Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract—The intensive worldwide use of tubular structural
elements, mainly due to its associated aesthetical and structural
advantages, led designers to be focused on technological and
design issues. Consequently, their design methods accuracy plays
a fundamental role when economical and safety aspects are
considered. Additionally, recent tubular joint studies indicate
further research needs, especially for some joint geometries. This
is even more significant for particular failure modes where the
failure load predictions lead to unsafe or uneconomical solutions.
In this paper a numerical (i.e. non-linear finite element
simulations) based on a parametric study is presented for the
analysis of K tubular joints where both chords and braces are
made of circular hollow sections. The proposed model was a) Footbridge – Rio de Janeiro – CHS K and N joints
validated by comparison to the experiments, analytical results
suggested at the Eurocode 3 and at the new CIDECT formulation
and to the classic deformation limits present in the literature.
The main variables of the study were the brace diameter to chord
diameter ratio and the thickness to chord face diameter ratio.
These parameters were chosen based on recent studies results
that depicted some Eurocode 3 rules discrepancies.
I. INTRODUCTION
b) Footbridge – Rio de Janeiro – CHS K joints
simultaneous increase of the joint resistance with the variable verified since the joint geometrical parameters are in
β and/or with the increase of the variable γ. The authors also agreement with the geometrical limits considered in the
referred to the need of establishing a deformation limit criteria Equations (1) to (5). The joint resistances for the chord
for those connections. Packer et al. [5] also observed that the plastification failure and punching shear failure are obtained
connection resistance increases with the increase of β and/or from Equations (6) and (7), respectively.
with the increase of γ, but they also developed a failure path
theory to estimate the connection plastic load capacity.
Some authors like Zhao and Hancock [6], Zhao [7], Lu and
Wardenier [8], Cao et al. [9], [10], Kosteski and Packer [11],
[12] and Kosteski et al. [13] also observed that both the
connection resistance and the initial stiffness increase with the
increase of β and/or with the increase of γ.
Recently Lu et al. [14], [15] (cited in Kosteski et al. [13]),
with results also validated and accepted by Zhao [6],
established an approximate 3%d0 deformation limit criteria.
This 3%d0 limit (Nu) is nowadays widely accepted and is also
the value adopted by the International Institute of Welding
(IIW) [20] for the maximum acceptable displacement
associated to the ultimate limit state, while a 1%d0 limit (Ns) is Fig. 2. Geometrical properties of the CHS K joint [16].
adopted for the serviceability limit state. If the ratio of Nu/Ns
is greater than 1.5, the joint strength should be based on the
serviceability limit state, and if Nu/Ns < 1.5, the ultimate limit
30 o 90 o (1)
state controls the design. In the case of CHS joints, Nu/Ns <
1.5 and the appropriate deformation limit to be used to
d1
determine the ultimate joint strength should be equal to 0. 2 1.0 (2)
0.03d0. d0
In this paper a numerical study (i.e. based on non-linear
FEM simulations) supported by a parametric study is d0
10 0 50 (3)
presented, for the analysis of K tubular joints where both t0
chords and braces use circular hollow sections. The proposed
model was validated by comparison to analytical results
di
suggested by the Eurocode 3 [16], by the new CIDECT [17] 10 i 50 (4)
guide and to literature classic deformation limits. The main ti
variables of the present study were the brace diameter to chord
diameter ratio and the thickness to chord face diameter ratio. d0
25 (5)
These parameters were chosen based on recent studies results 2t 0
that indicated some Eurocode 3 recommendations
discrepancies to the real failure loads.
k p k g f y 0 t 02
N1,Rd 1.8 10.2 / M 5 (6)
sin 1
II. EUROCODE 3 AND CIDECT DESIGN CODES PROVISIONS
1 sin i
N1,Rd 0.58 f y 0 t 0 d i / M5 (7)
According to Eurocode 3 [16] and CIDECT [17], some 2 sin 2 i
geometrical limits need to be verified prior to the evaluation
of the joint resistance – Equations (1) to (5). These limits are
k p 1 0.3n p 0.3n 2p 1.0 (8)
presented in Figure 2 where di and ti represent, respectively,
the tube diameter and thickness.
