340

BLIND BOLTED MOMENT RESISTING CONNECTIONS TO
STRUCTURAL HOLLOW SECTIONS
T. Barnett, School of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham, UK
W. Tizani, School of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham, UK
D. A. Nethercot, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College,
UK
ABSTRACT
Tests using a new blind bolt in an arrangement designed to represent the tensile
region of a moment transmitting endplate connection between a hollow section column
and an open section beam are reported. The results demonstrate that this bolt
possesses the strength and stiffness necessary to achieve a satisfactory connection.
Calculations based on the component approach of EC3 predict that because the
flexibility of the SHS face will, for most joint arrangements, limit the connection’s
moment capacity, the strength of the blind bolt will normally be more than is required to
match the strength of the equivalent joint configured with ordinary dowel bolts.
INTRODUCTION
The use of structural hollow sections (SHS) as columns in multi- storey construction is attractive
due to aesthetics and a high strength to weight ratio. However, their use in this capacity is
inhibited by problems in making connections to other members. Early developments in
overcoming the connection problem included fully welding the connection, which, in the UK
context, is not an attractive site option. The use of standard dowel bolts is often impossible as
there is rarely access to the inside of the tube to allow for tightening. The use of components
such as gusset plates and brackets overcomes this problem, but is not generally considered
aesthetically pleasing. To allow for convenient and efficient connection, several techniques have
been devised which permit bolt installation and tightening from one side of the connection only,
i.e. blind bolts. Commercially available examples include Flowdrill (1), the Huck High Strength
Blind Bolt (2), and the Lindapter Hollobolt (3).
It is the purpose of an ongoing research project to modify the original Hollobolt so as to extend
its use to moment resisting connections in steel framed buildings. An important feature of this
research is to develop a fundamental understanding of the behaviour of the SHS face when
subjected to moments from a connection. To date, tests performed elsewhere (4) have proven
that it is possible to design nominally pinned connections (intended primarily to transfer vertical
shear) to SHS columns using the Hollobolt and Flowdrill fasteners. The capacities of the bolts
and the SHS face are sufficient to withstand a predominantly shear load and the limited tensile
loads arising from structural integrity requirements. A guide for the design of connections of this
sort is available (5).
341
BOLT DEVELOPMENT
An important design consideration for connections involving SHS is that high local forces do not
induce unduly large deformations in the relatively thin walls of the tubular member(s). A
particular example of this is the EC3 (6) limitation on the face out of plane deflection of an RHS
to 1% of the chord face.
In order to maximise the performance of bolted endplate moment resisting beam to SHS column
connections, it was therefore necessary to ensure that sufficient clamping force could be
generated between the plies for separation between the endplate and the RHS column face to be
minimised. At an early stage of the research project, the original Hollobolt was altered so that
the expanding sleeve clamped directly to the underside of the joint [Figure 1]. This arrangement,
hereinafter referred to as the Reverse Mechanism Hollobolt (RMH), has been shown through a
series of tests to significantly improve the clamping force between the connected plies as
compared with the original arrangement. Details of the clamping force assessment are reported
elsewhere (7).
Figure 1: The Reverse Mechanism Hollobolt (RMH).
CONNECTION TESTS
Annex J of EC3 (6) covers moment connection design between open sections by use of the
‘component method’. This is a technique that considers the connection as a series of
components, each of which has a specified design check performed upon it. These, in turn, are
based upon identification and representation of all possible failure modes and load transfer
paths. In the tension region of the connection, the bolts and connected plies may be modelled as
a pair of equivalent tee stubs, which represent the flange and web of the column, and the web
and end plate of the beam. Failure of an equivalent tee stub is due to either (a) flange bending
(i.e. mode i) failure, (b) flange bending and bolt tension (i.e. mode ii) failure, or (c) bolt tension
(i.e. mode iii) as illustrated in Fig 2, with the particular form of failure depending upon the
thickness of the connected elements and their material properties.
342
Figure 2: Mode i (left), ii (centre), and iii (right) failure mechanisms (6)
In order to place maximum demand on the bolts during testing, and to effectively model
the tension region of a moment resisting connection to an open section, it was decided to
place the bolts in back to back tee stubs. The arrangement shown in figure 3 was
devised, thereby allowing for convenient testing in a standard tensile machine. Large
sections were used to encourage a bolt failure, with failure loads of 333kN, 264kN, and
283kN for modes i, ii, and iii failure respectively. The latter two failure loads were
calculated assuming that a standard M16 bolt was present between the plies, and
provide a load which was expected to be greater than that for a corresponding blind bolt.
