they provide good resistance to bending when the strong axis is oriented towards the imposed loads.2) 1.0mm up to 500 x 250 x 16mm (H x B x t or 2a x 2b x t. United Kingdom (Corus. rmin = b2/a.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Introduction RHS in that both have one major axis and one minor axis of symmetry. / ⁄2 ⁄2 (1. The maximum radius of curvature. France by architect J. The radius of curvature at any point on the section can be found using Equation (1. 3 . it can be referred to as the “corner” of the EHS.1. occurs at the end of the minor yy axis and is the stiffest part of the EHS crosssection. More recently.. In 1859. the other world producers include Corus in the United Kingdom. it can be referred to as the “flat” portion of the EHS (Chan and Gardner. that manufacture the line Celsius® 355 Ovals. 2008).P. 2009a). occurs at the end of the major xx axis and is the least stiff part of the crosssection. In addition.. 2009a).2) (Theofanous et al. EHS were originally considered for the compression flange of the main box girder (RuizTeran and Gardner. but they are different because RHS has stiffened corners and flat faces. The range of products includes: 150 x 75 x 4. they provide an elegant visual appeal and give a sense of being light weight (Packer et al. The first structural design which attempted to include EHS dates back to 1845 for the Britannia Bridge. 2003). rmax = a2/b. Ireland by architects RKD Architects and engineers Thomas Garland and Partners (Packer et al.. now owned by Condesa (Packer. the Royal Albert Bridge designed by Brunel fabricated elliptical sections out of wroughtiron and used them for the primary compression arches (RuizTeran and Gardner. 2009a).2 COMMON APPLICATIONS EHS have been produced since 1994 in France by Tubeurop. where t is the thickness). and Ancofer Stahlhandel GmbH in Germany (Packer et al. Examples include the Cœur Défense atrium in Paris.
2005). urban furniture (such as bus shelters). 4 . Each arm supports one of the featured cars and is supported further by small EHS 400x200 to stiffen the arms and enhance appearance (Corus. England by architect Gerry Judah and engineer NRM Bobrowski (see Figure 1.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Introduction Figure 1. 457 mm in diameter that support six. 2008). Canadian examples of EHS being used in buildings are the Legends Centre in Oshawa.2: Honda exhibit (Corus. structural design guidance is required in order that EHS are more widely and more efficiently used (Chan and Gardner. Ontario and the Electronic Arts stairwell in Vancouver. Despite being used in a variety of applications. The latter was the first building in Canada to have used EHS. as seen at the Honda Exhibit at the Festival of Sound 2005 in Goodwood. 2008). 2007). More specifically. noncorporate publication of mechanical and geometric properties will increase their utilization (Packer. 55 metre EHS arms that swing up and down creating a sense of kinetic wonder for the audiences. and handrails (Packer. 2008). Sussex. EHS are also used in electricity transmission line pylons by EDF. EHS are also found in modern airports such as the coach station in Terminal 3 and main building in Terminal 5 of Heathrow Airport in London. 2005) EHS can be found in some of the newest steel sculptures. This building was awarded the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC) 2006 Ontario Steel Design Award in the Architectural Category. pedestrian bridges in the UK. France.2). wind turbine masts. The Legends Centre in Oshawa is a multipurpose recreational centre where the aquatic centre of the building incorporates EHS columns and was the first in Ontario to have used EHS. as well as the main building in Terminal 4 of Barajas Airport in Madrid (RuizTeran and Gardner. The main structure is composed of three 45metre CHS arches.
hotformed EHS have superior mechanical properties compared to North American manufactured HSS (Packer et al. full weldability. This includes their fine grained structure. This allows the section to be oriented to most efficiently resist the applied load (RuizTeran and Gardner. 2005). 2008). an EHS has greater bending capacity because of the different principal axes while maintaining a smooth. Compared to a CHS with the same area or weight. the buckling failure mode for thin CHS may be sudden whereas it is not for thin EHS (Bradford and Roufeginejad.3 ADVANTAGES OF EHS Even though minimal design guidance is available.. 2008). Since EHS have two different principal axes. 2008). 2003). they provide an elegant visual appeal and give a sense of being light weight. 2008). it has superior resistance to overall flexural buckling when used in compression (Bortolotti et al. EHS are increasingly being used for certain advantages listed here. 2009a). negligible residual stress. EHS sections also have high torsional stiffness since they are closed sections. 5 .. and ideal nature for hotdip galvanizing (Corus. more specifically wind load for glazing systems (Bortolotti et al. An architectural reason for the use of EHS is their modern look (Packer et al. Because it is a hotfinished product. closed shape (Packer. In addition.. there are different flexural rigidities about each of these axes.. In addition to their aesthetic appeal. 2009a). In glazing systems.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Introduction 1. plus they are interesting and unusual in appearance (RuizTeran and Gardner. 2003).
but they have yet to be incorporated into the Canadian Handbook of Steel Construction (CISC.1. 2. CEN. 2006b) are shown in (Table 2. 2. 2006a and 2006b).0 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter provides a comprehensive uptodate literature review of EHS research. 2006a.1 GEOMETRICAL PROPERTIES The EHS sectional properties and dimensions equations that have been published in EN10210 (CEN. Table 2. These properties have been published in the European EN10210 (CEN.1).Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review 2.1 EHS PROPERTIES EHS are completely absent from Canadian codes and guidelines.00785 = = 64 = 64 2 ) (mm2) (kg/m) 2 ) 2 ) (mm4) 2 ) 2 ) (mm4) Radius of Gyration Major Axis (mm) = (mm) Minor Axis = Elastic Section Modulus Major Axis = Minor Axis Plastic Section Modulus Major Axis = 2 (mm3) 2 (mm3) 2 ) 6 = 6 2 ) (mm3) .1: Dimension and sectional property equations Sectional Property Superficial (Surface) Area Cross Sectional Area Mass per unit length Moment of Inertia Major Axis Minor Axis Formula Units (m2/m) = 10 2 ) 4 = 0. Even the basic EHS sectional property equations and EHS mechanical properties are absent. 2010).
2) 3 10 4 3 (2. see Equation (2.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Sectional Property Minor Axis Literature Review Formula 2 ) 6 = Torsional Inertia Constant 3 Torsional Modulus Constant = = 2 (mm3) 2 ) 4 = 2 (mm4) 4 = = Units (mm3) 2 ) ) 1 0. respectively. where am and bm are the same as before. They proposed the following equations for the xaxis (major axis) and yaxis (minor axis).4) 4 (2. bm = (2b – t)/2 and hm = (am – bm)2/(am + bm)2. according to Chan and Gardner (2008).25 2 ) 1 0.3): = ) 1 = (2. 2007).1) Chan and Gardner (2007) instead proposed that a more appropriate crosssectional area (A) would be a product of the mean perimeter (Pm) and thickness (t) of the crosssection. One of these overconservative CEN equations is the crosssectional area formula (Chan and Gardner. In additional to the crosssectional area. Ix and Iy are the moments of inertia about the major and minor axes.25 (mm2) ) (mm) (mm) 2 Note: H = 2a and B = 2b Some of the equations found in Table 2. the elastic section modulus (S) and plastic section modulus (Z) of an EHS shown in Table 2. which is repeated as Equation (2. 2007).1): = 4 2 2 2 2 ) 2 2 ) (2.1 have been scrutinized for their overconservatism.1 are too conservative as well.3) where am = (2a – t)/2.2). see Equation (2.5) 7 . Pm would be calculated based on the mean perimeter formulation developed by Ramanujan (Chan and Gardner. and θ is measured counterclockwise from the yaxis: = = = = 4 (2.
3) according to EN 10210 (CEN.0. This section will describe the history behind EHS compressive resistance development. 2006a. 2008 and 2009a). with a Charpy impact resistance of 27 J at 20°C (Packer.5mm 10% 2 mm plus 0.2: EHS tolerances Characteristic Outside Dimension Thickness Twist Straightness Mass Tolerance +/. 8 .7) =4 2.2 and Table 2.1% (doubled if H < 250 mm) with minimum +/.2 EHS IN AXIAL COMPRESSION The development of the compressive resistance of EHS and the study of EHS behaviour undergoing axial compression have been investigated for over fifty years.6% on individual delivered lengths (+8/6% for seamless hollow sections) Table 2.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review (2. plus the experimental tests and finite elemental models to derive crosssectional classification and design guidelines for EHS under axial compression.2 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES EHS are currently produced as hotfinished hollow sections at normalizing temperatures according to EN10210 with the common grade being S355J2H: the yield strength fy ≥ 355MPa. 2006b): Table 2.5 mm/m length (both values doubled if H < 250 mm) 0.2% (doubled if H < 250 mm) of total length and 3 mm over any 1 m length +/.6) =4 (2. The tolerances on the shapes are as follows (Table 2. CEN.3: EHS mechanical properties Specified Thickness (mm) t ≤ 16 16 ≤ t ≤ 40 40 ≤ t ≤ 63 63 ≤ t ≤ 80 80 ≤ t ≤ 100 100 ≤ t ≤ 120 Minimum Yield Strength (MPa) 355 345 335 325 315 295 Specified Thickness (mm) t≤3 3 ≤ t ≤ 100 100 ≤ t ≤ 120 Tensile Strength (MPa) 510680 470630 450600 Specified Thickness (mm) t ≤ 40 40 ≤ t ≤ 63 63 ≤ t ≤ 100 100 ≤ t ≤ 120 Minimum Elongation (%) 22 21 20 18 2.1.
the first study on noncircular hollow sections was conducted by Marguerre (RuizTeran and Gardner. When the eccentricity ξ = 0 the equation represented a CHS. = = =2 Equation (2.2. A note to the reader: Marguerre's assumptions later proved to be erroneous (Bradford and Roufeginejad. 2 (2.9) was comparable to an ellipse if 0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1. The deflection occurred in a localized region of length = 2βa.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 2.8) thus becomes Equation (2. Kempner’s conclusion was that the elastic buckling stress of a CHS could accurately predict the lower bound solution of the elastic buckling stress of an OHS if the diameter of a CHS was replaced with an equivalent diameter of the OHS (De). 2008). see Equation (2. He focused on cylindrical shells of varying curvature. the point of the rmax. and when ξ = 1 the maximum radius of curvature (rmax) was infinity and the aspect ratio became equal to 2. Independent work by Lorenz in 1908. Unlike Marguerre. the eccentricity of the section (ξ). 2008). t is the thickness. so the equivalent diameter would be twice the equivalent radius.8) where E is Young’s modulus. and Southwell in 1914 determined the same elastic buckling stress formula for a CHS (RuizTeran and Gardner. Threedimensional visualization of this localized buckling can be seen in Figure 2. 1 = 1 1 4 (2.9). = . is given in Equation (2.10) . 2008).06 (recall the aspect ratio = H/B and is equal to 2 for all currently manufactured EHS).8) ) 3 1 In 1951.10).CHS. σcr. 2008). where β is a localization parameter and 2a is the largest EHS outer dimension. and ii) set the deflection at the point of rmax equal to zero (RuizTeran and Gardner. An OHS could be defined by the Fourier polynomial terms shown in Equation (2.11): 9 (2. Kempner expanded on the ideas proposed by Marguerre by examining OHS. In 1962.1 Literature Review HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT The history of EHS research begins with the study of CHS.2. the deflection function he assumed placed the maximum deflection at the point of rmax (see Figure 2. otherwise known as Oval Hollow Sections (OHS). but not at. which is a function of the radius of curvature (r) at a point along the circumference of the section (s). the perimeter (P) and the radius of a circle with the perimeter P (rp). 2007). The elastic buckling stress of a CHS under pure axial compression.1). but he decided to assume a different deflection function (RuizTeran and Gardner. The equivalent radius of the OHS (re) would be equal to rmax of the OHS. Marguerre assumed a deflection function that i) located the maximum deflection at any given crosssection which was close to. Timoshenko in 1910. 2008). D is the diameter of the circle and υ is Poisson’s ratio (Zhu and Wilkinson.9) Marguerre showed that the OHS defined by Equation (2.
The development of the buckling stress of an OHS by Kempner in 1962 proved to be more accurate and has been used as a basis for many future papers (Bradford and Roufeginejad. Kempner and Chen studied the postbuckling behaviour of OHS (RuizTeran and Gardner. 2008). the postbuckling behaviour became unstable.1: Local buckling of EHS according to Kempner (adapted from Chan and Gardner. 2008).11). one can use Equation (2. 2007). However.EHS) (Zhu and Wilkinson. to determine the elastic buckling stress of an EHS under pure axial compression (σcr. Note that an aspect ratio a/b = 1 corresponds to a CHS.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections . as the aspect ratio increased 10 . 2007) In 1964. the equivalent diameter can be simplified to De = 2H = 4a.11) ) Since all currently produced EHS have an aspect ratio of 2. 2009) Figure 2.2: Threedimensional visualization of local buckling (Chan and Gardner. Literature Review = 3 1 (2. They found that as the aspect ratio approached a value of 1. In summary. Maximum Deflection rmax 2 a rmin rmin y rmax Figure 2.
Example: the shape of an egg is an oval. 2008). Hutchinson found that the postbuckling behaviour of EHS was instead unstable due to high imperfection sensitivity. which are located at the rmin regions (RuizTeran and Gardner. Both Hutchinson’s 1968 and Kempner & Chen's 1968 studies were confirmed by Tennyson. 11 . and Kempner studied the effect of length on the buckling behaviour of OHS. Also in 1971. They further noted that as the ratio of radius to thickness (r/t) decreased. must have two axes of symmetry and are defined by a mathematical formula (Equation 1. Kempner and Chen showed that OHS with high aspect ratios could attain load carrying capacities above the bifurcation load. In 1966. Their assumed deflection function did not appear to be suitable to examine initial postbuckling response (RuizTeran and Gardner. 2008). 2008). He showed that Kempner's 1962 proposal for the elastic buckling stress of an OHS could be applied to an EHS if the section was sufficiently thin. and not necessarily because of quick strainhardening (Bradford and Roufeginejad. later in 1968. In 1968. Booton and Caswell in 1971 when they studied the buckling behaviour of EHS with aspect ratios ranging from 1 to 2.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review and approached a platelike form. see Equation (2. OHS that had large eccentricities (ξ approaching 1). They found that the elastic buckling stress changed as the length approached infinity (RuizTeran and Gardner. In 1976. He showed that load carrying capacities above the bifurcation load were not possible when the elasticplastic material behaviour was considered since the rmax regions would prematurely yield. however. an ellipse is defined as the conic section produced by the intersection of a circular based cone and a plane without the plane intersecting the vertex. but not all ovals are ellipses. The postbuckling behaviour was thus stable. Hutchinson was the first person to study the initial and postbuckling behaviour of EHS (note: EHS not OHS1). Tvergaard studied the buckling of elasticplastic OHS under axial compression. Kempner and Chen. This conflicted with the 1 An oval is a generic term. had lower imperfection sensitivity. 2008). conflicted with the findings of Kempner and Chen from 1964. however. 2008). the postbuckling stability also decreased (RuizTeran and Gardner. His reason for the conflicting test results was not because of the difference in oval and elliptical geometry. but it is not an ellipse.9). Feinstein. Chen. The reason for this phenomenon was believed to be due to the redistribution of stresses to the stiffer regions of the section. 2008).1). the postbuckling behaviour became more stable. while an ellipse is a precise term: all ellipses are ovals. and loads above the bifurcation load could be attained (RuizTeran and Gardner. but rather because of the assumed deflection function that was chosen by Kempner and Chen. His postbuckling behaviour tests on EHS. An oval refers to any “squashed” circle. Ellipses must have two foci. indeed had high imperfection sensitivity that affected postbuckling behaviour. expanded on their 1964 work by concluding that OHS with small eccentricities (ξ approaching 0).
2007). The studies were performed on EHS with aspect ratios (a/b) ranging from 1 to 3 and with slenderness values (H/t) ranging from 20 to 120. and the sensitivity increased as the aspect ratio decreased.2 BUCKLING OF EHS The history of EHS has shown that attempts have been made to base EHS compressive resistances on CHS equations. Kempner and Chen’s 1968 finding will be shown to be more accurate. As well. which is equivalent to a CHS. 2007). Zhu and Wilkinson (2007) still support the use of Kempner's approximate equation to safely determine the elastic buckling stresses of EHS. however. Three steps of analyses were performed. again in contrast to previous works (RuizTeran and Gardner. The FE results were compared to the Kempner proposed equation. the effect of stocky sections not fitting the models is almost irrelevant since the stockiest section currently manufactured is hardly considered stocky. the results from the FE analyses and Kempner's equation approximately matched. but for EHS. higher mesh densities were used around the rmin regions. it was also found that decreasing the slenderness (H/t) also increased the discrepancies. Tvergaard also found that elasticplastic OHS with high aspect ratios were significantly imperfection sensitive. 12 . increased the discrepancies between the two values.11) (Zhu and Wilkinson. For larger a/b. For a/b = 1. The third step was to perform a nonlinear loaddisplacement analysis of the structure containing the imperfection from step two using Riks method. for their CHS models. A note to the reader: in the following sections. Thus. Typically. the effect of varying aspect ratios is irrelevant as the products are only currently manufactured with an aspect ratio of 2. 2007). To continue with this. Increasing a/b. and the studies of Tennyson et al. Riks method would further perform postbuckling analyses of "stiff" structures that show linear behaviour before buckling (Zhu and Wilkinson. The first step was to test for pure elastic buckling.2. to simulate the local buckling behaviour of CHS and EHS stub columns. The following sections will describe the advances in EHS research regarding compressionloaded EHS in relatively recent years. The objective was to determine the transition into a buckling state. The second step was to introduce imperfections to the geometry of the "perfect" structure based on the first step.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review proposition by Kempner and Chen in 1968. Over two decades passed before the EHS topic was breached again. see Equation (2. 2. ABAQUS. For practical applications. in 1971. mesh densities were kept the same. These discrepancies possibly exist because Kempner's equation was derived based on a CHS elastic buckling formula (Zhu and Wilkinson. The first step was to run an eigenvalue buckling analysis on a "perfect" structure to determine probable collapse modes. 2008). Zhu and Wilkinson (2007) performed finite element (FE) analyses using the FE program.
see Figure 2. Figure 2. the EHS would outwardly deform. but not at the boundaries themselves.4: Buckling wavelengths (reproduced from Bradford and Roufeginejad.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review The FE results also showed large deformations at the rmax regions and little to no deformation at the rmin regions. 2007) y x Lw z Lw w Figure 2. and at the midlength of the model.3. This is due to the higher stiffnesses at the rmin regions. 2008) 13 . the EHS would inwardly deform.3: Maximum deformations at ends and midlength (adapted from Zhu and Wilkinson. Near the top and bottom boundaries.
They suggested that additional tests be performed. he determined many buckling modes. recall Equation (2. This finding supports the use of the equivalent diameter formula proposed by Kempner. the elastic buckling stress of CHS decreased more than EHS for equivalent areas. Using EHS150 x 100 x 6. such that αLw is the length of the section deforming inwards (Zhu and Wilkinson. Zhu and Wilkinson (2007) reported on the University of Toronto compression tests on EHS stub columns and attempted to replicate these tests with FE models. These higher order modes would not likely occur and include asymmetrical behaviour with waves propagating about the EHS perimeter. When introducing the imperfections. including higher order buckling modes. The results also showed that EHS were generally more ductile than their CHS counterparts. this is another reason why EHS maybe be preferred over CHS. These tests showed. which are likely to occur.11). that is. The second step in the FE analyses (Zhu and Wilkinson. For any member length (L) < 720mm. 2007). They assumed that the behaviour shown in Figure 2. the critical buckling mode was a local14 . for both stocky and slender sections were very similar. At this critical strain value. Silvestre (2008) formulated the deformations of an EHS by using generalized beam theory and FE analyses to determine the effects of length on the buckling mode. w is the lateral deformation and α is a value from 0 to 1. elastic buckling would occur. Class 4 behaviour). This is a reason why EHS are sometimes preferred over CHS. It was found that FE analyses tended to underestimate the real results.e. are summarized here.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review Figure 2. it was found that larger imperfections resulted in lower buckling stresses.3 would occur continuously along the length of an empty EHS if a constant uniaxial strain was applied in the zdirection until a critical strain value was reached. that stocky sections were less sensitive to imperfections.4 where Lw is the wavelength. The models showed that stockier sections would reach their yield point before buckling. while the slender ones would buckle before yielding (i. This finding supports the research done by Hutchinson in 1968 and Kempner and Chen in 1968. The slenderness of a section appeared to have no effect. Further studies were conducted by Silvestre (2008) to determine the various buckling modes of EHS under compression. and the stressstrain behaviour determined from tensile coupon tests may have been inaccurate due to methodology. It was found that the deformation capacity of EHS and their equivalent CHS counterparts. however. 2007). It was through these analyses that it was shown that CHS had a greater sensitivity to imperfections compared to EHS.3 is discussed further by Bradford and Roufeginejad (2008). The reason for this discrepancy could have been that the FE model may have had a different crosssectional area when modelled. The predominant or lowest buckling modes. in terms of area. The third and final step was to determine the effect of inelastic buckling by introducing plastic material properties to the models (Zhu and Wilkinson. 2007) was to introduce imperfections based on the eigenvalue buckling analyses from step one. The continuous behaviour is demonstrated in Figure 2.
it behaved like a plate. For L > 2000mm. EHS 15 .11) became more accurate as t decreased.1 Elastic Buckling Stress Chan and Gardner (2007) performed tests on 25 stub columns to study deformation and loadcarrying capacities. They restricted their experimental tests to existing manufactured products.5: mode 5). He found that the relationship between L and the number of halflongitudinal wavelengths (n) was n = L/60. and 2 < n < 4.11) provided a lower bound to the critical buckling stress of an EHS for local shell buckling (mode 1ls). Through the investigation.5: mode 1ls).3. 2008). It was also shown that increasing t decreased the length range for which the local shell mode (mode 1ls) and distortional mode (mode 5) occurred. It was also shown that changing a/b had no effect on the length ranges of buckling modes. For 720mm < L < 2000mm. The buckling pattern would repeat along the length of the member as longitudinal waves. The only conclusion that was drawn was that as a/b approached 1.3 EQUIVALENT CHS APPROACHES This section explores equivalent CHS approaches for the design of EHS compressive members.2.5: mode 2) (Silvestre. 2.5: Buckling modes (Silvestre. the critical buckling mode was a distortional mode (see Figure 2. 2008). that is. while providing an upper bound to the critical buckling stress of an EHS for distortional buckling (mode 5). Overall. and when a/b approached infinity. For this range. Equation (2. the critical buckling mode was global buckling (Figure 2. Figure 2. it was determined that Equation (2. Thickness had negligible effects on global buckling (mode 2). 2.2. The exception occurred when 1200mm < L < 1300mm. the bifurcation load for mode 1ls was less than that of mode 5. 2008) Parametric analyses were conducted to determine how changing t and a/b would affect the buckling mode length ranges (Silvestre. so buckling reverted back to mode 1ls.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review shell mode similar to Kempner’s deformation function (see Figure 2. the section would behave like a CHS.
For most sections. A note to the reader: Equation (2. for mediumlength tubes Cx = 1. . σc is the axial compressive stress.3). However. which is either the widthto16 . Currently. This equation shows how stockier EHS offer greater load carrying capacities versus their CHS counterparts (in terms of area) since the stiffer regions of the EHS would strainharden and develop strength. and for long tubes Cx < 1. the Class is determined by comparing a slenderness parameter.EHS) in compression may be approximated with Equation (2. 2. the overall compressive response of an EHS could be given by Equation (2. Based on design guidelines for CHS.14) (Chan and Gardner. For moderately stocky sections.e. for short lengths. They found that the stiffness at any given point along the section would vary depending on the radius of curvature and that stiffer parts generally attract more load. recall Equation (2. one of the primary concerns is whether the section will locally buckle in the elastic range. the boundary conditions became strainhardening regions and allowed for ultimate loads greater than the yield load to be achieved. will it exhibit Class 4 behaviour (Chan and Gardner.14) EC3 may have adopted these equations. Cx is the coefficient dependent on the relative length of the section. and the effects of shear deformations contribute less as the length increases. see Equation (2. 2007). While Cx does account for length and relative slenderness of the section (2a/t). the effect of length on the elastic buckling stress diminishes as the aspect ratio increases.2.13). and could be determined from Equation (2.0 (2. 2007). the elastic buckling stress formula found in Eurocode 3 (EC3) (CEN. Cx > 1. 2005) uses Equation (2. Thus.0.14). the aspect ratio should also be included.13) is Kempner’s equation.13) and Equation (2.11). i.2 Preliminary CrossSectional Classification When EHS undergo pure compression.0. = ) (2.2 1 6 3 1 4√2 2 (2. Pu/Py > 1. Chan and Gardner (2007) thus stated that the elastic buckling stress of an EHS (σcr. that is.0. t is the thickness and Pm is the mean perimeter based on Ramanujan’s formula. where N is the axial load. for very stocky sections. but as RuizTeran and Gardner (2008) later show. = 2 =1 0.0.12).Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review ranging from EHS150 x 75 x 4 to EHS500 x 250 x 16 with an aspect ratio of 2. the sections reached and maintained their yield load before failing by inelastic buckling.13) ) 2 ≤ 1.3.12) EHS stub columns were tested for the ultimate load (Pu) and the results normalized against the yield load (Py). with the additional term Cx.
Through the numerical analyses they were able to observe stiffness. local buckling occurred before strain hardening occurred. For any value of this CHS slenderness parameter > 90. and CHS were more efficient in compression. 2007) that the crosssectional classifications for circular hollow sections could be adopted for EHS except by using the De proposed by Kempner from 1962. recall Equation (2.16). Equation (2.16). For slender sections. Pu/Py decreased.15) It was suggested (Gardner and Chan. nor do they have a constant diameter to determine diametertothickness ratios. i. Equation (2. could safely be adopted for EHS. it would imply that new limits for EHS would have to be derived or new methods to classify the EHS crosssection would have to be developed. per EC3 (CEN. the objective was to perform parametric studies to determine the influence of slenderness and aspect ratios on the ultimate carryingcapacity of EHS. the slenderness parameter for a CHS is defined by Equation (2. it was important to determine whether the same equivalent diameter could be used in conjunction with CHS Class limits. increased. Equation (2. It was thus proposed that the slenderness parameter of an EHS could be written as Equation (2.16). According to EC3 (CEN. Thus.10).16) =2 FE models on stub columns were verified against the experimental stub column tests performed by Chan and Gardner (2007). however. 2005). (2. with Class limits. 2005). Gardner and Chan (2007) studied the crosssectional classification system and section classification limits for EHS in compression and made the first propositions of slenderness parameter and limits for EHS. If not. They compared their EHS results to both hot. < 90 would be 17 . ultimate loads and general loadend shortening response and failure patterns. t is the thickness and fy is the yield stress. EHS do not have flanges or webs to determine widthtothickness ratios.15). a slenderness parameter.e. Using verified models. As it was found that the elastic buckling stress formula of a CHS could be used for EHS if an equivalent diameter was found. = where 235 (2. Their belief was that the stiffer regions found at the point of rmin of an EHS experienced strain hardening resulting in the higher loadcarrying capacity. the section is considered Class 4 (EN1993). the proposition to use the crosssectional classification system for CHS.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review thickness ratio or diametertothickness ratio. Chan and Gardner (2007) found that as the above slenderness parameter. and the ratio of Pu to Py.and coldformed CHS and showed that stocky EHS exhibited greater load carryingcapacity than their equivalent CHS counterparts (in terms of area). where D is the diameter of the circle.16) can alternatively be expressed as 2H / tε2 for currently manufactured EHS with an aspect ratio = 2. however.
2. RuizTeran and Gardner 18 . the Steel Construction Institute and the British Constructional Steelwork Association have adopted Equation (2. the noncompact limit given by the American AISC36005 and the yield slenderness limit given by Australian AS4100 = 94 were also valid. 2008). 2008).4 ELASTIC BUCKLING STRESS TRANSITION FROM CHS TO PLATE a a b=a b=a b b b=0 Figure 2. The research. or a = b.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review considered Class 3 (Chan and Gardner. such that they could explore the transition of EHS from CHSlike behaviour to platelike behaviour (RuizTeran and Gardner. and when a/b approaches infinity. however. They further stated that the semicompact slenderness limit given by the British BS59501. When a/b = 1. 2009a) and subject to overconservative design (RuizTeran and Gardener. 2007). the equivalent value from the Canadian CSAS1609 = 97. acknowledged that EHS behaved differently: EHS with aspect ratios greater than 1. As such.0 were less sensitive to imperfections than their CHS counterparts. the section is a CHS. 2008) The research thus far has described approaches to establish design rules for EHS based on an equivalency to CHS.2.6: CHS to plate transition (reproduced from RuizTeran and Gardner. Even though conservative. many EHS products currently manufactured will be considered as Class 4 (Packer. 2008). By using the Kempnerbased equivalent diameter with CHS classification limits. see Figure 2. RuizTeran and Gardner (2008) performed a study to determine the elastic buckling behaviour of EHS.16) (SCI/BCSA.9 (for 350MPa yield strength steel) would also appear to be conservative and valid.6. b approaches 0 and the section is similar to two adjacent plates.
whether axisymmetric or nonaxisymmetric. The strips and rings have different stiffnesses and require different loads to be forced to buckle.19) From these three elastic buckling stress equations. which was determined by Bryan in 1891 and is given by Equation (2. E and υ are Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio.18). If the rings are stiff enough.EHS) is shown below and is equivalent to Equation (2. = (2. the equivalent radii proposed by both Kempner and Corus have been substituted into the CHS elastic buckling stress equation and then used to compare with their results. The stiffness of the rings is a function of thickness (t) and radius (r).EHS or σCcr. as a/b increased. respectively.17). RuizTeran and Gardner (2008) concluded that the equivalent diameter (or radius) must therefore be dependent on both the aspect ratio (a/b) and the relative thickness (t/2a = t/H).7 demonstrates an example of axisymmetrical buckling and Figure 2.11): . The term w is the width of the plate. the rings were 19 . It was found that for small r/t or stockier sections.EHS) is shown in Equation (2. and k is the buckling coefficient dependent on the aspect ratio and boundary conditions. both σKEHS and σCEHS equations were suitable. there are two mechanisms at work that try to resist the buckling effect: a flexural response by the longitudinal strips and an axial response by the transverse rings. (2. .PLATE). the elastic buckling stress of the EHS became similar to a flat plate and neither the σKcr.18) ) 3 1 RuizTean and Gardner (2008) also compared their results to the elastic buckling stress of a compressed flat plate (σcr. see Figure 2. a producer of EHS.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review (2008) investigated both the equivalent radius proposed by Kempner.10). is therefore dependent on the ratio r/t. = ) 3 1 The Corusbased elastic buckling stress equation for an EHS (σCcr. Figure 2. see Equation (2. recall Equation (2.8 demonstrates a “checkerboard” effect or nonaxisymmetrical buckling. However. The rings are in tension with outward deformation and in compression with inward deformation. as well as the equivalent radius of an EHS as proposed by Corus. .19).EHS equations predicted it accurately. when CHS undergo uniform axial compression. Typically. The buckling response. = ) 12 1 (2. The Kempnerbased elastic buckling stress equation for an EHS (σKcr.17) = In the work done by RuizTeran and Gardner (2008). RuizTeran and Gardner (2008) found that for a/b approaching a value of 1.7. the compression rings can adequately resist the inward deflection.
2008) Similarly. The mechanisms for plate buckling are: a flexural response by the longitudinal strips and a flexural response by the transverse strips. The longitudinal strips of a plate behave like the longitudinal strips of a CHS. but the transverse rings of an EHS will have combined effects from the transverse rings of a CHS and the transverse strips of a plate. see Figure 2. however. Thus axisymmetrical deformations would occur away from these fixed edges only. thus. when plates undergo uniform axial compression there are also two mechanisms that resist buckling. the more waves per crosssection would result. Further.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review stiff enough and the CHS would buckle axisymmetrically. These mechanisms. RuizTeran and Gardner (2008) showed that the effects of the transverse rings were equal to the effects of the longitudinal strips regardless of aspect ratio (a/b) or relative thickness (t/2a). The two models that have been just described have been used to model an EHS response to uniform axial compression.7: Longitudinal strips and transverse rings Figure 2. however.8: CHS buckling nonaxisymmetrically of CHS (RuizTeran and Gardner. Figure 2. for larger r/t or slender sections. which is similar to a fixed edge. the larger the r/t ratio. the rings were not stiff enough and CHS would buckle nonaxisymmetrically.9. 20 . EHS will have similar longitudinal strips to both models. are different than those of CHS. but the transverse strips are quite stiff at their ends providing high rotational restraint. 2008) (RuizTeran and Gardner. the elastic buckling stress of an EHS was approximated to be twice the Euler buckling stress of longitudinal strips.
and the stiffness in the longitudinal direction versus the transverse direction affected the buckling mode. Their work also showed that a/b and 2a/t contributed to the stiffness of the section. EHS may buckle like a CHS or a plate depending on whether or not higher buckling modes appeared or not.10). For the practical range of relative thicknesses. a value of a/b = 1. elements were placed in both the circumferential and longitudinal directions. It was found that for smaller values of 2a/t. 2008) RuizTeran and Gardner (2008) created FE models to test a variety of aspect ratios (a/b) ranging from 1 to infinity. Equation (2. Generally. The σKcr formula showed to be consistently conservative. the stiffness of the EHS tended to favour CHS.2 appeared to be the transition 21 . and relative slenderness (2a/t) ranging from 10 to 4000. Using the idea of the models. a smaller a/b was required to change buckling modes from CHSlike to platelike. the σCcr formula resulted in nonconservative predictions that are more economical for design purposes. The results showed that for very thin tubes (though more slender than currently produced).9: Longitudinal and transverse strip of a plate (RuizTeran and Gardner. Kempner's equivalent radius. Generally. Corus' equivalent radius. fitted.17).Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review Figure 2. they found CHSlike behaviour involved buckling nonaxisymmetrically and platelike behaviour involved buckling axisymmetrically. RuizTeran and Gardner (2008) further investigated the transition of EHS behaviour from CHSlike to platelike behaviour. the lowest buckling mode for EHS with high a/b is the platelike mode. fitted. Equation (2. but the lowest buckling mode for EHS with low a/b is the CHSlike mode. They said that for any a/b and 2a/t. Based on the currently available sections. It affected whether the buckling mode was more CHSlike or more platelike. while for stocky tubes (though more stocky than currently produced).
20) .97.3 (2. 2.21) ) 2 12 1 16 2≤ 2 ≤5 5≤ 2 (2. Based on the extensive work they performed on EHS.23) 2 2. and 5). 2 =1 1 8 3 1 ∗ )2 1 (2.new) to be substituted as De above.5 1.24) With the effects of shear deformation. They performed parametric FE analyses on six EHS with varying aspect ratios (a/b = 1.22) .25) and (2. (2.25.26) The crosssectional slenderness limit would then be: .27) This new equivalent diameter will be used in Chapter 3 when developing the compressive resistance tables for a future edition of the Canadian Handbook of Steel Construction. 6. where f is a parameter to account for the relative slenderness of the section. ≥ 2. they confirmed the transitional behaviour: low a/b led to imperfection sensitivity and shelltype buckling.5 1.5 (2.25) 1 . 1. all with the same crosssectional area. 1. = 1 1 (2. RuizTeran and Gardner (2008) have proposed the following equations: = . while higher a/b ratios led to imperfection insensitivity and platetype buckling. = 1 =1 2.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review point. 2. They understood that there was a transitional behaviour. With regard to imperfection sensitivity.26).0.5. except the Canadian CSAS16 CHS Class limits will be used. .1. 2 (2.5 . 22 . Silvestre and Gardner (2011) also investigated the transitional behaviour of EHS from CHS to plates. To support the work by RuizTeran and Gardner (2008). ) 3 1 ∗ = . =1 . but looked more closely at the elastic postbuckling behaviour of EHS. (2.03 5 2 . ∗ = 6. see Equations (2. 3. RuizTeran and Gardner (2008) proposed a new and less conservative equivalent diameter (De.97 0.