The formulation for the design of a in plane joint type T, X 0.024 1.2
k g 0.2 1 (9)
1 exp0.5 g / t 0 1.33
and K is based on design equations proposed by Kurobane et
al. [18] and, after some simplifications and design rules
evaluation performed by Wardenier [19], were incorporated in Where N1,Rd is the chord plastification failure or punching
the IIW Recommendations [20]. shear failure load; is a geometrical parameter according to
For the CHS K joint considered in this work, the Eurocode Equation (5); kp is evaluated according to Equation (8) if np<0,
3 [16] establishes that the chord plastification failure and or equal to 1 if np≥0 where np is obtained in Equation (15); kg
punching shear failure are the ultimate limit state to be is evaluated according to Equation (9); np is equal to 0p / fy0;
RAPHAEL S. DA SILVA et al.: NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF CHS K JOINTS 3
0p is the chord normal stress under the compressive brace; fy0 n<0 (compression) or equal to 0.20 if n≥0 (tension);
is the chord yield stress; 1 is obtained according to Figure 2; At this point it is important to explain how the chord axial
is a geometrical parameter according to Equation (2) and M5 force is obtained in order to evaluate the n or np parameter. As
is the partial safety factor, in this case equal to 1. it can be observed in Figure 3, the value of N0p,Sd is obtained
Based on extensive investigations combined with additional as the resultant of the axial force under the compression brace
finite elements models, Wardenier et al. [17] proposed a new – Equation (16). The bending moment evaluation M0,Sd –
design formulation for CHS joints presented in the new Equation (17) - corresponds to the normal stress acting in the
CIDECT Guide [17]. The parameters influence was joint connected face. So, at this point, the lever arm to be
determined through a retro analysis of the numerical models. considered is e+d0/2 where d0 is the joint eccentricity and d0 is
After some simplifications, the equations were applied to the chord diameter.
Makino et al. [21] experimental results and to Qian et al. [22]
numerical models. N 0 ,Sd N 0 p ,Sd N i ,Sd .cos i (16)
The Eurocode 3 [16] geometrical requirements should also
be verified, but, in some particular cases, the validity range of
d
the parameter could be enlarged. The IIW [20] limited the M 0 ,Sd N1 .cos 1 N 2 .cos 2 . e 0 (17)
2
ratio to 2 ≤ 50 and for ratios beyond this limit, states that the
joint design is governed by deformation limits. This is due to
the fact that in those cases the joint deformation capacity will
not be sufficient to redistribute the second order moments. In
the joint design equations, the chord bending effects due to
brace loads are included in function of the chord stress Qf,
enabling a better evaluation of the joint capacity. The previous
formulation for the chord plastification failure was based on
d0/2
experimental results. These results were influenced by the
e
chord bending due the experimental tests layout. According to
the new formulation proposed in CIDECT [17], the chord (N1cos1 +N2cos2)
plastification failure and punching shear failure loads are
obtained using Equations (10) and (11), respectively, where
the parameters Qu, Qf and ka are described in Equations (12) to Fig. 3. Deformation limit criteria evaluation
(14) where di ≤ d0-2t0.
III. DEFORMATION LIMIT CRITERIA
f y 0 t 02
N i* Qu Q f (10) Usually, the steel tubular joints design rules are based on
sin 1 plastic analysis or in deformation limits criteria [7], [13]. In a
plastic analysis using the yield lines method, each kinetically
ka allowable failure mechanism is associated to a structural load
N i* 0,58 f y 0t0d i (11)
sen i multiplier that is greater or equal to its failure multiplier. The
solution however depends on the adopted mechanism. Some
examples may be cited [10], [13], [23], [24]. The deformation
Qu 1.65 1 8 1.6 0.3 1 1
0.8
(12) limits criteria usually associated to the out of plane loaded
1.2 g / t 0 chord face ultimate limit state corresponds to the maximum
deformation of this component in that direction.