In order to evaluate the possible presence of prying force in the bolts arising from double
curvature of the plates in a mode ii failure, plate deflections were monitored in the first
few tests by placing linear transducers at the plate edges and the bolt lines. In later
tests, once it had become evident that prying action was not occurring, the transducers
at the plate edges were removed.
Figure 3: Tee stub test arrangement with RMH
343
The purpose of these back to back tee stub tests was to determine the suitability of the
RMH for use in moment resisting connections by measuring its strength and stiffness. In
order to provide a comparison with the performance of the RMH, a series of five tests
were performed using the same arrangement, but with the Lindapter Hollobolt as the
fastener. In all tests, M16 bolts were used as preliminary calculations had suggested
that the inherent flexibility of a SHS face would limit any potential advantage from using a
larger bolt size.
Results of the first series of eight RMH tests, expressed as a load / plate separation
relationship, are shown in figure 4. From this, it is evident that the initial clamping force
exerted on the plates from the expansion mechanism was exceeded at a tension of
approximately 230kN. Loading continued until a bolt failure occurred at a load of
between 350-450kN, with a plate separation of approximately 2mm. Bolt failure was due
to a sudden expansion of the flared legs against the underside of the joint [Figure 5].
Almost immediately after failure of the first bolt in the assembly, a second bolt failed in
exactly the same manner.
Figure 4: Load v. plate separation for the RMH tee stub tests.
The load v. plate separation relationships for the five tests performed using the Lindapter
Hollobolt are presented in figure 6. These indicate that, although the ultimate failure of
the assembly was typically in the region of 450kN, the initial clamping force of the bolts
was exceeded at a tension of approximately 90kN with excessive plate separation
following immediately. Ultimate failure occurred with a plate separation of between 6 and
8mm by a ductile shearing of the legs of the Hollobolt against the inside face of the
assembly.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Displacement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
344
Figure 5: Failure of the RMH.
Figure 6: Load v. plate separation for the Lindapter Hollobolt tee stub tests.
Comparing the tee stub test results with the EC3 annex J (6) component method
predictions, it is apparent that the behaviour of the RMH exhibited a mode ii / mode iii
failure mechanism. This was due to ultimate failure being bolt tension, but with minimal
plate separation. The Hollobolt, however, demonstrated purely mode iii failure, as there
were large plate separations at the bolt failure load.
Although the behaviour of the tee stubs connected with the Hollobolt demonstrated that
development of moment resistance in a connection is compromised by the very large
deformations, the use of this fastener in nominally pinned connections is adequate, as
any tensile load requirements arising from structural integrity criteria are below the initial
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Displacement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
345
clamping force [British Steel Tubes and Pipes (5)]. The behaviour of the tee stubs joined
with the RMH, however, indicated that its use in a moment resisting connection is
feasible, with the ultimate capacity of the bolt actually being greater than that of a
corresponding standard bolt. The failure mechanism, though, might, at first sight, be
considered undesirable as it occurs suddenly with very little deformation.
However, in an application such as a moment resisting connection to SHS, the sudden
failure mechanism is unlikely to be an issue, due to the thin wall limiting the level of load
that may be resisted by the connection. It may therefore be anticipated that the wall
dimensions will restrict the connection to a mode i plate failure or mode ii combined bolt
and plate failure. This point is explored further in the next section.
INFLUENCE OF THE SHS FACE FLEXIBILITY
British Steel Tubes and Pipes (8) have provided theoretically derived equations for the
determination of the face plastification capacity of a SHS, using yield line analysis
[Equation 1], and for the SHS punching shear capacity [Equation 2]. Assuming a
nominal yield stress of 275 N/mm² for the SHS material, and a geometrical bolt
arrangement as used in the standard tee stub tests, calculations using this equation
demonstrate that, unless a relatively thick section such as a 200x200x12.5 SHS is used,
the flexibility of the SHS face is likely to be the limiting factor.