2. where the plastic limit is also a function of an elastic imperfection reduction factor. With this result. Apparent in all stress profiles. then an elasticplastic failure occurs.26) with CHS Class limits to determine crosssectional classification. As the aspect ratios increased. 235 / . and ii) low. but relatively uniform compressive stresses at the regions of rmax. they proposed that an approach based on the effective width concept that is often used for the strength analysis of flat plates be adapted for the design of EHS tubes with moderate to high aspect ratios (a/b > 1. they proposed the lower limit could change from 0.4.1 Class 4 Sections After using the less conservative equivalent diameter formulas. the slope of the curves postpeak increased as well.2 to 0. The peak stress was a value less than the theoretical critical stress. Then χ = function of λ and the plastic limit. for the EHS with a/b ≤ 1. After this.3.0 and fu = fy. in addition. If 0. There are a few methods currently available that can be carried forth to determine the design strength of a Class 4 section.5).28) Silvestre and Gardner (2010) made additional proposals about the design of EHS Class 4 members in axial compression based on adaptations of CHS Class 4 design rules found in EC3. all curves on stress vs. all EHS showed local minima in the graphs. regardless of aspect ratio was i) an accumulation of compressive stresses at the regions of rmin. the capacities increased to above the peak stress. (2. Chan and Gardner (2007) proposed the following effective area (Aeff) formula based on the effective area for a CHS from BS59591: = 90 . After this peak stress. the plastic limit could 23 . Equations (2.25) and (2. then χ = 1. According to EC3 (CEN. and the ultimate strength of a CHS tube is fu = χfy where χ is the strength reduction factor. Accounting for an equivalent diameter of an EHS. One method to handle Class 4 sections is to use an effective area. and since EHS are less imperfection sensitive than CHS. Then χ = function of λ and an elastic imperfection reduction factor (the elastic imperfection reduction factor is a function of the imperfection sensitivity).2. methods to treat the Class 4 sections were investigated by Chan and Gardner (2007).2. then a fully elastic buckling collapse occurs.2 < λ < plastic limit.5. axial shortening graphs followed the same linear path until the EHS column reached its peak stress.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review They showed that regardless of the aspect ratio. looked at the stress profiles about the perimeter of the EHS (with varying aspect ratios) at the column’s midheight. If λ < 0. the capacity of the column never reached the peak stress again. but for a/b ≥ 2. If λ > plastic limit. Silvestre and Gardner (2011). 2005). the slenderness of a column (λ) is the squareroot of the yield stress (fy) to critical stress (fcr) ratio.
it was found that for stocky sections that were fully effective in compression (e. For the loadlateral deflection response. thus. The improvement came from accounting for the higher postcritical strength of EHS. however. When unloading these columns.g. EHS 150 x 75 x 6. They proposed Equation (2.5 (2. Equation (2. the effects of inelastic local buckling and hinge formation were allowed to factor into the behavioural response.3 0. was used.5 0. which is the stiffest portion of the section. experimental studies focused on sectional behaviour. For the columns buckling about the major axis. i.2. 1 = 1. This led to a quick drop in load carrying capacity.3 mm. 2. For the loadvertical deflection response.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review adjust as well.3). the columns exhibited different behaviour: the load capacity of columns that buckled about the minor axis dropped quicker in comparison to columns buckling about the major axis.29) to be the strength reduction factor for EHS. The local buckling effects that had affected the minor axis buckling columns were not as influential.9 ≤ 0. The studies included experimental tests on EHS150 x 75 sections with thicknesses of 4.7 to 3. Experiments were conducted for the columnbuckling responses for both major axis buckling and minor axis buckling. χ = Aeff / A.5. for the columns that buckled about the major axis. the maximum compressive stress occurred at the rmin parts of the section.28).3 1. For these minor axis buckling columns. which is the most susceptible to local buckling.e. 2009). as opposed to CHS. 24 . they determined the plastic limit to be 1. During unloading.5 Silvestre and Gardner (2010) compared their strength curves with the strength curve generated if Chan and Gardner’s (2007) effective area formula.15 0. there were more gradual drops in load carrying capacity. columns that buckled about their major axis or minor axis reached similar peak loads. Loading members exhibited secondorder elastic response and unloading members exhibited secondorder plastic response (Chan and Gardner. Chan and Gardner (2009) studied the behaviour of pinended EHS long columns under flexural buckling. 5 and 6.29) ≥ 1. the tests showed good correlation with the theoretical secondorder elastic and plastic models.5 EXPERIMENTAL TESTS ON EHS LONG COLUMNS Thus far. Silvestre and Gardner (2010) found that the Chan and Gardner’s (2007) curve was much more conservative than the curve they developed. and column lengths ranging from 0. the maximum compressive stress occurred at the rmax parts of the section.1 metres.
Zhao and Packer (2009) suggested that determining an equivalent RHS shape would be more worthwhile. The buckling curves for the above three standards were shown to be very close to each other. with an effective width determined by maintaining the same crosssectional area and thickness.3 mm were fully effective members (Class 1 to 3). but the EHS150 x 75 x 4 section was a slender member (Class 4).RHS B = 2b H = 2a Figure 2. the North American AISC360 and the Australian AS4100.RHS) equal to 2a = H. and it was found that the compressive resistance curves for CHS could be adopted for the buckling of EHS about either axis.10: Equivalent RHS for an EHS 25 . see Figure 2. The results were compared against three codes: the European EC3. As discussed. aspect ratio and member slenderness on the loadcarrying capacity.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review Chan and Gardner (2009) followed their experiments with FE modelling in order to replicate the experimental results. For this reason. Zhao and Packer (2009) proposed to use the equivalent RHS depth (De. De. validate the numerical models and to perform parametric studies. It was determined that the EHS150 x 75 sections with thicknesses of 5 or 6.10.6 EQUIVALENT RHS APPROACH While many studies are establishing an equivalency between an EHS and a CHS. The results for buckling about both axes followed a similar trend to the CHS counterparts. 2. The objective was to investigate the influence of the crosssectional slenderness. so that the slenderness limits of a CHS can be used. the local buckling failure mode for currently manufactured EHS stub columns in axial compression exhibits behaviour similar to plate buckling (or the buckling mode of a RHS) rather than the circumferential shell buckling mode of a CHS.2.
Note: the corner radii of RHS were taken as 1. 14 and 16mm. 2009) RHS Class limits. 10. 2009). i. the slenderness limit of a RHS can safely be adopted for all EHS using the EC3 (CEN.1 BENDING RESISTANCE Bending tests on EHS about the major axis and minor axis were performed by Chan and Gardner (2008). They performed 18 bending tests on EHS400 x 200 with thicknesses of 8. Overall. Seven beams were tested about the major axis and 11 beams about the minor axis. Where other De equations have been established for classification purposes. 2005) or S16 (CSA.30). they have high torsional stiffness. lateral torsional buckling. Chan and Gardner (2008) used their experimental data with FE analyses to derive less conservative elastic and plastic section moduli for design purposes. 4 ≤ 670 (2.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review This approach is different to other proposed equivalency methods.3 BENDING. loaded about the major axis. they captured the momentrotation behaviour and established its relationship to the crosssectional slenderness. 2005) and 2t for S16 (CSA. . shear resistance and the resistance under combined loadings. De. 8 and 10 metres to obtain member nondimensionalized slenderness ratios ranging from 0. thus. 2.e.29 to 0. the reader will be shown the additional work performed by this author to determine the validity of this equivalent RHS approach in predicting capacities of long columns and beams. recall Equations (2. They also performed both 3point and 4point bending tests. Since EHS are closed sections. Law and Gardner (2010) studied EHS in bending to investigate member instability.5t for EC3 (CEN.30) In Chapter 3. studies have been conducted to determine EHS moment resistance. 12. 2. Zhao and Packer (2009) showed that using this equivalent dimension. The only 26 .RHS attempts to create a section actually equivalent in terms of crosssectional area and thickness. and on EHS500 x 250 x 8.48. see Equation (2.3. 6. From their experiments. They investigated beam lengths of 4. SHEAR AND COMBINATION LOADING Other than the behaviour of EHS under axial compression.7). Law and Gardner (2010) performed eight 3point bending beam tests on EHS150 x 75 x 5. They found that all tests largely failed by inplane bending. they found that the moment capacities of 3point bending tests were higher than 4point bending tests.4) to (2. it was expected that lateral torsional buckling was not an inherent dominant failure mode. 3 ≤ 42 235 . The equivalent RHS is a rational conversion method for the design of compression and tension members since it maintains the same crosssectional area as the original EHS.
based on the buckling curves found in EC3 (CEN. Through FE modelling with parametric analyses to determine the influence of aspect ratios on the 27 . 2. Class 3 sections cannot reach the full plastic moment due to inelastic local buckling and this limits the bending moment resistance to the elastic (yield) moment. As the aspect ratio increased (transitioning from a CHS to plate). but with somewhat less deformation capacity.new or De.1. Equation (2. Shorter beams actually reached an ultimate moment capacity higher than the plastic moment capacity because of the strain hardening phenomena that would have occurred in the stiffer portions of the EHS.1 and buckling curve “d” for a/b > 3. De. 2007).new equation for EHS under axial compression. Thus.31). With parametric analyses. they investigated the influence of aspect ratios.3. for major axis bending. They also investigated the influence of the member length. that is. the section can be considered Class 1. Recall that for classification purposes. Gardner and Chan (2007) stated that buckling was not initiated at the point of rmax or rmin. member slenderness) increased the effect of lateral torsional buckling. for an EHS with an aspect ratio = 2 a member length of 5. will it exhibit Class 4 behaviour (Chan and Gardner. They conservatively recommend that. It was determined for EHS bending about the minor axis that local buckling also initiated at the point of rmax. but at a critical radius (rcr) defined by Equation (2. Class 2 sections also reach the full plastic moment in bending. According to EC3 (CEN. RuizTeran and Gardner (2008) developed the less conservative De. These experimental results were validated against FE models. Class 1 sections are able to reach and maintain full plastic moment capacity in bending and thus can be used in plastic design. recall Equation (2.RHS to determine a slenderness ratio. However.66 metres or greater resulted in lateral torsional buckling. one of the primary concerns is whether the section will locally buckle in the elastic range.1. increasing the member length (i. buckling curve “b” is good for a/b ≤ 2. 2. buckling curve “c” for 2 < a/b ≤ 3. 2005). But when EHS undergo flexural compression. 2005) or S16 (CSA.10) was found suitable for EHS bending about the minor axis. 2009). the beam laterally deflected and twisted slightly. As expected. but the more conservative De equation that was originally proposed by Kempner.e. instability increased. was developed for pure axial compression assuming that local buckling initiated at the point of rmax.10).1 CrossSectional Classification The crosssectional classification of EHS in axial compression used De. They found that by increasing the member length they increased member instability. finally Class 4 sections locally buckle in the elastic range and the bending resistance is typically determined based on an effective cross section. At this point. 3 or 4.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review apparent influence of lateral torsional buckling occurred when the member approached its peak moment. When EHS undergo pure compression.
S16 (CSA. (2. For higher aspect ratios. the 1. it was found that the moment capacity decreased with increasing shear. and assuming the EC3 Class 3 limit can be relaxed to 140ε2 compared to 90ε2. 2.31) = 0.32). Overall.3. for both CHS and EHS. Chan and Gardner (2008) have developed an effective elastic section modulus (Seff). Gardner and Chan (2007) proposed. however.5). Equation (2. 2009b).10).33). Overall.33) In Chapter 3. see Equation (2. but closer to the neutral axis where the less stiff region exists (Theofanous et al. A threepoint bending setup was used with varying spantodepth ratios to develop a bending moment gradient with uniform shear zones. which is the stiffest region of the EHS.2 SHEAR RESISTANCE Experimental studies by Gardner et al.65 = / ) 0..357. (2008) were conducted on EHS150 x 75 with thicknesses of 4. 5 and 6.8 1.357 limit physically means that for lower aspect ratios.3.357 In Equation (2. this coincides with the point of rmin. as shown in Equation (2. 28 . the author will show how the equivalent RHS approach can be used to predict moment capacities and how to deal with Class 4 sections. The spantodepth ratios ranged from 1 to 4 for major axis bending and 2 to 8 for minor axis bending.5c stipulates the use of either an effective yield stress or an effective section modulus. local buckling will occur away from the maximum compressive stress region.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review location of buckling initiation. to 140ε2 instead of 90ε2. Chan and Gardner (2008) proposed the following slenderness parameters for major axis bending. De is based on Kempner’s equation.2 Class 4 Sections For Class 4 sections in bending.32) / ) 2 ≤ 1.4) or Equation (2.32). = 140 235 . they found that the EC3 Class limits for CHS could be safely adopted for EHS.3 mm to determine the crosssectional shear resistance of EHS.357 (2. local buckling will occur at the region of maximum compressive stress. a/b for all currently manufactured EHS = 2 > 1. where the elastic section modulus (S) is determined based on Equation (2. 2. (2. 2009) Clause 13. Recall. that the slenderness limits be relaxed for Class 3.1.
they assumed that the EHS crosssection remained undistorted. shear stresses through the thickness that 29 . They used a lowerbound theorem of plasticity since it would underestimate the exact value. if the design shear strength is > 50%.11: Interaction surface for EHS with a/b = 2. 2009) limits for CHS).e. this was done to neglect strain hardening effects leading to the lower bound approximation. aspect ratio and span on the ultimate moment capacity and shear capacity. They idealized the stressstrain behaviour of steel to be bilinear.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review FE models were developed to replicate the experiments. For derivation purposes.13 (Nowzartash and Mohareb. 2005) and S16 (CSA. Class 2 according to EC3 (CEN.3. The goal was to investigate the influence of the crosssectional slenderness. thus being suitable for design. however. the shear effect on bending is negligible. which is acceptable for EHS with low D/t ratios where crosssectional ovalization or distortion is negligible.34) INTERACTION CURVES Figure 2. Gardner et al.34). They also deduced that if the design shear strength is < 50% of the plastic shear resistance. (2008) proposed equations to design for the plastic shear strength of an EHS. This led to the assumption that there was no distinction between true stress and engineering stress. They found that the shear area (Av) of an EHS can be found by using Equation (2. They also assumed that the entire section would attain full plastic resistance before locally buckling (i. 2009) Nowzartash and Mohareb (2009) derived potential plastic interaction relationships for EHS when applying axial forces. validate numerical models and perform parametric studies. biaxial bending moments. the shear would cause the moment resistance to decrease. = 2.3 2 2 2 2 ) ) (2. and torsion. Normal stresses that were induced by warping.
they found that all sections were Class 13 for axial compression. Law and Gardner (2010) looked at the member level and investigated lengths of 1. (2010) further performed FE analyses to first determine buckling mode shapes. and 9 compression plus induced bending about both axes. 2009). and the load was applied eccentrically to obtain bending moment about either axis. (2010) were investigating at a sectional level. Using a maximum moment = applied load x (eccentricity + midheight deflection). the interaction surfaces for EHS were developed. however. increasing the load eccentricities decreased capacities.7).. Chan et al. The solution was verified using FE software. As Chan et al. The relations they developed can be used for design purposes to determine whether a section can withstand combined forces. They were thus looking at the interaction of compression and bending on a sectional level only. Law and Gardner (2010) also noted that some data points fell below the curves. simplified interaction equation proposed by Nowzartash and Mohareb (2009).4 CONCRETE FILLED EHS Before tests were conducted on concrete filled (CF) EHS. The maximum moment was taken at midheight and = applied load x (eccentricity + midheight deflection). it 30 . which could then be incorporated into geometric and nonlinear analyses.3 with column lengths shorter than 300mm. As expected. 2000). Both these proposed equations would provide safeside predictions. They performed tests on EHS150 x 75 x 5 and EHS150 x 75 x 6. recall Equations (2.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review were normal to the midsurface stresses. and circumferential stresses were all considered negligible and neglected. and the single. An example is shown in Figure 2. (2010). simplified design equation.11 for a/b = 2.4) to (2. Class 1 for major axis bending and Class 3 for minor axis bending. which is approximately the aspect ratio of existing EHS product. 2. they were first conducted on other types of HSS filled with either plain or fibrereinforced concrete (Campione et al. they proposed one equation for Class 1 or 2 sections. and a separate equation for Class 3 sections. 18 eccentric compression tests (9 inducing major axis bending. and 9 inducing minor axis bending). which they were able to use to generate a single. In these earlier tests. they found that the tests generally followed the interaction curve shown by Nowzartash and Mohareb (2009).13. Experimental tests on EHS under compression and biaxial bending were performed by Chan et al. This still requires further research. An axial load was applied to the columns to obtain a compressive force. The effects of residual stresses and failure via global buckling were neglected as well. They performed 33 tests: 6 pure compression tests (3 buckling about the major axis and 3 about the minor axis). 2 and 3 metres. Using equivalent CHS diameter approaches to determine crosssectional classification. Using the less conservative equations for the elastic and plastic moduli of an EHS to determine elastic and plastic moment capacity. Through their derivations (Nowzartash and Mohareb.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Literature Review
was shown that the concrete prevented or reduced the risk of buckling, both local and global, and
significantly increased the column capacities. It was determined that, similar to spirally reinforced
concrete columns which provide confinement to a concrete core through the use of spiral steel
reinforcement, HSS provided confinement to the concrete as well. For CF CHS, steel failure occurred
when the steel longitudinal stress went to zero and the transversal ring (or hoop) stress went to rupture,
and the effects of local buckling could be neglected if D/t < 90ε2 (Campione et al., 2000).
More tests were done to distinguish the effects of CF Square Hollow Sections (SHS), RHS and CHS
(Tao et al., 2005). Like Campione et al. (2000), they showed that the steel tube provided confinement and
the concrete core prevented inward buckling of the steel tube. Additionally, they showed that SHS and
RHS CF columns were not as efficient as CF CHS because the confining pressures were not as good. As
a result, local buckling was more likely to occur.
Experiments were further conducted to determine the effects of different loading conditions. CF CHS
stub columns were loaded uniaxially; the specimens were loaded on i) the entire section, ii) only on the
steel tube, and iii) only on the concrete core (Johansson and Gylltoft, 2002). Specimens loaded over the
entire section experienced confinement effects, as shown by Campione et al. (2000), but were additionally
affected by the difference in the Poisson’s ratios of steel and concrete. The Poisson ratio of steel is
greater than that of concrete, thus the lateral expansion of the steel tube was higher than the concrete core.
This initial condition did not allow the steel tube to confine the concrete core. However, once the
concrete began to plasticize, the lateral expansion of the concrete caught up with the steel and the steel
began to undergo tensile hoop stress confining the concrete. Specimens loaded only on the steel behaved
similarly to empty tubes. The load caused the steel to expand outwards, and the steelconcrete bond thus
broke. This bond breakage prevented any load from redistributing into the concrete. Specimens loaded
only on the concrete core showed the greatest axial capacity and confinement. The concrete would
ultimately fail by crushing and expanded most at the midheight of the column.
With increasing research on EHS, CF EHS research began. Like other HSS, studies showed that CF
EHS columns provide greater axial compressive capacity than their unfilled EHS counterparts. Like other
HSS, the infill prevented the tube from buckling inward thus increasing the local buckling capacity of the
section (Bradford and Roufeginejad, 2008).
The effects of infill inside an EHS were studied by using an energybased technique to determine the
elastic local buckling stress for thinwalled EHS when concentric axial compression was applied
(Roufeginejad, 2007). Empty EHS were considered to have zero elastic stiffness and filled EHS were
considered to be infinitely stiff. Recall Figure 2.4, which showed the penetration of inward buckling
length as a function of the wavelength (Lw) and a parameter α, which has a value between 0 and 1. For an
empty EHS with zero stiffness, α was equal to 0.5; for a filled EHS with an infinitely stiff infill, α was
31
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Literature Review
equal to 0 (Bradford and Roufeginejad, 2008). Depending on the stiffness of the infill, the buckling mode
would vary in terms of the regions buckling outward and the regions that would penetrate the infill. The
energy formulation for EHS involved onedegree of freedom and included the strain energy stored due to
bending, membrane strain energy due to stretching, work done by compressive forces and strain energy
stored in the elastic infill when the buckled tube penetrated into it. The formulation focused on the
change in potential energy from a prebuckled state to a buckled state and it was found, by minimizing the
change in potential energy, that an eigenvalue representation of the buckling load could be achieved. The
results showed that the rigid infill tube was square root of 3 times stronger than the empty tube
(Roufeginejad, 2007).
This eigenvalue representation is called the buckling coefficient, and is
fundamentally a function of the localization parameter β (Figure 2.1) and the buckling wavelength Lw
(Figure 2.4) (Bradford and Roufeginejad, 2008). The results also demonstrated that the replacement of
CHS by EHS provided little to no difference in terms of the economy of design against local buckling
(Roufegarindjad, 2007).
In 2007, tests on EHS filled with selfcompacting concrete were performed (Zhao et al., 2007). Zhao
et al. (2007) tested unfilled and filled EHS150 x 75 with thicknesses of 4, 5 and 6.3 mm and EHS200 x
100 with thicknesses of 5, 6.3, 8 and 10 mm with an average concrete strength of 69.2MPa. They found
that slender unfilled EHS locally buckled, and stocky unfilled EHS buckled in the inelastic range. The
classification limits of AS4100 were shown to be suitable for these tests. Filled EHS delayed or almost
eliminated the local buckling effects, similar to plainconcrete filled tubes. Similarly, the selfcompacting
concrete increased the load carrying capacity, ductility and energy absorption.
Predicting the ultimate
load using Pu = Asfy + Acf’c overestimated the load carrying capacity of the specimen by 3.2% while
Pu = Asfy + 0.85Acf’c underestimated it by 3.2%. In these equations, As is the area of steel, Ac is the area
of concrete, fy is the yield strength of steel, and f’c is the compressive strength of concrete.
Tests similar to those performed by Johansson and Gulltoft (2002) were carried out at the University
of Toronto except on CF EHS (Brienza, 2008). The tests involved five EHS stub columns with various
loading conditions, see Figure 2.12. The results from the steelonly loaded specimen showed similar
behaviour to that of an empty EHS specimen. The ultimate strength could be predicted by Pu = Asfy.
Postpeak behaviour varied, however, as CF EHS could sustain higher loads at these higher deformations
in comparison to their empty EHS counterparts. This was because the concrete prevented inward local
buckling of the steel tube. Steel and concrete loaded specimens were underpredicted by approximately
3% by using Pu = Asfy + Acf’c; thus, the confinement effects were not as much as previously thought. As
such, this topic requires further research. Concreteonly loaded specimens showed considerably more
strength due to confinement compared with the other tests, thus showing that “passive confinement” is
better for strength gain than “active confinement”.
32
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Literature Review
Figure 2.12: Loading conditions on concrete filled EHS (Brienza, 2008)
Yang et al. (2008) expanded on the experiments done by Zhao et al. (2007) by additionally performing
21 tests: 15 tests were compositelyloaded, of which 6 were greased before the concrete was poured
inside, and another 6 tests were coreloaded. The results of these tests showed that the compressive
response of CF EHS were dependent on both the steel tube thickness and the concrete strength.
Increasing the tube thickness increased the loadcarrying capacity and ductility. Increasing the concrete
strength increased loadcarrying capacity, but decreased ductility. Greasing the specimens simulated the
behaviour of concrete shrinkage. It was found that there was less than 5% variation in the ultimate load
of greased vs. nongreased sections (i.e. shrinkage effects are minimal); however, further research was
recommended.
Similar to previous findings, coreloaded specimens showed greater loadcarrying
capacity and ductility than compositely loaded specimens. When comparing design equations from
various design guides, codes, and studies on CF EHS columns, the conclusion was that CF EHS showed
an intermediate behaviour between CF RHS and CF CHS, as previously determined.
Zhao and Packer (2009) have since proposed design methods for CF EHS in axial compression based
on the endloading conditions. For compositely loaded sections, they looked at the simple superposition
approach, such that P = Asfy + Acf’c, and found that the mean ratio of Pu/P was 1.014 with a COV of
0.062. They looked at a CF CHS approach, which used equations prescribed in CSA S1601 and
Eurocode 4 for CF CHS. To use the CHS equations, they determined De for an EHS. They found that the
predicted capacities matched the experimental values within 2 to 5%, with a COV of approximately 0.05.
They finally looked at a CF RHS approach, which used the equations prescribed in CSA S1601 and
33
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Literature Review
Eurocode 4 for CF RHS. To use the RHS equations, they used an equivalent RHS, recall Section 2.2.6.
They that found the expressions simplified back into the simple superposition approach. Overall, the
predicted ultimate capacities were considered good.
For loading through the concrete alone, the same three approaches were analyzed except the steel
terms were eliminated. The simple superposition and CF CHS approaches significantly underestimated
the load carrying capacity. The simple superposition approach simply ignored the confinement effects,
explaining the underestimation. For the CHS approach, the S16 expressions were analyzed further. In
S16 (CSA, 2009), τ' is a term which represents the increased concrete strength due to confinement. By
using the equivalent diameter of an EHS, it resulted in a diameter much larger than the actual largest
dimension of the EHS. The term De/t became too large and L/De became too small. As such, τ' was low
and the load carrying capacity was underestimated. It was found, however, that by using an equivalent
RHS approach with an equivalent RHS depth, the D/t and L/D values were more appropriate and the
predicted capacities were much closer to the experimental results. The results show a mean ratio of 1.053
with a COV of 0.064. This result supports the Zhao and Packer (2009) proposal to use an equivalent RHS
dimension to determine the crosssectional slenderness of an EHS.
Finally, for loading through the steel alone, the same approaches were analyzed except the concrete
terms were eliminated, and the confinement terms were set equal to 1.0. The only difference between the
filled and unfilled stub columns was that filled columns changed the typical buckling mode to only
outward deflection. The predicted capacities matched the experimental results with a mean ratio of 0.999
and COV of 0.014.
Thus far, the studies described above all deal with short columns. Jamaluddin et al. (2010) performed
10 tests on CF EHS with column heights of 300mm (stub column), 1500mm and 2500mm. They also
varied the concrete strength using both normal and high strength concrete infill. They first confirmed their
predecessors’ observations through their stub column tests. They also showed that the capacities of CF
EHS stub columns dropped after reaching the peak load, but became stable before complete failure.
Conversely, the CF EHS longer columns did not achieve the same stability after peak load; capacities
dropped suddenly due to global buckling. As expected, increasing the column length decreased column
capacity. By increasing the global slenderness ratio, they found that the confinement effect reduced and
elastic buckling was more prominent than plastic failure.
Additionally, Jamaluddin et al. (2010) observed that the strength and stiffness of the CF EHS was
proportional to concrete strength; however, by using the higher strength concrete, shear failure in the
concrete occurred. Shear failure in the concrete meant a more sudden failure. They also noted that as the
concrete strength increased, the inner core had a higher stiffness. A higher stiffness meant less lateral
34
2009b). While the stainless steel curve demonstrates the strainhardening phenomena. 2009a and 2009b). While EHS have an aspect ratio = 2. which has a minimum specified yield stress (0. so there was less confinement pressure. a smaller market does exist for coldformed stainless steel OHS. Eurocode 4 specifies design guidelines for stainless steel in Part 1. With less expansion.4 (vs. The flexural buckling tests were performed about both major and minor axes in order to determine ultimate load carrying capacity data to get suitable buckling curves for SSOHS. compressive stub column tests and flexural buckling tests. 2. Like CSEHS. Stainless steel is initially more expensive than carbon steel. 2. but in comparison to carbon steel it has higher strength and stiffness. however. (2009b) studied the structural response of coldformed SSOHS. SSOHS have an aspect ratio = 1. Where carbon steel (CS) has a definitive yield stress.1. and a secant modulus must be determined for serviceability calculations. which included tensile material tests.1 Columns Theofanous et al.2% proof stress) of 240MPa (Theofanous et al. Part 1. Tests were performed on OHS86 x 58 x 3 pin35 .. and better retention of strength and stiffness at elevated temperatures. The compressive stub column tests were performed to determine a suitable Class 3 limit for SSOHS in compression.. Tests were conducted on: OHS121 x 76 x 2. The tensile material tests were performed to determine the basic stressstrain response. therefore.1 UNFILLED 2.5. excellent corrosion resistance. They then performed FE analyses and validated their initial models against their experimental results. design codes typically do not incorporate it. OHS121 x 76 x 3 and OHS86 x 58 x 3. ultimate failure was typically due to local buckling of the crosssection. They performed laboratory tests. approximately twice the ductility.1 for carbon steel) (Theofanous et al.5.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review expansion of the concrete core. the core did not engage with the exterior EHS.5 STAINLESS STEEL OHS As discussed.2% proof (or strain offset) stress must be determined in lieu of a yield stress for structural resistance calculations. the stainless steel (SS) stressstrain curve is rounded. currently existing EHS products are made from hotrolled carbon steel and a large number of studies have focused on these existing products. a 0.5. They were then able to perform parametric analyses on the FE models.4401 (316). The austenitic stainless steel grade investigated was 1. Studies have been conducted on empty SSOHS and concrete filled SSOHS (CF SSOHS) and will be presented in this section.
(The EC3 column buckling resistance is given by χAfy). When using stub column material properties. Theofanous et al. The coldworked corners have higher strength and offset the point of buckling. since it provided a better representation of the behaviour of SSOHS over a range of aspect ratios. It was assumed that α = 0. OHS121 x 76 x 3 and OHS86 x 58 x 3 in major and minor axis bending. This unsafe provision can be attributed to SHS and RHS having corners. The Modified Riks method was used for nonlinear analysis to obtain postultimate load response. recall Equations (2. 2. This meant that the curves were unsafe for stainless steel CHS and OHS and need revision. (2009b) suggested a derived buckling curve. Theofanous et al. The additions they proposed were that the proof stress of stainless steel and a secant elastic modulus be used. All columns failed by global buckling. which is a function of the imperfection factor (α). 2009b). Since SS stressstrain curves are rounded. resulting in instability. the same provisions would still be suitable for SS with the addition of a strength reduction factor (χ).1. the results were more consistent and better mirrored the experimental overall lateral deflection response than compared to when tensile material properties were used. which uses α = 0. (2009b) suggested using a similar slenderness parameter as CSEHS.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review ended columns with lengths ranging from 700mm to 3100mm. limiting slenderness (λ0) and member slenderness.49 and λ0 = 0.49.4. strain hardening would occur instead. It was noted that buckling curves for CS products were derived based on the product’s loss of stiffness after yielding.34 to 2..5.26). it was found that most points were under the buckling curve.new proposed by RuizTeran and Gardner (2008). FE models for flexural buckling were also created and validated against experimental results (Theofanous et al.16). Comparing the codified buckling curves for SSSHS and RHS with experimental CHS and OHS. FE models were created. Two sets of numerical analyses were performed: one using the tensile material properties and the second with the stub column material properties.49 and λ0 = 0.25) and (2. it was found that the lowest buckling mode determined from eigenvalue buckling analyses was similar to that of CSEHS. All specimens underwent ovalization. They further proposed using De. Their experimental study included six 3point bending tests on OHS121 x 76 x 2. All specimens failed by inelastic local buckling in the 36 . This curve was better as it both agreed with the experimental results and was safe.07. and a linearelastic buckling analysis was used to obtain buckling mode shapes. Nonetheless. with a Class 3 limit of 90. resulting in global nondimensional slenderness values ranging from 0.2 Beams Theofanous et al. recall Equation (2. (2009a) further investigated the flexural behaviour of SSOHS and compared the results with existing results on CSEHS and SSCHS. From FE modelling.
can be used for SSOHS undergoing bending. it was suggested to use the continuous strength method (CSM) to account for strain hardening. Theofanous et al. the slenderness parameters proposed for CSEHS can also be used for SSOHS. the CSM was employed to determine the strength of the stainless steel as it more accurately and consistently predicted the axial capacity. For minor axis bending.5. 37 . Since major axis bending initiated local buckling away from both the most extreme compression fibre and the neutral axis. but initiated closer to the neutral axis. SSOHS behaved similarly to CSEHS (Theofanous et al. the study was limited to comparing CF SSOHS crosssectional capacity against existing design guidance in Eurocode 4 for CF SSSHS... 50ε2 and 70ε2 respectively. the stiffness also reduced. CF SSCHS and CF CSEHS. There was a difference. 2009a). recall Equation (2. The CSM is explained by Gardner (2008). 2009a).5 or 2). local buckling occurred in the compression region of the section.2 FILLED Studies on CF SSOHS have been conducted by Lam et al. In addition.32) (Theofanous et al. which coincided with the point of rmax and the least stiff region. (2008). The reason was because even though the compressive stress decreased towards the neutral axis. FE models were created and validated against experimental results such that parametric analyses could be performed for a wider range of crosssectional slenderness (ranging between 40 and 320 for both major and minor axis) and aspect ratios (equal to 1. between the failure of specimens under minor and major axis bending. As mentioned previously. Since for minor axis bending local buckling occurred at the rmax region. Lam et al. For major axis bending. As for the actual bending capacity of the SSOHS. recall Equation (2. Overall.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review compression portion of the section at the region of maximum moment. If Mu is the ultimate moment capacity. it was proposed that the slenderness parameter for EHS in axial compression be adopted for minor axis bending. They also proposed that the Class 1 and 2 limits. The CSM led to an increase in efficiency of 15% and a decrease in the prediction scatter by 50%. therefore. 2. the FE models showed that by increasing crosssectional slenderness. namely 140ε2. the Mu/Mel ratio decreased and. can be used as well. increasing the aspect ratio increased the Mu/Mel ratio. and CF SSOHS has the same advantages over CF CSEHS. and Mel is the elastic moment capacity. local buckling occurred at the point of maximum compressive stress. however. (2009a) proposed that the Class 3 limit originally proposed by Chan and Gardner (2008) for CSCHS and EHS major and minoraxis bending. All experimental results were based on stub column tests. for a given slenderness. (2010) investigated the behaviour of axially loaded CF SSOHS with normal and high strength concrete.16). SS has certain advantages over CS. just like EHS stub columns under axial compression. The CSM does this because it more precisely predicts the stainless steel tube contribution to the composite resistance.
They defined the following terms: “strength enhancement index”. but resulted in no change in the ductility index. and Lam et al.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review The specimens tested were: OHS121 x 76 x 2. which is the ratio of the yield stress of the stainless steel to the cracking strength of the unconfined concrete. which is the ratio of the major to minor outer radius (i. Design Guide 1: for circular hollow section (CHS) joints under 38 . Finally. These books contain the internationally recognized design equations for HSS. “constraining factor”. OHS121 x 76 x 3 and OHS86 x 58 x 3. Unfilled OHS typically failed by inward local buckling. “section strength factor”. (2008) propose design equations for using the CSM. Overall. experimental results were compared against CF CHS equations from Eurocode 4. FE analyses were performed by Lam and Dai (2010) by validating the FE models with experimental results. it was found that increasing the tube thickness increased the loadcarrying capacity and ductility. and increasing the concrete strength increased loadcarrying capacity. Increasing the section constraining factor increased the ductility and strength enhancement indices. This is because there is an overall lack of data and knowledge about these types of connections and EHS welded connections are often complex due to the profiling required to make the connections (Packer. they found similar trends to CS CF EHS. “section slenderness factor”. Through parametric analyses. Since CF OHS are not currently covered by existing design codes. increasing the aspect ratio (transitioning from a CHS to an EHS) lowered the strength enhancement index. EHS have not been included in these design guidelines. but EHS connections can be problematic. Increasing the section strength factor increased the ductility and strength enhancement indices as well. but lowered ductility. CIDECT (Comité International pour le Développement et l’Étude de la Construction Tubulaire) has published nine design guides for HSS connections in a series entitled: Construction with Hollow Steel Sections. once unfilled. Their observations were made related to these terms: increasing the concrete strength led to higher capacities. “ductility index”. while filled OHS typically failed by outward local buckling and the crushing of concrete. which is the ratio of the average outer diameter to wall thickness.6 EHS CONNECTIONS Generally. each section was tested three times. but it reduced both the ductility and strength enhancement indices. 2. Increasing the section wall thickness led to higher capacities. once with normal strength concrete and once with high strength concrete. many limit states design requirements and failure models are applicable to EHS connections. which is the ratio of the maximum load to the summation of the strengths of the individual components.e. which is the ratio of the column’s end shortening when the load is 85% of the maximum load to the end shortening at maximum load. which measures the confinement effect. 2009a). the aspect ratio).