The reason for using deformation limit criteria is that, for
Q f 1 n
C1
(13) slender chord faces, the joint stiffness does not vanish after
the full yield and may reach elevated values due to membrane
1 sin i effects. This phenomenon can be observed experimentally and
ka (14) in the curves obtained from numerical simulations
2 sin i
incorporating the geometrical and physical nonlinearities and
will be discussed later. It is evident that a greater maximum
N 0 p ,Sd M 0 ,Sd load is reached in experimental tests, but the absence of the
n (15)
N pl ,0 M pl ,0 knee in these curves may difficult the identification of the
point corresponding to the ultimate limit state. Consequently,
Where Ni* is the chord plastification load (Equation 10) or comparisons of experimental results to results obtained from
punching shear load (Equation 11); is a geometrical plastic analysis have to be based on deformation limit criteria.
parameter according to Equation (5) and C1 is equal to 0.25 if The deformation limit proposed by Lu et al. [14], [15] and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 6, NO. 1, JUNE 2012 4
cited by Choo et al. [25] may be used in the axial or bending presented in Table I. As cited before, this CHS K joint was
loads evaluation for joints subjected to bending and axial used in the numerical model calibration.
internal forces. The joint resistance is based on the
comparison of the deformation in the intersection chord-brace
for two loads levels: the ultimate resistance, Nu, that
corresponds to a chord out of plane displacement of u =
0.03d0, and the serviceability limit, Ns, obtained from a out of
plane displacement s = 0.01d0 according to Figure 4.
P
Nu
Ns
1%d0 3%d0
Fig. 4. Deformation limit criteria evaluation [25].
IV. NUMERICAL MODEL b) Eccentricity representation, loads path and boundary conditions
600
It was also observed that the punching shear resistance for
400
Serviciability Limit State (1% d0)
Ultimate Limit State (3%d0)
this joint is greater than the chord plastification failure load
Experimental Ultimate Load (Kurobane et al., 1986) confirming that this ultimate limit state controls the joint
Eurocode 3 (2003)
200 CIDECT (Packer et al, 2008) design. This fact indicates that the joint design is controlled by
Compression Brace
Tension Brace the ultimate limit state of chord plastification failure. Figure 8
0 presents the von Mises stress distributions from the numerical
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Displacement [mm] analysis for the three load levels presented in Figure 5.
Fig. 6. Load versus displacement curves – calibration CHS joint - Chord of
216.3x7.82 mm with 165x4.32 mm braces
V. PARAMETRICAL ANALYSIS
The investigation proceeded with a parametrical analysis
varying some geometrical parameters with the aim of
evaluating their influence over the K joints global resistance.
Table II presents the main adopted parameters summarizing
twelve numerical models.
It is important to emphasize that the chosen combinations
were made in agreement with the geometrical limits
preconized by the Eurocode 3 [16] and new CIDECT [17].
Three different profiles were chosen for the chord:
168.3x5mm, 219.1x8mm and 298.5x8mm, respectively [30].
Local buckling in compression brace For each chord, four different profiles were used for the
braces, keeping the same relation between the geometrical
a) Experimental deformed shape [18] parameters. The weld thicknesses were considered equal to
the smaller thickness to be welded in the joint between the
chord and the brace, respectively.
TABLE II
GEOMETRICAL PROPERTIES – PARAMETRICAL ANALYSIS
2 168.3 5.0 16.83 101.6 5.0 20.32 0.60 published the second edition of the Design Guide for Circular
3 168.3 5.0 16.83 114.3 5.0 22.86 0.68
4 168.3 5.0 16.83 127.0 5.0 25.40 0.75
Hollow Section (CHS) Joints Under Predominantly Static
5 219.1 8.0 13.69 114.3 8.0 14.29 0.52 Loading [17] with a new formulation to evaluate CHS joints
6 219.1 8.0 13.69 127.0 8.0 15.88 0.58 resistances. The present paper presented a comparative study
7 219.1 8.0 13.69 139.7 8.0 17.46 0.64
between these two design codes: Eurocode 3 [16] and new
8 219.1 8.0 13.69 159.0 8.0 19.88 0.73
9 298.5 8.0 18.66 152.4 8.0 19.05 0.51 CIDECT [17]. It is important to emphasize that the design
10 298.5 8.0 18.66 168.3 8.0 21.04 0.56 recommendations from Eurocode 3 [16] were based on the
11 298.5 8.0 18.66 193.7 8.0 24.21 0.65 first edition of the CIDECT design guide [28].