( ) ( ) | |
5 . 0
1
5 . 0
1 1
1
2
1 1 5 . 1
1
2
¸ þ n
þ
÷ ÷ +
÷
=
c yc
t p
Fc
Equation 1
( )
yc c ps
p t d F = 6 . 0 4
2
t
Equation 2
The use of these equations has shown that a 200x200x8 SHS possesses a theoretical
face yielding and punching shear capacity of 123kN and 431kN respectively. Compared
with the strength and stiffness of the RMH this means that failure of the SHS face is
critical. A larger tube size of 200x200x10 provides enhanced theoretical face yielding
and punching shear capacities of kN and kN respectively, again less than the capacity of
the RMH.
The largest tube size that was investigated, i.e. 200x200x12.5, demonstrated that the
RMH and Hollobolt possess capacities larger than the theoretical capacity of the SHS
wall. At the yield capacity of the wall (316kN), there is approximately 0.5mm plate
separation with the RMH, which is unlikely to exceed serviceability criteria.
It should be noted, however, that subtle changes in the bolt layout may significantly affect
the capacity of the SHS face. Recalculation of the SHS face yield load for a range of bolt
pitches and gauges indicate that the smaller bending moment in the hollow section face
resulting from a large bolt gauge provides a greater face capacity, as would be expected.
346
Furthermore, interaction between the rows of bolts is also of significance. The greater
the bolt pitch, the less the interaction, hence, a greater face capacity results. When the
bolt pitch and gauge are 75mm, the theoretical yield load of a 200x200x12.5 SHS
becomes 252kN, which is less than the capacity of an arrangement with four RMH.
However, an increase in gauge and pitch to 120mm (the largest practical gauge) results
in a capacity of 430kN, which is likely to cause a sudden flaring of the legs of the RMH.
The effects of change in bolt gauge and pitch are demonstrated for 200x200x8 and
200x200x12.5 SHS in figures 7 and 8 respectively.
7
5
8
5
9
5
1
0
5
1
1
5
75
90
105
120
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Plast ificat ion Load
(kN)
Bolt Gauge (mm)
Bolt Pit ch (mm)
200x200x8 RHS
f
y
= 275 N/mm
2
M16 blind bolt.
Figure 7: Effect of change in gauge and pitch for 200x200x8 SHS
7
5
8
5
9
5
1
0
5
1
1
5
7
5
8
5
9
5 1
0
5 1
1
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Plastification load
(kN)
Bolt Gauge (mm)
Bolt Pit ch (mm)
200x200x12.5 RHS
f
y
= 275 N/mm
2
M16 blind bolt.
Figure 8: Effect of change in gauge and pitch for 200x200x12.5 SHS
A series of ‘modified’ tee stub tests has been prepared in order to ascertain the efficacy
of the yield line theory presented above. It is felt that these tests, where a length of
hollow section tube is placed between the tees, will provide details of the yield line
shape on the face of the tube, and the load required to cause yield, thereby validating
347
the theory. Further aims of this series are to determine the potentially complex
interaction between the RMH and the SHS, and to evaluate the applicability of the EC3
component method to the tensile region of a moment connection to SHS.
In order to facilitate the understanding of the bolt / SHS interaction, an intermediate
series of tests has been arranged where standard dowel bolts are the connector. It is
hoped that this series will provide details of the tubes yielding mechanism without
interference from the blind bolt.
CONCLUSIONS
The standard tee stub tests have shown that the RMH possesses sufficient strength and
stiffness for use in a moment resisting connection. It has been demonstrated
theoretically, however, that the flexibility of the SHS face may limit the moment capacity
of the connection when thin walls and narrow bolt gauges are employed. Therefore,
further series of tests are suggested using a modified tee stub arrangement to determine
whether the full capacity of the RMH may be employed. Also, it is hoped that these tests
will validate previously a published theoretical model of the tube face failure mechanism.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The work described in this paper was carried out at the University of Nottingham with
support from Lindapter International and British Steel (Corus) Tubes and Pipes. The
assistance of Mr. Simon Klippel and Mr. Neil Gill of Lindapter and Mr. Noel Yeomans and
Mr. Eddy Hole of British Steel is gratefully acknowledged.