3 of Design Guides 1 and 3 (Wardenier et al. height and thickness of the member. an EHS behaves inbetween that of a CHS and RHS.13: Components of EHStoEHS connection The definitions of joint and connection are sometimes interchanged: the term joint according to EC3 is referred to as connection in North America. have recently been revised into second editions. When θ1 < 90º. The included angle between the brace and the chord is θ1 and the brace load is N1.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review predominantly static loading (Wardenier et al. the term connection is used.. and the subscripts 0 and 1 represent the chord and the brace. 39 . respectively. as discussed.” h1 b1 t1 Brace N1 Chord 01 Toe t0 Heel h0 b0 Figure 2. h and t are the width. In Section 1. connections and braces follows Eurocode 3.. Such terminology for joints. respectively. branch members or web members). whereas. In this thesis. Figure 2. and the joint at the obtuse (large) angle is called the toe. These two design guides are relevant to EHS since. which includes a chord member and one or more braces. 2008). The values b. and Design Guide 3: for rectangular hollow section (RHS) joints under predominantly static loading (Packer et al. the joint at the acute (small) angle is called the heel. 2009b). 2008 and Packer et al. it states: “The term ‘joint’ is used to represent the zone where two or more members are interconnected...13 shows the typical makeup of an EHStoEHS connection. 2009b). The ‘through member’ of a joint is termed the ‘chord’ and attached members are termed ‘braces’ (although the latter are also often termed bracings. ‘connection’ is used to represent the location at which two or more elements meet.
and one CHS60. rules from EC3 were extrapolated.6. One example of EHS already being used in a trussgirder system can be found in the façade of the AXA building in Paris. which was analyzed by Bortolotti et al.3 x 4 diagonal member in tension. defined by one EHS480 x 240 x 12 chord. (2003) was inconclusive due to lack of experimental data.6. see Figure 2. Figure 2.14: AXA Truss Connection Figure 2. An X connection is defined as a connection in which one brace force is equilibrated by another brace on the opposite side of the chord (Packer et al.1 Literature Review K CONNECTIONS EHS may be used for trusses. 2009b). A K connection is defined as a connection in which one brace force is equilibrated (within 20%) by a brace on the same side of the chord (Packer et al.. the strength of equivalent RHS and CHS connections was determined and the lowest resistance calculated was used for the analyses. 2003). A note to the reader: these equivalent RHS and CHS approaches are different to those presented in this thesis. 2003) With limited information regarding the behaviour of the above connection.14. (2003).2 X CONNECTIONS Studies were conducted on X connections by Pietrapertosa and Jaspart (2003) to investigate behaviour and to develop a base to numerically model these types of connections (Bortolotti et al. The case study conducted by Bortolotti et al.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 2. 2..15: EHS X Connection (Bortolotti et al. When extrapolating rules from EC3. one EHS320 x 160 x 8 brace. 2003) (Pietrapertosa and Jaspart. and this is what drives research to determine design requirements for truss connections. 2009b).. One connection of this façade is a K connection.. numerical simulations were conducted and experimental testing was performed. The schematics of their tests are roughly shown in 40 .
plasticity formed and the connection stiffness reduced until the brace locally buckled or there was a "snap through” phenomenon. Pietrapertosa and Jaspart (2003) proposed using the CHS design equations found in Packer and Henderson (1997) for the various failure mechanisms. The braces were subjected to either tension or compression. After that point. The results from FE analyses showed that as the length of the chord increased. the stiffness and resistance of the connection also increased. Two specimens of each type of assembly were tested by loading the braces in tension. see Figure 2. The results also showed that when the ratio of brace widthtochord width was low. it was found that plastic hinges developed in the chord and reduced the connection stiffness. Finally. Both tension and 41 . but increased once again due to membrane effects in the chord.0. and for compression. however. 2003) to develop analytical formulations of the connection's stiffness and resistance properties.. What occurred was that as the rigidity of the connection decreased. the connection would fail in tension by the brace yielding or in compression by the brace buckling. there was a progressive development of strainhardening and "ovalization" of the chord. They proposed that the strength of a connection for the chord yielding failure mode be multiplied by a factor to account for the second order effects that led to increased plastic strength in tension and decreased strength in compression. The connection failed when the brace failed. In tension. however. The FE analyses showed that secondorder effects had a major influence on tensionloaded connections and that membrane effects increased the resistance of the connection. For tension. The connection studied consisted of either an EHS320 x 160 x 8 chord or EHS220 x 110 x 8 mm with EHS120 x 60 x 4 braces welded 90° to the flatter sides (regions of rmax) of the EHS. Following this. In compression. punching shear would be the failure mode. then in compression.15 where two EHS120 x 60 x 4 braces were welded orthogonally to either an EHS320 x 160 x 8 chord or an EHS220 x 110 x 10 chord. the resistance dropped. the connection failed via excessive plasticity in tension. which increased the resistance of the connection. the instability of the connection led to connection failure before the yield strength could be attained. The chord did not even fail by yielding.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review Figure 2. In tension. but if that ratio was high. there was no yield plateau to explain the mechanism. the term should be multiplied by a factor less than 1. In compression. In compression. the connection experienced secondorder Pδ effects and membrane effects appeared.15.0. the terms should be multiplied by a factor greater than 1. the failure mode known as a "snap through" occurred where the brace penetrated into the chord. Pietrapertosa and Jaspart (2003) found that yield lines developed on the chord and appeared to form a mechanism. on the loaddisplacement curves. The membrane effects caused membrane stresses to appear parallel to the plane of the chord. Further developments on these types of connections were conducted (Bortolotti et al. up to a certain limit.
.16: EHS connection orientation types (reproduced from Choo et al.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review compression scenarios showed excellent connection ductility and numerical models simulated the mode of failure and level of resistance in these simple bracetochord X connections. Type 2 42 . and the braces are oriented such that their minor axes are parallel to the length of the chord. Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Figure 2. The four orientation types can be found in Figure 2. These results were then compared with CHS X connections with equivalent connection areas.16. Type 1 connections have the minor axis of the chord parallel to the ground. 2003) Further FE analyses were conducted by Choo et al. (2003) to study the behaviour of EHS X connections in four different orientation types subjected to brace axial compression.
Choo et al. Type 3 and Type 4 connections showed a peak load on the loaddisplacement plot. 2003). Type 4 connections have the minor axis of the chord perpendicular to the ground (as in Type 3). membrane action can sustain relatively higher loads than plate bending action.43.80 and 0.. FE models of CHS connections were developed by Choo et al. Each configuration behaves differently due to the varying effects of relative membrane action and plate bending action of the chord walls. and this 3% deformation limit governed the strengths of these two connections types. 2006a.25. one of the easier connection methods is an end connection using a gusset plate (Willibald et al. 0. However. the varying effects of relative membrane action and plate bending action were investigated (Choo et al. relative membrane and plate bending actions were dependent on β. Generally. They maintained the chord’s larger dimension at 508mm and chord thicknesses were varied from 10..3 GUSSET PLATE END CONNECTIONS Since a potential application for EHS is within truss systems or as bracing. There was also a direct correlation between connection stiffness and connection strength. 2. and then 1. The results showed that Type 4 connections were highest in strength followed by 3. nor did either show a peak load in the loaddisplacement graph. To explain the difference in strengths. which was taken as the ultimate strength of the connection. where β is the ratio of brace width (b1) to chord width (b0). 16 to 20mm. In the EHS. The proposition was to take the ultimate strength of the connection when the connection deformation was equal to 3% of the chord width. but the braces are oriented such that their minor axes are perpendicular to the length of the chord (as in Type 2). η (the ratio of brace height (h1)tochord width (b0)). The strength of a comparable CHS X connection was inbetween the strength of Type 2 and Type 3. 2. Types 1 and 2 demonstrated higher plate bending action which became the dominant action for load transfer at the crown and saddle points of the connection. The β ratios tested were 0. 0.64. Type 3 and Type 4 connections sometimes prematurely failed in the brace if β was small and the chord walls were thick. 12. Type 1 and Type 2 connections did not show this phenomenon. Type 3 and 4 connections demonstrated higher membrane action and this action was integral to the transfer of load from the brace to the chord. (2003) used a deformation limit proposed by Lu and colleagues in 1994. and the orientation type. MartinezSaucedo 43 . and the braces are oriented such that their minor axes are parallel to the length of the chord (as in Type 1). (2003) for all four EHS orientations. otherwise known as the 3% deformation limit for these connections.98.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review connections have the minor axis of the chord parallel to the ground (as in Type 1). Type 3 connections have the minor axis of the chord perpendicular to the ground. but the braces are oriented such that their minor axes are perpendicular to the length of the chord.6. 0.
6w. block shear failure became the critical failure mode. as increasing this value had a negative effect on the connection. If the length of the connection (Lw) was larger than the distance between the welds (w). was possible.. the connection was influenced by shear lag and either failure mode. Literature Review Gusset platetoEHS end connections were compared with gusset platetoCHS end connections by studying the shear lag induced tensile fracture of the hollow section when the connection was loaded in full tension. and c) sliding a CHS into a slotted gusset plate. The relative thickness (D/t) was also influential in some regards. They also found that all failure was accompanied by ovalization.. 2008) showed that specimens generally supported Korol's findings: failure modes were circumferential fracture or block shear tear out.. and even the bowing of the gusset plate.. b) sliding an EHS into a slotted gusset place along the flatter side. which is an extreme deformation prior to failure. and c) sliding a gusset plate into a slotted EHS along the small radii of curvatures. and 2) block shear failure or tearout.. studies by Korol (Willibald et al.17). fracture started at the toe of the weld and carried to the end of the tube. 2006a. 2008). Centre of gravity of top half w Beginning of Weld x' x H tsl tp t Lw w B Figure 2. the connection was not affected by shear lag and the connection strength was equal to the tensile capacity of the section. 2008) The results from the EHS end connection tests (Willibald et al. even a mixture of both failure modes. b) sliding a gusset plate into a slotted CHS with a return weld (such that the net area becomes equal to the gross area).6w ≤ Lw ≤ w. The CHS connections were tested in three ways: a) sliding a gusset plate into a slotted CHS with no return weld. 2006a) determined two modes of failure for gusset platetoHSS end connections: 1) circumferential tensile fracture.17.17: Gusset platetoEHS end connection (reproduced from MartinezSaucedo et al. For 0. MartinezSaucedo et al.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections et al. If Lw was less than 0. Lw and w are shown in Figure 2. In 1994. Specimens with slotted 44 . The EHS connections were also tested in three ways: a) sliding a gusset plate into a slotted EHS on the flatter side (Figure 2.
.. They also showed that Lw was the most influential factor to determine connection strength. These six EHS connection tests were 45 . or alternately the eccentricity of the connection. 2008. branch plate connections to the face of an HSS have low resistance since the connection has a high flexibility. Longitudinal platetoRHS connections fail by chord face plastification. Experiments were conducted on 6 EHS220 x 110 x 6. the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) codes did a conservative job defining connection capacity (Willibald et al. and then local buckling occurred near the connection end. resulting in decreased the connection strength.6. 2006b) Both longitudinal plate orientation and transverse plate orientation were tested.. 2006b). The only exception to the failure modes described was when the connection was loaded in compression. and for branch connections to CHS.18: Branch and through platetoEHS connections (Willibald et al. chord side wall failure. Slotting the HSS to make a through plate connection is typically stronger.. could be applied to branch and through plate connections to EHS (Willibald et al. Figure 2.4 BRANCH AND THROUGH PLATE CONNECTIONS Studies were conducted to determine if current design guidelines from CIDECT for branch and through plate connections to RHS. Transverse branch platetoRHS connections showed four basic failure modes: chord face plastification. 2006b). 2009b). 2006b).3 T connections consisting of branch and through plates that were welded orthogonally to the section and loaded in axial tension. MartinezSaucedo et al. Figure 2. 2. (2008) developed more appropriate ultimate limit state capacity formulae for these connections types. but they are more often used with Wsections where the force can easily transmit to the web of the Wsection.18 shows the six platetoEHS orientations that were investigated.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review gusset plates ovalized more due to the less stiff connection profile. Packer et al. punching shear. Overall.. Generally.. The same force transmission does not occur for HSS. Plate connections are often favoured since they are easily fabricated and handled. and branch yielding (Willibald et al. and branch plates to CHS fail by punching shear or plastification failure modes (Wardenier et al.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Literature Review inconclusive with regard to attempts to apply equivalent CHS or equivalent RHS techniques to establish the EHS connection capacity. 46 .
0 PRELIMINARY WORK Since EHS have not been mentioned anywhere in Canadian codes or guides. the warping deformation is very small and negligible. This newly created table can be found in Appendix 3A. SHEAR. however. Both Corus (2005) and EN10210 (CEN 2006a and 2006b). For HSS. These properties are later used to create compression resistance tables. dead load. Since EHS are closed sections. and plastic section modulus about both primary axes have also been calculated. Cw is listed. This section will examine the validity of an equivalent RHS approach to design for EHS members in axial compression or bending. 3. the establishment of design rules for EHS members based on an equivalent CHS diameter approach has been explored in the literature. Additionally.1). The table includes designation. area. torsional modulus constant and surface area. measures the resistance of members to nonuniform or warping torsion. Cw is assumed to be negligible and equal to zero. It is used to calculate the buckling moment resistance of laterally unsupported beams and torsionalflexural buckling of compression members. 2002). For open sections. mass. but the design of EHS members based on an equivalent RHS approach has only been investigated minimally. for closed sections. design wall thickness. 2002).1. mention a different constant called the torsional modulus constant (Ct). The warping constant. the maximum shear stress (τmax) is shown in Equation (3. torsional inertia constant. 2010) include three constants: warping constant (Cw). however. The shear constant. elastic section modulus.1 EHS DIMENSION AND GROSS PROPERTY TABLE The EHS property equations that have been defined by EN10210 (CEN. 3.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work 3. where 47 .1 of this thesis have been used to create a section property table in accordance with the CISC Handbook of Steel Construction format. shear constant (Crt) and torsional inertia constant (J). Cw. AND TORSIONAL CONSTANTS Existing dimensional and geometric properties currently listed in the Canadian Handbook (CISC. thus Cw can safely be assumed to be zero (CISC. in addition to studying the behaviour of EHStoEHS welded connections.1 WARPING. radius of gyration. such as HSS. Crt is used to determine the maximum shear stress in a crosssection due to the applied load (CISC. The first moment of inertia. 2006a and 2006b) and found in Table 2. This preliminary work includes the development of EHS dimension and geometric property tables and compressive resistance tables for a future edition of the CISC Handbook of Steel Construction. preliminary work has been performed to address this concern.
for a RHS according to this theory. When torque is applied to a member. t is the thickness. It is also used to calculate the buckling moment resistance of laterally unsupported beams and torsional flexural buckling of compression members (CISC. As such. the CISC uses Bredt’s thinwall theory equation for J with r0 = 2t and ri = t. The constant J can be calculated according to Equation (3. 2006b).3) (3. as shown in Equation (3.5) 2 2 (3. 2002). (3.. J and Ct can be seen to be related. (3. respectively. Q is the statical moment of area. ri is the inner corner radius. Venant shear stress at the external surface (τ0) (RidleyEllis et al. The ThinWalled Theory is good for tubes with very slender walls because it assumes that shear stress is uniform through its thickness (RidleyEllis et al. the member experiences a torsional twist (θ). is otherwise known as the St. This constant measures the resistance of the structural member to pure or uniform torsion.1) 2 2 (3. For the time being. J.4) Both the torsional inertia constant (J) and the torsional modulus constant (Ct) can be defined in two different ways according to: (i) the thinwalled theory formulated by Bredt in 1896.2). ro is the outer corner radius. For RHS. L is the member length. 2002). b is the width.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work V is the applied shear force. the tables created herein for the CISC Handbook do not include this constant either.5) and (3.6) define J and Ct. (3.7) . t is the wall thickness and I is the moment of inertia.2) The torsional inertia constant. Venant Torsional Constant. and G is the shear modulus. and (ii) the thickwalled theory formulated by Marshall in 1971 (RidleyEllis et al.3).. and both ends are restrained from warping and member buckling is avoided. The European EN10210 does not list this constant for EHS (CEN. The torsional modulus constant (Ct) is the ratio of applied torque (T) to the St. 2002). 2002). 2002). 4 . where T is the applied torque.. The term hc is the effective height. The shear constant is simply the ratio of the applied shear force to the maximum permissible shear stress (CISC. Equations (3.6) 4 48 (3. and Ah is the enclosed area of the section. h is the height.
the Europeanapproved approach.8). that is. (2002) have written that the thickwalled theory is a better representation of the torsional behaviour of RHS. Herein. It appears that the CISC (CISC. uses the xaxis and yaxis as the principal axes of a shape’s crosssection. This modern approach is suited to using the xy axes for planar frame layout in a computer frame analysis program.1. The Canadian convention. 2006b). namely Equations (3. See 49 . where hc and Ah are the same as above. 2006b).10). such that the zdirection defines the length of a member.10) define J and Ct. 2010) uses the thinwalled theory equations and the European design standards use the thickwalled theory equations (CEN. It ignores the corner radii as a simplification.9) and (3. 2 (3. for a RHS according to this theory (RidleyEllis et al. the torsional shear stress decreases through the wall thickness.9) (3. respectively. see Equations (3.8) 4 The ThickWalled Theory accounts for the variation of the shear stress through the thickness. 2002).9) and (3. RidleyEllis et al. Canadian convention for sectional axes Apparent in literature and international standards is the convention to use the yaxis and zaxis as the principal axes of a shape’s crosssection. so that the xdirection may be used to define the length of a beam in bending..Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work 4 (3.10) Marshall’s thickwall theory equations for J and Ct appear to have been used to derive the EHS constants stated by Corus (2005) and EN10210 (CEN.7) and (3. however. 3. is used to generate the properties in Appendix 3A.1: International vs. 4 3 .2 PROPERTIES ABOUT THE AXES Figure 3. Equations (3.
Mr = φZfy. Table 2 from S16 (CSA. 2008). For the properties and design data part of the tables.3 of S16 (CSA. then the section was Class 4. The compressive resistance tables consist of two parts: 1) properties and design data and 2) compressive resistances for varying lengths.000MPa. where φ = 0. where fy is taken as 350MPa. None of the sections were considered to be Class 4 for flexural compression. 2009). the section was not considered Class 4. A is the area and can be taken from the geometric properties table developed in Section 3. and if the secion was Class 3. If the slenderness parameter > 23. L is the length of the member. 3. The De/t slenderness parameter was checked with CHS crosssectional slenderness limits for elements in flexural compression. 2009). For the compressive resistances part of the table.1 to see this difference in conventions.000/fy.0.9. and n is taken as 2. whereby design rules for a CHS would then be used.9.12) 50 .3 of S16 (CSA.1. the moment resistance (Mr) about each axis was determined using Clause 13. adopts the Canadian convention.11).12). including the newly developed tables. but using the less conservative equivalent diameter De = 2a[1 + f(a/b – 1)] = De. φSfy. fy is the yield stress = 350MPa. is reproduced as Equation (3.24 for hotformed sections.5 of S16 (CSA. 2009).1. an equivalent CHS diameter approach was also used. 2009). Within BS59501. The effective length factor k = 1. and E = 200. the compressive resistance (Cr) of a column was computed using Clause 13.2 COMPRESSION RESISTANCE TABLES The Steel Construction Institute and the British Constructional Steelwork Association became the first to adopt EHS design rules using an equivalent diameter approach (SCI/BSCA. 2009). the Canadian slenderness parameter (De/t) was checked with the CHS crosssectional slenderness limit. Once the equivalent diameter was established.new (RuizTeran and Gardner. 2008). which is reproduced as Equation (3. ⁄ 1 (3. otherwise. r is the minimum EHS radius of gyration of the section taken from the geometric properties table developed in Section 3.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work Figure 3. In an attempt to establish preliminary compressive resistance design tables for Section 4 of the CISC Handbook of Steel Construction. This thesis. the slenderness parameter of an EHS was determined by finding an equivalent CHS diameter using the more conservative method of De = 2a2/b.11) (3. If the section was Class 1 or 2. Table 1 from S16 (CSA. The nondimensional slenderness ratio (λ) from Clause 13. The resistance factor φ = 0.
3. but real or assumed corner radii vary depending on the national or regional design specifications and manufacturing practices.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work For nonClass 4 sections.1 of S16 (CSA. Experimentally determined column lengths (L) and material properties (fy. The computed Cr values were put into the tables providing the section and length passed the global slenderness check given by Clause 10.3. In this chapter. In 2009. that is. 12 columns buckled about the major axis and 12 columns buckled about the minor axis. predictions using Method 1 are compared against the experimental results presented by Chan and Gardner (2009).13) To determine the validity of this equivalent RHS approach for columns. herein called the equivalent RHS approach. By maintaining the same crosssectional area (AEHS) and thickness (t) as the original EHS. 2 2 4 (3. shown in Equations (3. the equivalent large and small dimensions of the equivalent RHS (Heq and Beq. 51 . if kL/r ≤ 200. The column capacities have been predicted using the equivalent RHS approach in conjunction with the column resistance equations from S16 (CSA. This thesis simplifies the approach by neglecting the RHS corner radii and treating the RHS as a “box section”.13). as originally proposed by Zhao and Packer (2009) is simplified for this thesis. 3. all the values can be substituted into the above equations in a straightforward manner.3 EQUIVALENT RHS APPROACH Various equivalent CHS approaches have dominated literature thus far and have therefore predominantly been used to establish design rules.4. respectively) using Method 1 can be calculated according to Equation (3.0. but there are some shortcomings to these methods.11) and (3. is investigated here against existing experimental results on columns and beams.0 and k = 1. the fy. with φ = 1. Zhao and Packer proposed converting EHS into equivalent RHS in an attempt to combat some of these shortcomings.avg and Eavg) are used as well. Zhao and Packer (2009) had accounted for the corner radii of the RHS. where H is the large dimension of the EHS.2.12).eff was computed and substituted into the same equations. but if the section was Class 4. 2009). Their method. 2009). They performed 24 EHS column tests. this simplified equivalent RHS method is called Method 1.1 COLUMNS The equivalent RHS approach. The compressive resistance tables can be found in Appendix 3B.
The procedure would seem inconsistent.029 0.3 1.21 150.0 217.77 150. the radius of gyration is calculated using the equations found in Table 2.3 1. or is not.3 1.31 30.2.46 150.2.044 0.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 3.6 45. the first step is to convert the EHS into an equivalent RHS with Equation (3.3 1.450 150x75x4c4 538 1500 376.8 47.13). therefore. found in S16 (CSA.73 30.074 1. then the procedure would use an effective RHS area with the gross EHS radius of gyration.3c4 836 1500 390.2.2.1 47. A note to the reader: none of the experimentally tested sections are found to be Class 4.2.992 1.2.3 1.3 1.0 46.2.3 1. and the 52 .042 0.avg Eavg kN mm MPa MPa 150x75x4c2 573 700 376.060 1.968 0.075 1.1 46.5 46.5 216.450 150x75x4c8 429 3100 376.045 0.3c8 648 3100 390.550 150x75x5c6 611 2300 369. In Method 1b.2.3 1.80 28. if the section is Class 4.9 47.450 (a) Method 1a: using original EHS properties (b) Method 1b: using equivalent RHS properties Class Heq mm 150.1 of this thesis.3 1.1 46.3 1. 2009).9 (b) mm 48.93 29.5 216.550 150x75x5c8 509 3100 369.051 1.051 1.60 Beq mm 28.082 0.10 148.2.3 1.2.3 rx (a) mm 47.6 47.3 1.7 46.05 148.060 1.47 150.041 1.73 29.1 Preliminary Work Major axis buckling Looking initially at columns buckling about the major axis.8 Mean St. or the r of the equivalent RHS.05 150.050 150x75x6.1.2.1: Predicted capacity of columns buckling about the major axis using the equivalent RHS approach .2.044 0.5 216.0 217.75 29.9 46.2.3 1.3 1.3c6 814 2300 390. The question becomes whether to use the r of the original EHS.022 0.3 1. either an effective area could be determined by cutting out ineffective portions using the Class limit 670/ . The gross radius of gyration (r) is used regardless of whether the section is.Method 1 (experimental results taken from Chan and Gardner (2009)) Column Pu L fy.5 217. the moment of inertia (I) of the equivalent RHS is calculated.450 150x75x4c6 489 2300 376.2.03 148.5 217.050 150x75x6. However.2.6 46.076 0.0 217. In Method 1a.2.2. herein called Method 1a.2.40 Heq Beq 1.37 29.3 1.550 150x75x5c2 677 700 369.3 46.993 1.2.7 47. Table 3.992 1.5 216. Using an effective yield stress is more conservative than cutting out ineffective portions since an effective yield stress would sacrifice the strength of the entire section. Class 4.2.44 30.26 28.0 47. herein called Method 1b.045 The second step is to calculate the nondimensional slenderness parameter (λ).0 47.8 47.968 1.3 1.79 29.2. COV Actual Predicted (a) (b) 1.5 217.020 1.050 150x75x6.8 48.5 217.6 45. the effective area approach is recommended.28 150.2.3 1.2.963 1.3 1.34 150. or an effective yield stress could be calculated.007 1.952 0. as such. a description of how to deal with Class 4 sections is for theoretical discussion only.3 1. Using the original EHS properties may be more intuitive at first.956 0. but if the section is Class 4.028 0.9 47.1.5 46.54 150.3c2 866 700 390.3 1.0 217.550 150x75x5c4 680 1500 369.964 1.3 1. The RHS area is calculated from the EHS area using the area equation found in Table 2.7 45. are used to determine if the section is or is not Class 4.016 1.017 0. using measured dimensions.3 1.Dev.3.050 150x75x6.2.47 28. The RHS crosssectional classification limits for elements in axial compression.
For major axis buckling. For minor axis buckling. Based on the available data.041.14) Like Method 1. Class of equivalent RHS elements. the equivalent RHS approach predicts column capacities quite accurately.2 shows the EHS to equivalent RHS conversions. the predictions using the equivalent RHS approach do not change. the procedures are called Method 1a and Method 1b. It is recommended for future work that more slender crosssections be tested in order to determine the validity of the equivalent RHS approach with Class 4 sections. as shown in Equation (3. length of column (L). the large dimension of the EHS is maintained regardless of buckling direction.2 Minor Axis Buckling For columns buckling about the minor axis. A note to the reader: by using the modified equivalent RHS Method 2. 3. either method would be appropriate to use for design purposes.avg and Eavg). none of the sections tested were found to be Class 4.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections radius of gyration is calculated by: Preliminary Work / . when the rx of the original EHS are used. On average. equivalent RHS dimensions.2 summarizes the equivalent RHS methods described in this chapter. The table includes the experimental ultimate load (Pu). There is a very small difference between using EHS properties or the equivalent RHS properties. 53 . and the actualtopredicted capacity ratios. respectively.1. the procedure outlined above is repeated.017 and 0. To reiterate: none of the sections are considered Class 4. the small dimension of the EHS is set equal to one equivalent RHS dimension (Beq). respectively. both area and radius of gyration would be based on the equivalent RHS. In Method 1. the mean and COV of the actualtopredicted capacity ratios are 1. This is more consistent. As before.3.14). Method 2a uses the original EHS properties and Method 2b uses the equivalent RHS properties. calculated radius of gyration about the major axis (rx). thus.022 and 0. and the second equivalent RHS dimension (Heq) is calculated by assuming the area and thickness of the original EHS remains constant.045. 2 2 4 (3.1. Method 2 accounts for buckling about the minor axis. average material properties (fy. The mean and COV of the actualtopredicted capacity ratios are 1. Table 3. Method 1 and Method 2 are equivalent procedures. a modification to the equivalent RHS approach is proposed and is called Method 2. using the rx of the equivalent RHS. The prediction results for columns buckling about the major axis are shown in Table 3. The third step is to predict the column capacity. Supplementary to this. Using the equivalent RHS property means that if the section was Class 4. and Figure 3. Method 2 can be broken down into Method 2a and Method 2b.
(b) Method 1 Large EHS dimension always maintained.Method 1 vs.2 (left) (a) Using original EHS properties (b) Using equivalent RHS properties Method 2 Accounting for buckling about the minor axis For major axis buckling.2 (left) For minor axis buckling.13) and Figure 3. neglecting corner radii.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Method 1 for major and minor axis buckling or bending or Method 2 for major axis buckling or bending Preliminary Work Method 2 for minor axis buckling or bending Figure 3.2 (right) (a) Using original EHS properties (b) Using equivalent RHS properties 54 . see Equation (3. see Equation (3.2: Equivalent RHS using the simple and modified equivalent RHS approach .2: Equivalent RHS approaches . Method 2 and (a) vs. See Equation (3. Table 3.14) and Figure 3.13) and Figure 3.
82 30.7 27.7 11.266 4. Using Method 2b results in a mean and COV of 0.00 75.876 0. the predictions are unsafe for longer columns.917 0.113 The prediction results using both Methods 1 and 2 for columns buckling about the minor axis are shown in Table 3.952 0.7 1b mm 11.08 29.069 1.44 28.83 150x75x5c1 614 700 150.8 11.086 1.931 0.2 26.657 3.3.998 1. Based on the available data.1 29.67 150x75x6.91 150x75x6. respectively.915 and 0.771 for one of the 3100mm long columns. Using Method 1b results in a mean and COV of 3.75 103.5 30.895 1.Dev. While on average.00 150x75x4c5 365 2300 150.3c3 789 1500 148.778 0. The table includes the experimental ultimate load (Pu).25 75.1 for each of the respective sections.78 103.506 0.4 30.85 ry 1a/2a mm 27.0 29.3 11. the predictions are good for Method 2b.3 30.006 3.042 0.37 29.208 3.8 11.069.52 104. Using the ry of the EHS (Method 1a or 2a) results in a mean and COV of 0.26 28.459.545 4.103 COV 0.50 28.48 75. Method 1a and Method 2a become equivalent procedures because both methods use the ry of the original EHS. it is shown that Method 2a can be used to predict column capacities for both major and minor axis buckling.959 1.3 29.3: Predicted capacity of columns buckling about the minor axis using the equivalent RHS approach .6 Mean St.1 26. Material properties are the same as found in Table 3.82 150x75x5c7 242 3100 149. 0.93 29.34 103.059 1.30 150x75x4c7 234 3100 150.069 0.2 29.991 and 0.6 11.64 150x75x4c3 507 1500 150.92 75.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work Table 3. This conservatism is solved by using Method 2.77 30.282 and 0.25 104.773 3.064 1.77 103.5 30.26 103.0 26.3c7 292 3100 148.75 150x75x5c3 647 1500 150.20 103.3 27.032 1. Additional experimental 55 .771 0.282 1.Methods 1 and 2 (experimental results taken from Chan and Gardner (2009)) Column Method 1 Method 2 Pu L Heq Beq Heq kN mm mm mm mm 150x75x4c1 495 700 150. the ry is much closer to the actual EHS radius of gyration.3c5 452 2300 148. Since none of the sections are considered Class 4.003 0.915 0.3 27.3 27. The global slenderness parameter therefore plays a larger detrimental effect in the predictions. Method 2a would be preferred over Method 2b because Method 2b overpredicts the capacities of longer columns buckling about the minor axis.79 75.56 28.40 75. equivalent RHS dimensions.8 11.08 150x75x6.6 Actual Predicted 1a/2a 1b 2b 2b mm 30.53 103.459 0.64 150x75x5c5 393 2300 150.26 1a/2a: Using original EHS properties 1b: Using equivalent RHS properties with Method 1 2b: Using equivalent RHS properties with Method 2 Beq mm 75. This conservatism occurs because the ry of the equivalent RHS using Method 1 is significantly lower than the ry of the original EHS.038 0. calculated radius of gyration about the minor axis (ry).580 4.042 0.7 30. For short columns (L = 700mm).31 29.5 27.184 2.9 29. and the actualtopredicted capacity ratios.084 1.930 0.6 11.6 11.76 150x75x6.45 75.62 75.40 103. measured effective length (L).101 1.005 1. but as the length of the column increases. the predictions become much too conservative.8 11.923 0.3 30.0 26.8 11.954 5.3c1 820 700 150.6 11.53 75.48 76.40 75.68 103.788 0.3 27.113. respectively.6 27.071 4.36 30.991 0.845 0. the predictions are good.932 0.84 103.960 1. respectively.11 29. The actualtopredicted capacity ratios reached as low as 0.
(The Class limits are reproduced in Table 3.14) is used for beams bending about the minor axis. Class 4 sections can be dealt with in one of two ways: i) use Seff of the equivalent RHS with fy or ii) use an fy.eff.2 BEAMS Zhao and Packer (2009) have shown that the classification limits for RHS undergoing axial compression can be used for EHS columns when the EHS is converted into an equivalent RHS. thus. so Mpred = Sefffy or = Sfy.1 (Method 2a).0. only Method 2 is shown for beams.7). The equivalent RHS properties are listed in Table 3. Flexural resistance design equations from S16 (CSA. Similarly. In this subsection. Beff and Heff are the effective flange width and web depth.4 for both major and minor axis bending. Like the columns. the viability of the equivalent RHS method on Class 4 beam sections can therefore be investigated. Class 4 sections are dealt with by finding the Seff of the equivalent RHS with fy. 2009) are used with φ = 1. The second step is to determine the elastic or plastic section modulus (S or Z. respectively.avg and Eavg) are used as well. the Class of the flanges and webs was determined. If the section is Class 1 or Class 2. Using the S16 RHS Class limits for the equivalent RHS.2 for an illustration of the two schemes. 3. S is used and Mpred = Sfy. It was found that the overconservatism of Method 1 for columns buckling about the minor axis was also apparent for beams bending about the minor axis. For Method 2a. see Method 2 above. 2010). if ineffective portions are cutout for Class 4 sections. Gardner and Chan’s (2008) experiments included beams bending about both the major axis and minor axis. or to use the equivalent RHS properties (Method 2b). some experimental beam sections are considered Class 4. If the section is Class 4.eff) needs to be calculated. If the section is Class 3. For Method 2b. The first step is to convert the EHS beam crosssection into an equivalent RHS. Z is used and the predicted moment capacity and Mpred = Zfy. showed that the classification limits for RHS undergoing flexural compression can be used for EHS beams when a simple and modified equivalent RHS approach is used that accounts for minor axis bending.3. a paper to which this author contributed (Zhao et al. an effective elastic section modulus (Seff) or effective yield stress (fy..Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work data is required on more slender crosssections to determine the actual validity of these prediction methods when dealing with Class 4 sections. Unlike the column data. 56 .13) is used for beams bending about the major axis and Equation (3. respectively). Equation (3. the author’s contribution to that article is shown. Method 2. The contribution included the prediction of flexural capacity of experimentally tested beams performed by Gardner and Chan (2008) using the equivalent RHS approach. the question becomes whether to use the original EHS properties using the equations found in Table 2.eff with the S of the EHS. See Figure 3. Experimentally determined material properties (fy.
and 1.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work Table 3. the EHS large dimension (H) and small dimension (B). and the actualtopredicted capacity ratio. the predicted moment capacities (Mpred).avg). average yield stress (fy. By using either Method 2a or 2b.156.5. respectively. using EHS properties. the flange and web Class using the RHS Class limits. only the plastic section modulus is required. Sections are considered to be Class 1 or 2 according to equivalent RHS Method 2 with the S16 (CSA. 2009) RHS Class limits.4: Equivalent RHS properties Property Major Axis Bending 2 2 Flange Width Minor Axis Bending 4 2 2 4 Web Depth Moment of 4 Inertia: I (mm ) Plastic Section Modulus: Z (mm3) 1 12 2 2 1 12 2 2 1 4 2 2 1 4 2 2 Elastic Section 2 Modulus: 2 S (mm3) 1 6 Effective Moment of Inertia: Ieff (mm4) 1 2 1 6 2 1 2 2 1 6 2 1 6 2 2 2 Effective Elastic Section 2 2 Modulus: Seff (mm3) The major axis bending predictions are shown in Table 3.281 and 0. predictions are better for 4point bending in comparison to 57 . therefore. respectively.158. The table includes the EHS beam section. the experimental ultimate moment capacity (Mu).or 4point bending.262 and 0. using the equivalent RHS properties. the actualtopredicted capacity ratios result in a mean and COV of 1. There is little difference between using either the original EHS properties or the equivalent RHS properties. whether the beam was tested in 3. the average thickness (t).