12 298.5 8.0 18.66 219.1 8.0 27.39 0.73
This paper also presented a numerical study through Finite
Element Method using Ansys software [26] of circular hollow
Table III depicts the numerical results related to the chord section K joints, calibrated with an experimental test
plastification ultimate limit state according to the Eurocode 3
performed by Kurobane et al. [18]. The results were compared
[16], Equation (6), and CIDECT [17], Equation (10) as well
to analytical results obtained from the Eurocode 3 [16] and
the punching shear ultimate limit state values.
CIDECT formulations [17] and to deformation limit criteria
The results indicate that both Eurocode 3 [16] and new
CIDECT [17] lead to safe values when compared to the proposed by Zhao [7] and Lu et al. [14], [15].
numerical results. However, the values obtained from new Figures 9 to 11 indicate that the increase of the parameter
CIDECT formulation [17] presented a better agreement with conducted to an increase of the joint capacity, being in line
the deformation limit criteria. The last column of Table III with Equations (6) and (10). It is important to highlight that
indicates that the maximum loads to be applied by the braces the parameter also contributes to the higher joint capacity.
in the chord corresponding to the punching shear ultimate The von Mises stress distribution presented in Figure 8
limit state are significantly greater than the chord yield failure indicates that the chord plastification failure is the ultimate
loads, proofing that the ULS controls the K joint design. limit state that controls the joint design corroborating the
Eurocode 3 [16] and new CIDECT design rules [17]. This
TABLE III
condition was verified through a comparison of the ultimate
RESULTS COMPARISON - PARAMETRICAL ANALYSIS
limit states for the K joint: chord plastification and punching
Nu Ns Nu N1,Rd N *i Np shear failure.
ID N1,Rd N1*
Ns Ns Ns
(Ansys)
1 130 171 240 250 0.96 0.54 0.71 484
2 141 187 282 272 1.04 0.5 0.66 553
3 155 285 316 306 1.03 0.49 0.9 622
4 172 327 354 345 1.03 0.49 0.92 691
5 324 410 592 601 0.99 0.55 0.69 995
6 348 582 648 658 0.98 0.54 0.9 1105
7 377 656 703 719 0.98 0.54 0.93 1216
8 439 776 799 818 0.98 0.55 0.97 1384
9 364 475 682 673 1.01 0.53 0.7 1327
10 384 516 747 736 1.02 0.51 0.69 1465
11 416 571 862 845 1.02 0.48 0.66 1686
12 455 865 988 966 1.02 0.46 0.88 1907
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The structural steel welded tubular joints design is covered
by the Eurocode 3 part 1.8 [16] for various tubular sections.
This design code recommends the ratios of the main
geometrical parameters that should be satisfied and the
different ultimate limit states that control the tubular joint
design. The design guidance can only be used if some specific
geometrical limitations are satisfied. In 2008, the CIDECT
RAPHAEL S. DA SILVA et al.: NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF CHS K JOINTS 7
1000
900
800
700
600
Carga [KN]
500
CHS_219.1 x 114.3_Beta 0,52 compression
400 CHS_219.1 x 127_Beta 0,58 compression
300 CHS_219.1 x 139.7_Beta 0,64 compression
CHS_219.1 x 159_Beta 0,73 compression
200
Serviceability limit state (1% of d0)
100
Ultimate limit state (3% of d0)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deslocamento [mm]
b) Brace compression load = 704.10 kN
Fig. 10. CHS K joint chord 219.1 x 8.0mm - curves load x displacement
1200
1000
800
Carga [KN]
600
CHS_298.5 x 152.4_Beta 0,51 compression
CHS_298.5 x 168.3_Beta 0,56 compression
400
CHS_298.5 x 193.7_Beta 0,65 compression
CHS_298.5 x 219.1_Beta 0,73 compression
200 Serviceability limit state (1% of d0)
Ultimate limit state (3% of d0)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deslocamento [mm]
Fig. 11. CHS K joint chord 298.5 x 8.0mm - curves load x displacement
c) Brace compression load = 808.56 kN
Fig. 8. Von Mises stress distribuition – calibratrion joint
A parametrical analysis was also performed to evaluate the
Figures 9 to 11 indicate that the increase of the parameter parameter influence over the global joint behavior. Twelve
conducted to an increase of the joint capacity, being in line different combinations were chosen with a set of four braces
with Equations (6) and (10). It is important to highlight that and three chords. This choice was based on structural
the parameter also contributes to the higher joint capacity. elements diameters of common use in Brazil. Observing the
The von Mises stress distribution presented in Figure 8 obtained numerical results, it can be concluded that the joint
indicates that the chord plastification failure is the ultimate resistance is proportional to the parameter. It could also be
limit state that controls the joint design corroborating the concluded that within the geometrical limits preconized by the
Eurocode 3 [16] and new CIDECT design rules [17]. This Eurocode 3 [16], the numerical results, the analytical results
condition was verified through a comparison of the ultimate and the deformation limit criteria values were found to be
limit states for the K joint: chord plastification and punching compatible and satisfactory.
shear failure. Table III indicates that the Eurocode 3 [16] results
450 presented values substantially conservative when compared to
400 deformation limit criteria values.
350
On the other hand, the results obtained from new CIDECT
[17] formulation presented a good agreement with the
300
deformation limit criteria values and still, led to a safe design
when compared to the numerical results.
Load [KN]
250
200 CHS_168.3 x 88.9 Beta 0,53 compression The values for the punching shear ultimate limit state were
150
CHS_168.3 x 101.6_Beta 0,60 compression also presented to highlight that the analyzed joints do not have
100
CHS_168.3 x 114.3_Beta 0,68 compression
their design controlled by this ultimate limit state. Finally it
CHS_168.3 x 127_Beta 0,75 compression
Serviceability limit state (1% of d0)
can be concluded that for the studied K joints, respecting all
50
Ultimate limit state (3% of d0) geometrical limits, the chord yield failure will control the joint
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
design. The results obtained from the Eurocode 3 [16] led to a
Displacement [mm] significantly uneconomical design contrary to the results
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 6, NO. 1, JUNE 2012 8
obtained from the new CIDECT formulation [17]. [21] Makino, Y., Kurobane, Y., Ochi, K., Vegte, G.J. van der, and
Wilmshurst, S.R., 1996: Database of test and numerical analysis results
for unstiffened tubular joints. IIW Doc. XV-E-96-220.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [22] Qian, X.D., Choo, Y.S., Vegte, G.J. van der, and Wardenier, J., 2008:
Evaluation of the new IIW CHS strength formulae for thick-walled
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian National
joints. Proceedings 12th International Symposium on Tubular Structures,
and State Science Support Agencies: CAPES, CNPq and Shanghai, China, Tubular Structures XII, Taylor & Francis Group,
FAPERJ for the financial support granted to this research London, UK, pp. 271-279.
program. Thank are also due to LABCIV - Civil Engineering [23] Packer, J.A., Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Dutta, D., Yeomans, N.,
Assemblages de sections creuses rectangulaires sous chargement statique
Computer Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, UERJ for the predominant, Série CIDECT "Construire avec des profiles creux",
computational support. Verlag TUV Rheinland, Koln, 1993.
[24] Packer, J.A. Moment Connections between Rectangular Hollow
Sections, J.Constructional Steel Research 25, pp 63-81, 1993.
[25] Choo, Y. S., Qian, X. D., Liew, J. Y. R, Wardenier, J., Static strength of
REFERENCES thick-walled CHS X-joints - Part I, JCSR, vol.59, pp. 1201-1228, 2003.
[1] Rondal, J., Wurker, K.G., Wardenier, J., Dutta, D., and Yeomans, N, [26] Ansys 12.0 ®, ANSYS - Inc. Theory Reference, 2010.
(1992). Structural Stability of Hollow Sections, CIDECT. [27] Lee, M.M.K., "Strength, stress and fracture analyses of offshore tubular
[2] Wardenier, J., (2000). Hollow Sections in Structural Applications, joints using finite elements", Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
CIDECT. vol. 51, pp 265-286, 1999.
[3] Lodge, G. S. Oil Rig Photos. Texaco/Chevron. United Kingdom. 2006. [28] Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Packer, J.A., Dutta, D., and Yeomans, N.,
[4] Korol, R., Mirza, F. (1982). Finite Element Analysis of RHS T-Joints. 1991: Design guide for circular hollow section (CHS) joints under
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol.108, (pp. 2081-2098). predominantly static loading. 1st Edition, CIDECT series, Construction
[5] Packer, J. , Morris, G., Davies, G., “A limit states design method for with hollow sections‟ No. 1, TÜV-Verlag, Köln, Germany.
welded tension connections to I-section webs”, Journal of Constructional [29] Bittencourt, M.C., Avaliação de Ligações Soldadas de Perfis Tubulares
Steel Research, vol.12, pp 33-53, 1989. em Estruturas de Aço Através do Método dos Elementos Finitos, MSc
[6] Zhao, X., Hancock, G., "Plastic Mechanism analysis of T-joints in RHS Dissertation, PGECIV – Post Graduate Program in Civil Engineering –
subject to combined bending and concentrated force", Proceedings of the UERJ, 2008 (in portuguese).
Fifth International Symposium on Tubular Connections held at [30] Vallourec & Mannesmann do Brasil, 2004. Catálogo de Produtos: Tubos
Nottingham, UK, 1993, E & FN Spon, London, pp 345-352, 1993. Estruturais de Seções Circulares, Quadradas e Retangulares, 8 pp.
[7] Zhao, X., "Deformation limit and ultimate strength of welded T-joints in
cold-formed RHS sections", Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
vol. 53, pp 149-165, 2000.
[8] Lu, L.H., Wardenier, J., "The ultimate mean strength of I-beam to RHS
column connections", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 46:
1-3, paper nº 139, 1998.
[9] Cao, J.J., Packer, J.A., Kosteski, N., "Determination of connection
strength between longitudinal plates and RHS columns", Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, vol. 46: 1-3, paper nº134, 1998.
[10] Cao, J.J., Packer, J.A., Yang, G.J., "Yield line analysis of RHS
connections with axial loads", Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
vol. 48, nº1, pp 1-25, 1998.
[11] Kosteski, N., Packer, J.A., "Bracing connections to rectangular HSS
columns", Connections in Steel Structures IV - Behaviour Strength and
Design, Proceedings Fourth International Workshop Oct 2000, Roanoke,
Virginia, USA, AISC/ECCS, 2002, pp 788-797, 2000.
[12] Kosteski, N., Packer, J.A., "Welded Tee-to-HSS connections", Journal
of Structural Engineering, vol. 129, nº2, pp 151-159, 2003.
[13] Kosteski, N., Packer, J.A., Puthli, R.S., "A finite element method based
yield load determination procedure for hollow structural section
connections", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 59, pp 453-
471, 2003.
[14] Lu LH, Puthli RS, Wardenier J. In: Ultimate deformation criteria for
uniplanar connections between I-beams and RHS columns under in-
plane bending. Proceedings of the 4th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, ISOPE-94, Osaka (Japan), 1994.
[15] Lu, L.H., de Winkel, G.D., Yu, Y., Wardenier, J., Deformation limit for
the ultimate strength of hollow section joints, 6th International
Symposium on Tubular Structures, Melbourne, pp 341-347, 1994.
[16] Eurocode 3, ENV 1993-1-1, 2003: Design of steel structures - Structures
- Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, ECCS, Brussels,
2003.
[17] Wardenier, J, Kurobane, Y, Packer, JA, van der Vegte, GJ and Zhao XL,
Design Guide - For Circular Hollow Section (CHS) Joints Under
Predominantly Static Loading – 2nd Edition, CIDECT, 2008.
[18] Kurobane, Y., Ogawa, K., Ochi, K., Makino, Y., (1986). Local Buckling
of Braces in Tubular K-Joints. Thin-Walled Structures, (pp. 23-40).
[19] Wardenier, J. (1982). Hollow section joints, Delft University Press,
Delft,The Netherlands.
[20] International Institute of Welding (IIW). (1989). Design
recommendation for hollow section joints—Predominantly statically
loaded, 2nd Ed., IIW Document XV-701-89, Cambridge, U.K.