NOTATION
( )
( )
c
t B
d
n
p n
3
2
1
1
÷
÷ ÷
= n
( )
c
t B
g
3
1
÷
= þ
( )
c
t B
d
3
1
÷
= ¸
B= The width of the hollow section wall
c
t = wall thickness
n= number of rows of bolts
=
yc
p hollow section design strength
g= bolt gauge
d= hole diameter
348
REFERENCES
(1). FLOWDRILL, Flowdrill B.V., Holland, (1993).
(2). HIGH STRENGTH BLIND BOLT, Huck International, Japan (1990).
(3). HOLLOBOLT, Lindapter International, U.K (1995).
(4). BANKS, G., “Hollobolt Joint Shear Tests”, Memos 129 & 146, British Steel Plc,
Rotherham (1997).
(5). BRITISH STEEL TUBES AND PIPES “SHS Jointing: Flowdrill & Hollobolt” (1997).
(6). EUROCODE 3, “Design of Steel Structures. Part 1.1 General Rules and Rules for
Buildings” DD ENV 1993-1-1 (1992).
(7). BARNETT, T., TIZANI, W., and NETHERCOT, D., “Report on the Clamping
Behaviour of the Lindapter Hollobolt and a Blind Bolt Prototype” Internal Interim Report,
the University of Nottingham (1999).
(8). BRITISH STEEL TUBES AND PIPES “Hollofast and Hollobolt System for Hollow
Section Connections” CIDECT Report No. 6G-14(A)/96 (1996).

In the tension region of the connection. Figure 1: The Reverse Mechanism Hollobolt (RMH). Details of the clamping force assessment are reported elsewhere (7). in turn. which represent the flange and web of the column. Failure of an equivalent tee stub is due to either (a) flange bending (i.e. This arrangement. and the web and end plate of the beam. In order to maximise the performance of bolted endplate moment resisting beam to SHS column connections. CONNECTION TESTS Annex J of EC3 (6) covers moment connection design between open sections by use of the ‘component method’. mode ii) failure. has been shown through a series of tests to significantly improve the clamping force between the connected plies as compared with the original arrangement. These.BOLT DEVELOPMENT An important design consideration for connections involving SHS is that high local forces do not induce unduly large deformations in the relatively thin walls of the tubular member(s). (b) flange bending and bolt tension (i. This is a technique that considers the connection as a series of components. each of which has a specified design check performed upon it.e. the bolts and connected plies may be modelled as a pair of equivalent tee stubs. mode iii) as illustrated in Fig 2. it was therefore necessary to ensure that sufficient clamping force could be generated between the plies for separation between the endplate and the RHS column face to be minimised. or (c) bolt tension (i.e. 341 . the original Hollobolt was altered so that the expanding sleeve clamped directly to the underside of the joint [Figure 1]. hereinafter referred to as the Reverse Mechanism Hollobolt (RMH). A particular example of this is the EC3 (6) limitation on the face out of plane deflection of an RHS to 1% of the chord face. mode i) failure. At an early stage of the research project. are based upon identification and representation of all possible failure modes and load transfer paths. with the particular form of failure depending upon the thickness of the connected elements and their material properties.

In order to evaluate the possible presence of prying force in the bolts arising from double curvature of the plates in a mode ii failure. and to effectively model the tension region of a moment resisting connection to an open section. it was decided to place the bolts in back to back tee stubs. ii (centre). thereby allowing for convenient testing in a standard tensile machine. The latter two failure loads were calculated assuming that a standard M16 bolt was present between the plies. and iii failure respectively. The arrangement shown in figure 3 was devised. and iii (right) failure mechanisms (6) In order to place maximum demand on the bolts during testing. with failure loads of 333kN. Large sections were used to encourage a bolt failure. the transducers at the plate edges were removed.Figure 2: Mode i (left). and 283kN for modes i. 264kN. Figure 3: Tee stub test arrangement with RMH 342 . once it had become evident that prying action was not occurring. ii. plate deflections were monitored in the first few tests by placing linear transducers at the plate edges and the bolt lines. and provide a load which was expected to be greater than that for a corresponding blind bolt. In later tests.