0b 4 4 4 4 4 232 288 343 331 346 396.40 200.0 395.0 3 3 3 3 245 330 388 401 400.005 0.199 0.884 0.48 7.82 200.24 400.313 1.avg kNm mm mm mm MPa Flange Mpred Web (a) (b) kNm kNm 400x200x8.0 397.116 1.843 0.133 1.138 0.34 399.72 mm 12.27 401.936 0.5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 187 230 288 321 337 376 341 381 Mean St.0a 400x200x16.986 1.65 12.0 397.5 378.0 395.921 0.15 9.5 400x200x14.921* 0.09 207. Overall.34 15.032 1.116* 1.200 0.448 1.440 1.429 1.08 202.98 14.50 403.281 0.0 400x200x12.34 255.90 491.901 0.08 400.0 401.0 400x200x 16.948 1.0 4 1 165 261 400x200x10.153 1.85 7.94 14.0 4 1 167 202 400x200x10.48 15.02 403.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work 3point bending.52 402.77 201.78 413.33 MPa 395.75 429.104 .0 4 291 495.0 400x200x16.239 0.841 0.5 400x200x14. COV Actual Predicted (a) (b) 1.5: Predicted capacity of beams bending about the major axis using the equivalent RHS approach Methods 2a and 2b (experimental results taken from Chan and Gardner (2008)) Class Beam #Point Bending 400x200x12.100 0.875 1.04 201.5 378.0 400x200x16.78 9.06 260. Table 3.120* (b) 0.35 199.0 400x200x12.53 mm 200. *using effective section modulus of equivalent RHS (b) Using equivalent RHS properties 58 Actual Predicted (a) 1.63 7.6: Predicted capacity of beams bending about the minor axis using the equivalent RHS approach Methods 2a and 2b (experimental results taken from Chan and Gardner (2008)) Class Beam #Point Bending Mu H B t fy.90 403.5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 248 292 341 352 354 276 326 381 393 395 500x200x8.0 400x200x12.127* 0.028 1.0 397.116 0.158 Table 3.92 202.210 1.941 0.0 500x250x8.5 400x200x14.34 15.06 198.57 11.49 9.0 400x200x10.06 401.* COV* (a) Using original EHS properties and effective yield stress.5 378.977 1.156 1.0 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 Mpred Mu H B t fy.491 1.061* 0.63 15.960 0.052 0.147 1.175 1. Dev.61 11.5 413.459 1.764 1.0 395.13 14.150 1.5 378.54 400.avg Flange Web kNm 548 659 497 485 681 808 862 mm 401.236 1.262 0. Dev.0 4 186 396.54 201.511 1.5 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (a) Using original EHS properties (b) Using equivalent RHS properties (a) (b) kNm kNm 477 484 561 570 513 524 386 392 470 477 554 561 570 578 Mean St.53 197.968 1.174 0. Dev.257 1.13 14. the prediction methods for EHS undergoing major axis bending are slightly conservative regardless of whether original EHS or equivalent RHS properties are used.157 0.74 399.21 199.16 403.066 1.10 199.32 403. COV Mean* St.01 200.5 400x200x14.0 397.28 207.63 401.
Most sections are either Class 1 or 2. and two sections were considered Class 4.061 and 0. Overall. the difference between using an effective yield stress and the equivalent RHS effective elastic section modulus was compared.104. the mean and COV are 0. the actualtopredicted capacity ratio went from a 77% disparity to within 12% by using the equivalent RHS Seff. versus 32% using the original EHS properties. the mean and COV are 1.0 under 4point bending was considered a Class 4 section.120. the mean and COV are 1. respectively. Using the original EHS properties with an effective elastic section modulus of an equivalent RHS for Class 4 sections. Method 2a would be preferred over Method 2b because Method 2b overpredicts the capacities of 4point tested beams while Method 2a is generally safer. EHS400 x 200 x 8. In that case. On average. unlike the equivalent CHS approach (Zhao and Packer. Using the original EHS properties with an effective yield stress for Class 4 sections. Additional experimental data is required on more slender crosssections to determine the actual validity of these prediction methods when dealing with Class 4 sections. versus 16% using the equivalent RHS properties. respectively.138 and 0. Advantage 1: the equivalent RHS approach is a potentially useful method to design for axiallyloaded members since it maintains the same crosssectional area as the original EHS.960 and 0. Likewise. It is also rational in terms of buckling and torsional buckling since the 59 .3. To deal with Class 4 sections. Recall that Zhao and Packer (2009) developed this approach because the local buckling failure mode of an axiallyloaded EHS stub column (with an aspect ratio of 2:1) was closer to that of plate buckling than of shell buckling. In addition to comparing the actualtopredicted moment capacity ratios when using the original EHS properties versus using the equivalent RHS properties. the advantages of an equivalent RHS approach are reported here. EHS500 x 250 x 8. one section was Class 3. Method 2a can be used to predict moment capacities for both major and minor axis bending. However.eff improves predictions. for sections that underwent 3point bending. By using the equivalent RHS properties. the use of the equivalent RHS Seff instead of fy.5. Based on the available data.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work The minor axis bending results are shown in Table 3. 2009). predictions using EHS properties were within 8% of maximum load.6. By using the Seff of an equivalent RHS instead of fy.eff. the prediction methods are good for minor axis bending.0 under 4point bending was considered a Class 4 section. For sections not Class 4 that underwent 4point bending. 3.210. the actualtopredicted capacity ratio went from within 12% to within 8%. respectively.3 ADVANTAGES AND SUMMARY In comparison to an equivalent CHS approach. the Seff of an equivalent RHS can be used. The table includes the same headings as Table 3. predictions using equivalent RHS properties were within 7%.
An effective yield stress will diminish the strength of the entire section leading to 60 .8: CHS Class limits (and D can be the equivalent diameter) CHS Code Class 1 Class 2 Section in axial compression ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ EN1993:2005 ≤ ≤ EN1993:2005 ≤ Section in bending 13000 11750 ≤ ≤ 644 1900 1901 Class 3 CSAS1609 CSAS1609 670 18000 16450 ≤ ≤ 23000 21150 66000 21150 Advantage 3: in the equivalent RHS approach.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work equivalent RHS has a major and minor axis like the original EHS. 2010). which are fairly consistent regardless of which international code is used. Thus to deal with Class 4 sections. 2005) is very conservative for bending as it is treated the same as for axial compression. This procedure is consistent regardless of which code is used. where c = H – 2t or B – 2t (and H or B can be equivalent dimensions) Code Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Elements subject to compression only Elements subject to bending CSAS1609 ≤ EN1993:2005 ≤ CSAS1609 ≤ EN1993:2005 ≤ 420 ≤ 506 1100 1104 ≤ ≤ ≤ 525 583 1700 1272 Table 3. If ineffective portions are not cut. Table 3. the EC3 Class 3 limit for CHS (CEN. an effective area can be simply determined by using the Class 3 limits to “cut out” ineffective portions. if EHS properties are not used. all the equivalent RHS properties are determined based on geometry alone. In particular. an effective yield stress needs to be calculated.7 and Table 3. 2009) limits with the EC3 limits. Advantage 2: the crosssectional classification of the equivalent RHS approach employs RHS class limits for compression or bending. This will play a crucial role when developing design rules for EHS under biaxial bending (Law and Gardner.7: RHS Class limits for bending.8 show the comparison of the S16 (CSA. Table 3.
along with EHS column and beam design. and Gardner and Chan (2008) have determined an effective elastic section modulus applicable for beams. The literature consists of a few methods for dealing with Class 4 sections.3 for columns and Figure 3. Chan and Gardner (2007) determined an effective area equation for columns. To be seen in Chapter 6 is the use of the equivalent RHS method in conjunction with existing RHS connection resistance equations to predict connection capacity. The summaries of the design procedures are shown in Figure 3. Advantage 4: the fundamental basis of the equivalent RHS approach does not change regardless of the EHS member or loading. these equations do not provide a single consistent procedure to be used for all EHS design. the equivalent RHS approach can be used to predict both EHS column and EHS beam capacities. however. It is anticipated that EHS connection design. In summary.4 for beams. It was shown that Method 2a was the preferred method for both columns and beams.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work conservative results. 61 . can all benefit from a uniform equivalent RHS approach.
3: EHS column design procedure using the equivalent RHS method 62 .3 (CSA.1) Choose buckling axis Minor Axis Buckling (Figure 3. 2009) Not Class 4: Find Cr using AEHS and S16 Clause 13.3 (CSA. 2009) END Figure 3. 2009) Class 4: Find Aeff by cutting out ineffective portions of equivalent RHS using S16 Class 3 limits END Find Cr using Aeff and S16 Clause 13.1) Method 2b: Determine rx of equivalent RHS (rx = (Ix/AEHS)1/2) Method 2b: Determine ry of equivalent RHS (ry = (Iy/AEHS)1/2) Equivalent RHS Classification S16 Table 1 (CSA.2 – Left) Method 2a: Determine rx of original EHS (Table 2.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work EHS Column Design (Method 2) Major Axis Buckling (Figure 3.13) Convert into equivalent RHS using Equation (3.14) Choose Method 2a or 2b Choose Method 2a or 2b Method 2a: Determine ry of original EHS (Table 2.2 – Right) Convert into equivalent RHS using Equation (3.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Preliminary Work Figure 3.4: EHS beam design procedure using the equivalent RHS method 63 .
The experimental programme includes material property tests and twelve largescale experiments with varying EHS member orientations.1 TENSILE COUPON TESTS Three tensile coupons were created from the same crosssection of the EHS. and chord deformation profiles.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Experimental Programme 4. ultimate stress (fu) and Young’s modulus (E).1. and were hotformed. The investigation included determining the loadcarrying capacities. 4. Figure 4. stress distributions around the brace near the connection. three tensile coupons (TC) and one stub column were fabricated from the same EHS stock that was used to fabricate the connections.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME An experimental programme was developed to test various EHStoEHS T and X welded connections at the University of Toronto. All plates were 300W grade steel with thicknesses of 32mm. S355J2H sections conforming to EN10210 (CEN 2006a and 2006b). All EHS had nominal dimensions of 220 x 110 x 6mm. failure modes. Two coupons were created from the maximum radius of curvature (rmax) regions. which includes the yield stress (fy). 4.1 MATERIAL PROPERTY TESTS To determine material properties of the EHS. and one coupon was created from the minimum radius of curvature (rmin) region.1: Tensile coupon locations 64 . Coupon 1 rmax region rmin region Coupon 3 Coupon 2 Figure 4.1 shows the locations from which the coupons were created and Appendix 4A shows the TC measurements. The objective of this study was to investigate the behaviour of these connections under quasistatic loading.
2010).2 Experimental Programme STUB COLUMN TEST In addition to the tensile coupon tests. The crosssectional area (AEHS) from Table 4. The stub column measurements are shown in Table 4. Strain Gauge (SG) L/2 t L SGW SGN SGS B SGE H Figure 4. The stub column test was performed according to the procedures outlined in Appendix B. Figure 4.1: Stub column measurements Variable Height (h) – mm Height of CrossSection (H) – mm Width of CrossSection (B) – mm Thickness of CrossSection: at rmin – mm Thickness of CrossSection: at rmax – mm Average thickness (t) – mm Mass (M) – kg Nominal Density (ρ) – kg/m3 Crosssectional area (AEHS) – mm2 Measurement 611 220 110 6. 3D) and MAX(20ry.1.2 shows the relevant measurement locations and location of strain gauges. Four strain gauges were placed around the EHS perimeter at midlength too.04 5.1 was determined by dividing the mass (M) by the nominal density (ρ) and length (L) of the stub column: AEHS = M / (ρL).6 7850 3044 Two LVDTs were placed to measure the endshortening of the stub column and designated as LVDTnorth and LVDTsouth.83 5. E: east). identified by direction (N: north. 5D) .94 14. Therefore. 3: StubColumn Test Procedure of the Structural Stability Research Council Guide (Ziemian. 5. where D is the diameter of the CHS. D is taken as the largest dimension = H.85. S: south. W: west. 6.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 4.1. For EHS. the stub column length should be 65 .03. a stub column test was performed to determine EHS properties under compression loading.3 Technical Memorandum No. A note to the reader: Ziemian (2010) states that the stub column should have a length between MIN(2D + 250mm.2: Stub column relevant dimensions and strain gauge locations Table 4.
representing either an X connection or a T connection. angle. The twelve specimens vary in terms of connection type.0 1. Tests 7 to 9 had the braces welded to the chord at 45° angles.5 1.5 1.5 2.2 TEST SPECIMENS The focus of this research is to study the behaviour of various EHStoEHS welded connections. representing the orientation type. connection orientation Type 4 is not physically possible. Tests 1 through 9 were tests of EHS X connections where two brace members were welded onto opposing sides of the chord member. 4.0 0.0 0. Since the crosssections of the braces and chord are the same.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Experimental Programme 660 ≤ L ≤ 1100.0 1. Recall from Section 2..0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0. As such.0 0.5 2. A T connection is classified as a connection in which the brace force is equilibrated by shear forces in the chord member (Packer et al.5 2.6 that there are four possible connection orientations. Tests 1 to 6 and 10 to 12 had the brace(s) welded to the chord at 90° angles. Tests 10 through 12 were tests of EHS T connections where a single brace member was welded onto the chord. 2009).5 1. 2 or 3.0 1. The first number in the experimental designation is a 90 or 45.0 0.0 Chord Length (mm) 2200 1000 1020 2200 1000 1020 1066 1332 2200 1100 1100 1100 Brace Length (mm) 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 Experimental Designation X901T X902T X903T X901C X902C X903C X451C X452C X453C T901C T902C T903C The first character in the experimental designation is an X or a T.0 0. The details of the twelve tests are shown in Table 4.5 2.0 1. Connection Type θ1 (°) Orientation Type Brace Loading β η 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 X X X X X X X X X T T T 90 90 90 90 90 90 45 45 45 90 90 90 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Tension Tension Tension Compression Compression Compression Compression Compression Compression Compression Compression Compression 0.2: Test specimens Test No. brace loading and orientation type. only the other three 66 . An X connection is classified as a connection in which the force in one of the braces is equilibrated with the brace on the opposite side of the chord. The second number in the experimental designation is a 1. representing the angle of the connection in degrees (θ1). Table 4.0 1.5 1. This experimental programme included twelve largescale specimens tested in a 2700kNcapacity MTS universal testing machine.0 1.2. The length of the stub column does not lie in this range because not enough material remained to make a stub column of appropriate length.
The lengths of the chords and braces were selected to provide sufficient 67 . which is the ratio of the brace height (h1) to chord width (b0). as that project used the same EHS material.5 b0 = 110mm. h0 = 110mm b1 = 110mm.3: Experimental programme orientation types 4. The last character in the experimental designation is a T or a C. h0 = 110mm b1 = 220mm. those types are shown in Figure 4. The fabrication drawings for the test specimens can be found in Appendix 4B and Appendix 4C.2. η = h1/b0 = 0.0.2. Using the values from MartinezSaucedo (2007).1 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS When designing the test specimens.3. Since all members are made from the same crosssection.0. the 90° X connections were tested both in brace compression and tension. η = h1/b0 = 1. η = h1/b0 = 2. h1 = 110mm β = b1/b0 = 1. Also listed in Table 4. The limitations of the MTS2700kN capacity load frame were used to determine maximum specimen lengths and plate thicknesses. representing whether the braces were loaded in quasistatic tension or compression. h1 = 220mm β = b1/b0 = 0. who had performed material property tests using the same stock of EHS.1.1 Brace Lengths Except for the connection under consideration.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Experimental Programme types were investigated.2 is β.5. b0 = 220mm. an upper bound on the capacity was established as AEHSfu = (3000mm2)(530MPa) = 1590kN.0 Figure 4. 4. each orientation type results in a specific value of β and η. which is the ratio of the brace width (b1) to chord width (b0) and η.0 b0 = 220mm. h1 = 220mm β = b1/b0 = 1. All T connection tests and all 45° connection tests were subjected to brace axial compression. all other joints in each test specimen were designed to be noncritical. the geometric and mechanical properties found in MartinezSaucedo (2007) were used to determine design loads. h0 = 220mm b1 = 110mm.
and are located at the far ends of the braces (i. Plate thickness and weld sizes were overdesigned to make them noncritical..1. It was assumed that a dispersion of stresses would occur at a 2:1 slope. This was chosen because this would allow the connection to definitely develop the full strength of the member. the CJPG weld was found to be practically 68 .4: Force flow at 2:1 ratio 4. Each brace was made to have a length of approximately 1100mm. To avoid the effects of shear lag.4.2m for the X connections. These are denoted as the end connections. A simpler alternative without the shear lag issues was to weld the EHS to a plate at the remote end of a brace. the top and bottom). resulting in a total specimen length of approximately 2. which is approximately 200mm.2 End Connections The MTS load frame requires plates of certain dimensions to clamp onto in order to load the specimens. 4.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Experimental Programme length to minimize the effects from boundary conditions on the connection in question. Plate thicknesses were also checked to ensure that appropriate force flow from the machine apparatus into the EHS was achieved. The end connections were not designed as a gussetplate end connection.1. Load 32 32 Force flow at slope 2:1 110 Figure 4. see Figure 4. as described earlier. and then weld a second plate orthogonally to this first plate oriented along the longaxis of the EHS.2. 2008).e.3 Connection under consideration Originally.2. complete joint penetration groove weld (CJPG). the weld joint that was to be under investigation was designed as an allaround. Making this connection length too long would then cause the boundary conditions to affect the connection in question. the connection length would have to be at least equal to the distance between the welds (MartinezSaucedo et al. However.
the following instrumentation was applied to the test specimens. providing backingbars would be very difficult.3. Walters Inc.3mm.9mm was deemed sufficient by the fabricator. thus 1. Since the specimen is a HSS connection with a very unique connection profile. the effect of leaving the backingbars on the interior of the connection would be unknown." An effective throat of 8mm was determined as follows. while the saddle of the connection can require extensive bevelling. which meant that only 1mm of wall would remain. based on t = 6. The crown of a 90° connection can require a simple fillet weld. Rounding up this value gives an 8mm effective throat. 1997). Further discussion with the steel fabricators revealed that 8mm may be too large for practical purposes.1t would be required (Packer and Henderson. The fabrication drawings originally delivered to Walters Inc. An effective throat of 6. and 1. 2003) Clause 4. According to W59 (CSA. moreover. an effective throat of 1. a 60° groove angle with a wall thickness less than 12mm requires a minimum groove depth equal to 5mm. Due to these factors.4 and Table 4. 4.. However. with Effective Throat = 8mm minimum. where t is the wall thickness and is equal to 6mm.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Experimental Programme unsuitable for this type of connection.1t must be multiplied by the ratio of the measured EHS yield strength to the nominal steel yield strength (421/350). To complete a CJPG weld from one side.3.9mm. The EHS wall thickness was 6mm. with the following note: "EHStoEHS welds to be PJPG + Fillet.94mm.1(6mm)(421MPa / 350MPa) = 7. this small thickness would not typically be done in practice. were hence modified for fabrication feasibility and appropriate welding specifications.1t = 1. a backingbar is normally required to provide sufficient support. For these reasons. The final fabrication drawings created by Walters Inc. the weld joint design was left to the steel fabricator. Although acceptable by standards. The effective throat then required is 1.1(6.3mm) = 6.3 TEST SETUP AND INSTRUMENTATION To investigate stress distributions around the brace near the connection. the yield strength of the EHS was 421MPa. To fully obtain the wall strength of the brace. can be found in Appendix 4C. These drawings also include the welding details. 69 . and to obtain loadconnection displacement curves and chord deformation profiles. a partial joint penetration groove weld (PJPG) combined with a fillet weld was selected. The profiling requirements of these connections are quite complex as well.
5 44.5 44.3.5 (a) Type 1 or 3 connections 44.5 44.5 (b) Type 2 connections 35 4.5: Strain gauge locations for 90° specimens 70 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections STRAIN GAUGES 44.1 Experimental Programme (c) Side view Figure 4.5 44.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Experimental Programme 311 233 233 233 (a) Type 1 or 3 connections 156 99 99 99 35 (b) Type 2 connections (c) Side view Figure 4.6: Strain gauge locations for 45° specimens 71 .
The strain gauges were placed only on one brace because it was assumed that the top and bottom braces would behave symmetrically. L1. L2. LM. LM. for these connections. L3. a mount to support the LVDTs was attached to the top brace at a distance of 115 mm from. the top of the chord. 72 . in order from left to right. as shown in Figure 4. equidistant around half the EHS perimeter. L3. Strain gauge locations for the 90° specimens and 45° specimens are shown in Figure 4.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Experimental Programme To investigate the stress distributions around the brace near the connection. an additional LVDT was added to the left side of these connections such that the LVDT designations.5 and Figure 4. L2. as such. This LVDT was designated as LVDTCC. R2 and RC. An example of the LVDT locations is shown in Figure 4. Since the chord lengths of X901C and X901T were longer in comparison to the other specimen chord lengths. and RE. 4. LVDTLE should have similar measurements to LVDTRE. LVDTs (linear variable differential transformers) were placed at various locations along each of the specimens. L1. Connection displacement is the localized deformation of the connection where the brace and chord centrelines meet. LVDTRM and LVDTLM should have similar measurements. the readily adopted convention is to measure displacements perpendicular to the top of the chord. R1. the direction of loading was perpendicular to the top of the chord. the remaining LVDT instrumentation diagrams can be found in Appendix 4D. It is measured from the chord centreline to a reference point on the brace. The strain gauge designations from left to right were: SGLC.6. LVDTs were placed along the mount to measure deformations normal to the chord. From left to right. the strain gauges were placed only around half the perimeter because it was assumed that opposite halves of the brace would behave symmetrically. This distance was assumed to be close enough to the connection to determine stresses near the connecting EHS face. the LVDT designations were: LVDTLE.7. respectively. For the 90° connections. LVDTCC was also attached to the same LVDT mount. Likewise. L1. RM. For HSS connections. To make this measurement.8. were LVDTLE. It was expected that due to the symmetry of the specimen. All strain gauges were placed parallel to the loading direction and located at a perpendicular distance of 35mm from the top of the chord. a plate was welded onto the chord centreline and an LVDT was set atop the plate.2 LVDTS To measure connection displacements and to establish deformation profiles along the length of the chord. 7 strain gauges were attached to the top brace member.3. but far enough such that the heat affected zone caused by welding was avoided. CC. As well. RM and RE. and parallel to.
For the T connections. LVDTHOR was used to measure the horizontal displacement of the T connection end frame to determine if there were any end rotations.7: LVDT instrumentation for T901C LVDTCC supported by LVDT mount EHS Chord Plate welded onto chord centreline Figure 4. an additional LVDT was placed with the designation: LVDTHOR. 73 .8: LVDTCC setting to measure connection displacement For the compressiontested X connections.5mm intervals) Figure 4. This LVDT was used to measure the horizontal displacement of the specimens to determine if the specimen was experiencing global outofplane buckling. 44.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Experimental Programme N1 100 100 100 156 200 256 7 LVDTs Positions varied 35 115 (not to scale) 7 strain gauges A VIEW AA Equidistant about half the EHS perimeter (approx.
For the X connections. This pin formation caused the global buckling problem. however.3. The chord ends were bolted to these end frames. 4. the bottom brace end plate was inserted into the MTS base.4 MTS LOAD FRAME All connections were placed into the MTS 2700kNcapacity universal testing frame and initially loaded at a rate of 0. 4. For LED locations and numeration. global outofplane buckling was found to be a serious problem.25mm/second until nonlinear behaviour was apparent. The end frames were designed for shear and moment and were overdesigned to make them noncritical. For the T connections. The LEDs were affixed to the specimen and the optical camera would track the 3dimensional coordinates of each LED with time.10 for typical test setup of T connections).3. To remedy this. and the top brace end plate was inserted into the MTS moving head (see Figure 4. just below the connection region. X452C. To determine connection displacements and chord deformation profiles. at which point the loading rate was increased. which were then bolted onto a doubleweb Ibeam with stiffeners. X451C. but an additional T connection end frame was required to provide restraints for the chord. a secondary measurement system was employed. available from the Structural Testing Facility the University of Toronto (see Figure 4.11.3 Experimental Programme LEDS For the 45° connections.5 LATERAL SUPPORT Following the test of one compression loaded X connection (X902C). see Appendix 4E. The lateral support system comprised of: 1) four pillars that were posttensioned to the base of the MTS load frame. a lateral support system was constructed around the test specimen. the top brace end plate was inserted into the MTS moving head. As such. The connection region yielded much earlier than the remaining specimen leading to the development of a pin. 74 . and X453C. This posttensioned lateral restraint system was used for X903C.9 for typical test setup of X connections). LVDT mounting was arduous. The fabrication drawing of the end frames can be found in Appendix 4F. not only due to the complex geometry of the EHS connections but due to the changing geometry between different specimens. The posttensioned structure that braced specimen X452C is shown in Figure 4. LVDTHOR was mounted onto the MTS loadframe and measured the lateral displacement of the wooden mount.3. 2) crossbeams that stabilized the structure and 3) bracing that extended from the crossbeam with a wooden mount to hold onto the specimen.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 4. which supported the bottom brace just below the connection. a K610 optical camera in conjunction with strobing LEDs (light emitting diodes) was used.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Experimental Programme
MTS Moving Head
110 mm
Test Specimen
LVDT Mount
K610 Optical Camera
MTS Base
Figure 4.9: Typical experimental test setup for X connections (X902T)
220 mm
Test Specimen
K610 Optical Camera
LVDT Mount
LVDTHOR
T connection End Frame
Double Web IBeam
Figure 4.10: Typical test setup for T connections (T901C)
75
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Experimental Programme
110 mm
4
2
3
2
1:
posttensioned
pillars
2:
crossbeams
2
1
3:
bracing with
wooden mount
1
1
1
4:
LVDTHOR
Figure 4.11: Lateral support for compressionloaded X connections (X452C)
76
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Results and Analysis
5.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
In the previous section, the experimental programme was outlined. In this section, the results and
analysis from the experimental tests are reported.
5.1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The material properties of the EHS (yield stress, fy, ultimate stress, fu, and Young’s modulus, E), found
by tensile coupon and stub column tests, are reported here. Since the same stock of EHS was also used in
previous experiments by MartinezSaucedo (2007), the results from these material property tests will also
be compared with the material properties determined by MartinezSaucedo (2007).
Stress (MPa)
5.1.1
TENSILE COUPON TESTS
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
Coupon 1
Coupon 2
Coupon 3
100
0
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
Coupon 1
Coupon 2
Coupon 3
100
0
0.2
Strain (mm/mm)
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Strain (mm/mm)
a) Stressstrain curves until ultimate stress
b) Stressstrain curves until 0.04 mm/mm
Figure 5.1: Tensile coupon engineering stressstrain curves
The results of the tensile coupon (TC) tests are presented here. Figure 5.1 shows the engineering
stressstrain curves of the three coupons. Recall that TC1 and TC2 were taken from the rmax regions and
TC3 was taken from the rmin region. All TCs exhibit an initial linearelastic behaviour, the slope of which
is taken as E. While both TC1 and TC2 exhibit a peak upper yield point, TC3 does not. TC3 exhibits a
rounded stressstrain behaviour, indicating that the rmin regions of the EHS may not have been entirely
77
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Results and Analysis
stressrelieved. While TC2 and TC3 exhibit a fairly constant yield plateau, TC1 exhibits a variable
yield plateau. The average value through the yield plateau has been taken as fy. After strainhardening, the
maximum value obtained is taken as fu. The elongation at failure (εu) is the strain at which fracture occurs,
obtained by measurement after failure by joining the broken coupon pieces together. Table 5.1 lists the
summary of the TC test results.
Table 5.1: Tensile coupon test results
Coupon
TC1
TC2
TC3
AVERAGE
5.1.2
E (GPa)
211.4
201.5
217.3
210.1
fy (MPa)
408.0
399.5
397.1
401.5
εu (%)
36.0%
34.0%
36.1%
35.4%
STUB COLUMN TEST
450
1500
Ultimate Stress =
430 MPa
400
Load (kN)
300
250
200
SGN
SGS
SGW
SGE
150
100
50
Ultimate Load =
1380 kN
1200
350
Stress (MPa)
fu (MPa)
522.6
516.0
511.6
516.7
900
600
300
0
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
2.5
Strain (103)
5
10
15
20
25
EndShortening (mm)
(a) Stressstrain curves
(b) Loadend shortening curve
Figure 5.2: Stub column test results
One stub column test was performed. Figure 5.2a) shows the resulting stressstrain curve; each line
represents readings from one strain gauge (SG). All SGs read similar values until the stub column reached
its ultimate stress of 430 MPa. The onset of the loaddrop occurred when the stub column failed by
inelastic local buckling near its top, see Figure 5.3. The local buckling occurred in the rmax regions. The
SGs located at the rmax regions (SGW and SGE) read smaller compressive strains while the SGs located
at the rmin regions (SGN and SGS) continued to carry compressive strains. Figure 5.2b) shows the loadend shortening curve. The endshortening was measured by LVDTnorth and LVDTsouth. The
78
but are likely within the margins of experimental error and variability. which makes the two sets of results very comparable.997 MartinezSaucedo (2007) performed four tensile coupon tests and one stub column test on the same EHS stock that was used for these experiments. only 0.941 0. Currently determined material properties are compared with the material properties determined by MartinezSaucedo (2007) in Table 5. previously determined material properties Material Property Current Value Previous Value* Tensile Coupon Tests E (GPa) 210.1GPa).975 0.5 421 fu (MPa) 516. The AEHS measurements nearly match. The table compares E.954 0. From these graphs.2: Current vs. fy and fu of the tensile coupon tests.1 216 fy (MPa) 401. fu and AEHS of the stub column test.3: EHS220 x 110 x6 stub column failure 5. so an average value was taken and plotted. it was determined that E = 208.95% less than the tensile coupon average readings (E = 210. and the postpeak behaviour showed no increase in capacity. and Pu. All currently determined values are lower than those reported previously by MartinezSaucedo (2007).2. 79 .7 530 Stub Column Test Pu (kN) 1380 1396 fu (MPa) 430 457 AEHS (mm2) 3044 3053 * Previous values from MartinezSaucedo (2007) Current/Previous 0.1.1GPa. The stub column reached a peak compressive load of 1380kN.973 0.989 0. (a) Side view (b) Top view Figure 5.3 PREVIOUS MATERIAL PROPERTY TESTS Table 5.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis measurements from both LVDTs were very close.
Figure 5.3: Measured brace and chord lengths Test # Designation Chord Length .29 4. to the top or bottom of the chord at the crown. and Figure 5.5 shows an example of an X connection at 45°.4: X901T chord and brace dimensions 80 Brace Length (mm) 1089 1045 989 1089 1043 989 890/1110* 987/1097* 879/1099* 1089 1042 1032 .05 4. with all values reported in mm.4 shows an example of an X connection at 90°.97 4. For the 45° connections.24 10.24 9. the welds were measured. First.Lc (mm) 1 X901T 2198 2 X902T 994 3 X903T 1016 4 X901C 2193 5 X902C 997 6 X903C 1016 7 X451C 2264 8 X452C 963 9 X453C 1326 10 T901C 1098 11 T902C 1098 12 T903C 1100 *Indicates two brace lengths for 45° connections Lc / b0 9. All welds were found to be larger than specified weld sizes. The chord length does not include the plates. two brace lengths are given since the distances from each of the crowns to the other end of the brace were different.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis 5.53 9.99 10.99 4. The complete set of measurement diagrams are found in Appendix 5A.00 Figure 5. The brace length is either the top or bottom of the brace.2 SPECIMEN DIMENSIONS Chord. Table 5. not including the plate. The complete set of weld measurements is found in Appendix 5B.38 12. brace and weld dimensions were measured. the chord and brace lengths were measured. Table 5. as well as the chord length (Lc) to chord width (b0) ratio.3 shows the chord and brace lengths.52 9. Second.99 4.
X902T was one of the first specimens instrumented with both LVDTs and LEDs and. the time shift required for X902C was 500 seconds. X453C. the likelihood of outofplane displacement or rotations was minimized. T902C and T903C). they were validated against each other using the X902T specimen at two locations. the displacements from either measurement system nearly match.5: X453C chord and brace dimensions 5. X452C and T901C). The time shift is arbitrary. For the later performed tests (X903C. Similarly. since it was loaded under quasistatic tension. and LVDTLE displacements were compared against the vertical displacements between LED 16 and LED 4. the MTS load and displacement signals were not connected with the K610 camera. the MTS load and MTS displacement signals were connected with the K610 camera.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis Figure 5.6. both LVDTs and LEDs with the K610camara were used to measure displacements. it depended only on the time difference between starting the K610 camera system and the start of the test. the LED displacements had to be shifted by 55 seconds. In the earlier performed tests (X902T. In order for the LED displacements of X902T to synchronize with the LVDT displacements.3 LED AND LVDT VALIDATION As described in Chapter 4. LVDTL1 displacements were compared against the vertical displacements between LED 17 and LED 7. there was no method to link the systems to one another. 81 . X902C. X451C. Other than time. To ensure that both measurement systems provided the same results. As shown in Figure 5. for X452C was 240 seconds and for T901C was 14 seconds. hence measurements from either system were directly relatable.
Since the K61082 . if no connection rotations were present. The relative displacement between these LEDs is also Δ1.6: LVDT and LED time synchronization for X902T 5. the LED measurements were used. or for the 45° connections. The contraction or expansion of the LVDTCC gauge distance is referred to as Δ1. Typically. but if there was rotation. the LVDT measurement was used for the loaddisplacement graphs. and at the chord centreline. two methods were used to measure the connection displacement (Δ1): LVDTs and LEDs. To recall. The first method used LVDTCC. approximately 115mm from the top of the chord.Displacement (mm) Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3000 3500 4000 4500 Results and Analysis : LVDTL1 : LED(177) + time shift of 55seconds 5000 Time (s) Displacement (mm) a) LVDTL1 and LED(177) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Time (s) : LVDTLE : LED(164) + time shift of 55seconds b) LVDTLE and LED(164) Figure 5.4 LOADDISPLACEMENT CURVES AND FAILURE MODES The loaddisplacement curves and failure modes of each of the 12 specimens were determined. The second method used LEDs positioned on the brace.
For compressionloaded specimens.5. 3% of b0 is = 3. There are three specimens per Joint.7 to 5. It is shown with the blue lines.5. The 3%DL limits the capacity of the connection to when the connection displacement = 3% of the chord width (b0). The first way categorizes the specimens according to their orientation type.4. proposed and readily adopted since Lu and colleagues first proposed it in 1994. 83 .6mm.Angle#Load group and these are indicated by the rows in Table 5. and the small dimension of the EHS.Angle#Load T90#C X45#C X90#C X90#T Type 1 β = 0.0 i) T903C j) X453C k) X903C l) X903T Figures 5.4. η = 1. For onepage experimental summaries. H = 220mm. The UL is a load limit and is shown with the green lines. For the Type 1 and 2 connections. The results are summarized in Table 5. and for the Type 3 connections.4: Two methods of specimen categorization Joint. geometric transformations were required. and the associated connection displacement is denoted as Δ1u. Appendix 5C shows the schematics of how Δ1 was measured. The curves are presented in the alphabetic order shown in Table 5. The second way categorizes the specimens according to their joint type. certain specimens behaved similarly. Table 5. Figure 5. for tensionloaded specimens. There are four specimens per orientation type and these are indicated by the columns in Table 5.3mm.18 show the loaddisplacement curves of each specimen. η = 0. The load that occurs at the UL is denoted as N1u. and its associated load is denoted as N1(3%). B = 110mm.0.Angle#Load). η = 2. the displacement component perpendicular to the length of the chord is referred to as Δ1. It occurs when the connection reaches its maximum load capacity. It was observed that the 12 specimens could be categorized in two ways.4. 3% of b0 is = 6. Conversely.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis camera x. The displacement corresponding to the 3%DL is denoted as Δ1(3%).5 e) T902C f) X452C g) X902C h) X902T Type 3 β = 1. When analyzing the results of the experiments. the key dimensions to recall are the large dimension of the EHS. The 3%DL is a displacement limit.4. compressive load is positive and connection contraction is positive.0 a) T901C b) X451C c) X901C d) X901T Orientation Type Type 2 β = 1. tensile load is positive and connection expansion is positive. For scale. y and z axes did not necessarily correspond to the specimen alignment.19 shows the ultimate failure mode of each specimen. angle and loading protocol (Joint. Two important limits are shown on the loaddisplacement graphs: the ultimate load (UL) and the 3% deformation limit load (3%DL). presented in the same order that is shown in Table 5.0. For the 45° connections. see Appendix 5D.
7: Loadconnection displacement graph of a) T901C 450 Braces in direct contact 400 N1u = 350.3 kN 350 Load (kN) 300 N1(3%) = 258.5 kN 250 200 150 ∆1u =24.4 kN 150 100 ∆1u =6.6 mm 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Connection Displacement (mm) Figure 5.7 mm ∆1(3%)= 6.6 mm 50 ∆1(3%)= 6.6 mm 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Connection Displacement (mm) Figure 5.8: Loadconnection displacement graph of b) X451C 84 30 .5 kN Load (kN) 200 N1(3%) = 211.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis 250 N1u = 216.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Results and Analysis
250
Braces in direct contact
N1u = 202.4 kN
Load (kN)
200
150
N1(3%) = 150.5 kN
100
D1u =38 mm
D1(3%)= 6.6 mm
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Connection Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.9: Loadconnection displacement graph of c) X901C
350
N1u = 339.1 kN
300
Chord tearout
Load (kN)
250
200
N1(3%) = 187.9 kN
150
D1u =31 mm
D1(3%)= 6.6 mm
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Connection Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.10: Loadconnection displacement graph of d) X901T
85
30
35
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Results and Analysis
400
350
N1u = 353.0 kN
N1(3%) = 338.2 kN
Load (kN)
300
250
200
150
D1(3%)= 6.6 mm
D1u =2.2 mm
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Connection Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.11: Loadconnection displacement graph of e) T902C
700
N1u = 627.8kN
600
N1(3%) = 531.0 kN
Load (kN)
500
400
300
200
D1u =2.6 mm
D1(3%)= 6.6 mm
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Connection Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.12: Loadconnection displacement graph of f) X452C
86
14
16
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
600
N1u = 539.7 kN
Results and Analysis
N1(3%) = 537.8 kN
500
Load (kN)
400
300
200
D1(3%)= 6.6 mm
D1u =5.2 mm
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Connection Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.13: Loadconnection displacement graph of g) X902C
700
Brace crack forms
600
Chord sidewall failure
N1(3%) = 574.5 kN
500
Load (kN)
N1u = 596.8 kN
400
300
D1u =10 mm
D1(3%)= 6.6 mm
200
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Connection Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.14: Loadconnection displacement graph of h) X902T
87
18
20
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Results and Analysis
700
N1u = 593.8 kN
600
N1(3%) = 550.6 kN
Load (kN)
500
400
300
200
D1u =0.53 mm
100
D1(3%)= 3.3 mm
0
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Connection Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.15: Loadconnection displacement graph of i) T903C
800
N1u = 701.0 kN
700
N1(3%) = 656.9 kN
Load (kN)
600
500
400
300
D1u =
0.78 mm
200
100
D1(3%)=
3.3 mm
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
Connection Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.16: Loadconnection displacement graph of j) X453C
88
12
14
18: Loadconnection displacement graph of l) X903T 89 30 35 .3 mm 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Connection Displacement (mm) Figure 5.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 600 Results and Analysis N1u = 555.0 kN 1400 Brace Rupture Load (kN) 1200 N1(3%) = 1188.8 kN Load (kN) 400 300 200 D1(3%)= D1u = 1.1 kN 500 N1(3%) = 459.17: Loadconnection displacement graph of k) X903C 1600 N1u = 1557.5 mm 3.8 kN 1000 800 D1u =33 mm 600 D1(3%)= 3.3 mm 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Connection Displacement (mm) Figure 5.
19: Ultimate failure modes 90 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis (a) T901C: chord plastification (e) T902C: chord sidewall failure (i) T903C: chord sidewall failure (b) X451C: chord plastification (f) X452C: chord sidewall failure (j) X453C: chord sidewall failure (c) X901C: chord plastification (g) X902C: global buckling & chord sidewall failure (k) X903C: chord sidewall failure (d) X901T: chord plastification & chord tear out (h) X902T: chord sidewall failure (l) X903T: brace failure Figure 5.
0 SW 5 g) X902C 220 110 220 110 90 1.0 2. even if the failure load is higher.5 SW 12 i) T903C 110 220 110 220 90 1.1 187. CP = chord plastification. Note the UL may govern over the 3%DL. SW = chord sidewall failure.5 1. chord plastification was the dominant failure mode.5 1. c) X901C and d) X901T with β = 0.0 350. **Ultimate Failure Mode heading: BF = brace failure. This is attributed to the two braces 91 .1 459. Afterwards.0 2.0 339.5: Summary of experiments and results Parameters Load* Ultimate b0 h0 b1 h1 θ1 UL 3%DL Specimen Failure β= η= Mode** b1 / b0 h 1 / b0 (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) ° (kN) (kN) 10 a) T901C 220 110 110 220 90 0.8 BF *Highlighted values = governing capacity.0 593.8 574.8 SW 3 l) X903T 110 220 110 220 90 1. if the ultimate load precedes the (lower) 3% displacement limit load. While technically for T901C.0 1188. For the Type 1 connections in compression.1 Type 1 Connections (see Figure 2.0 656.4 CP 7 b) X451C 220 110 110 220 45 0.7 537.5 CP 4 c) X901C 220 110 110 220 90 0.6 SW. GB = global (overall) buckling.9 SW 6 k) X903C 110 220 110 220 90 1.0 0.0 2. The connections were fairly deformable and their capacities were governed by the 3%DL.5 539.5 CP 1 d) X901T 220 110 110 220 90 0. the UL and the 3%DL nearly occurred at the same connection displacement of 6.0 216. a second slope increase occurred at the end of the curves.9 CP. b) X451C.0 2.1.4 150.8 531. the loadconnection displacement curves eventually reached a local maxima or a plateau.0.0 701. the chord increasing flattened as the MTS displacement increased.5 353.5 and η = 1. For Type 1 connections in compression. 5. Test # 5. the UL occurred first and therefore should govern. the connection capacity increased again.3 258.2 SW.0 0.5 1. CT = chord tearout.0 555.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis Table 5.6 according to those categories. CP 9 j) X453C 110 220 110 220 45 1.0 1557. The local maxima or plateau signified the yielding of the chord at its centreline. a) T901C.0 338.1 Chord Brace OBSERVATIONS Observations regarding the loaddisplacement graphs and failure modes are made here.5 211. CT 11 e) T902C 220 110 220 110 90 1. CP 8 f) X452C 220 110 220 110 45 1.5 1. As the connection increasingly deformed. This change in slope is attributed to second order effects. The observations made below are summarized below in Table 5. Some common behaviours can be found based on the categories shown in Table 5.6mm. it can also be said that T901C was governed by the 3%DL.4.5 596.0 0. As such. SW 2 h) X902T 220 110 220 110 90 1. tension stiffening would have occurred at the top and bottom of the chord (only the top of the chord for the T connection) leading to increased capacity.0 0.4.16) For the Type 1 connections.5 627.8 550.0 202. For X451C and X901C.8 GB.4.
In addition. chord sidewall failure was the dominant failure mode.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis making contact with each other through the complete flattening of the chord. This behaviour was not seen in X902C. With the chord width equalling the brace width. f) X452C.20 for a comparison of Type 1 connections in compression. the failure mode was also chord plastification.1. It was observed that the capacities of Type 2 connections in compression were governed by the UL. See Figure 5. the connection capacity increased.0 and η = 0. e) T902C. As X902C was not restrained from lateral displacement as the other compressionloaded specimens were.20: Type 1 connections in compression 5. After this.2 Type 2 Connections (see Figure 2.16) For the Type 2 connections. For the Type 1 connection in tension (X901T). it is reasonable to expect that the sidewall of the chord would be the critical region. See Figure 5. but instead of the chord flattening. it circularized. it underwent overall global buckling. but it is hypothesized that it would have occurred had it been laterally restrained. The governing capacities of Type 1 connections were the lowest in comparison to their Type 2 and Type 3 counterparts. 450 400 X451C 350 Load (kN) 300 T901C 250 200 X901C 150 100 3%DL 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Connection Displacement (mm) Figure 5. 92 .5. this can be attributed to second order tension stiffening effects that would have occurred at the top of the chord for T902C and the top and bottom of the chord for X452C. the UL is marked by a local maxima.4. the bottom brace eventually caused tearout of the chord leading to the drop in capacity. g) X902C and h) X902T with β = 1.21 for a comparison of Type 2 connections in compression. For T902C and X452C.
however.21: Type 2 connections in compression Puncture Pinching Action (a) Chord sidewall pinching (b) Brace puncturing the chord sidewall Figure 5.22.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis Even though X902C globally buckled.19f).22: X902C chord sidewall failure The first sign of failure with X902T occurred when the top brace fractured just above the weld. 700 X452C 600 Load (kN) 500 X902C 400 300 T902C 200 3%DL 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Connection Displacement (mm) Figure 5. see Figure 5. This fracture did not lead to a significant drop in load. This pinching action can also be seen in X452C (Figure 5. on the local scale the braces eventually pinched then punctured the sidewall of the chord ultimately leading to chord sidewall failure. It is surmised that it was only a surface crack 93 .
X902T ultimately failed via chord sidewall failure by the formation of another crack. j) X453C. k) X903C and l) X903T with β = 1. 1557kN/3044mm2 = 512MPa ~ fu = 517MPa. This phenomenon gave a means to approximately calculate fy and fu of the EHS and to compare with the tensile coupon values (recall Table 5.23: X902T brace failure and chord side wall failure 5.16) For the Type 3 connections. Once this crack formed.3 Type 3 Connections (see Figure 2. This crack did go through the entire chord thickness and did result in a drop in capacity. For Type 3 connections in compression.0 and η = 2. thus. and 1200kN/3044mm2 = 396MPa ~ fy = 402MPa. both the brace crack (see Figure 5. small deformations were apparent.24 for a comparison of Type 3 connections in compression. See Figure 5. The governing capacities of Type 3 connections are the highest in comparison to the governing capacities of their Type 1 and Type 2 counterparts. The X903T results corroborate the tensile coupon results.18). The exception is X903T. this brace crack is not considered as an ultimate limit state. Using AEHS = 3044mm2. it is reasonable to expect that the sidewall of the chord would be the critical region. Unlike the Type 2 connections.0.23b) propagated as the MTS displacement was increased.4. chord sidewall failure was the dominant failure mode. with the chord width equalling the brace width.0kN and the load just before strain hardening is approximately = 1200kN. The governing capacities of Type 2 connections were in between the governing capacities of their Type 1 and Type 3 counterparts. tension stiffening did not occur and connection capacities did not increase. Chord sidewall fracture Brace fracture (a) Brace crack after excessive deformation (b) Chord sidewall failure after excessive deformation Figure 5. This tension tested specimen failed by the yielding and eventual rupturing of the top brace.1.23a) and the chord sidewall crack (see Figure 5.1). the ultimate load = 1557. Again. after reaching the UL. thus. the chord sidewalls locally buckled.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis and did not go through the entire brace thickness. the UL governed the connection capacities. From the loadconnection displacement curve (Figure 5. 94 . i) T903C.
1.6: Loaddisplacement graph and failure mode observations based on orientation type groups Failure Mode Compression loaded connection capacities governed by: Compression loaded specimens loaddisplacement curve Governing connection capacities 5.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis 800 700 Load (kN) 600 X453C 500 T903C 400 300 X903C 200 3%DL 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Connection Displacement (mm) Figure 5.4. 45° connections had higher connection capacities than their counterparts.Angle#Load). Angle and Loading Some common behaviours can be found based on the second categorical method (Joint. The only exception is X903T which had a higher capacity than X453C.24: Type 3 connections in compression Table 5. but UL and 3%DL nearly coincide) After initial drop in capacity. the chord top and/or bottom may have experienced tension stiffening resulting in the connection increasing in capacity again. Weakest Type 2 Chord sidewall failure (X902C also globally buckled. but X903T was considered a special case since it was 95 . Typically.4 Type 1 Chord plastification (X901T also experienced chord tear out) 3%DL (Technically UL for T901C. X902T also experienced brace failure) UL Type 3 Chord sidewall failure (Exception: X903T underwent brace failure) UL Chord sidewall buckling led to a continual decrease in connection capacity after the UL Between Types 1 and 3 Strongest Joint.
therefore. green represents the load stage at the 3%DL.27. the red. and Figure 5. the ultimate limit. The different colours signify the CDPs at various load stages. It is recommended for future T connection tests that strain gauges be placed on the chord to determine stresses in the chord at the connection.25 to 5. For the specimens that had the 3%DL govern the load capacity of the connection. In developing the CDPs. CDPs were established using LEDs.1 90° CONNECTIONS For the 90° connections (except X902C. Red represents the load stage at the UL.27 show the CDPs for the 90° connections. and orange represents the load stage at 50% of the 3%DL. the chords remained perpendicular to the direction of loading until. LVDTLE (the LVDT located at the leftend) and LVDTRE (the LVDT located at the rightend).27 shows the CDPs for the compressiontested T connections (a) T901C. b) X902C and c) X903C). blue represents the load stage at 50% of the UL. compressive normal stresses would have developed at the connecting face.26 shows the CDPs for the compressiontested X connections (a) X901C. for which global buckling occurred). were used as reference points. LVDTs could simply be used to generate the CDPs. only the red and blue lines are shown. For the specimens that had the UL govern the load capacity of the connection. at least. and the LVDTs located on the right side of the braces used LVDTRE as their reference point. Figures 5. b) X902T and c) X903T).25 shows the CDPs for the tensiontested X connections (a) X901T. Figure 5.25 to 5. Figure 5. In Figures 5. green and orange lines are shown. b) T902C and c) T903C). the solid lines indicate the linear interpolation between known displacements. LVDTs and LEDs were placed along the top of the chord to measure relative chord displacements at various load stages. and for the 45° connections. and that the capacities of tensionloaded connections were governed by their 3%DL. CDPs were established using the LVDTs.5 CHORD DEFORMATION PROFILES To develop chord deformation profiles (CDPs). and the dashed lines show the assumed displacements based on symmetry of the specimen and brace locations. 96 . It was also observed that capacities of T connections were governed by their UL. For the 90° connections. 5.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis a tension test that failed in the brace.5. 5. The LVDTs located on the left side of the braces used LVDTLE as their reference point. It should also be noted that the T connections would have experienced bending and as such. the points represent the measured LVDT displacements relative to the end LVDTs.
3mm Chord length = 1016mm (c) X903T Figure 5. Δ1u = 10mm N1(3%) = 574.25: Chord deformation profiles of 90° X connections in tension 97 .6mm Chord length = 2198mm N1u =596. Δ1(3%) = 3. Δ1(3%) = 6.9kN.8kN.6mm Chord length = 994mm (a) X901T (b) X902T 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1200 800 400 : CDP when N1 = Ultimate Load : CDP interpolation : CDP when N1 = Load at 3%DL : CDP interpolation : CDP when N1 = 50% Load at 3%DL : CDP interpolation : Brace location 0 400 800 1200 LVDT Position (mm) N1u = 1557.8kN.1kN. Δ1u = 33mm N1(3%) = 1188. Δ1(3%) = 6. Δ1u = 31mm N1(3%) = 187.19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 1 1200 800 400 Results and Analysis Chord Displacement (mm) Chord Displacement (mm) Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 0 400 800 1200 Chord displacement (mm) LVDT Position (mm) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1200 800 400 0 400 800 1200 LVDT Position (mm) N1u = 339.0kN.5kN.
Δ1(3%) = 6.5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 1200800 400 Results and Analysis Chord displacement (mm) Chord displacement (mm) Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 0 400 800 1200 Chord displacement (mm) LVDT Position (mm) 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 1200 800 400 0 400 800 1200 LVDT Position (mm) N1u = 202.5mm Chord length = 1016mm (c) X903C Figure 5. Δ1u = 38mm N1(3%) = 150.1kN.0mm (Global buckling occurred) Chord length = 997mm (a) X901C (b) X902C 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 1200 800 400 : CDP when N1 = 50% Load at 3%DL : CDP interpolation : CDP when N1 = Load at 3%DL : CDP interpolation : CDP when N1 = 50% Ultimate Load : CDP interpolation : CDP when N1 = Ultimate Load : CDP interpolation 0 400 800 1200 : Brace location LVDT Position (mm) N1u = 555.5kN.6mm Chord length = 2193mm N1u = 539.26: Chord deformation profiles of 90° X connections in compression 98 . Δ1u = 1.4kN.7kN. Δ1u = 5.
Δ1u = 0.0kN.5kN.6mm Chord Length = 1098mm N1u = 553.26a) and X903C (Figure 5. the Type 1 connections were the most deformable and the Type 3 connections were the least deformable.25a) and Figure 5.8kN. chord lengths were extended to minimize the effects of end 99 .27: Chord deformation profiles of 90° T connections in compression The CDPs show that the maximum deformations were localized around the connection region. Δ1u = 2. Δ1u = 6. Due to the expected deformability of these connections. This was most obvious when comparing X901C (Figure 5.Results and Analysis 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Chord Displacement (mm) Chord Displacement (mm) Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 800 400 0 400 800 400 0 400 N1u = 216. respectively. Generally.53mm Chord Length = 1100mm (c) T903C Figure 5. Figure 5.26a) show the CDPs of X901T and X901C.26c).2mm Chord Length = 1098mm (a) T901C (b) T902C 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 800 800 LVDT Position (mm) LVDT Position (mm) Chord Displacement (mm) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 800 : CDP when N1 = 50% Ultimate Load : CDP interpolation : CDP when N1 = Ultimate Load : CDP interpolation : Brace location 400 0 400 800 LVDT Position (mm) N1u = 593.
there were negligible deformations from the ends to the next closest LVDT.30. An oddity with X901C was observed: there was an upward displacement at the second node from the left despite the load being applied downward. At the location of the brace. This supports the argument that the maximum deformations occurred at the connection region.29 shows X452C originally and when ∆1 = 5. just like its 90° counterpart. Figure 5. Generally.5. this is not true for T902C (Figure 5. the assumed CDP is shown to be a horizontal dashed line. the planar positions of the LEDs were used to track the chord displacements. but high deformations around the connection region. For this reason. The reason is that X902C experienced global buckling leading to nonsymmetrical behaviour. In these tests.28 to 5. However. As seen with both X901T and X901C.26b shows the CDP of X902C.27b) and T903C (Figure 5.28 shows X451C originally and at the UL. There was a slight rotation counterclockwise. The left side compressed the LVDTs while the right side allowed the LVDTs to expand. which are shown in Figures 5.2 times the displacement at the UL. developing CDPs was complex since the chord did not simply displace in the direction of loading. the connection displacement (∆1) exceeds the value of this horizontal dashed line. Figure 5. but there was prominent indentation at the connection region. the chord ends remained relatively undeformed. ∆1 was less than the indicated horizontal line.30 shows X453C originally and when ∆1 = 7. Due to some second order effects. which is unlike the other CDPs.2∆1u.2∆1u. Even at 7. but the chord itself rotated in the plane of the specimen. midheight and bottom).27c). This suggests that the bending action experienced by the chords of T connections contributes to the chord deformations more than the localized indentation at the connection region.2 45° CONNECTIONS For the 45° connections. In these figures. 100 . Figure 5. The black lines show the original shape and red lines show the chord shape after discernable deformation (at the chord top. but the rotation came from the connection region. this connection showed very little inplane displacement.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis conditions. X903C. Figure 5. No dashed lines were drawn in this case since the braces did not remain perpendicular to the chord. the LED positions were shifted to make the origin correspond with the connection centre. There was a slight rotation counterclockwise. it appears that some circularization occurred at this region. 5.
2mm ~ 5.8kN Δ1 = 15.8Δ1u 100 200 : original brace location 300 400 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 xAxis (mm) Figure 5.3kN Δ1u = 24.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis 500 400 yAxis (mm) 300 200 : original shape 100 : shape at UL N1u = 350.29: Chord deformation profile of X452C 101 .7mm 0 100 200 : original brace location 300 400 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 xAxis (mm) Figure 5.28: Chord deformation profile of X451C 400 300 yAxis (mm) 200 100 : original shape 0 : shape when N1 = N1u = 627.
Images of these cutout crosssections are shown in Figure 5.2Δ1u 100 200 : original brace location 300 400 500 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 xAxis (mm) Figure 5.31a). An oddity was observed at the bottom of the chord just below the brace.72N1u Δ1 = 9. a cutout of T901C through the chord crosssection is shown. the only portion to remain in the elliptical form was at the top of the chord between the welds. Similarly. in Figure 5.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis 500 400 300 yAxis (mm) 200 : original shape 100 0 : shape when N1=501. 102 . In Figure 5. It appears that as the connection displacement increased.5. however. Apparent in this figure are the chord sidewalls buckling.9kN ~ 0. the bottom of the chord is not sagging but rather hogging.31b) shows the cutout section of T902C along the length of the chord. When this occurred. The brace again remained relatively unchanged.3 CROSSSECTIONS Postexperimental crosssections were cut out of the T connections to further investigate the deformations at the connection region. The top and bottom of the chord have squashed such that the elliptical form had essentially turned into two plates. the squashing of the chord resulted in outofplane displacements. the sides of the chord pulled the bottom of the chord upward resulting in this hogging effect.31.31c). The chord top remained straight between the welds.3mm ~ 7. Since the T connections experienced bending. Figure 5. the cutout of T903C through the chord crosssection is shown. Note for scale: section cuts were made through the short dimension of the brace = 110mm. The only portion to remain in the elliptical form was at the top of the chord between the welds. but the chord showed excessive deformation.30: Chord deformation profile of X453C 5. The brace remained relatively unchanged. but the chord showed excessive deformation. Like T901C. one would expect the chord to sag down. at this localized region.
strain gauges (SG) were placed equidistant around half the perimeter of the EHS brace. For the X451C and X452C specimens.32 shows the SG designations during the test and their associated SG location number. The front of the specimen was considered to be the side facing the K610camera. such that the measurements from SG1 should correspond to SG7. In order to be able to compare stress profiles better.6 BRACE STRESSES To establish brace stress profiles. and likewise. the front view of the specimen had the high end of the chord on the right side. the heel) is always oriented to the left side. For the X453C specimen. all SGL#s are on the left side of the specimen and all SGR#s are on the right side.31: Cutout sections of T connections (c) T903C cut through chord crosssection 5. The axis of symmetry for the 90° connections lies through SG4. however. With this directionality. the front views of the specimens had the high end of the chord on the left side. 103 . Figure 5.e.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis (a) (b) T901C cut through chord crossT902C cut along chord length section Figure 5. SG2 with SG6 and SG3 with SG5. the plots produced for X453C are the mirror images of the actual results such that the high end of the chord (i.
thus the stresses were taken as fy = 402MPa. The graphs plot stress on the vertical axis and SG location numbers on the horizontal axis.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis FRONT FRONT (b) Type 2 (a) Type 1 and 3 Figure 5. positive stress indicates tension. Figure 5. 104 . and the lines connecting the points show a linear interpolation between these measured values. Beyond fy.35d: X903C.040MPa). 2 and 3 connections. For tests that underwent quasistatic compression (specimen designations ending with “C”).34 and Figure 5. For the strain measurements which exceeded the yield point. Figure 5. respectively. and those tests that underwent quasistatic tension (specimen designations ending with “T”). the stresses were determined from the tensile coupon stressstrain curves. 2 or 3). the points up to yield show the strain measurements multiplied by the E determined from the tensile coupon tests (E = 210. The 12 graphs are found below separated into 3 figures according to their orientation type (Type 1.35 show the brace stress profiles for Type 1. it was found that the strains lay on the yield plateau.33.34b: X452C.34c: X902C. This came into effect in Figure 5.32: Strain gauge designations to their strain gauge location number Twelve brace stress profile graphs were developed for each of the 12 connection tests. On the graphs. positive stress indicates compression. and Figure 5. Figure 5.
N1(3%) = 150.Results and Analysis 100 400 80 300 Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 60 40 20 200 100 0 100 0 200 20 300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Strain Gauge Location No.0kN 40 Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 50% N1(3%)=129.2kN 40 80 7 1 Strain Gauge Location No.2kN (c) X901C: compressive stress positive 50% N1(3%) = 93.9kN. N1u = 339. 50% N1u = 109. 7 20 20 6 6 0 60 5 5 20 0 4 4 (b) X451C compressive stress positive 60 3 3 N1u = 350.3kN. (a) T901C: compressive stress positive 1 Heel 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strain Gauge Location No.1kN.5kN. 100 2 2 Toe Strain Gauge Location No. N1(3%) = 187. 50% N1(3%)=71.5kN. N1u = 216. N1u = 202.6kN (d) X901T: tensile stress positive 1 4 7 (e) Type 1 orientation and strain gauge locations Figure 5.5kN.33: Brace stress profiles for Type 1 connections 105 .4kN. N1(3%) = 258.
(c) X902C: compressive stress positive 50% N1(3%)=288.Results and Analysis 350 500 300 400 250 300 Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 200 150 100 50 200 100 200 50 300 2 3 4 5 6 Heel 100 0 1 Toe 0 7 1 Strain Gauge Location No. 50% N1u = 270. (a) T902C: compressive stress positive 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strain Gauge Location No.8.0kN.8kN. 50% N1u = 179. N1(3%) = 574. N1u = 353. 4 (b) X452C: compressive stress positive 500 2 3 Strain Gauge Location No.34: Brace stress profiles for Type 2 connections 106 . 300 Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) 400 200 100 0 100 200 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 50% N1u = 317.7 (e) Type 2 orientation and strain gauge locations Figure 5.4kN N1u = 596.6kN 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 50 1 7 Strain Gauge Location No.7kN.6kN N1u = 627.5kN.9kN (d) X902T: tensile stress positive 4 1. N1u = 539.
(a) T903C: compressive stress positive 1 2 Toe 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strain Gauge Location No. N1u = 555.8kN 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 7 Strain Gauge Location No. 50% N1u = 296.0kN.35: Brace stress profiles for Type 3 connections 107 . capped at fy = 402MPa 1 4 7 (e) Type 3 orientation and strain gauge locations Figure 5. N1u = 539. 50% N1u = 277. 200 Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) 250 150 100 50 0 50 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 50% N1u = 351.1kN.7kN.8kN (d) X903T: tensile stress positive. 4 (b) X453C: compressive stress positive 300 2 3 Strain Gauge Location No.5kN N1(3%) = 1188.8kN.4kN N1u = 701. (c) X903C: compressive stress positive 50% N1(3%)=594.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis 300 400 350 Stress (MPa) 250 Stress (MPa) 200 150 100 50 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Heel 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Strain Gauge Location No.
The stress profile of X903T at the UL load stage is not shown. The compressive stresses were highest at the “corners” of the EHS brace and lowest at the “flat” region. 5.33a). An exception occurs with Figure 5. X901C had the highest compressive stresses at the “corners” and lowest stresses (in fact small tensile stresses) at the “flat” region. As X901C reached its capacity (load stage at the 3%DL). In the cases where the connection capacity was governed by the 3%DL. T901C and X901C showed similar behaviours.1 TYPE 1 CONNECTIONS Additional observations regarding the brace stress profiles for Type 1 connections are given here. which is similar to T901C. the compressive stresses were still highest at the “corners”. At the UL stage. it was generally observed that the capacities of Type 1 connections were governed by the 3%DL. but this coincided with the 3%DL. The shapes of the stress profiles are “U” shaped symmetric about SG4.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis In the cases where the connection capacity was governed by the UL. Therefore. the connection capacity was technically governed by the UL. At 50% of the 3%DL load stage. at the 3%DL load (dashed black). the shape of the stress profile is like a “W”. hence they are not plotted.1.1 T901C and X901C For T901C. The shapes of the stress profiles are “U” shaped symmetric about SG4. 5. the brace stress profiles at the ultimate load (solid black) and at 50% of the ultimate load (solid gray) are plotted. Again.6. As T901C reached its capacity (load stage at the UL or 3%DL).6. and at 50% of the 3%DL load (dashed gray) are plotted. but the compressive stress at the “flat” region (corresponding to SG4) increased. but the compressive stress at the “flat” region (corresponding to SG4) had increased. the shape of the stress profile changed into a “W”. it is expected that the highest stresses occurred at the “corners” because these are the stiffest parts of the EHS. which is similar to T901C. This is in agreement with the failure mode of this specimen: brace failure.35d). the brace stress profile is shown in Figure 5. The same stress profile shapes can also be seen in X901C (Figure 5. At 50% of the UL or 3%DL load stage. 108 . the stresses were all fy. The brace stresses at the 3%DL load stage were mostly at fy. the compressive stresses were still highest at the “corners”. It is to be expected that the highest stresses would occur at the “corners” because these are the stiffest parts of the EHS. the brace stress profiles at the ultimate load (solid black).33c). (Note: even though the ultimate failure was the rupturing of the brace. the strain gauge readings corresponded to fy and not fu). while X451C and X901T showed similar behaviours.
The stresses at the “corners” of the brace (corresponding to SG4) were always the peak values.33b) are asymmetric.6. which is similar to X451C. At the UL load stage.6. Based on the stress profile. the test was stopped. As “circularization” occurred and the chord yielded in this region. at stresses at SG7 (the right “corner” or toe) are in tension. at the UL load stage when the bottom brace tears the chord at the base of the weld. Thus. They are also the values closest to zero. The brace stress profiles of X901T (Figure 5.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis X901C is different to T901C at the UL load stage. the middle of the brace. the tension loaded specimen experienced compressive stresses at the brace “corners”. At both 50% of the 3%DL and 3%DL load stages. At the UL. the chord at the saddle regions (corresponding to the “flat” regions of the brace) would have deformed more than the chord at the crown regions (corresponding to the “corners” of the brace). Even though the connection was loaded in tension.2 X451C and X901T The stress profiles for X451C (Figure 5. which is understandable due to the physical asymmetry of the specimen. Thus as X901T reached its capacity (load stage at the 3%DL).2 TYPE 2 CONNECTIONS The stress profiles of Type 2 connections are shown in Figure 5. but pulled brace “corners” into compression. It is suspected that if the test was to have continued. 5. the top and bottom brace would have made contact with each other and it can be seen that the stresses across the section were attempting to become uniform. At both 50% of 3%DL and 3%DL load stages. the “corners” (corresponding to SG1 and SG7) experienced compressive stresses. the stresses across the section attempted to become uniform and return to zero. It is hypothesized that since the chord “circularized” with increasing loads.33d) are somewhat similar to X451C except X901T was loaded in tension and displayed more symmetric behaviour. the lowest stresses occurred in the “corners” and the highest stresses occurred at the “flat” region (corresponding to SG4). the stresses at SG1 and SG2 (the left “corner” or heel) are nearly equivalent. On all three stress profiles. At the UL load stage for X901C. stresses across the section would attempt to become more uniform. though still in compression. as X451C reached its capacity (load stage at the 3%DL). 5. the shapes of the stress profiles are like inverted “U”s peaking at SG4. The shape of the stress profile is like an inverted “U”. both the heel and toe of the brace have minimal loading in compression. Finally. it is assumed that the “flat” regions made contact first. the top and bottom brace would have just made contact with each other.1.34. which is reasonable considering the width 109 . it would have pulled at the “flat” regions of the braces into tension. Shortly after the braces made contact. The shapes of the stress profiles from SG2 to SG7 are like inverted “U”s peaking at SG4.
X903T (Figure 5. all stresses became tensile.34a) and X902C (Figure 5.6. the peak stresses occurred at SG4.3 TYPE 3 CONNECTIONS The stress profiles of Type 3 connections are shown in Figure 5. the “flat” portions of the brace (corresponding to SG1 and SG7) experienced compressive stresses at 50% of 3%DL load stage.35. when X902T reached the UL load stage. in general.34c).35b) are asymmetric with stresses being higher at the brace heel and lower at the toe. at their capacities (load stages at the UL).33b). Thus. which is expected due to the geometric asymmetry. This is similar to the stress profile trend of X451C (Figure 5. With the chord width equalling the brace width. Stress profiles of X903C (Figure 5. the brace experience tensile stresses at the heel (corresponding to SG6 and SG7). Generally. The stress profiles for X453C (Figure 5.0. even though the specimen was loaded in brace compression.35c) resemble the stress profile of X901C at the UL load stage (Figure 5. The stresses at the UL load stage were also equal to fy. For T902C (Figure 5. for X452C (Figure 5. 5. Finally. and thus not shown. corresponding to the side of the brace flush with the chord. The difference is that X452C did not experience symmetric behaviour about SG4. As X902T reached its capacity (load stage at the 3%DL). For X902T (Figure 5. Similarly. the force flow path from the top brace to the bottom brace of X connections and from the top brace to the chord of T connections would occur through the SG4 line. symmetric about SG4. at its capacity (load stage at the UL). 110 . Note: SG7 readings were not available for X902C).34d). the shapes of the stress profiles are like inverted “V”s. As mentioned previously.33c). The difference is that the stresses at the “corners” of X903C (SG1 and SG7) stayed relatively close to zero.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Results and Analysis ratio β = 1. the tensile stresses across the section attempted to become more uniform. and the force flows principally from the top brace to the bottom brace of such connections via the chord sides. even though the specimens were loaded in brace compression.35d) ultimately failed by brace failure and most of the stresses at capacity (load stage at the 3%DL) equalled fy. Another general observation is that the shapes of the stress profiles at the UL load stage are shaped like inverted “U”s. the braces experienced tensile stresses at the “flat” portions (corresponding to SG7 for T902C and SG1 for X902C.34b).
B = 110mm. two conversion methods have surfaced to determine the crosssectional classification of an EHS.1 of 111 .1 X AND T CONNECTIONS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO The following describes the two methods used to predict capacities of the EHS T and X connections that were tested at the University of Toronto and described in Chapters 4 and 5. the conversion of an EHS connection into an equivalent CHS connection is called the “equivalent CHS approach”. . The second method determines an equivalent RHS by maintaining the crosssectional area and thickness.3 1 . In this chapter. These values are then inputted as d0 and d1 into CHS connection design equations. respectively.eq = 191.1mm.1) 2.1mm.eq and d1. The design equations found in Table 4. 1 . and t = 5.3). 6.1).1) and (6. In this chapter. Completing the calculations. The approach is based on the equations developed by RuizTeran and Gardner (2008). see Equations (6. The first method determines an equivalent CHS diameter. The approach converts the EHS chord into an equivalent CHS using their equations.eq = 382.3) The equivalent diameters are calculated by using the measured properties: H = 220mm.0 CAPACITY PREDICTIONS In Chapter 5. The variables d0. A pragmatic approach in recent years has been to establish some equivalency between an EHS and a secondary shape for which design limits or equations already exist. they have been adapted here and made applicable to predict connection capacities. d1.1 EQUIVALENT CHS APPROACH The method termed the “equivalent CHS approach” is the first prediction method established here. see Equation (6. For Type 1 connections. 6. While both methods were derived for classification purposes. for all connections d0. (6. and for Type 2 and 3 connections d1 = 382.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Capacity Predictions 6.1.94mm (Table 4. In this chapter. .1mm. Recall.2) (6.2). and the brace diameter is determined by ensuring that β (brace diameter to chord diameter) = d1/d0 remains constant. the test specimen connection capacities and ultimate failure modes were determined. 1 . the conversion of an EHS connection into an equivalent RHS connection is called the “equivalent RHS approach”.eq are the equivalent chord and brace diameters. attempts to devise preliminary methods to predict connection capacities and failure modes are made. (6.
6 1 6. so fixedfixed end conditions are assumed.0 and is calculated using Equation (6. Zx is determined. The shear capacity of the chord is calculated by taking the shear area of the EHS chord (Av). where Lc is the length of the chord and h1 is the height of the original EHS brace. For Type 3 connections.8 1   . This value of n is used to determine Qf (see Table 6. Chord punching shear (only for d1 ≤ d0 – 2t0) ∗ 0.2. The end rotations were found to be negligible. The values with asterisks indicate the governing predictions. these predicted connection capacities are also lower than the load that would have caused the shear capacity or the plastic moment capacity of the chord to be reached.1). . n is taken as the ratio of the governing experimental load to Ppl.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Capacity Predictions CIDECT Design Guide 1 for Circular Hollow Section (CHS) Joints (Wardenier et al.58 sin . The plastic moment capacity of the chord (Mpl. moments in the chord were introduced causing normal compressive stresses in the chord at the connection.0). Thus the load which would cause Mpl.0) is determined by finding the plastic section modulus (Z) of the original EHS chord using measured dimensions and the equations found in Table 2.6 1 0.25 Tensile stress at connection: 0. and the “Actual/Predicted” heading is the ratio of the actual capacity to the governing prediction. 2 sin For the T connections.4). Zy is determined.1 where N1* is the connection strength and taken as the predicted connection capacity.0 sin T Connection 2.040MPa) to make connection capacity predictions. 2008) are used with experimentally determined material properties (fy = 402MPa and E = 210. For Type 1 and 2 connections. These predicted connection capacities are all less than the yield strength of the brace (AEHSfy).0 (= M0/Mpl.7 1.. Table 6.1: Relevant CIDECT CHS connection design equations Criterion Equations Chord plastification ∗ X Connection 1 2. The relevant CHS connection design equations are reproduced in Table 6.34). Equation (2.2 1 sin . since there were no axial forces.58fy.0 is denoted as Ppl. For the T connections.1 and multiplying it with the experimentally determined yield stress. The predictions are summarized in Table 6. . This is accounted for through the factor Qf. multiplied by the chord shear yield strength of 0.45 0. Compressive stress at connection: 0. The value n is the stress ratio of the chord. 112 .
1 SW X451C 45 0.8* n/a 202.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Capacity Predictions 8 .441 0.2* n/a Mean COV Actual Predicted 1.0 2.0 SW T901C 90 0.2* 831.388 2.2 236.0* 831.6* 1418. (6.5 574.0 0.8 SW X453C 45 1.334 Using the equivalent CHS approach. CT X902T 90 1. was used to predict column and beam capacities).8* n/a 143. SW X903T 90 1.073 1.0 2. chord plastification and punching shear.5 CP X452C 45 1.2* n/a 585.5 CP T902C 90 1.5 1.0 SW T903C 90 1. the chord width (b0) is kept constant.8* n/a 413. the mean and COV of the actualtopredicted capacity ratios are 1.2* 831.653 1.0 701.495 1. regardless of connection orientation type.198 1.334.2 413.5 BF.0 0. respectively.0 150. It is based on the proposal by Zhao and Packer (2009).342 1.312 1. 113 .2: Connection capacity predictions using the equivalent CHS approach Parameters Actual Experimental Capacity Failure θ1 β η (kN) Mode (°) X901T 90 0. .873 1.0 0.5 1.0 187.8* n/a 413.5 1.051 1. The approach converts the EHS chord into an equivalent RHS that has the same area and thickness as the original crosssection.5 539.0 1188.5 353.441 and 0. which neglected corner radii. GB: global (overall) buckling. Overall.397 1.304 1. The predictions are conservative and result in a high scatter.9 CP.8 SW BF: brace failure.8 BF X901C 90 0.2 EQUIVALENT RHS METHOD The method termed the “equivalent RHS approach” is the second prediction method established here. CT: chord tearout.0 258.0 0.1. SW X903C 90 1. the CHS design equations generally cannot capture the actual failure modes. There are only two CHS connection design criteria.5 1. (Recall in Chapter 3 that the simplified equivalent RHS.205 1. the CHS connection design equations consistently predict that chord plasification will govern even though there are more types of failures apparent through experimentation. to maintain the physical parameter β = b1/b0.5 627.0 216.0 555. SW: chord sidewall failure *Governing prediction Test Predicted Capacity (kN) Chord Punching Plastification Shear 143.2* n/a 359. CP: chord plastification.5 CP X902C 90 1.0 593.2* n/a 155.2 413. 6.9 585. The conservatism can be attributed to the inability of the CHS design equations to capture the actual failure mode.7 GB. Like the equivalent CHS approach.4) Table 6.0 2.0 2.
. Compressive stress at connection: 0. Compressive stress at connection: 0.eq) and chord height (h0.85 sin T Connection 1   .0 4 1 T Connection 1   . 114 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Capacity Predictions Table 6.eq) is calculated. 10 ⁄ .0mm are inputted into Equation (6.94mm. 0. Chord shear (for X connections if cosθ1 > h1/h0) 4 .5 By setting the EHS chord width. .58 sin 2 . thickness t = 5.3: Relevant CIDECT RHS connection design equations Limit state Chord face plastification (for β ≤ 0. 10 ⁄ .1 ∗ Local yielding of brace 2 .0 sin 2 10 sin Brace compression X Connection T Connection 0.0mm and small dimension B = 110. ∗ 0.6 0.85) Equations ∗ sin 2 1 sin X Connection 1. .0) . area and thickness the same in the equivalent RHS and neglecting corner radii. an equivalent RHS chord height (h0.6 0.5 Tensile stress at connection: 0. The measured crosssectional area AEHS = 3044mm2.eq). 2 Chord punching shear (for b1 ≤ b0 – 2t0) 2 sin .5) to determine the equivalent RHS chord width (b0. large dimension H = 220.58 sin 2 ∗ Brace tension X Connection 1. ∗ Chord sidewall failure (for β = 1.
however. it is included as one of the predicted capacities. For the Type 1 and 2 T connections.1mm.1mm. where N1* is the connection strength or the predicted connection capacity.eq = 48. The connection chord shear design criterion is not applicable to any of the Xconnections in Table 6.eq = 158. Figure 6. 2009b) are used with experimentally determined material properties (fy = 402MPa and E = 210.0mm2. These predicted connection capacities are all less than the yield strength of the brace.040MPa) to make connection capacity predictions. so h0. For Type 3 orientations. the width of the chord is B = 110mm. as such. Even though chord shear failure was not observed. The design equations found in Table 4..5) For Type 1 and 2 orientations. and for the Type 3 T connection. so h0. the predicted connection capacities for T902C were not lower that the load that would have caused the shear capacity of the chord to be reached (the procedure to calculate the shear capacity was also described in the previous section).4.2mm2. The relevant RHS design equations are reproduced in Table 6.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Capacity Predictions . these predicted connection capacities are also lower than the load that would have caused the plastic moment capacity of the chord to be reached (the procedure to calculate the plastic moment capacity was described in the previous section).4. Av is 2543. For the T connections.1: Equivalent RHS approach for EHS connections (all dimensions in mm) 115 . 2 2 4 (6. see Figure 6.1 of CIDECT Design Guide 3 for Rectangular Hollow Section (RHS) Joints (Packer et al. the width of the chord is H = 220mm.1.3. .3. the shear capacity of the chord may govern member design. Note that the chord member shear failure mode is conceptually different to the connection chord shear failure mode in Table 6. The “Actual/Predicted” heading is the ratio of the actual capacity to the governing prediction. The predictions are summarized in Table 6. These values are then inputted as b0 and h0 into RHS connection design equations. Av is 1236. The values with asterisks indicate the governing predictions.
168 T901C 90 0.0 0.0 2.7 GB.372 X902T 90 1.225 T903C 90 1.0 593. χ = a reduction factor for column buckling. CP: chord plastification.5 1.7 1135.8 n/a n/a 1.0 SW n/a n/a 752.8) The normalized slenderness is entered into the Canadian S1609 (CSA.9 1. 1 / ̅ 116 (6. SW n/a n/a 752.5 1.139 X452C 45 1.8 n/a n/a 1.7* n/a 0. Mean = 1.8 SW n/a n/a 1277. In order to calculate the chord sidewall failure limit state.5 1. not chord shear failure of connection Actual Capacity (kN) Experimental Failure Mode For the T connections.0* 691. where n = 2.SW n/a n/a 752.8 SW n/a n/a 752.0 0.971 X451C 45 0.013 X903C 90 1.0 0.5 BF.3 667.5 539. X901T 90 0.2 2.5 353.9 CP.3 426.3 705.861 X903T 90 1.0 1188.8 n/a n/a 1.891 X453C 45 1.6 564. The following describes the procedure used to calculate χ.7 1135.1* n/a 1.5 CP 137.9).5 288.8 n/a 288.0 187.7 1135. the Qf factor is calculated in the same way as for the equivalent CHS approach..155 GB: global (overall) buckling.5* n/a 0.5 574.997 X901C 90 0.072 T902C 90 1. fk = fy0 = 402MPa. For tension.5* 691.0 2.0 701.46 1 sin (6.0 2.5 CP 226.6 571.7) (6.2* n/a 0.5 CP 104.0* 691.0 0.099 X902C 90 1. but for compression.6 1192.6) The normalized slenderness ̅ is calculated by the following equations: ̅ (6.1 SW n/a n/a 1277. 2009b): 2 3.0 150. becomes relevant. the limiting stress of the material has an effect on the fk term.5 1.CT 137.6 600.8 BF n/a n/a 1277.9) .2* 1. 2009) column flexural buckling formula which uses Equation (6.0 216.24. the value used for hotformed hollow sections.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Capacity Predictions Table 6. SW: chord sidewall failure *Governing prediction COV = 0. The use of the appropriate Eurocode 3 buckling curve should generate similar results.279 †Chord member shear failure.0 258.8* n/a 1.4* 592.9* 1335. CT: chord tearout.1 1135.052 BF: brace failure.0 2.0* n/a 0.4: Connection capacity predictions using equivalent RHS approach Parameters Predicted Capacity (kN) Actual Chord Side EHS Chord Test Punching Brace θ1 β η Wall Chord Predicted Face Shear Failure (°) Failure Shear† Plastific.0 555.5 627. The slenderness λ is calculated using the equation given in Table 4.1 of CIDECT Design Guide 3 (Packer et al.0 SW n/a n/a 1277.3 532.
073 CP 0.653 CP 1. the NUS performed 16 tests: four 90° X connections loaded in tension (Types 1.5 CP.891 SW X453C 1. two 45° X connections loaded in tension (Types 2 and 4).013 SW X903C 1.342 CP 0.198 CP 1. Looking at the individual predictions.0 SW 1..0 BF 2.0 SW 1. CP: chord plastification.312 CP 1.155 COV 0.997 SW X901C 0.072 CP T902C 1.279.279 BF: brace failure.334 COV 0.5.168 SW T901C 0. on average. the equivalent RHS approach does a better job of predicting load capacities in comparison to the equivalent CHS method. equivalent RHS approach Equivalent CHS Approach Equivalent RHS Approach Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Predicted Failure Predicted Failure X901T 0.861 SW X903T 1.5: Equivalent CHS approach vs.139 CP X452C 1.873 CP 0.0 GB. 3 and 4). the RHS approach does a very good job of capturing the actual failure modes. 2011).Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Capacity Predictions The mean and COV of the actualtopredicted capacity ratios using the equivalent RHS approach are 1. SW: chord sidewall failure Test 6.205 CP 1. SW 1.1.388 CP 0. A summary of the NUS experiments is given in Table 6. four 90° X connections loaded in compression (Types 1.441 Mean 1. within 16% while the equivalent CHS approach predicts. three 90° T connections loaded in compression (Types 2.0 SW 1. 3. CT: chord tearout. and 4). The equivalent RHS approach is.0 SW 1.971 SW X451C 0.397 CP 2.2 X θ1 (°) 90 90 90 90 90 90 45 45 45 90 90 90 Parameters β Failure Mode at Ultimate AND T CONNECTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE A sister experimental programme was carried out at the National University of Singapore (NUS) (Packer et al.0 BF.372 CP X902T 1. While the scatter of both approaches is large.3 COMPARISON A comparison of the equivalent CHS and RHS approaches is shown in Table 6. 2.5 CP 1. In total. Table 6. respectively.225 CS T903C 1. two 45° X connections loaded in compression. CS: EHS chord shear.0 SW 1. Overall.304 CP 1.SW 1. on average.099 CP X902C 1. 2.5 CP 1.5 CP 1. and 4) 117 .052 SW Mean 1. slightly conservative with a high scatter. 3. within 45%.495 CP 1. on average. 6.6. The equivalent RHS approach also does a much better job of capturing the actual failure mode.CT 1. Their connections were comprised of EHS250 x 125 x 8 chords and EHS120 x 60 x 5 braces. the equivalent RHS approach predicts.051 CP 1.155 and 0. GB: global (overall) buckling.
0 for the NUS tests was determined by Equation (6. 204.24 230.96 0. 2011) Chord Brace Parameters Experimental Capacity Failure UL 3%DL b0 h0 b1 h1 θ1 β= η= Mode (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (°) b1 / b0 h1 / b0 (kN) (kN) 1. rather than fixedfixed.0 CP 10.CT 2. respectively.0 468.BF 12. 0. 6.0 185. T904C and T904T failed in bending. T904T† 125 250 120 60 90 0.0 CP 14.24 375.9mm.BF 4.0* BF.96 0.48 0. X901C 250 125 60 120 90 0.0* BF. 204.0* CP. where Lc = 1500mm. seven experienced member failure before connection failure: X904T. GB: global (overall) buckling *Governing capacity †Excluded for connection capacity predictions Test Out of the sixteen tests performed by NUS.96 0. X902T 250 125 120 60 90 0. T902C 250 125 120 60 90 0.96 0.2.0* BF 5.0 CP.1 EQUIVALENT CHS APPROACH Applying the equivalent CHS approach described previously.48 485.0* 362.48 243.4mm. the equivalent chord diameter d0 = 426. 0. X454T† 125 250 120 60 45 0. Type 1 through 4 connections had β = 0. CT: chord tear out.0 408. Ppl. respectively. X902C 250 125 120 60 90 0.24 246. the joint orientation Type 4 became possible.0 145.48 0.0* CP. X454C† 125 250 120 60 90 0.0* BF 13. CB: chord bending. T903C† 125 250 60 120 90 0.6: Experimental programme from NUS (Packer et al. X452T 250 125 120 60 45 0.96 0.24 0.96 331.0 329. As such.0 CP. X903C 125 250 60 120 90 0.48 0.96 363.48 and 0. and T903C. X904C† 125 250 120 60 90 0.GB 11.0 163.0 450.0* 203.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Capacity Predictions and one 90° T connection loaded in tension (Type 4). they have been excluded from the connection capacity predictions. X904C.CT 3.24 277. X452C 250 125 120 60 90 0. A summary of the predictions using the equivalent CHS approach 118 .48 0. T904C† 125 250 120 60 90 0. According to NUS.48 556.0 CB 16. X904T† 125 250 120 60 90 0.0* CP.48 390. In the NUS programme.0 468. Since NUS used a smaller brace than the chord.0 163.24 162. Since these tests would not help evaluate connection ultimate failure modes.96 517.CB 15.0* 151.96 0.0* CB BF: brace failure.7mm.0* CT.0* CP 7.48 0.24.0* CP 6.24 0. NUS determined the fy of the chord and brace to be 360MPa and 355MPa.48 206.0* 330.48 0. CP: chord plastification.48. X901T 250 125 60 120 90 0.48 471.5mm and the equivalent brace diameters for Types 1 through 4 respectively are d1= 102.48 455.48 0.10). X903T 125 250 60 120 90 0..96.GB 8.48 517.48 0. X454C and X454T yielded in the brace. the chord end supports of their T connections acted more as pinnedpinned.7mm and 409.0* 389.GB 9. Table 6.
8. The values with the asterisk are the governing predictions.48 0.624 0.24 0.013 0. 4 .090 0. The equivalent RHS approach predictions are shown in Table 6.9 223.2. 6. these predicted connection capacities are also lower than the load that would have caused the shear capacity or the plastic moment capacity of the chord to be reached.106 and 0.970 0.1 316.0 329. The asterisks indicate the governing predictions.392.10) was used. these predicted connection capacities are also lower than the load that would have caused the shear capacity or plastic moment capacity of the chord to be reached.5* 543. the remaining predicted connection capacities are all less than the yield strength of the brace. respectively.24 0.8mm and for Type 3 and 4 connections were b0.48 0.eq = 47.727 1. (6.2* 1857. For the T connections.106 0.24 0.24 0.0 145.eq = 250mm and h0.7* 1087.729 1.933 1.0 162.48 Actual Capacity (kN) 163.96 0.48 0.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Capacity Predictions is shown in Table 6.5* 543.24 0.9 223.041 0.0 230. The “Actual/Predicted” column gives the ratio of the actual capacity to the governing prediction. the T connections were assumed to be pinnedpinned. For the T connections.48 0. As before with the equivalent CHS approach applied to the NUS tests.6* 1087.9 149.10) After excluding the seven specimens that experienced member failure.9 223.96 0.48 0. so Equation (6.6* 1087.0 163.7.392 The equivalent CHS approach applied to the NUS experiments results in a mean and COV of actualtopredicted capacity ratios of 1. .7: Equivalent CHS approach to predict NUS experiments Test θ1 (°) X901T 90 X902T 90 X903T 90 X901C 90 X902C 90 X903C 90 X452C 45 X452T 45 T902C 90 *Governing prediction Parameters β η 0. the remaining predicted capacities are all less than the yield strength of the brace.9 316. the equivalent chord dimensions for Type 1 and 2 connections were b0. After excluding the seven specimens that experienced member failure.9 Mean COV Actual Predicted 1.48 0.2* 1857.0 Predicted Capacity (kN) Chord Punching Plastification Shear 149.2 EQUIVALENT RHS APPROACH Applying the equivalent RHS approach described previously.827 2.6* 1087.eq = 172.1 173. 119 . Table 6.0 363.24 0.0 450.eq = 125mm and h0.48 0.6* 1087.0 185.8mm.9 223.24 0.48 0.
5 218.049 1.0 163.005 1. CT: chord tear out.1 537.48 0.48 0.211 CP X903T 0.24 0.062 1. While on average. respectively.24 0.4 228.946 CP Mean 1.179 CP X902T 0.013 CP 2.24 0.CT 1. Both approaches capture the chord plastification failure mode.437 1.1 591.106 Mean 1.2* 609.24 CP 0. 6.0 Predicted Capacity (kN) Chord Face Punching Brace Plastification Shear Failure 138.0 230.48 0.286.2.402).729 CP 1.3 471.7 152.049 CP X902C 0.1 334.663 CP X452C 0.2* 609.933 CP 1. the equivalent CHS approach predicts connection capacity better than the equivalent RHS approach (actualtopredicted capacity ratio mean of 1.211 2.286 BF: brace failure.48 0.946 1.1 334.0 363.106 versus 1.286).48 0.24 CT.2* 399.970 CP 1.48 CP.1 591.0 145.005 CP X452T 0.402 0. which is generally the experimental failure mode.9 83.8* 399.392 versus 0.9* 399.7 152. Table 6.48 Actual Capacity (kN) 163.48 0. GB: global (overall) buckling Test θ1 (°) 90 90 90 90 90 90 45 45 80 Parameters β Failure Mode at Ultimate 120 .CT 0.48 CP 0. the equivalent CHS approach also results in a larger scatter (COV of 0.8* 399.24 CP 0.8: Equivalent RHS approach to predict NUS experiments Test θ1 (°) X901T 90 X902T 90 X903T 90 X901C 90 X902C 90 X903C 90 X452C 45 X452T 45 T902C 80 *Governing prediction Parameters β η 0.24 0.5 218. CP: chord plastification.0 162.48 0.1 334. equivalent RHS approach for NUS tests Equivalent CHS Approach Equivalent RHS Approach Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Predicted Failure Predicted Failure X901T 0.24 0.4 138.0 450.9 228.9* 399.402 COV 0.5 Mean COV Actual Predicted 1.2* 497.48 CP.062 CP X901C 0.402 and 0.9: Equivalent CHS approach vs.286 The equivalent RHS approach applied to the NUS experiments results in a mean and COV of actualtopredicted capacity ratios of 1.437 CP T902C 0.392 COV 0.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Capacity Predictions Table 6.24 0.067 CP X903C 0.090 CP 1.48 0.0 329.1 537.0 185.96 0. BF 1.041 CP 1.24 CP 0.24 CP.24 0.624 CP 1.067 1.9.663 1.2* 497.GB 1.48 CP.3 471.827 CP 1.179 1.BF 2.727 CP 1.3 COMPARISON The equivalent CHS and equivalent RHS approaches applied to the NUS tests are compared with each other in Table 6.96 0.
Both approaches are conservative and result in high scatter. respectively.10 shows the mean and COV of the actualtopredicted capacity ratios using the equivalent CHS and equivalent RHS approaches. it is suggested that the equivalent RHS approach be investigated further for EHS connection design purposes.370 for the equivalent RHS approach.481.441 1.279 0.334 0. for the equivalent CHS approach.261 and 0.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Capacity Predictions 6.481 13 of 21 (62%) UT NUS UT NUS UT NUS 1.402 0. The mean and COV are 1.286 10 of 12 (83%) 9 of 9 (100%) Combined 1.261 0.296 and 0. Table 6.3 SUMMARY Combining the 12 University of Toronto (UT) tests with the 9 NUS tests that underwent connection failure. Table 6. Table 6. and 1.10 also shows the number of correctly predicted failure modes: the equivalent RHS approach can capture the actual failure mode much better than the equivalent CHS approach. 121 .10: Summary of University of Toronto and NUS predictions Mean COV Correctly Predicted Failure Mode Equivalent CHS Approach UT NUS UT NUS UT NUS 1.106 0.370 19 of 21 (90%) Based on these results.155 1. It would be ideal that additional EHS connection tests be performed which ultimately fail with different failure modes.392 4 of 12 (33%) 9 of 9 (100%) Combined 1.296 Equivalent RHS Approach 0.
failure modes. as such. Load capacities.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Conclusions and Recommendations 7. see Equations (2.3.14) is used to convert an EHS into an equivalent RHS for minor axis buckling or bending. and Figure 3. The 45° X connections had higher capacities in comparison to their 90° 122 . chord deformation profiles and brace stress profiles were established. Additional tests are required on more slender sections to determine the validity of the equivalent RHS approach for the design of Class 4 members. and was modified to account for columns buckling and beams bending about the minor axis. The equivalent RHS approach was investigated to determine its validity for the design of EHS columns and beams. and the design procedure for EHS beams is summarized in Figure 3. or 3. rather than using the equivalent RHS properties. A comprehensive literature review has been presented herein to summarize the main topics of EHS research to date. Equation (3. Type 3 connections were the least deformable. ry.4. varying in terms of connection type (T or X).new) proposed by RuizTeran and Gardner (2008). The design procedure for EHS columns is summarized in Figure 3. modified equivalent RHS approach was found to work relatively well. Twelve connections were tested. The equivalent RHS approach that was first proposed by Zhao and Packer (2009) was simplified for this thesis to neglect corner radii. had the highest capacities in comparison to their Type 1 and 2 counterparts. had the lowest capacities in comparison to their Type 2 and 3 counterparts. a research programme was developed to study the behaviour of EHStoEHS welded T and X connections. In this experimental programme it was found that Type 1 connections were the most deformable. Equation (3. Type 2 connections generally failed via chord sidewall failure. The equivalent RHS approach worked best when EHS properties (A. rx. 2. and generally failed via chord plastification.3) and brace loading (axial tension or compression). A possible application of EHS is within trusssystems and. The approach converts an EHS into an equivalent RHS by maintaining the same crosssectional area and thickness.25) and (2.2 shows these conversion methods. These tables were developed to be potentially added to the next edition of the CISC Handbook of Steel Construction.26). EHS geometric property tables and compressive resistance tables were developed using the less conservative equivalent diameter (De. An experimental programme was developed to study the behaviour of EHS T and X connections. orientation type (1. S and Z) were used. They have been incorporated in a variety of structures around the world without structural design guidelines and EHS are completely absent from Canadian codes and guides.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EHS are the newest steel shape to have emerged in the industry. and generally failed via chord sidewall failure. see Figure 4.13) is used to convert an EHS into an equivalent RHS for major axis buckling or bending. connection angle (45° or 90°). This simplified.
It is suggested that these finite element models be used to perform extensive parametric analyses to further validate the use of the equivalent RHS approach. Thus. the equivalent CHS approach correctly predicted 13 failure modes. It is recommended for future study that strain gauges be placed on the chord top and bottom surfaces near the connection in order to measure stresses in the chord at the connection.3).370. However.5 with equations found in Table 6.481.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Conclusions and Recommendations counterparts.1) and the equivalent RHS approach (Equation 6. respectively.1 to 6. it is recommended that finite element models be created and validated with these experimental results. the mean and COV of the equivalent CHS approach was 1. based on the 21 tests performed. the equivalent RHS approach can capture the actual failure mode much better than the equivalent CHS approach. For future work. With the many parameters under investigation. and the mean and COV of the equivalent RHS approach was 1.261 and 0. Combining both sets of experimental data. 123 . respectively. or to develop suitable design equations. It is therefore suggested that the equivalent RHS method be investigated further as a preliminary design method for all types of EHS connections. Both methods are conservative and result in a high scatter.3 with equations found in Table 6. it is recommended that additional experiments also be performed to increase the database of EHS connection tests. These approaches were used to predict the connection capacities of 12 EHS connection tests performed by this author as well as 9 tests performed at the National University of Singapore.296 and 0. but the equivalent RHS approach correctly predicted 19 failure modes. Two connection capacity prediction methods were implemented here based on existing connection design equations: the equivalent CHS approach (Equations 6.
Campione. 2007. 2008. Concretefilled elliptical hollow section stub columns in axial compression.. Pennsylvania. and Gardner. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2006b. 2006a.. Flexural buckling of elliptical hollow section columns.. Hot finished structural hollow sections of nonalloy and fine grain steels . Bradford. Belgium. Compressive resistance of hotrolled elliptical hollow sections. 259264. 10th International Symposium on Tubular Structures. Belgium.. CEN. European Committee for Standardization. Standard Specification for HotFormed Welded and Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing. Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures. pp. E. Interaction and Multiscale Mechanics. Petitjean. Number 2. Volume 30. EN1993: 2005. Volume 1. M. G. Volume 64. T. L. Nicaud. Testing and modelling of welded joints between elliptical hollow sections. M. Brussels. Jaspart.Eng. 143156. P. European Committee for Standardization. A. N. 124 . Number 9. L. 2009. thesis. USA. pp. pp. University of Toronto. and Grimault. West Conshohocken. 2008. EN102102.. G. 546557. M. Chan. P.. Number 1. Elastic local buckling of thinwalled elliptical tubes containing elastic infill material. 364372.. P.Part 2: Tolerances.. J. ASTM A50107. Pietrapertosa. V. Brussels. 971978. Hot finished structural hollow sections of nonalloy and fine grain steels . T. Chan. Canada. Madrid. Toronto. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2007.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections References REFERENCES ASTM. 2008. M. Proceedings. and Gardner. European Committee for Standardization. dimensions and sectional properties. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Mindess. Strength of hollow circular steel sections filled with fibrereinforced concrete. pp. dimensions and sectional properties. 2005. Engineering Structures. Belgium. L. pp. Number 5.M. T. Chan.. Brienza. G. Bortolotti. Volume 135.Part 1: Tolerances. CEN... and Roufeginejad. pp.. and Zingone. Brussels.. S. Bending strength of hotrolled elliptical hollow sections.. J. 2000. C. and Gardner. L. 2003. 522532. A. EN102101. Scibilia.. CEN. Volume 27. Spain.
And Ye. Number 1. Volume 130. China. Steel and Composite Structures. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Johansson. Static strength of elliptical hollow section Xjoint under brace compression. 2003. J. 13th International Symposium on Tubular Structures. CAN/CSA G40. Canada. 127133. Lam. pp.. Available: <http://www. Jamaluddin. Mechanical behavior of circular steelconcrete composite stub columns. 2003. and Gardner.M. Number SB6. Torsional Section Properties of Steel Shapes. 301309. Madrid. 253258. 2002. Online. pp. K. D. Canada.. pp.. T. Volume 161. 2010. Handbook of Steel Construction. T. Toronto.X. Canada. Liang. Volume 161.ciscicca.. Proceedings. Canadian Standards Association. Corus... L.S. M. Proceedings. 2008. L. Gardner. Design of Steel Structures. CSA. Structures and Buildings. Number 3. Hong Kong. Toronto. CSA.M. 2007. Toronto. Chan. 2004.. 2002. The continuous strength method. L. 2005. China.V. Gardner. pp. Canadian Standards Association... Experimental studies of elliptical concretefilled tube columns. Proceedings. M. Toronto. 13th International Symposium on Tubular Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering. and Wadee. 2008. J. L.pdf.ca/files/technical/techdocs/updates/torsionprop. 152153. and Lim.> CISC. Canadian Institute of Steel Construction. pp. Hong Kong. 2010. 303311. Canadian Standards Association. 185200. pp. Gardner. 2010. Structures and Buildings. N. Welded Steel Construction (Metal Arc Welding).. 10th ed.2104. T. J.2004/G40. M. Volume 7. CISC.. Canadian Institution of Steel Construction. Canada. Celsius Oval HSS sizes and design strengths.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections References Chan. A. CAN/CSAW5903. 2009. 10th International Symposium on Tubular Structures. 333340. L. Choo. Abela. General Requirements for Rolled of Welded Structural Quality Steel/Structural Quality Steel..M. and Chan. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. pp. Crosssection classification of elliptical hollow sections. Y. CSAS1609. Spain. Shear response of elliptical hollow sections. Number SB3. and Gylltoft. Biaxial bending and compression of elliptical hollow sections. 125 .. CSA.
Packer. J. 2008. G. T. Haque. Toronto. S. J. Choo. Behaviour of axially loaded concrete filled stainless steel elliptical hollow sections. Packer. 13th International Symposium on Tubular Structures.. 2009. 313321. D. Fang. 2009a..J. CIDECT. Instabilities in elliptical hollow section members. A. 323331. Volume 161. 2007. Proceedings. thesis. pp..H. 493500.L. and Henderson. and Kurobane. 2nd ed. CIDECT 3rd Interim Report. G. X. 681691. Hong Kong. Nowzartash. 2008. F.S. 1997.. T.A.S. J. 2009b. G.. Geneva. pp. Toronto. Y.D. Switzerland. and Zhao. Wardenier. A. March 2008.A. Elliptical Steel Tubes. J.. American Institute of Steel Construction. 13th International Symposium on Tubular Structures. Wardenier. 103113.. pp. Canada. China. X. “Plastic interaction relations for elliptical hollow sections”. Structures and Buildings. Modern Steel Construction. Hong Kong.. Packer J. and Gardner. MartinezSaucedo. Gardner.. K. Lam. Zhao. Axially Loaded T and X Joint of Elliptical Hollow Sections. Packer. Ph.. L.. 2011. University of Toronto. J.. 25th Anniversary Issue. Proceedings. Canadian Institute of Steel Construction. 8690. and Burdett. Design Guide for Rectangular Hollow Section (RHS) Joints Under Predominantly Static Loading.... Numbers 6/7. and Mustard. and Mohareb.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections References Lam. Y. Hollow Structural Section Connection and Trusses – A Design Guide. 2nd International Symposium on Innovative Design of Steel Structures. China. Y.. G.. Packer. MartinezSaucedo. Packer. J.. Number SB2.A. 2008.. Y. pp. Singapore Structural Steel Society. 2010. J. Numerical modelling of concretefilled stainless steel elliptical hollow sections. Canada.A. van der Vegte. Steel News and Notes.P. X L.. Wardenier. Static design of elliptical hollow section end connections. Hong Kong. D. M. 126 . Law. Choo. Going elliptical. and Dai.. pp. J. van der Vegte.J. M. J. Proceedings. 2nd ed... Slotted end connections to hollow sections. Volume 47... ThinWalled Structures. L. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers...E. Report 5BW6/11.. 2010. pp. and Chiew.
. Wang.. Silvestre. Theoretical and measured torsional behaviour of RHS. Theofanous. Tao. pp. A. Numerical study on the ultimate strength of elliptical stub columns. Z. Han.. and Davies. 13th International Symposium on Tubular Structures. Proceedings. Hong Kong. SCI publication P363. 962983. J.. and Gardner. UK.S. Owen. Theofanous. N. University of New South Wales. 127 . Structural response of stainless steel oval hollow section compression members. 4147. International Journal of Solids and Structures. Silvestre. Sydney. L.. Z. Japan. 2008. and Gardner. Proceedings. Ascot/London. 2011. Elastic buckling of elliptical tubes. Volume 67. J. Kitakyushu. Elastic local postbuckling of elliptical tubes.. 281292. Australia.. D. pp. Flexural behaviour of stainless steel oval hollow sections. 2008.. pp. 12th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. 2007. P. pp. G. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 2008. Main event: Legends Centre. 2002. Number 16. Steel building design: design data in accordance with Eurocodes and the UK national annexes. 601608. Madrid. 10th International Symposium on Tubular Structures. L. Buckling behaviour of elliptical cylindrical shells and tubes under compression. Journal of Constructional Steel Research.. Volume 31. Thin Walled Structures. M.M.. Stability of ThinWalled Metal Tubes With Elastic UniLateral Internal Restraint. Engineering Structures. Volume 61.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections References Pietrapertosa. 922934. SCI/BSCA. 2008. and Gardner..D.. L. Volume 46. Study of the behaviour of welded joints composed of elliptical hollow sections. M. and Jaspart. and Gardner. 13081318.. N. Number 7. Number 11. 283291. Thin Walled Structures. Ph.. pp. N. 2005. 44274447. Number 4.. 776787. What we do: structural engineering. pp. Roufegarinejad. Proceedings. Silvestre. 2003.. Chapter 8: Elastic buckling of thinwalled elliptical tubes containing an elastic infill.J. pp. RidleyEllis. RuizTeran. Chan T. pp. L. C. China. Volume 45. Chan T. Experimental behaviour of stiffened concretefilled thinwalled hollow steel structural (HSS) stub columns..M. L. and Gardner. M. pp. 2009a. Volume 47. Spain. Number 3. 2009b... thesis. Read Jones Christoffersen (RJC). 2010. L. Steel Construction Institute and British Constructional Steelwork Association.. A.
. CIDECT 2nd Interim Report. Kurobane. Numbers 6/7.. Number 4.D. Lam. Zhu. G. X. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. L. 11th International Symposium on Tubular Structures. J. J.. R... G. 2010. 2006a. Fang. 128 . T. G.. 2007. X.L.L. van der Vegte. New York. Choo. Proceedings. 617628. 37713781. 2007. Y. and Galteri..L. X. pp. A... pp. Slenderness limits for EHS and OHS subject to bending using the RHS approach. University of Sydney. W.. Zhao.. 2008. 2010. and Gardner. Australia. Switzerland. 6th ed. Ziemian. D.J. and Packer.. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures..... J. Axially Loaded T and X Joints of Elliptical Hollow Sections. and Haque. X. Wardenier.. Y. Hong Kong. 2010. H.S. and Zhao. 2009. Packer. and Wilkinson. Zhao. Volume 47. Finite element analysis of structural steel elliptical hollow sections in compression.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections References Wardenier. Tests and design of concretefilled elliptical hollow section stub columns. Willibald... 293301. S. J. 950955. Design Guide for Circular Hollow Section (CHS) Joints Under Predominantly Static Loading. Proceedings. Number 12. pp. J. A. Lu. China. pp. pp. H. Volume 33..J. Appendix B3. 221228. 5th International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures. Willibald. Wiley... 2008. Yang.. J. Shen.A. van der Vegte. 373384. J... Canada. T. A. Report 5BW6/10.. Volume 30.A. Singapore. X.A. S... Packer. Haque. A. S. editor. J. Packer.A. Y. Throughplate joints to elliptical and circular hollow sections. Behaviour of gusset plate connections to ends of round and elliptical hollow structural section members. Packer. ThinWalled Structures.. and MartinezSaucedo. Quebec City.. CIDECT. Engineering Structures. pp. Geneva.. 2006b. Zhao. Voth.. 2nd ed. Tests of elliptical hollow sections filled with SCC (SelfCompacting Concrete). Proceedings.. Packer. T.L. and Zhao. USA. and Mustard.. Kernot. 13th International Symposium of Steel Structures. Testing and analysis of concretefilled elliptical hollow sections. T... Y.
129 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Appendix 3A – EHS Dimension and Gross Property Table Shown here is the dimension and grossproperty table of all currently manufactured EHS.1 of this thesis have been used to generate the table in accordance with the CISC Handbook of Steel Construction format. 2006b) and found in Table 2. The EHS property equations that have been defined by EN10210 (CEN.
50 10.0 38.4 71.4 56.17 15 200 342 1.1 72.76 131 110 86.00 8.39 18 000 437 1.9 51.1 320 309 265 219 176 169 76.776 0.8 1 500 91.20 Elliptical ` X X Y PROPERTIES AND DIMENSIONS Designation* Wall Thickness Mass Dead Load Axis XX Axis YY Area Ix mm 2 Sx 106 mm 4 103 mm 3 rx Zx Iy Sy ry Zy Torsion Inertia Constant Torsion Modulus Constant Surface Area J Ct As 103 mm 3 m 2/m 103 mm 3 106 mm 4 103 mm 3 mm 1 750 156 1 400 157 1 140 158 2 460 1 960 1 580 145 118 96.3 19.2 71.9 0.8 78.5 39.2 58.7 52.00 6.6 276 267 228 188 151 145 39 200 38 000 32 900 27 300 22 200 21 300 453 440 385 323 265 255 0.5 16.606 0.00 8.3 1.46 3.275 0.9 34.0 42.9 43.606 0.21 1 420 150 1 240 151 1 050 151 2 000 1 730 1 460 114 100 85.339 0.00 6.7 18 900 16 000 13 500 11 000 269 232 197 163 0.7 45.969 600 98.7 54.8 392 347 299 247 56.50 10.776 0.1: EHS dimension and gross property table Y HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SECTIONS CSA G40.3 953 835 711 86.68 124 106 89.9 12.2 18.3 14.9 45.3 284 235 193 155 6.3 12.4 78.00 12.347 0.4 13.969 0.5 28.7 48.2 61.4 68.847 11 000 252 EHS 400x200 x14 x12.7 642 584 565 483 397 71.9 72.9 53.2 374 311 260 215 51.1 23.5 x10 x8 16.565 7 340 117 968 877 845 717 584 EHS 320x160 x14 x12 x10 x8 14.375 0.6 85.9 174 143 111 21 800 18 200 14 300 288 244 193 0.2 92.869 11 300 175 0.0 169 141 117 94.836 10 900 169 0.9 837 674 551 449 28.5 832 753 726 615 500 193 000 176 000 170 000 145 000 119 000 1 420 1 300 1 260 1 080 890 0.1 77.9 9.765 0.3 mm 124 125 125 125 126 * Depth x Width x Thickness 103 mm 3 103 mm 4 † Check availability 130 .2 71.416 0.4 77.00 142 112 90.8 EHS 300x150 x16 x12.00 10.00 12.3 526 99.00 119 103 86.2 201 167 129 67.5 45.5 48.2 27.7 1 220 87.4 503 409 336 275 85 300 70 500 58 700 48 500 818 686 577 481 0.22 6.29 4.0 195 164 136 110 60.00 98.5 x12 x10 x8 14.5 58.485 0.420 5 450 EHS 250x125 x12.0 67.4 28.533 0.00 8.0 449 99.7 367 100 855 745 631 513 31.969 0.485 0.727 0.21 1.1 68.0 1.00 53.00 12.6 33.5 x10 16.3 39.776 0.50 10.7 35.2 56.5 33.606 0.16 1 370 1 230 1 190 1 000 811 64.3 71.5 44.8 73.30 6.3 76.4 93.4 36.00 10.00 8.5 53.809 10 500 0.219 5 400 4 400 3 570 2 840 19.643 8 340 0.00 8.969 0.06 4.9 57.529 0.7 62.231 4 870 3 950 3 000 22.8 0.8 1 160 943 775 89.276 0.969 12 600 194 0.6 0.702 9 110 143 0.2 31.5 56.00 82.662 0.42 7.5 10.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 3A.263 EHS 220x110 x10 x8 x6 10.8 23.776 87.2 39.429 0.304 0.5 65.19 5.510 0.7 88.5 57.00 12.2 517 453 385 315 94 800 83 800 71 900 59 300 863 769 665 553 0.00 12.16 1.4 43.727 6 870 6 620 5 580 4 510 3 590 3 420 40.8 287 235 181 7.50 12.0 23.50 12.1 21.1 897 343 000 300 000 255 000 2 120 1 870 1 590 1.9 19.10 14 200 350 0.727 0.5 x10 x8 x6.00 78.00 8.533 0.3 73.0 84.6 11.520 6 750 0.485 0.5 16.4 34.09 7.6 38.2 93.556 0.00 10.21 1.5 EHS 200x100 x12.00 38.5 x12 x10 x8 x6.0 1 200 91.8 0.11 207 201 174 145 119 114 43.4 27.30 42.2 26.0 61.606 0.01 13 100 298 0.00 10.2 44.969 0.00 6.485 mm x mm x mm mm kg/m kN/m EHS 500x250 x16 x12.727 0.5 458 442 376 307 246 235 12.1 582 475 391 321 91.4 1 060 88.533 0.606 0.3 x6 12.8 35.9 976 437 000 353 000 290 000 2 590 2 110 1 740 1.449 9 940 8 600 7 230 5 830 96.0 22.8 58.3 22.883 11 500 285 EHS 480x240 x14 x12 x10 14.606 0.16 1.2 58.
2 112 93.9 26.5 21.4 25.3 20.4 30.9 51.1 6.76 1.122 0.5 26.364 0.00 4.6 46.3 42.00 8.3 37.6 36.50 1.30 3.2 25.2 25.5 35.6 54.41 1.5 4.9 22.837 0.5 46.291 0.3 46.9 25.00 8.74 2 430 7.9 81.18 2.8 13.187 3 930 11.2 72.291 0.6 64.7 8.9 27.4 5.9 187 154 119 3.246 0.8 39.2 55.8 8.6 2 560 2 080 1 800 1 500 1 240 60.686 0.436 0.2 21.105 3 220 2 630 2 100 2 010 1 690 1 360 6.1 62.2 21.49 5.9 56.00 6.2 35.3 70.20 6.155 0.3 48.53 83.364 0.9 37.01 54.7 32.7 50.1: EHS dimension and gross property table Y X HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SECTIONS CSA G40.6 13.48 3.47 1.302 0.3 x6 x5 x4 10.436 EHS 150x75 x10 x8 x6.00 19.2 30.9 36.4 50.20 Elliptical X Y PROPERTIES AND DIMENSIONS Designation* mm x mm x mm Wall Thickness Mass mm kg/m Dead Load Axis XX Area Ix kN/m Axis YY mm 2 Sx 106 mm 4 103 mm 3 rx mm Zx Iy Sy 103 mm 3 106 mm 4 103 mm 3 ry mm Zy Torsion Inertia Constant Torsion Modulus Constant Surface Area J Ct As 103 mm 3 m 2/m 103 mm 3 103 mm 4 EHS 180x90 x10 x8 x6 10.30 6.6 32.48 4.00 25.9 30.3 72.12 1.2 46.364 0.7 0.0 34.2 60.3 83.6 47.130 0.083 0.2 20.1 0.291 EHS 120x60 x8 x6 x5 x4 x3.436 0.291 0.7 43.00 30.67 3.7 3 190 9.46 4.364 0.6 56.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 3A.162 0.9 16.75 3.9 45.4 26.00 12.1 20.01 86.00 5.067 2 060 1 580 1 340 1 080 873 2.1 43.5 26.1 0.364 0.5 26.1 37.3 28.202 0.85 * Depth x Width x Thickness 131 .6 16.5 17.8 59.3 68.00 16.9 40.8 38.248 0.00 0.6 11 400 9 610 7 600 182 155 125 0.1 2.8 21.7 57.04 1.9 19.159 0.3 10.5 15.82 1.6 72.9 36.8 20.597 0.9 31.8 0.499 0.4 6 250 5 330 4 430 4 260 3 670 3 030 118 102 86.103 0.66 2.2 75.0 126 105 84.1 44.2 6.4 30.291 0.23 44.5 49.414 27.00 10.22 1.364 0.3 35.61 130 108 84.6 55.
and presented in a format compatible with the CISC Handbook of Steel Construction Section 4. Cr. calculated in accordance with Clause 13. Axial compressive resistances are determined for all EHS sizes listed in Appendix 3A.24. 132 .3 of CSA S1609 (CSA.2 of this thesis. for various compression member effective lengths. please refer to Section 3.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Appendix 3B – EHS Compressive Resistance Table The following table gives the factored axial compressive resistance. For a description of the “Properties and Design Data” contained at the bottom of each page in this table. 2009) for hotformed hollow sections using n = 2.
0 12.71 331 224 69.394 Effec ctive length (KL) in millimettres with respect to the leas st radius of gyration Designation (mm x mm x mm) PROPERTIES AND DESIGN DATA 2 Area (mm ) Zy (103 mm3) Sy (103 mm3) ry (mm) rx / ry Mrx (kN·m) Mry (kN·m) 18 000 2 460 1 750 156 1 500 1 160 89.0** 10.0 0.3(b) 133 .551 20 x 10 19 x 9 ** Class 4: C r calculated according to S1601 Clause 13.74 551 365 Mass (lb.5** 10.21 350W CLASS H ELLIPTICAL HOLLOW SECTIONS Factored Axial Compressive Resistances.0** Mass (kg/m) 142 112 90.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 3B.0 119 103 86.0 12.3.5 80. Cr (kN) φ = 0.4 Thickness (in.1: EHS compressive resistance table G40.472 0.9 1.73 447 300 13 100 1 730 1 240 151 1 060 835 87.) 75.630 Zx (103 mm3) Sx (103 mm3) rx (mm) 14 200 1 960 1 400 157 1 200 943 91.73 391 263 11 000 1 460 1 050 151 897 711 88.7 1.73 441 297 11 500 1 580 1 140 158 976 775 91.8 1.0 0.) 95.492 0.3 60./ft.90 EHS 500 x 250 EHS 480 x 240 16.1 1.394 0.0** 14.) 0.0 1.4 1.3 0 5 670 4 203 2 675 4 788 3 877 2 673 400 800 1 200 1 600 2 000 5 670 5 670 5 669 5 666 5 659 4 203 4 203 4 202 4 200 4 196 2 675 2 675 2 674 2 674 2 672 4 788 4 788 4 787 4 784 4 777 3 877 3 877 3 876 3 874 3 870 2 673 2 673 2 673 2 672 2 670 2 400 2 800 3 200 3 600 4 000 5 645 5 621 5 583 5 524 5 442 4 188 4 173 4 149 4 113 4 063 2 669 2 664 2 656 2 643 2 624 4 764 4 740 4 702 4 645 4 565 3 861 3 844 3 818 3 779 3 724 2 666 2 659 2 648 2 631 2 606 4 400 4 800 5 200 5 600 6 000 5 332 5 192 5 023 4 826 4 607 3 994 3 905 3 796 3 668 3 522 2 598 2 564 2 520 2 467 2 403 4 459 4 326 4 167 3 985 3 785 3 650 3 556 3 441 3 308 3 159 2 572 2 528 2 473 2 407 2 330 6 400 6 800 7 200 7 600 8 000 4 371 4 126 3 879 3 634 3 397 3 362 3 193 3 019 2 843 2 670 2 330 2 249 2 161 2 067 1 971 3 573 3 357 3 142 2 932 2 731 3 000 2 833 2 665 2 498 2 336 2 243 2 148 2 048 1 944 1 840 8 400 8 800 9 200 9 600 10 000 3 171 2 958 2 759 2 574 2 403 2 503 2 344 2 193 2 051 1 919 1 873 1 775 1 679 1 586 1 497 2 542 2 365 2 200 2 049 1 910 2 181 2 036 1 899 1 772 1 655 1 736 1 635 1 538 1 445 1 358 10 400 10 800 11 200 11 600 12 000 2 246 2 101 1 968 1 846 1 733 1 797 1 684 1 580 1 483 1 395 1 412 1 332 1 256 1 185 1 119 1 782 1 665 1 558 1 460 1 371 1 546 1 447 1 355 1 271 1 194 1 276 1 199 1 128 1 061 1 000 15 200 2 000 1 420 150 1 220 953 86.2 58.72 359 244 IMPERIAL SIZE AND MASS Size (in.
0 10.6 78.73 141 94.0 10.4 45.9 1.21 350W CLASS H Factored Axial Compressive Resistances.2 1.0 38.0** 14.492 0.71 184 125 IMPERIAL SIZE AND MASS Size (in.74 276 184 10 900 1 190 845 125 726 565 72. Cr (kN) φ = 0.472 0.5 57.9 1.8 Effec ctive length (KL) in millimettres with respect to the leas st radius of gyration Designation (mm x mm x mm) PROPERTIES AND DESIGN DATA 2 Area (mm ) Zy (103 mm3) Sy (103 mm3) ry (mm) rx / ry Mrx (kN·m) Mry (kN·m) 12 600 1 370 968 124 832 642 71.3.551 0.8 0 3 969 3 560 3 434 2 696 1 707 3 131 2 709 2 277 1 725 400 800 1 200 1 600 2 000 3 969 3 969 3 967 3 961 3 948 3 559 3 559 3 558 3 553 3 541 3 433 3 433 3 432 3 427 3 416 2 696 2 696 2 695 2 692 2 685 1 707 1 707 1 707 1 706 1 703 3 131 3 130 3 126 3 113 3 083 2 709 2 708 2 705 2 694 2 670 2 277 2 277 2 274 2 266 2 246 1 725 1 725 1 723 1 718 1 706 2 400 2 800 3 200 3 600 4 000 3 922 3 876 3 805 3 703 3 568 3 518 3 479 3 417 3 328 3 210 3 394 3 357 3 297 3 213 3 100 2 670 2 646 2 606 2 549 2 472 1 698 1 689 1 675 1 653 1 623 3 026 2 931 2 795 2 620 2 417 2 622 2 545 2 432 2 285 2 113 2 208 2 145 2 053 1 934 1 793 1 682 1 641 1 582 1 502 1 405 4 400 4 800 5 200 5 600 6 000 3 402 3 210 3 000 2 783 2 567 3 063 2 894 2 708 2 515 2 322 2 960 2 797 2 619 2 433 2 247 2 375 2 260 2 130 1 993 1 852 1 583 1 534 1 475 1 408 1 334 2 200 1 984 1 779 1 592 1 425 1 929 1 743 1 567 1 404 1 258 1 640 1 485 1 337 1 200 1 076 1 297 1 184 1 074 969 873 6 400 6 800 7 200 7 600 8 000 2 358 2 162 1 981 1 815 1 665 2 135 1 959 1 796 1 646 1 511 2 067 1 898 1 740 1 595 1 464 1 713 1 580 1 454 1 338 1 231 1 257 1 179 1 102 1 027 955 1 277 1 148 1 035 936 850 1 129 1 015 916 829 753 966 869 785 711 646 787 710 643 583 530 8 400 8 800 9 200 9 600 10 000 1 529 1 407 1 298 1 200 1 111 1 388 1 278 1 179 1 090 1 010 1 346 1 239 1 143 1 057 979 1 134 1 046 967 895 830 888 825 767 714 665 775 709 650 599 553 686 628 576 530 490 589 539 494 455 420 484 443 407 375 346 10 400 10 800 11 200 11 600 12 000 1 032 960 895 836 783 938 872 814 760 712 909 846 789 737 690 771 718 670 626 587 620 579 542 508 476 512 475 442 454 421 392 389 361 336 321 298 278 259 9 940 855 600 98.0** 8.5 12.5 57.72 116 77.2 5 830 513 367 100 315 247 58.3 517 392 56.7 45.3(b) 134 .0 12.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 3B.3 48.) 66.2 1.1: EHS compressive resistance table ELLIPTICAL HOLLOW SECTIONS G40.) 16 x 8 13 x 6 ** Class 4: C r calculated according to S1601 Clause 13.4 38.7 385 299 57.74 432 262 11 300 1 230 877 125 753 584 71.6 85.315 0.5 1.73 266 178 Mass (lb.) 0.5 56.394 0.8 1.75 269 163 8 600 745 526 99.0** Mass (kg/m) 98.0 8.1 30.90 EHS 400 x 200 EHS 320 x 160 14.2 71./ft.315 Zx (103 mm3) Sx (103 mm3) rx (mm) 9 110 1 000 717 125 615 483 72.0 67.472 0.5 1.394 0.8 Thickness (in.72 226 152 7 340 811 584 126 500 397 73.74 235 143 7 230 631 449 99.551 0.4 1.0 453 347 56.7 88.7 52.0 12.3 59.1 1.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 3B.1: EHS compressive resistance table G40.472 0.492 0.4 151 119 45.) 55.73 101 67.21 350W CLASS H ELLIPTICAL HOLLOW SECTIONS Factored Axial Compressive Resistances.0 12.0 8.2 1.9 1.5 53.9 Effec ctive length (KL) in millimettres with respect to the leas st radius of gyration Designation (mm x mm x mm) 10 400 10 800 11 200 11 600 12 000 PROPERTIES AND DESIGN DATA 2 Area (mm ) Zy (103 mm3) Sy (103 mm3) ry (mm) rx / ry Mrx (kN·m) Mry (kN·m) 10 500 837 582 91.3 276 207 43.394 0.8 18.0 35.5 10.7 1.8 188 145 44.9 51.2 34.9 6 620 442 309 76.9 29.6 28.0 45.8 35.9 43.315 0.236 Zx (103 mm3) Sx (103 mm3) rx (mm) 8 340 674 475 92.315 0.0 6.3.76 264 158 Mass (lb.74 174 106 5 450 449 321 93.1 IMPERIAL SIZE AND MASS Size (in.4 1.4 23.4 409 311 52.6 1.73 69.) 12 x 6 10 x 5 ** Class 4: C r calculated according to S1601 Clause 13.5 65.0 8.8 53.72 55.) 0.5 3 420 235 169 78.74 118 71.8 36.72 53.4 267 201 43.3** 6.492 0.248 0.2 503 374 51.0 42.4 37.5 145 114 45.630 0.90 EHS 300 x 150 EHS 250 x 125 16.8 4 510 307 219 77.9 18.1 228 174 44.2 35.76 144 86.2 26./ft.7 3 590 246 176 78.76 139 84.5 1.394 0.3(b) 135 .0 10.2 336 260 53.1 Thickness (in.7 1.4 1.5 1.9 275 215 54.9 0 3 308 2 627 2 126 1 717 2 164 2 085 1 758 1 421 1 072 968 400 800 1 200 1 600 2 000 3 307 3 306 3 300 3 280 3 235 2 627 2 626 2 622 2 607 2 575 2 126 2 126 2 122 2 111 2 086 1 717 1 716 1 714 1 705 1 686 2 164 2 162 2 153 2 125 2 064 2 085 2 084 2 075 2 048 1 990 1 758 1 756 1 750 1 729 1 682 1 421 1 420 1 414 1 399 1 364 1 072 1 071 1 068 1 058 1 035 968 968 965 957 939 2 400 2 800 3 200 3 600 4 000 3 149 3 014 2 828 2 601 2 354 2 513 2 414 2 276 2 105 1 915 2 040 1 964 1 857 1 723 1 573 1 650 1 592 1 509 1 405 1 286 1 956 1 802 1 617 1 422 1 237 1 887 1 739 1 562 1 374 1 195 1 600 1 481 1 336 1 181 1 031 1 301 1 209 1 095 972 851 995 933 855 766 677 906 856 789 713 634 4 400 4 800 5 200 5 600 6 000 2 105 1 870 1 657 1 469 1 305 1 721 1 535 1 364 1 212 1 079 1 418 1 268 1 130 1 005 896 1 163 1 042 930 829 740 1 071 928 807 706 621 1 036 898 781 683 601 895 777 677 593 522 741 645 563 493 434 594 519 455 400 353 559 491 431 380 336 6 400 6 800 7 200 7 600 8 000 1 163 1 041 936 845 766 963 863 776 701 636 801 718 646 584 529 661 593 534 483 438 549 489 438 394 356 532 473 424 381 345 462 412 369 332 300 385 343 307 276 250 313 279 250 225 204 298 266 239 215 195 8 400 8 800 9 200 9 600 10 000 697 637 584 537 495 579 529 485 446 412 482 441 404 372 343 399 365 335 308 284 324 313 273 249 227 207 185 169 177 162 381 318 263 244 5 580 376 265 77.5 12.0 12.0** Mass (kg/m) 82. Cr (kN) φ = 0.75 212 129 6 750 551 391 93.4 44.7 6 870 458 320 76.4 28.9 1.
0 141 106 34.0 44.8 3 950 235 167 68.75 90.3.7 1.0 8.315 0.315 0.0 6./ft.236 0.2 31.2 1. Cr (kN) φ = 0.8 15.5 10.0 23.8 15.5 28.5 1.2 4 400 235 164 61.3(b) 136 .73 34.394 9x4 8x4 ** Class 4: C r calculated according to S1601 Clause 13.0 22.8 36.1: EHS compressive resistance table ELLIPTICAL HOLLOW SECTIONS G40.8 IMPERIAL SIZE AND MASS Mass (lb.5 23.3 35.7 73.0 8.7 23.5 42.72 40.7 Thickness (in.9 1.5 53.6 272.0 45.3 0 1 534 1 244 945 1 701 1 386 1 125 895 400 800 1 200 1 600 2 000 1 534 1 532 1 521 1 488 1 418 1 244 1 243 1 234 1 210 1 157 945 944 938 921 883 1 701 1 697 1 676 1 614 1 493 1 386 1 383 1 367 1 322 1 230 1 124 1 122 1 111 1 076 1 007 895 893 884 859 807 2 400 2 800 3 200 3 600 4 000 1 306 1 161 1 006 859 730 1 071 957 834 715 609 821 738 646 556 476 1 319 1 124 939 781 652 1 096 941 791 661 553 904 781 660 554 465 728 633 538 452 381 4 400 4 800 5 200 5 600 6 000 622 533 460 400 350 520 446 386 336 294 407 350 303 264 231 549 467 401 347 303 467 397 341 296 259 393 335 288 250 218 322 275 236 205 179 6 400 6 800 7 200 7 600 8 000 309 275 246 221 260 231 206 186 204 181 162 146 267 228 202 192 171 158 140 5 400 284 195 60.) 25.2 169 124 33.5 36.3 94.78 89.0 0.0 12.492 0.74 60.74 74.4 3 570 193 136 61.9 2 840 155 110 62.21 350W CLASS H Factored Axial Compressive Resistances.) 20.4 1.0 1.) 0.90 EHS 220 x 110 EHS 200 x 100 10.4 174 131 38.3 Mass (kg/m) 38.2 18.8 28.248 Effec ctive length (KL) in millimettres with respect to the leas st radius of gyration Designation (mm x mm x mm) 8 400 8 800 9 200 9 600 10 000 10 400 10 800 11 200 11 600 12 000 PROPERTIES AND DESIGN DATA 2 Area (mm ) Zx (103 mm3) Sx (103 mm3) rx (mm) Zy (103 mm3) Sy (103 mm3) ry (mm) rx / ry Mrx (kN·m) Mry (kN·m) 4 870 287 201 67.1 143 110 39.394 Size (in.0 3 000 181 129 68.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 3B.7 117 89.2 0.4 54.76 74.0 6.9 1.8 111 866 39.4 34.
6 8.0** 5.3 3 190 154 108 55.9 9 46.394 0.5 1 690 68.7 16.3 57 57.3(b) 137 .9 75.236 0.157 Effec ctive length (KL) in millimettres with respect to the leas st radius of gyration Designation (mm x mm x mm) 6 400 6 800 7 200 7 600 8 000 109 8 400 8 800 9 200 9 600 10 000 10 400 10 800 11 200 11 600 12 000 PROPERTIES AND DESIGN DATA 2 Area (mm ) Zy (103 mm3) Sy (103 mm3) ry (mm) rx / ry Mrx (kN·m) Mry (kN·m) 3 930 187 130 54.6 6 55.1 19.5 1.0 8.0 8.5 29.1 40 40.9 48 48.5 39.4 Mass (lb.1 25.2 1 360 56.9 1.6 42.3 20.) 0.0 6.9 12.73 21.6 1./ft.) 7x4 6x3 ** Class 4: C r calculated according to S1601 Clause 13.9 72.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 3B.6 56.5 26.21 350W CLASS H ELLIPTICAL HOLLOW SECTIONS Factored Axial Compressive Resistances.47 10.9 7.9 35.5 15.197 0.0 34.2 93.75 25.73 12.3.7 7 46.6 8.4 1.3 10.7 2 630 105 72 72.76 33.7 23.5 22.2 1.1 54.9 59 59.236 0.9 1.394 0.9 1.9 27.1 Thickness (in.315 0.8 17.3 37.1 26.2 51.75 26.77 58.6 31.3 6.1 1 47.8 IMPERIAL SIZE AND MASS Size (in.) 20.6 15.8 8 45.7 0 1 238 1 005 765 1 014 828 662 633 532 428 400 800 1 200 1 600 2 000 1 238 1 233 1 210 1 146 1 029 1 005 1 001 984 936 847 765 763 751 717 653 1 014 1 005 960 854 702 828 822 789 709 591 661 656 633 572 481 633 628 606 549 462 532 529 511 465 395 428 426 412 377 321 2 400 2 800 3 200 3 600 4 000 877 725 592 485 401 729 607 498 410 339 566 474 391 322 268 553 432 341 274 224 470 369 292 235 193 385 304 242 195 159 371 293 233 188 154 318 252 201 162 133 260 207 165 133 109 4 400 4 800 5 200 5 600 6 000 336 284 244 211 184 284 241 207 179 156 224 190 163 141 123 186 157 160 135 133 112 96 128 108 92 111 93 80 91 77 66 2 100 84.2 1.8 25.0 32.3 49. Cr (kN) φ = 0.74 37.6 112 83.90 EHS 180 x 90 EHS 150 x 75 10.9 46.3 70.315 0.6 62.7 26.0 10.75 48.248 Zx (103 mm3) Sx (103 mm3) rx (mm) 2 430 119 84 84.1 19.3 30.6 16.2 2 010 81.0 13.8 25.8 13.8 11.2 0.78 39.4 26.3 3 46.7 16.5 25.7 13.0 4.0 6.2 32.2 1.0 Mass (kg/m) 30.1: EHS compressive resistance table G40.6 6 44.9 3 220 126 86 86.
74 14 8 1 080 35./ft.8 1. Cr (kN) φ = 0.4 27.6 13.4 10.89 8.5 22.0 3.3 25 25.7 35 35.2 19.9 20.21 350W CLASS H Factored Axial Compressive Resistances.5 16.78 20 12 1 580 50.236 5x2 Size (in.315 0.) 138 7.4 4 36.70 4.6 21.) 0.0 4.33 Thickness (in.4 4 36.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 3B.0 5.48 6.9 21.2 12.06 5.6 17.2 1.6 30.7 20 20.1 1 37.8 1.1: EHS compressive resistance table ELLIPTICAL HOLLOW SECTIONS G40.157 0.197 0.72 6 4 IMPERIAL SIZE AND MASS Mass (lb.2 1.5 8.126 .3 21.9 38.7 44 3 44.) 10.9 26.3 35.5 1.8 21.2 30 30.0 6.85 Effec ctive length (KL) in millimettres with respect to the leas st radius of gyration Designation (mm x mm x mm) 0 649 498 422 340 275 400 800 1 200 1 600 2 000 648 633 568 450 333 497 487 442 356 267 422 414 378 308 233 340 334 306 252 192 275 270 249 206 158 2 400 2 800 3 200 3 600 4 000 246 185 144 114 93 198 150 117 93 75 174 132 103 82 66 144 109 85 68 55 119 90 70 56 46 4 400 4 800 5 200 5 600 6 000 6 400 6 800 7 200 7 600 8 000 8 400 8 800 9 200 9 600 10 000 10 400 10 800 11 200 11 600 12 000 PROPERTIES AND DESIGN DATA 2 Area (mm ) Zx (103 mm3) Sx (103 mm3) rx (mm) Zy (103 mm3) Sy (103 mm3) ry (mm) rx / ry Mrx (kN·m) Mry (kN·m) 2 060 64.2 Mass (kg/m) 16.9 20.73 11 7 873 28.5 5 37.60 0.76 16 10 1 340 43.90 EHS 120 x 60 8.
139 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Appendix 4A – Tensile Coupon Data Sheets The following are the tensile coupon data sheets.
1: Tensile coupon 1 data sheet 140 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 4A.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 4A.2: Tensile coupon 2 data sheet 141 .
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 4A.3: Tensile coupon 3 data sheet 142 .
143 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Appendix 4B – Fabrication Drawings The following are the EHStoEHS connection fabrication drawings provided to Walters Inc.
Appendices Figure 4A.1: Fabrication drawing for T901C Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 144 .
Appendices Figure 4A.2: Fabrication drawing for T902C Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 145 .
Appendices Figure 4A.3: Fabrication drawing for T903C Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 146 .
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Figure 4B.4: Fabrication drawing for X901C 147 .
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Figure 4B.5: Fabrication drawing for X902C 148 .
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Figure 4B.6: Fabrication drawing for X903C 149 .
7: Fabrication drawing for X901T 150 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Figure 4B.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Figure 4B.8: Fabrication Drawing for X902T 151 .
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Figure 4B.9: Fabrication drawing for X903T 152 .
10: Fabrication drawing for X451C 153 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Figure 4B.
11: Fabrication drawing for X452C 154 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Figure 4B.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Figure 4B.12: Fabrication drawing for X453C 155 .
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Appendix 4C – Walters Inc. Fabrication Drawings The following are the modified fabrication drawings made by Walters Inc. 156 .. including welding details.
1438 254 32 16 1152 F/1001 12 53 18 B 17 16 A A 6((:6.06.7 WELD 122.4 F/1001 53 18 16 76 76 SPR DATE PLOTTED CHECKED CVH 16.yyyy) DRAWN SINCE 1956 F/1001 CC 1164 1100 STRUCTURE CUSTOMER 16 8 x D11/16" 17 EHS CONNECTION SAMPLES UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO AA 178 89 89 18 Figure 4C. fabrication drawing for T901C BY F/1001 220 550 102 102 550 1100 0 MATERIAL LIST FOR ONE ASSEMBLY F/1001 TOTAL REQUIRED 1 QTY MARK DESCRIPTION GRADE LENGTH A/BILL REMARKS 1 F/1001 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1100 2 16 PL32X254 350W 381 1 17 PL32X203 350W 254 1 18 PL32X152 350W 254 53 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1105 DIV QTY EREF 1 UNIT WEIGHT UOFT 1 C 550 B 76 76 77 76 157 QA REV NO B DWG NO F/1001 CONTRACT NO PROFESSIONAL MEMBER 09690 32 16 Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices .7 25.NO DATE DESCRIPTION 48.7 REV.6 PAINT NP HOLES 13/16 U/N CAMBER WORK ORDER NUMBER 12.1: Walters Inc./$ C BB 12 17 6 13 13 6 45° 45° 16 32 B 06/30/09 APPROVED SHOP BOLT / STUD LIST ALL BOLTS GUNNED TIGHT U/NOTED QTY DESCRIPTION 110 16 WEIGHT A 06/25/09 ISSUED FOR APPROVAL 25.'(7$.2009 DATE EDITED (dd.7 FIT 9.mm.
7 24.6 PAINT NP HOLES 13/16 U/N CAMBER WORK ORDER NUMBER 12.32 16 1100 1386 F/1002 19 18 550 16 16 17 B 6 6 16 6((:6./% 550 A A C F/1002 19 16 32 B 06/30/09 APPROVED SHOP BOLT / STUD LIST ALL BOLTS GUNNED TIGHT U/NOTED QTY DESCRIPTION BB 220 101 101 127 WEIGHT A 06/25/09 ISSUED FOR APPROVAL 25.2: Walters Inc.'(7$.7 FIT 9.mm. fabrication drawing for T902C BY F/1002 220 B 1100 0 MATERIAL LIST FOR ONE ASSEMBLY F/1002 TOTAL REQUIRED 1 QTY MARK DESCRIPTION GRADE LENGTH A/BILL REMARKS 1 F/1002 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1100 2 16 PL32X254 350W 381 1 17 PL32X203 350W 254 1 18 PL32X152 350W 254 19 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1083 DIV QTY EREF 1 UNIT WEIGHT UOFT 1 C 550 76 76 77 76 158 QA REV NO B DWG NO F/1002 CONTRACT NO PROFESSIONAL MEMBER 09690 32 16 Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices .NO DATE DESCRIPTION 48.4 18 17 127 SPR DATE PLOTTED CHECKED CVH 16.06.yyyy) DRAWN SINCE 1956 F/1002 16 17 CC 1164 1100 STRUCTURE CUSTOMER 8 x D11/16" EHS CONNECTION SAMPLES UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO AA 178 89 89 18 Figure 4C.7 WELD 121.7 REV.2009 DATE EDITED (dd.
159 1386 254 32 1100 16 F/1003 17 B 21 18 16 6((:6.3: Walters Inc.yyyy) SPR SINCE 1956 16 STRUCTURE CUSTOMER AA 89 89 178 CC 1164 1100 8 x D11/16" EHS CONNECTION SAMPLES UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO Figure 4C./& A A C F/1003 21 18 17 16 32 B 06/30/09 APPROVED F/1003 DATE PLOTTED CHECKED CVH 16.7 REV.6 PAINT NP HOLES 13/16 U/N CAMBER WORK ORDER NUMBER 12.7 23.6 6 6 76 76 16 110 550 102 102 550 1100 0 MATERIAL LIST FOR ONE ASSEMBLY F/1003 TOTAL REQUIRED 1 QTY MARK DESCRIPTION GRADE LENGTH A/BILL REMARKS 1 F/1003 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1100 2 16 PL32X254 350W 381 1 17 PL32X203 350W 254 1 18 PL32X152 350W 254 21 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1052 DIV QTY EREF 1 UNIT WEIGHT UOFT 1 C 550 76 76 77 76 B QA 32 REV NO B F/1003 CONTRACT NO 09690 PROFESSIONAL MEMBER DWG NO 16 Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices .7 FIT 9.NO DATE DESCRIPTION 48.06.2009 DATE EDITED (dd.mm. fabrication drawing for T903C BY DRAWN F/1003 SHOP BOLT / STUD LIST ALL BOLTS GUNNED TIGHT U/NOTED QTY DESCRIPTION BB 110 16 WEIGHT A 06/25/09 ISSUED FOR APPROVAL 25.'(7$.9 WELD 120.
2866 18 F/1004 3 3 1100 102 102 17 18 B 18 17 B 2200 18 6((:6.6 7<3 18 32 WELD FIT WORK ORDER NUMBER APPROVED ISSUED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION 13/16 U/N CAMBER SHOP BOLT / STUD LIST ALL BOLTS GUNNED TIGHT U/NOTED QTY DESCRIPTION BB 110 16 B 06/30/09 A 06/25/09 WEIGHT REV.06.NO DATE 51.1 25.4 38.'(7$.8 17 18 6 6 166./$ 1100 76 76 0 A 51.2009 DATE EDITED (dd.yyyy) DRAWN SINCE 1956 220 STRUCTURE CUSTOMER EHS CONNECTION SAMPLES UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO AA 2264 2200 Figure 4C. fabrication drawing for X901T and X901C MATERIAL LIST FOR ONE ASSEMBLY F/1004 TOTAL REQUIRED 2 QTY MARK DESCRIPTION GRADE LENGTH A/BILL REMARKS 1 F/1004 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 2200 2 3 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1100 2 17 PL32X203 350W 254 18 PL32X152 350W 254 DIV QTY EREF 4 UNIT WEIGHT UOFT 2 A 1433 1433 254 1100 127 F/1004 DWG NO B REV NO CONTRACT NO PROFESSIONAL MEMBER 09690 32 127 32 1147 1147 32 254 160 QA Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices .mm.4: Walters Inc.3 PAINT NP HOLES 18 17 16 76 76 BY SPR DATE PLOTTED CHECKED CVH 16.
06./' 1100 1155 F/1005 07 27 67 10 BB 2200 250 35 21 250 22 68 10 18 32 162.yyyy) DRAWN 17 22 22 18 17 16 76 76 6 STRUCTURE CUSTOMER 6 EHS CONNECTION SAMPLES UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 7<3 Figure 4C.0 C 18 B WELD FIT WORK ORDER NUMBER APPROVED ISSUED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION 13/16 U/N CAMBER SHOP BOLT / STUD LIST ALL BOLTS GUNNED TIGHT U/NOTED QTY DESCRIPTION 18 4 25 10 1 B 06/30/09 A 06/25/09 WEIGHT REV.NO DATE 51.mm.5: Walters Inc.5 17 10 2 32 BY 18 CC SPR SINCE 1956 CVH 16.3 PAINT NP HOLES 25.17 F/1005 C 18 250 1045 22 6((:6.8 46.2009 DATE PLOTTED CHECKED 16 110 DATE EDITED (dd.'(7$. fabrication drawing for X451C MATERIAL LIST FOR ONE ASSEMBLY F/1005 TOTAL REQUIRED 1 QTY MARK DESCRIPTION GRADE LENGTH A/BILL REMARKS 1 F/1005 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 2200 2 17 PL32X203 350W 254 4 18 PL32X152 350W 254 22 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1100 DIV QTY EREF 2 UNIT WEIGHT UOFT 1 18 B 220 2264 76 76 18 32 250 161 QA F/1005 DWG NO B REV NO CONTRACT NO 09690 PROFESSIONAL MEMBER Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices .4 38.
4 38.2772 18 500 F/1006 18 18 500 16 16 17 17 B 19 19 6 6 7<3 1000 18 6((:6.9 18 32 WELD FIT WORK ORDER NUMBER APPROVED ISSUED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION 13/16 U/N CAMBER SHOP BOLT / STUD LIST ALL BOLTS GUNNED TIGHT U/NOTED QTY DESCRIPTION 17 220 B 06/30/09 A 06/25/09 WEIGHT REV./% 500 76 76 0 A BB 136.8 49.2009 DATE EDITED (dd.6: Walters Inc.4 18 18 17 127 101 101 127 BY SPR DATE PLOTTED CHECKED CVH 16. fabrication drawing for X902T and X902C MATERIAL LIST FOR ONE ASSEMBLY F/1006 TOTAL REQUIRED 2 QTY MARK DESCRIPTION GRADE LENGTH A/BILL REMARKS 1 F/1006 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1000 2 17 PL32X203 350W 254 4 18 PL32X152 350W 254 19 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1083 DIV QTY EREF 2 UNIT WEIGHT UOFT 2 A 1386 1386 254 B 18 127 127 32 1100 1100 32 254 162 QA F/1006 DWG NO B REV NO CONTRACT NO 09690 PROFESSIONAL MEMBER Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices .3 PAINT NP HOLES 25.mm.'(7$.06.yyyy) DRAWN SINCE 1956 220 STRUCTURE CUSTOMER 32 EHS CONNECTION SAMPLES UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO AA 1064 1000 Figure 4C.NO DATE 23.
4 38.mm.9 18 17 16 76 76 BY SPR DATE PLOTTED CHECKED CVH 16.9 6 13 13 6 45° 45° TYP 18 32 WELD FIT WORK ORDER NUMBER APPROVED ISSUED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION 13/16 U/N CAMBER SHOP BOLT / STUD LIST ALL BOLTS GUNNED TIGHT U/NOTED QTY DESCRIPTION 110 16 B 06/30/09 A 06/25/09 WEIGHT REV.yyyy) DRAWN SINCE 1956 110 STRUCTURE CUSTOMER EHS CONNECTION SAMPLES UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO AA 1084 1020 Figure 4C.7: Walters Inc.2009 DATE EDITED (dd.2772 18 F/1007 18 510 127 102 102 127 17 18 21 21 17 510 18 B B 6((:6.'(7$.NO DATE 23./& 1020 254 0 A BB 12 135.06. fabrication drawing for X903T and X903C MATERIAL LIST FOR ONE ASSEMBLY F/1007 TOTAL REQUIRED 2 QTY MARK DESCRIPTION GRADE LENGTH A/BILL REMARKS 1 F/1007 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1020 2 17 PL32X203 350W 254 4 18 PL32X152 350W 254 21 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1052 DIV QTY EREF 2 UNIT WEIGHT UOFT 2 A 1386 1386 510 127 127 32 1100 1100 32 254 163 QA 32 PROFESSIONAL MEMBER F/1007 DWG NO B REV NO CONTRACT NO 76 76 09690 18 Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices .8 47.8 PAINT NP HOLES 25.
fabrication drawing for X452C MATERIAL LIST FOR ONE ASSEMBLY F/1008 TOTAL REQUIRED 1 QTY MARK DESCRIPTION GRADE LENGTH A/BILL REMARKS 1 F/1008 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1066 1 12 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1112 2 17 PL32X203 350W 254 4 18 PL32X152 350W 254 24 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1113 DIV QTY EREF 1 UNIT WEIGHT UOFT 1 32 250 18 76 76 18 QA REV NO B DWG NO F/1008 CONTRACT NO 09690 PROFESSIONAL MEMBER Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices .'(7$.8: Walters Inc.yyyy) DRAWN SINCE 1956 STRUCTURE CUSTOMER 17 18 18 17 127 BB 220 102 102 127 EHS CONNECTION SAMPLES UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO Figure 4C./( 250 45 22 250 BY SPR DATE PLOTTED CHECKED CVH 16.8 24.164 220 AA 1130 1066 17 18 A B 12 18 32 250 17 28 587 478 F/1008 22 11 533 24 23 11 18 18 17 32 A 4 25 16 6 6 16 B 7<3 06/30/09 APPROVED WEIGHT A 06/25/09 ISSUED FOR APPROVAL 24.2009 DATE EDITED (dd.4 FIT 38.NO DATE DESCRIPTION 24.mm.9 REV.7 B SHOP BOLT / STUD LIST ALL BOLTS GUNNED TIGHT U/NOTED QTY DESCRIPTION 6((:6.8 PAINT NP HOLES 13/16 U/N CAMBER WORK ORDER NUMBER 25.9 WELD 138.06.
06./) AA 1395 1331 18 A 48.0 7<3 WELD FIT WORK ORDER NUMBER APPROVED ISSUED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION 13/16 U/N CAMBER 6 SPR CVH 16. fabrication drawing for X453C MATERIAL LIST FOR ONE ASSEMBLY F/1009 TOTAL REQUIRED 1 QTY MARK DESCRIPTION GRADE LENGTH A/BILL REMARKS 1 F/1009 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1331 2 15 EPD220X110X220X110X6 350W CLASS H 1123 2 17 PL32X203 350W 254 18 PL32X152 350W 254 DIV QTY EREF 4 UNIT WEIGHT UOFT 1 2 10 1 10 250 F/1009 127 127 18 QA F/1009 DWG NO B REV NO CONTRACT NO 09690 PROFESSIONAL MEMBER Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices .8 B 144.165 17 18 A 18 B 15 776 666 F/1009 556 11 46 32 110 15 22 92 28 64 18 250 11 46 6((:6.4 38.yyyy) DRAWN BY 6 SHOP BOLT / STUD LIST ALL BOLTS GUNNED TIGHT U/NOTED QTY DESCRIPTION 32 B 06/30/09 A 06/25/09 WEIGHT REV.mm.8 25.2009 DATE PLOTTED CHECKED BB 17 17 EHS CONNECTION SAMPLES UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 18 STRUCTURE CUSTOMER 16 110 16 SINCE 1956 18 DATE EDITED (dd.1 PAINT NP HOLES 17 18 76 76 Figure 4C.9: Walters Inc.NO DATE 31.'(7$.
DETAIL A 166 .
.
: DETAIL D A A DETAIL B B .
: DETAIL E .
.
: : 3 .
.
: : .
BB .
10: Walters Inc. : Figure 4C. weld details .
: AA .
B .
.
: DETAIL F : .
: .
: C .
: MIN. WELD FACE REQ'D FOR GIVEN LENGTH : .
.
DETAIL C .
NO DATE A 06/25/09 TITLE STRUCTURE CUSTOMER WELD DETAILS EHS CONNECTION SAMPLES UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO DESCRIPTION ISSUED FOR APPROVAL CC WSK1 DWG NO A REV PROFESSIONAL MEMBER 09690 CONTRACT NO BY Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices .2009 XSTEEL DRAWING NAME G [1] CHECKED JMV SINCE 1956 DATE CREATED (dd.06.yyyy) DRAWN REV.mm. C CVH 22.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Appendix 4D – LVDT Instrumentation The following show the LVDT placements for the 90º connections. 167 .
1: LVDT locations for T901C Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 168 .Appendices Figure 4D.
Appendices Figure 4D.2: LVDT locations for T902C Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 169 .
Appendices Figure 4D.3: LVDT locations for T903C Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 170 .
Appendices Figure 4D.4: LVDT locations for X901C and X901T Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 171 .
Appendices Figure 4D.5: LVDT locations for X902C and X902T Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 172 .
6: LVDT locations for X903C and X903T Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 173 .Appendices Figure 4D.
76° (by checking the zcoordinates of LED 8 with 34) and then about the x’axis by 2.y’. The zcoordinates of the LEDs that should be on the x’. the camera’s x. the yaxis of the camera was approximately horizontal and the xaxis of the camera was approximately vertical. The LEDs were first rotated such that the xaxis of the camera and the y’axis of the specimen corresponded. an x’. Typically. 16 35 17 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 23 18 19 20 24 25 26 31 32 33 34 27 28 29 30 21 22 Figure 4E. and the remaining LEDs were placed on the EHS.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Appendix 4E – LED Locations The following are the LED locations and numeration for each of the EHS tests. X903T or X901C.2°. LED 19 was placed on the LVDTCC plate. The y’axis of the specimen and the xaxis of the camera varied by 3.1: LED locations for X902T LED 16. 174 . LEDs were not used for X901T. For the remaining tests.y.7° (by checking the z’coordinates of LED 18 and 20 with 22). The y’axis of the specimen is in the direction of loading and the x’axis is in the direction of the chord length for the 90° connections. 17 and 35 were placed on the LVDT mount.z’ coordinate axis system.z coordinates were taken and then geometrically transformed to correspond with the axes of the specimen. The coordinates were rotated about the y’axis by 0.y’ plane were then compared and the appropriate transformations about the x’axis and y’axis were made.
6 24 4 25 29 26 27 5 7 28 30 31 32 35 36 37 33 34 10 13 14 8 9 15 16 17 18 22 21 20 19 11 12 Figure 4E. and the remaining LEDs were placed on the EHS.2: LED locations for X902C LED 7.5° (by checking the zcoordinates of LED 29 with 18) and then about the x’axis by 0. 175 .70°.83° (by checking the z’coordinates of LED 34 and 13 with 12). LED 21 was placed on the LVDTCC plate. LED 10 was placed on the LVDTCC plate.0° (by checking the zcoordinates of LED 8 with 26) and then about the x’axis by 0. The coordinates were rotated about the y’axis by 7.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices 7 27 15 8 26 24 6 5 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 23 22 20 16 21 18 17 19 25 Figure 4E.5°. 15 and 27 were placed on the LVDT mount. 4. The coordinates were rotated about the y’axis by 4. The y’axis of the specimen and the xaxis of the camera varied by 0. The y’axis of the specimen and the xaxis of the camera varied by 2.83° (by checking the z’coordinates of LED 20 and 22 with 19).3: LED locations for X903C LED 24. 5 and 6 were placed on the LVDT mount. and the remaining LEDs were placed on the EHS.
Additional rotations angles were negligible.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices 4 7 5 8 12 6 9 16 13 10 14 11 15 17 20 18 24 21 25 19 22 26 23 27 28 Figure 4E.9° (by checking the zcoordinates of LED 16 with 19). 176 .5: LED locations for X452C The y’axis of the specimen and the xaxis of the camera varied by 3.97°. Additional rotation angles were negligible.76°. The coordinates were rotated about the x’axis by 6.1° (by checking the zcoordinates of LED 18 with 21).4: LED locations for X451C The y’axis of the specimen and the xaxis of the camera varied by 0. The coordinates were rotated about the x’axis by 4. 5 9 6 13 10 14 7 11 15 18 19 12 16 29 22 30 20 23 21 26 31 24 27 32 25 28 Figure 4E.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices 14 15 16 17 9 10 4 11 5 12 18 6 13 31 30 36 29 21 34 33 8 20 35 28 27 7 22 26 32 24 Figure 4E. The coordinates were rotated about the x’axis by 7. 33.7: LED locations for T901C LED 34. 13. Additional rotations angles were negligible. 177 . 14 and 15 were placed on the LVDT mount. 11 and 12 were placed on the endframe. The coordinates were rotated about the y’axis by 4. 31.0° (by checking the zcoordinates of LED 30 with 9) and then about the x’axis by 0.03°. 29 32 33 34 15 14 21 30 13 24 22 25 23 26 2 1 27 28 4 5 6 7 10 11 3 8 9 12 31 Figure 4E. LED 32. The y’axis of the specimen and the xaxis corresponded.70° (by checking the z’coordinates of LED 29 with 30 and 10 with 9).6: LED locations for X453C The y’axis of the specimen and the xaxis of the camera varied by 1. and the remaining LEDs were placed on the EHS.4° (by checking the zcoordinates of LED 17 with 22).
The y’axis of the specimen and the xaxis of the camera varied by 1. LED 15 was placed on the endframe.70° (by checking the z’coordinates of LED 21 with 5). 10.0°.9: LED locations for T903C LED 10.8: LED locations for T902C LED 33. and 13 were placed on the LVDT mount.50° (by checking the z’coordinates of LED 1).Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices 11 31 30 33 13 14 15 10 27 26 23 22 21 32 28 29 24 25 12 9 8 1 2 7 6 3 5 4 Figure 4E. and the remaining LEDs were placed on the EHS. The coordinates were rotated about the x’axis by 2. 30 10 13 31 11 9 12 1 8 2 7 3 6 4 29 5 25 24 28 23 27 22 26 21 14 Figure 4E. 31 and 30 were placed on the LVDT mount. 178 . and the remaining LEDs were placed on the EHS. LED 13 and 14 were placed on the endframe. The y’axis of the specimen and the xaxis of the camera varied by 1.0° (by checking the zcoordinates of LED 1 with 21) and then about the y’axis by 0. The coordinates were rotated about the y’axis by 4.0°.5° (by checking the zcoordinates of LED 14 with 5) and then about the y’axis by 0.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Appendix 4F – T Connection End Frame The following is the fabrication drawing for the end frame that supports the chord ends of the T connections. The chord ends are bolted to the T connection end frame and the end frame is then bolted to a doubleweb Ibeam. 179 .
1: T connection end frame Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections 180 .Appendices Figure 4F.
All dimensions are in mm and all dimensions were measured to the closest mm.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Appendix 5A – Specimen Measurements The measured chord and brace dimensions of the 12 EHStoEHS welded connection specimens are given here.1: Specimen measurements of X901T 110 1045 220 110 442 994 1045 P (tension) Figure 5A.2: Specimen measurements of X902T 181 . P (tension) 220 1089 110 110 1033 2198 1089 P (tension) Figure 5A.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices 220 989 110 220 398 1016 989 P (tension) Figure 5A.4: Specimen measurements of X901C 182 .3: Specimen measurements of X903T P (compression) 220 1089 110 110 987 2193 1089 P (compression) Figure 5A.
54° P (compression) 220 989 110 220 398 1016 989 P (compression) Figure 5A.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices P (compression) 110 220 1043 110 444 997 1043 P (compression) Figure 5A. The chord is off the orthogonal by 2.6: Specimen measurements of X903C 183 .5: Specimen measurements of X902C Note: The chord member was not entirely perpendicular to the braces.
7: Specimen measurements of X451C 220 110 987 963 110 1097 P (compression) Figure 5A.8: Specimen measurements of X452C 184 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices 220 890 2264 110 110 1110 P (compression) Figure 5A.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices P (compression) 220 879 1326 2289 220 1099 P (compression) Figure 5A.9: Specimen measurements of X453C P (compression) 220 1089 110 110 1098 Figure 5A.10: Specimen measurements of T901C 185 .
11: Specimen measurements of T902C P (compression) 220 1032 110 220 1100 Figure 5A.12: Specimen measurements of T903C 186 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices P (compression) 220 110 1042 110 1098 Figure 5A.
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Appendices
Appendix 5B – Weld Measurements
Weld measurements of the 12 EHStoEHS connections are given here. All weld measurements are
reported in mm. Due to the unique geometry of the EHS connections, the conventional method of
reporting weld sizes at various locations around the connection could not be done. As a substitute, the
following weld measurements were taken. Figure 1 below shows the schematics of the weld measurement
locations. Figure 1(a) shows the weld measurement locations for Type 1 connections and Figure 1(b)
shows the weld measurement locations for Type 2 or 3 connections. For every brace, there are two crown
locations. At the crowns, the size of the weld parallel to the direction of loading was taken and was
denoted as w1. There were seven strain gauges placed around half the brace perimeter; the size of the
weld perpendicular to the direction of loading at each of these strain gauge locations was taken and was
denoted as w2. The last measurement taken was the surface length of the weld at the seven strain gauge
locations and was denoted as L. Note: the surface length measurement did not account for the convexity
or concavity of the weld.
Regarding the applicable measurements for 90° connections: 1) the w1 measurement can only be taken
at the crowns (i.e. 2 per brace); 2) the w2 measurement for type 2 and 3 connections can only be taken at
the crowns (i.e. 2 per brace); and 3) not all measurements were taken since there are redundancies due to
symmetry, both about the brace centreline (left vs. right) and about the chord centreline (top vs. bottom).
Regarding the applicable measurements for 45° connections: i) the w1 measurement is never applicable;
ii) the w2 measurement is only applicable for the Type 1 connection; and iii) not all measurements were
taken since there are redundancies due to symmetry.
The left and right directionality was assigned once the specimen was placed in the MTS load frame;
the front is the side facing east (side facing the K610 camera). The top and bottom directionality was
assigned, as well, once the specimen was placed in the MTS load frame. Measurements were taken at
locations corresponding to the strain gauges locations. The following 12 tables show the measurements
taken from each of the 12 specimens.
187
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Appendices
(a) Type 1 connections
(b) Type 2 and 3 connections
Figure 5B.1: Location of weld measurements
Table 5B.1: Weld measurements for X901T
Location
SGLC
SGL2
SGL1
TopLeft
w1
w2
11
11
13
12.5
Location
SGLC
SGL2
SGL1
BottomLeft
w1
w2
10
13
15
12.5
L
16
18
L
TopCentre
Location
w2
SGCC
12
BottomCentre
Location
w2
SGCC
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
TopRight
w1
w2
13
14
11
14
L
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
BottomRight
w1
w2
12
12
9
13
L
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
L
18
11
L
L
Table 5B.2: Weld measurements for X902T
Location
SGLC
SGL2
SGL1
TopLeft
w1
w2
10
10
BottomLeft
Location
w1
w2
SGLC
10
10.5
SGL2
SGL1
L
Location
TopCentre
w2
SGCC
L
14.5
14.5
14.5
BottomCentre
Location
w2
SGCC
L
14
188
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
TopRight
w1
w2
10.5
10
BottomRight
w1
w2
10
L
11
L
15.5
15
15.5
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Appendices
Table 5B.3: Weld measurements for X903T
Location
SGLC
SGL2
SGL1
TopLeft
w1
w2
10
10
L
Location
TopCentre
w2
L
SGCC
BottomLeft
Location
w1
w2
SGLC
10
10
SGL2
SGL1
L
15
17.5
18.5
BottomCentre
Location
w2
SGCC
L
19.5
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
TopRight
w1
w2
10
10
BottomRight
w1
w2
10
L
10
L
18.5
18
15
Table 5B.4: Weld measurements for X901C
Location
SGLC
SGL2
SGL1
TopLeft
w1
w2
10
13
12
12
BottomLeft
Location
w1
w2
SGLC
10
12
SGL2
12
SGL1
12
L
TopCentre
Location
w2
SGCC
L
11
BottomCentre
Location
w2
SGCC
L
12
L
18
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
TopRight
w1
w2
11
13
10
13
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
BottomRight
w1
w2
13
13
10
14
L
L
18.5
18
18
Table 5B.5: Weld measurements for X902C
Location
SGLC
SGL2
SGL1
Location
SGLC
SGL2
SGL1
TopLeft
w1
w2
11
11.5
BottomLeft
w1
w2
10.5 12.5
L
16.5
16
15.5
L
17
17
17.5
TopCentre
Location
w2
SGCC
L
17
BottomCentre
Location
w2
SGCC
L
16
189
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
TopRight
w1
w2
L
BottomRight
w1
w2
L
Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections
Appendices
Table 5B.6: Weld measurements for X903C
Location
SGLC
SGL2
SGL1
TopLeft
w1
w2
10
10
BottomLeft
Location
w1
w2
SGLC
10
10
SGL2
SGL1
L
14.5
12.5
13
L
14
Location
TopCentre
w2
SGCC
L
14
BottomCentre
Location
w2
SGCC
L
18.5
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
TopRight
w1
w2
10
10
BottomRight
w1
w2
9
9.5
L
13
11
12.5
L
15
Table 5B.7: Weld measurements for X451C
Location
SGLC
SGL2
SGL1
TopLeft
w1
w2
L
TopCentre
Location
w2
L
SGCC
BottomLeft
Location
w1
w2
SGLC
8
SGL2
9
SGL1
10
L
21.5
19
18
BottomCentre
Location
w2
SGCC
10
L
17
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
TopRight
w1
w2
BottomRight (narrow)
Location
w1
w2
SGR1
10
SGR2
10
LGRC

L
L
15.5
15
15
Table 5B.8: Weld measurements for X452C
Location
SGLC
SGL2
SGL1
TopLeft
w1
w2
L
BottomLeft (narrow)
Location
w1
w2
L
SGLC
11.5
SGL2
11.5
SGL1
12
TopCentre
Location
w2
L
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
L
Location
SGR1
SGR2
LGRC
SGCC
BottomCentre
Location
w2
SGCC
19
190
TopRight
w1
w2
BottomRight
w1
w2
L
L
13.5
12.5
12
5 Table 5B.9: Weld measurements for X453C Location SGLC SGL2 SGL1 TopLeft w1 w2 BottomLeft Location w1 w2 SGLC SGL2 SGL1 L 15.5 17.5 19 19 L Location TopCentre w2 SGCC L 20 BottomCentre Location w2 L SGCC Location SGR1 SGR2 LGRC Location SGR1 SGR2 LGRC TopRight (narrow) w1 w2 BottomRight w1 w2 L 18 16 12 L Table 5B.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5B.12: Weld measurements for T903C Location SGLC SGL2 SGL1 TopLeft w1 w2 9 9 L 13.10: Weld measurements for T901C Location SGLC SGL2 SGL1 TopLeft w1 w2 10 15 15 14.5 17 17 TopCentre Location w2 SGCC L 17 Location SGR1 SGR2 LGRC TopRight w1 w2 12 13 L 17 17.5 L TopCentre Location w2 SGCC L 14.5 15 17 TopCentre Location w2 SGCC L 19 191 Location SGR1 SGR2 LGRC TopRight w1 w2 9 9 L 18 16 15 .5 Location SGR1 SGR2 LGRC TopRight w1 w2 14 14 10 14 L Table 5B.11: Weld measurements for T902C Location SGLC SGL2 SGL1 TopLeft w1 w2 11 12 L 16.
For the 45° connections. and “LED ∆1 Measurement” indicates ∆1 was measured by the relative displacement between LEDs. but is not ∆1. “LED Displacement Measurement” is the relative displacement measured between LEDs. This measurement is multiplied by the cosine(angle) to determine ∆1. “LVDT ∆1 Measurement” indicates ∆1 was measured by LVDT displacement. This direction is indicated by “∆1 Measurement”. a displacement perpendicular to the chord.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Appendix 5C – Connection Displacement Measurement The schematics of how connection displacements (∆1) were measured for each of the 12 tests are given here. For the 90° connections. 192 .
1: Connection displacement measurements for tensiontested X connections at 90º a) X901T Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices 193 .b) X902T c) X903T Figure 5C.
194 Due to global buckling.2: Connection displacement measurements for compressiontested X connections at 90º 4. additional steps were taken to get the connection displacement perpendicular to the chord. see below. 5. X901C Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices . X903C Figure 5C. X902C 6.
X453C Figure 5C. X451C Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices 195 .8.3: Connection displacement measurements for compressiontested X connections at 45º 7. X452C 9.
T903C Figure 5C. T901C Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices 196 .11.4: Connection displacement measurements for compressiontested T connections at 90º 10. T902C 12.
The figure below shows the the direction of the relative displacement (R) and the direction of the connection displacement (∆1) and the direction of the chord centreline. The total relative displacement (R) is: As noted in Appendix 5A. After geometric transformations of the LED positions such that the one axis corresponded to the brace vertical axis and the other axis corresponded to the chord horizontal axis. The relative vertical displacement between LED20&22 average to LED15 is denoted as dx.5: Additional rotation of X902C Based on the above figure: Therefore: ∆ 2.54° Chord centreline Figure 5C. the chord of X902C was off orthogonal by 2. Typically for the 90° connections.64°. one cannot simply take the relative vertical displacement. the LVDT displacement or the vertical displacement between LEDs can be taken. the average LED20 and LED 22 was used relative to LED15 to determine connection displacement.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices X902C experienced global buckling.54 and tan cos 197 . The relative horizontal displacement between LED20&22 average to LED15 is denoted as dy. Since X902C globally buckled. R 1 r dx 2.
η. τ. The experimental summaries include the following:  Chord and brace crosssectional dimensions  Chord and brace lengths  Material properties  Geometrical parameters: β. and brace yield load  Picture of specimen at ultimate load  General notes about experiment 198 . and θ1  Schematic of connection displacement (∆1) measurement  Connection loaddisplacement curve  Ultimate load. γ. load at the 3% deformation limit.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Appendix 5D – Experimental Summaries The following are the experimental summaries of the 12 EHStoEHS welded connection tests.
7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 350 N1u = 339.5 1. and loadcarrying capacity increased until brace tore the chord at the base of the weld.94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 0. Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 X901T Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220.0 18.25mm/min and was increased only when yielding was apparent.9 kN 150 D1(3%)= 6. Significant yielding occurred at chord centreline.52 1. Chord began to “circularize” shortly after load vs.9 N1.0 110.0 5.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D.0 90 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 339. connection deflection curve became nonlinear.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110.1 kN Load (kN) 300 Measurements (all dimensions in mm) 250 200 N1(3%) = 187.1: Experimental summary of X901T Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no.1 N1 (3%) = 187. 199 . 3% deformation limit governs capacity of the connection.0 5.yield = 1223.0 220.6 mm 100 D1u =31 mm 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Chord plastification until chord tearout Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0.
First test performed with both LVDTs and optical scanner.7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 700 N1u = 596.94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 1.0 5.0 5.25mm/min and was increased only when yielding was apparent.52 1.5 N1.8 N1 (3%) = 574.0 110. The second failure mode was the tearing of the chord at its side centreline causing a sudden drop in loadcarrying capacity.5 kN 400 300 D1(3%)= 6. connection deflection curve became nonlinear.0 90 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 596. First failure mode was a crack formed in the top brace above the weld. 200 . Side wall failure caused load drop. Chord began to “circularize” shortly after load vs. 3% deformation limit governs capacity of the connection. Confirmed both systems produced similar results. Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 X902T Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D.5 18. Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0.yield = 1223.0 110.6 mm 200 D1u =10 mm 100 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Brace cracked above weld on opposite side.8 kN Load (kN) 600 500 Measurements (all dimensions in mm) N1(3%) = 574.0 0.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220.2: Experimental summary of X902T Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no.
Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 X903T Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110.8 kN 1000 Measurements (all dimensions in mm) 800 600 400 D1(3%)= 3.0 5.0 9.7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 1600 1400 N1u = 1557.94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 1.3: Experimental summary of X903T Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no. 3% deformation limit governs capacity of the connection.0 N1 (3%) = 1188. so LVDT measurements were used for the connection loaddisplacement.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110.26 1.0 90 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 1557.0 220. No significant chord deformation and/or rotation.0 5.0 220.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D. 201 .0 kN Load (kN) 1200 N1(3%) = 1188.8 N1.25mm/min and was increased only when yielding was apparent.0 2.3 mm 200 D1u =33 mm 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Top branch rupture Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0.yield = 1223.
0 220.4 kN Load (kN) 200 N1(3%) = 150.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D.7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 250 N1u = 202.0 90 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 202. Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 X901C Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110.0 5. 202 .25mm/min and was increased only when yielding was apparent.0 5.yield = 1223.5 1. Loadcarrying capacity increases after plateau probably due to tensionstiffening in the top and bottom of the chord.94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 0.0 18. 3% deformation limit governs capacity of the connection.4 N1 (3%) = 150. and increases again once branches contact each other.4: Experimental summary of X901C Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no.5 kN Measurements (all dimensions in mm) 150 D1u =38 mm 100 D1(3%)= 6.5 N1.6 mm 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Chord plastification Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0. Chord began to increasingly flatten shortly after connection loaddeflection curve became nonlinear.52 1.0 110.
25mm/min and increased only when yielding was apparent. Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 X902C Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220.7 kN 300 200 Measurements (all dimensions in mm) D1u = 5. Global (overall) buckling occurred in the plane of the test specimen. Eventually the top branch punctured through chord sidewall via a pinching action.52 1.0 5.8 kN 400 D1(3%)= 6.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220. 203 .0 0. Higher loadcarrying capacities are therefore possible.7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 600 Load (kN) 500 N1(3%) = 537.5 18. Ultimate load governs capacity of the connection.5: Experimental summary of X902C Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no.0 5.6 mm N1u = 539.0 110.0 90 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 539.0 110.8 N1.7 N1 (3%) = 535.2 mm 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Global buckling with chord sidewall failure Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0.94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 1.yield = 1223.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D.
7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 600 N1u = 555.0 220.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110.0 220.8 kN 400 Measurements (all dimensions in mm) 300 D1(3%)= 3.0 5. Ultimate load governs capacity of the connection.0 9.0 90 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 555.6: Experimental summary of X903C Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no.25mm/min and was increased only when yielding was apparent.0 2.8 N1.5 mm 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Chord sidewall failure Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0.yield = 1223. Failure occurred as the chord sidewalls began to buckle causing an outofplane chord rotation.0 5.94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 1.1 N1 (3%) = 459. 204 .1 kN Load (kN) 500 N1(3%) = 459.26 1.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D. Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 X903C Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110.3 mm 200 D1u =1.
0 110. 205 .5 kN ∆1(3%)= 6.3 N1 (3%) = 258.6 mm ∆1u =24.7 mm 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Chord plastification Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0. Loadcarrying capacity increases after plateau probably due to tensionstiffening in the top and bottom of the chord.52 1. connection deflection curve became nonlinear.7: Experimental summary of X451C Load (kN) Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no.0 5.3 kN Measurements (all dimensions in mm) N1(3%) = 258.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D.0 5.25mm/min and was increased only when yielding was apparent.0 18.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110.yield = 1223.0 220.7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 N1u = 350. Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 X451C Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220. and increases again once the branches contact each other. Chord began to increasingly flatten shortly after load vs. 3% deformation limit governs capacity of the connection.5 N1.94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 0.5 1.0 45 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 350.
8 N1 (3%) = 531. Ultimate load governs capacity of the connection.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220.52 1. 206 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D.0 0.0 110. The pinching action of the two branches caused the chord to crack at its sidewall centreline. The increase in loadcarrying capacity again may be attributed to the tensionstiffening in the chord top and bottom.0 110.0 45 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 627.25mm/min and was increased only when yielding was apparent.8kN N1(3%) = 531.94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 1.0 5.6 mm 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Chord sidewall failure Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0.6 mm D1u =2.0 5.yield = 1223. Failure mode was chord plastification.0 N1.7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 700 N1u = 627. Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 X452C Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220.8: Experimental summary of X452C Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no.5 18.0 kN Load (kN) 600 500 Measurements (all dimensions in mm) 400 D1(3%)= 6.
yield = 1223.94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 1. Ultimate load governs capacity of the connection.0 5.0 2.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110.3 mm =0.7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 N1u = 701. 207 .9 N1.0 220.0 5. Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 X453C Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110. Failure occurred as the chord sidewalls began to buckle.0 kN N1(3%) = 656.0 N1 (3%) = 656.0 45 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 701.9: Experimental summary of X453C Load (kN) Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no.78 mm 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Chord sidewall failure Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D.9 kN Measurements (all dimensions in mm) D1u D1(3%)= 3.26 1.0 220.0 9. causing an outofplane chord rotation.25mm/min and was increased only when yielding was apparent.
94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 0.52 1.0 18. 208 .5 N1 (3%) = 211.0 90 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 216.10: Experimental summary of T901C Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no.0 5.0 5.6 mm 6. Indentation occurred at top of chord only. Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 T901C Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220.5 1.6 mm 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Chord plastification Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0.0 110.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D.4 N1. Loadcarrying capacity increased again due to bending action of the chord. Ultimate load governs capacity of the connection.5 kN ∆1u = ∆1(3%)= 6.7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 250 Measurements (all dimensions in mm) Load (kN) 200 N1u = N1(3%) = 211.4 kN 216.0 220.yield = 1223.25mm/min and was increased only when yielding was apparent.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110.
209 .Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D. Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 T902C Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220.0 90 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 353.11: Experimental summary of T902C Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no.0 110.6 mm Measurements (all dimensions in mm) 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Chord sidewall failure Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0. The chord sidewalls bulged out.yield = 1223.52 1.5 18.0 5.0 N1 (3%) = 338.2 kN D1u =2.0 kN N1(3%) = 338.0 0.2 N1. Loadcarrying capacity tends to increase again due to bending action of the chord.94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 1. Indentation occurred at top of chord only.0 5.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 220.2 mm D1(3%)= 6. Ultimate load governs capacity of the connection.7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 400 350 Load (kN) 300 250 200 150 N1u = 353.25mm/min and was increased only when yielding was apparent.0 110.
0 5.0 220.0 90 Connection capacity (kN) Brace yield (kN) N1u = 593.25mm/min and was increased only when yielding was apparent.8 kN N1(3%) = 550.6 N1.0 9.Elliptical Hollow Section T and X Connections Appendices Table 5D.6 kN Load (kN) 600 Measurements (all dimensions in mm) 500 400 D1u =0. Brace(s) nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 T903C Chord (measured geometrical dimensions) Connection configuration (all dimensions in mm) fy0 t0 A0 b0 (mm) h0 (mm) fu0 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110.0 5. Indentation occurred at top of chord only. 210 .0 220.94 3044 402 517 Geometrical parameters β = b1/b0 η = h1/b0 γ = b0/2t0 τ = t1/t0 θ1 (deg) 1.94 3044 402 517 Brace(s) (measured geometrical dimensions) fy1 t1 A1 b1 (mm) h1 (mm) fu1 (MPa) (mm) (mm2) (MPa) 110. The chord sidewalls bulged out.yield = 1223.53 mm 300 200 D1(3%)= 3.26 1.12: Experimental summary of T903C Chord nominal dimensions: 220 x 110 x 6 Steel grade: EN10210 S355J2H Test no.3 mm 100 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Connection Displacement (mm) Failure mode: Chord sidewall failure Remarks: Initial loading rate was 0.0 2.8 N1 (3%) = 550. Ultimate load governs capacity of the connection.7 Connection loaddisplacement curve: 700 N1u = 593.