600 500 400 Load (kN) 300 200 100 0 0 0. In order to provide a comparison with the performance of the RMH. M16 bolts were used as preliminary calculations had suggested that the inherent flexibility of a SHS face would limit any potential advantage from using a larger bolt size. plate separation for the RMH tee stub tests. plate separation relationships for the five tests performed using the Lindapter Hollobolt are presented in figure 6.5 Figure 4: Load v. expressed as a load / plate separation relationship.5 1 1.The purpose of these back to back tee stub tests was to determine the suitability of the RMH for use in moment resisting connections by measuring its strength and stiffness. Results of the first series of eight RMH tests. The load v. it is evident that the initial clamping force exerted on the plates from the expansion mechanism was exceeded at a tension of approximately 230kN.5 3 3. Ultimate failure occurred with a plate separation of between 6 and 8mm by a ductile shearing of the legs of the Hollobolt against the inside face of the assembly. a second bolt failed in exactly the same manner. Loading continued until a bolt failure occurred at a load of between 350-450kN. Bolt failure was due to a sudden expansion of the flared legs against the underside of the joint [Figure 5]. but with the Lindapter Hollobolt as the fastener. although the ultimate failure of the assembly was typically in the region of 450kN. These indicate that. In all tests. a series of five tests were performed using the same arrangement. Almost immediately after failure of the first bolt in the assembly. are shown in figure 4. 343 . From this.5 2 2.5 Displacement (mm) 4 4. the initial clamping force of the bolts was exceeded at a tension of approximately 90kN with excessive plate separation following immediately. with a plate separation of approximately 2mm.

however. it is apparent that the behaviour of the RMH exhibited a mode ii / mode iii failure mechanism. demonstrated purely mode iii failure. plate separation for the Lindapter Hollobolt tee stub tests. as there were large plate separations at the bolt failure load. The Hollobolt. as any tensile load requirements arising from structural integrity criteria are below the initial 344 . but with minimal plate separation.Figure 5: Failure of the RMH. This was due to ultimate failure being bolt tension. the use of this fastener in nominally pinned connections is adequate. 600 500 400 Load (kN) 300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Displacement (mm) Figure 6: Load v. Although the behaviour of the tee stubs connected with the Hollobolt demonstrated that development of moment resistance in a connection is compromised by the very large deformations. Comparing the tee stub test results with the EC3 annex J (6) component method predictions.

and a geometrical bolt arrangement as used in the standard tee stub tests. 200x200x12. It may therefore be anticipated that the wall dimensions will restrict the connection to a mode i plate failure or mode ii combined bolt and plate failure. Fc Fps 2 p yctc2 1 4 1 1 1. The behaviour of the tee stubs joined with the RMH. Compared with the strength and stiffness of the RMH this means that failure of the SHS face is critical. i. Assuming a nominal yield stress of 275 N/mm² for the SHS material. be considered undesirable as it occurs suddenly with very little deformation. At the yield capacity of the wall (316kN). calculations using this equation demonstrate that. A larger tube size of 200x200x10 provides enhanced theoretical face yielding and punching shear capacities of kN and kN respectively. 345 . It should be noted. INFLUENCE OF THE SHS FACE FLEXIBILITY British Steel Tubes and Pipes (8) have provided theoretically derived equations for the determination of the face plastification capacity of a SHS.5. Recalculation of the SHS face yield load for a range of bolt pitches and gauges indicate that the smaller bending moment in the hollow section face resulting from a large bolt gauge provides a greater face capacity. demonstrated that the RMH and Hollobolt possess capacities larger than the theoretical capacity of the SHS wall.5 1 Equation 1 d 2 tc 0. the flexibility of the SHS face is likely to be the limiting factor. as would be expected.5 1 1 0. The largest tube size that was investigated. in an application such as a moment resisting connection to SHS. at first sight. however.5 1 0. that subtle changes in the bolt layout may significantly affect the capacity of the SHS face. The failure mechanism. the sudden failure mechanism is unlikely to be an issue. indicated that its use in a moment resisting connection is feasible. due to the thin wall limiting the level of load that may be resisted by the connection. However. might.5mm plate separation with the RMH. using yield line analysis [Equation 1].5 SHS is used. though. unless a relatively thick section such as a 200x200x12. there is approximately 0. however.e. which is unlikely to exceed serviceability criteria. This point is explored further in the next section. again less than the capacity of the RMH. and for the SHS punching shear capacity [Equation 2]. with the ultimate capacity of the bolt actually being greater than that of a corresponding standard bolt.6 p yc Equation 2 The use of these equations has shown that a 200x200x8 SHS possesses a theoretical face yielding and punching shear capacity of 123kN and 431kN respectively.clamping force [British Steel Tubes and Pipes (5)].

However. thereby validating 346 115 75 Bolt Gauge (mm) 85 Bolt Pitch (mm) . an increase in gauge and pitch to 120mm (the largest practical gauge) results in a capacity of 430kN. a greater face capacity results. which is likely to cause a sudden flaring of the legs of the RMH.5 SHS in figures 7 and 8 respectively. interaction between the rows of bolts is also of significance. The effects of change in bolt gauge and pitch are demonstrated for 200x200x8 and 200x200x12. which is less than the capacity of an arrangement with four RMH. When the bolt pitch and gauge are 75mm.5 SHS A series of ‘modified’ tee stub tests has been prepared in order to ascertain the efficacy of the yield line theory presented above. the theoretical yield load of a 200x200x12. and the load required to cause yield. the less the interaction.5 SHS becomes 252kN. The greater the bolt pitch. It is felt that these tests. will provide details of the yield line shape on the face of the tube.Furthermore. where a length of hollow section tube is placed between the tees.5 RHS fy = 275 N/mm 2 450 M16 blind bolt. 400 350 300 Plastification load 250 (kN) 200 150 100 50 0 95 105 85 115 75 95 105 Figure 8: Effect of change in gauge and pitch for 200x200x12. hence. 200x200x8 RHS fy = 275 N/mm 2 180 M16 blind bolt. 160 140 120 Plastification Load 100 (kN) 80 60 40 20 0 75 120 105 85 95 90 105 115 Bolt Gauge (mm) 75 Bolt Pitch (mm) Figure 7: Effect of change in gauge and pitch for 200x200x8 SHS 200x200x12.

Also. and to evaluate the applicability of the EC3 component method to the tensile region of a moment connection to SHS. however. CONCLUSIONS The standard tee stub tests have shown that the RMH possesses sufficient strength and stiffness for use in a moment resisting connection. It is hoped that this series will provide details of the tubes yielding mechanism without interference from the blind bolt. further series of tests are suggested using a modified tee stub arrangement to determine whether the full capacity of the RMH may be employed. it is hoped that these tests will validate previously a published theoretical model of the tube face failure mechanism. Simon Klippel and Mr. Therefore. an intermediate series of tests has been arranged where standard dowel bolts are the connector. Neil Gill of Lindapter and Mr. NOTATION n 1p 1 n d 2 B 3tc g 1 B 3tc d 1 B 3tc B= The width of the hollow section wall tc = wall thickness n= number of rows of bolts p yc hollow section design strength g= bolt gauge d= hole diameter 347 . Eddy Hole of British Steel is gratefully acknowledged. It has been demonstrated theoretically. In order to facilitate the understanding of the bolt / SHS interaction. that the flexibility of the SHS face may limit the moment capacity of the connection when thin walls and narrow bolt gauges are employed.the theory. Noel Yeomans and Mr. Further aims of this series are to determine the potentially complex interaction between the RMH and the SHS. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The work described in this paper was carried out at the University of Nottingham with support from Lindapter International and British Steel (Corus) Tubes and Pipes. The assistance of Mr.

BRITISH STEEL TUBES AND PIPES “SHS Jointing: Flowdrill & Hollobolt” (1997). BANKS. BARNETT. Holland. and NETHERCOT.. G. Memos 129 & 146.REFERENCES (1). 6G-14(A)/96 (1996). (8). Part 1. BRITISH STEEL TUBES AND PIPES “Hollofast and Hollobolt System for Hollow Section Connections” CIDECT Report No. “Report on the Clamping Behaviour of the Lindapter Hollobolt and a Blind Bolt Prototype” Internal Interim Report. (2). Rotherham (1997). U. (1993). EUROCODE 3. Flowdrill B. “Design of Steel Structures. Huck International. HIGH STRENGTH BLIND BOLT. the University of Nottingham (1999). Lindapter International. (7). TIZANI. British Steel Plc. 348 .. W.. “Hollobolt Joint Shear Tests”.K (1995). T. (5). FLOWDRILL..V. (3). HOLLOBOLT.. (6).1 General Rules and Rules for Buildings” DD ENV 1993-1-1 (1992). (4). D. Japan (1990).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful