Tests to Determine Stress Concentration Factors

for Square Bird-Beak SHS Joints under

Chord and Brace Axial Forces
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 09/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bin Cheng 1; Qin Qian 2; and Xiao-Ling Zhao 3

Abstract: Bird-beak joints are a type of welded square hollow section (SHS) joint, the static strength of which is higher than that of conven-
tional joints. Experimental analyses were conducted on the stress concentration factors (SCFs) of square bird-beak joints to obtain more
information regarding their fatigue behavior. Twelve specimens, i.e., three conventional joints and nine square bird-beak joints, are separately
tested by considering chord and brace axial force load cases. Both conventional and square bird-beak joints tested have a T-shape and are
simply supported at their chord ends. Elastic strain distributions near the crown and saddle areas are measured, and strain concentration
factors (SNCFs) at potential hot spots are calculated using an extrapolation approach. Quadratic extrapolation is suggested for the square bird-
beak joints because linear extrapolation may underestimate SNCFs by up to 35%. Furthermore, critical locations are identified for square
bird-beak joints subjected to chord and brace axial forces. A comparison indicates that the square bird-beak joints can produce lower stress
concentration factors than the conventional or the diamond bird-beak joints with identical nondimensional parameters, especially when brace-
to-chord width ratios are relatively small. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001095. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Square hollow section (SHS); Bird-beak joint; Axial load; Hot spot stress; Stress concentration factor; Metal and
composite structures.

Introduction et al. (1993) initially investigated the ultimate bearing capacities

Steel tubular constructions have extensive applications in many
industries such as buildings, bridges, offshore structures, and lattice
masts, where steel members with hollow sections are generally
directly welded to each other (Wardenier et al. 2010). These hollow
sections can be circular hollow section (CHS), rectangular hollow
section (RHS), and square hollow section (SHS). For SHS-SHS
welded connections, the chord walls are traditionally aligned parallel/
perpendicular to brace walls, which makes end cutting and fabricat-
ing extremely easy [Fig. 1(a)]. However, there are other configura-
tions, known as bird-beak joints, which are created by rotating the
members by 45° about their longitudinal axes. Figs. 1(b and c) dem-
onstrate two types of bird-beak SHS T-joints, i.e., a square bird-beak
joint generated by rotating only the chord and a diamond bird-beak
joint generated by rotating both the chord and brace. These innovative
connections were originally proposed for their aesthetic appeal.
Afterwards, researchers and engineers surprisingly determined
that bird-beak joints could assist in relieving lateral wind loads
and providing higher structural resistances.
To ensure the safety of using these novel constructions, many
researchers devoted their efforts to the ultimate resistances of bird-
beak joints under static loads. Ono et al. (1991, 1993, 1994), Ishida
1 in-plane action rather than the bending of walls.
Associate Professor, State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ., Shanghai
200240, China (corresponding author). E-mail: cheng_bin@sjtu.edu.cn
2
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong
Univ., Shanghai 200240, China. E-mail: losangel6@126.com
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Monash Univ., Melbourne, VIC
3168, Australia. E-mail: zhao.xiao.ling@monash.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 22, 2013; approved
on April 7, 2014; published online on May 29, 2014. Discussion period
open until October 29, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/04014088(11)/$25.00.
and failure modes of square bird-beak T-joints, using a structural
test and numerical analysis, where multiple load cases, including
brace axial force, in-plane bending, and out-of-plane bending were
considered. Davies et al. (1996) conducted a similar finite-element
analysis. Owen et al. (1996) focused on the differences in structural
behavior between bird-beak and traditional concrete-filled SHS
T-joints. Owen and Kelly (2001) described the effects of purlin loads
on the capacities of over-lapped bird-beak K-joints. Owen et al.
(2001) also investigated the influences of structural parameters,
such as brace/chord length ratio, chord slenderness ratio, sec-
tional wall slenderness ratio, and boundary conditions at chord
ends on the resistances of bird-beak X-joints loaded by pairs
of brace axial compression forces. Christitsas (2007) and Lei
(2009) conducted experiments and parametric FEM analysis of
square bird-beak x-joints subject to in-plane bending, by which
formulas for design resistance have been proposed. Zhu and Liu
(2012) studied the nonlinear behavior of axially loaded diamond
bird-beak XT-joints using a FEM. All of the studies indicated that
the ultimate strengths of bird-beak joints were higher compared
to that of conventional joints with the same nondimensional
parameters. The actual reason for the improved mechanical
behaviors was thought to be that the oblique orientation would
assist in transferring forces between members through a natural
However, limited references are available concerning fatigue
behavior of bird-beak joints. Ishida (1992) performed the earliest
fatigue tests of bird-beak T-joints under a brace axial force load
case. Keizer (2003), Keizer et al. (2003) investigated the stress
concentration factors of diamond bird-beak joints under brace axial
forces. Tong et al. (2014) presented an experimental study on
stress concentration factors for diamond bird-beak T-joints under
axial force and in-plane bending on the brace. Compared with
abundant products for fatigue of conventional SHS-SHS connec-
tions that have been presented in literature (van Wingerde 1992;

© ASCE 04014088-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(11): 04014088


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 09/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Welded SHS-SHS T-joints: (a) conventional; (b) square bird-
beak; and (c) diamond bird-beak
van Wingerde et al. 1997; Packer and Wardenier 1998) and sub-
sequently documented in current design codes, such as the IIW
(2008) and Zhao et al. (2000), existing fatigue studies with regard
to bird-beak joints are far from systematic and complete. This lack
of literature is the reason that few applications of bird-beak joints
are used in structures dominated by cyclic repeating live loads,
e.g., bridges.
In current design codes regarding the fatigue design of tubular
joints, the hot spot stress range-based stress range-number of cycles
(S-N) curves have been primarily recommended and extensively
used for practical applications. The hot spot stress approach, in
which nominal stresses and stress concentration factors (SCFs)
are both used, is expected to give more precise results than the
nominal stress-based classification method (i.e., detail category ap-
proach) for fatigue designs of tubular joints. Therefore, this paper
focuses on the stress concentration characteristics of square
bird-beak T-joints using experimental methods. Two load cases,
the (1) chord axial force, and (2) brace axial force, are separately
considered. The nonlinear distributions of strains at hot spots are
analyzed and then a number of strain extrapolations from which the
strain concentration factors (SNCFs) at potential hot spots are ob-
tained. The locations most prone to the highest stress concentrations
are verified. Furthermore, comparisons between different joint
types, which intend to verify lower stress concentrations for square
bird-beak joints, are presented.
y t1
x b1
b1
End plate
Stiffener
300
II II
L1
End plate Brace
Chord
y t0
I III III
Stiffener
Support plate
I b0
Steel rod 250
L0
(a)
Fig. 2. Specimens: (a) conventional T-joints; and (b) square bird-beak T-joints
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(11): 04014088
Test Setup
Specimens
Twelve specimens were fabricated, three conventional T-joints (J)
and nine square bird-beak T-joints (SBBJ). The nine square
bird-beak joints were orthogonally designed based on the three
types of nondimensional parameters, (1) brace-to-chord width ratio
β ¼ b1 =b0 , (2) chord wall slenderness ratio 2γ ¼ b0 =t0 , and
(3) brace/chord wall thickness ratio τ ¼ t1 =t0 . In this paper, b0
and t0 represent the sectional width and wall thickness of the chord,
and b1 and t1 correspond to the sectional width and wall thickness
of the brace (Fig. 2). The parameter values used for the orthogonal
experiment were originally selected as β ¼ 0.45, 0.60, and 0.75,
2γ ¼ 16.67, 20, and 25, and τ ¼ 0.5, 0.65, and 0.8, and the real τ
values of certain specimens were slightly modified based on the
actual modular dimensions of steel tubes provided by the manufac-
turing factory. For the purpose of comparison, three conventional
joints (J-3, J-5, and J-7) were designed to have similar dimensions
to the square bird-beak specimens SBBJ-3, SBBJ-5, and SBBJ-7,
respectively. All specimens had chords that measured 1,200 mm in
length and braces at least 600 mm in length. Therefore, the member
ends were kept away from the junction area by at least 3× the mem-
bers’ sectional width so that the effects of boundary conditions could be
ignored. Table 1 provides the dimensions of the specimens.
The brace members were connected to the chords through 80%
partial joint penetration (PJP) groove welds and fillet welds, which
are produced by carbon dioxide gas arc welding (Fig. 3). The cor-
ners of cold-formed steel tubes used for fabrication were measured
to be 3–10% thicker than the plate between them and to have outer
radii of about 2× their thicknesses. The steel tubes were of Q420
grade, which strictly conforms to GB/T 6728-2002 (National 2002).
Standard coupons were taken from the tubes and tested in uniaxial
tension. The measured mechanical properties are determined as
follows: (1) yield stress Sy ¼ 494 MPa, (2) ultimate tensile strength
Su ¼ 597 MPa, and (3) Young’s modulus E ¼ 202 GPa.
Test Rig
In all tests, each T-joint was simply supported in-plane at two chord
ends. The two load cases were applied separately, i.e., (1) a pair of
axial compression forces applied at two chord ends, and (2) a single
axial compression force applied at the free end of the brace. Therefore,
y t1
x b1
b1
End plate
Stiffener
300
II II
L1
End plate Brace
Chord
I III III
b0
Stiffener y
x
x b0
t0
Support plate b0
I
Steel rod 250
L0
(b)
04014088-2 J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 1. Dimensions of T-Joint Specimens
Chord Brace Nondimensional parameters
Specimen b0 (mm) t0 (mm) L0 (mm) b1 (mm) t1 (mm) L1 (mm) β 2γ τ
J-3 200 8 1,200 150 6 641 0.75 25.00 0.750
J-5 200 10 120 5 0.60 20.00 0.500
J-7 200 12 90 8 0.45 16.67 0.667
SBBJ-1 200 12 1,200 150 6 600 0.75 16.67 0.500
SBBJ-2 200 10 150 6 0.75 20.00 0.600
SBBJ-3 200 8 150 6 0.75 25.00 0.750
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 09/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SBBJ-4 200 12 120 10 0.60 16.67 0.833

SBBJ-5 200 10 120 5 0.60 20.00 0.500
SBBJ-6 200 8 120 5 0.60 25.00 0.625
SBBJ-7 200 12 90 8 0.45 16.67 0.667
SBBJ-8 200 10 90 8 0.45 20.00 0.800
SBBJ-9 200 8 90 4 0.45 25.00 0.500

other than the vertical rigid reaction frame used for brace axial load-
ing, a self-balanced loading device was also designed for the im-
plementation of the horizontal axial forces at the chord ends. The
fabricated device is primarily composed of two stiffened H-steels
and four steel bars that connect them, with one of the H-steels being
fixed to the ground with foundation bolts [Fig. 4(a)]. The horizontal
loading forces are internally balanced within the closed rectangular
frame without placing a horizontal support for the jack. Each of two
jacks at the member ends has a maximum capacity of 500 kN.
Studies have proved that even a slight eccentricity of axial force
may cause significant errors to the test dedicated to obtaining
accurate stress/strain values at complex local areas of tubular con-
nections. The existence of initial geometrical imperfections in both
member straightness and section shape makes it more difficult to
apply a uniformly distributed compression on the member section.
Therefore, the nominal strain distributions in the member section
were monitored during the current test by arranging several strain
gauges around the specific section located between the junction
area and the member end. A special kit used for load positioning
has also been introduced [Fig. 4(b)]. By gradually adjusting the
jack position and analyzing the symmetrical characteristics of
the recorded nominal strains on the opposite sectional walls for
every step, an ideal axial force used for producing approximate uni-
form compressions on the member section can then be verified.
Measurement of Strains
Two types of strain gauges, (1) regular gauges, and (2) strip gauges,
were used in the test to record the nominal strains and hot spot
strains, respectively.
t1 t1
Brace wall Brace wall
45°
0.8t1
0.8t1
90°
t0
Chord wall
Chord wall
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Eighty percent partial joint penetration groove weld plus fillet
weld: (a) crown area; and (b) saddle area
The chord section I-I as located 250 mm away from the chord
end and the brace section II-II as located 300 mm away from the
brace end (Fig. 2), were used for nominal strain monitoring, respec-
tively, for the load case of chord axial force and brace axial force.
The strain distributions on these sections would neither be affected
by the junction details nor by the end boundaries. Twelve equally
spaced regular gauges were symmetrically arranged around the
outer surface of each section [Figs. 5(a–c)].
The strip gauges, each of which contained several regular base
elements, were arranged along the potential hot lines to obtain the
hot spot strains at the weld toes using an extrapolation approach.
According to recommendations in existing literature (van Wingerde
1992) and design guides (IIW 2008; Zhao et al. 2000), six hot lines
(i.e., B, C, and D in the chord, and E, F, and A in the brace) were
specified for the conventional joints [Fig. 5(d)]. Among these, four
corner lines (A, B, D, and E) were required to be aligned with the
inner surface of the brace wall. However, for the square bird-beak
joints, the junction configurations containing the so-called crown
areas and saddle areas, as used for CHS-CHS tubular joints, are
much more complex in geometry and there is no relevant reference
to stress distribution regularities in published reports. Therefore, in
order to facilitate the determination of potential hot lines, finite-
element analyses were first performed by the use of a general-
purpose finite-element program Ansys 12. Solid elements (SOLID95)
with 20 nodes and three degrees of freedom for each node were
employed to describe the geometries of both section walls and
fillet welds. Stress distributions near the crown and saddle areas
were carefully examined. The results indicate that in certain cases
where the outer radius of brace corner is greater than the brace
wall thickness, stresses in areas near the brace corner ends are
lower compared to those near the locations aligned with the inner
surface of the brace wall. Therefore, by adopting the similar criteria
used for conventional joints, four crown hot lines (i.e., Cr-B and
Cr-C in the chord, and Cr-F and Cr-A in the brace) and six saddle
t0 hot lines (i.e., Sa-B, Sa-C, and Sa-D in the chord, and Sa-E, Sa-F, and
Sa-A in the brace) were selected for the square bird-beak specimens
[Fig. 5(e)]. Strip gauges of the same quantities were also arranged
in symmetrical lines about the brace axis in the joint plane, which
implied that strains in 12 (or 20) hot lines were actually recorded for
each conventional (or square bird-beak) T-joint. The larger SNCFs
of the two sides were used.
By referring to the boundaries of the extrapolation region for
conventional RHS joints as provided in IIW (2008) and Zhao et al.
(2000), each extrapolation region was required to start from a
length Lmin [Figs. 5(d and e)], away from the weld toe and have
a length of t, where t represents the sectional wall thickness of
the member on which the strains were measured; and Lmin is taken

© ASCE 04014088-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(11): 04014088

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 09/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Test rig: (a) overall view; and (b) load positioning kit
to be the greater value between 0.4t and 4 mm. For every strip
gauge, the uniform intervals between the regular base elements
were precisely designed by the manufacturer to be 2 mm, which
is regarded to be highly consistent with the extrapolation regions
and accurate enough for strain extrapolations.
Fig. 6 provides photographs of typical strain gauge arrange-
ments for both conventional and square bird-beak joints.
Discussion on Test Results
Symmetry of Nominal Strains
The nominal strains on the specified sections, as described previ-
ously, were monitored to ensure that an approximate axial force had
been applied to the member. Two nominal strain ratios (i.e., NSNRx
and NSNRy ) were introduced to indicate the similarity between the
nominal strains on opposite walls of the section (Fig. 5).
For the chord axial force, the ratios are
C11 þ C6 þ C5 þ C10
NSNRx ¼ ð1aÞ
C12 þ C1 þ C2 þ C9
C12 þ C8 þ C7 þ C11
NSNRy ¼ ð1bÞ
C9 þ C3 þ C4 þ C10
For the brace axial force, the ratios are
B12 þ B1 þ B2 þ B9
NSNRx ¼ ð2aÞ
B11 þ B6 þ B5 þ B10
B9 þ B3 þ B4 þ B10
NSNRy ¼ ð2bÞ
B12 þ B8 þ B7 þ B11
where the subscripts x and y represent the comparison between the
two opposite walls in the x-direction and y-direction, respectively
[Fig. 5]. A value closer to 1 for NSNRx (or NSNRy ) indicates a
better position of the load in the x-direction or y-direction.
The averaged ratios of the loading attempts from which the
experimental data were between 0.96 and 1.07, which implies that
approximate axial forces had been applied in the members. Normally,
© ASCE 04014088-4
J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(11): 04014088
an absolute axial force, i.e., when both NSNRx and NSNRy equal
exactly 1 simultaneously, can hardly be achieved because the
symmetries in the x-direction and y-direction are always coupled
to each other due to the initial geometrical imperfections of the
specimens.
Nominal Strains from Experimental Testing and Beam
Theory
The experimental nominal strain increments (Δεnom;exp ) were com-
pared to the theoretical nominal strain increments (Δεnom;theory ),
which was calculated using beam theory as Δεnom;theory ¼
ΔPðE · AÞ), where ΔP = axial force increment; A = sectional area
of the member; and E = Young’s modulus of steel. A good agree-
ment between the experimental and theoretical nominal strains
is found (Fig. 7), with the averaged and the maximal differences
between them being observed to be 4 and 11%, respectively.
Nonlinearity of Strain Distributions within Extrapolation
Regions
Fig. 8 illustrates the typical strain distributions for different load
levels along the hot spot location line C of the conventional speci-
men J-3 and line Sa-C of the square bird-beak specimen SBBJ-2,
where both linear and quadratic extrapolation curves have been
plotted. Nonlinear variations of strains are apparent, which indi-
cates that quadratic extrapolation will produce more accurate hot
spot strains at weld toes.
This conclusion is confirmed by introducing a ratio of
SNCFl =SNCFq , where SNCFl and SNCFq correspond to the strain
concentration factors derived from linear and quadratic extrapola-
tion, respectively. Fig. 9 illustrates the SNCFl =SNCFq ratios at all
the investigated spots of 12 specimens, respectively for the two load
cases. The mean values of the SNCFl =SNCFq ratios for the conven-
tional joints under chord axial force and brace axial force are 0.89
and 0.83, respectively; for the square bird-beak joints, the mean
values under the two loads are 0.84 and 0.90, respectively. The min-
imum SNCFl =SNCFq ratios under the two load cases are observed
to be 0.65 and 0.68, respectively. In other words, linear extrapola-
tion may underestimate the SNCFs of both conventional and square
bird-beak RHS joints by up to 35%. Therefore, only the SNCFs/
J. Struct. Eng.
 y C12
y x y
C8 C1
C7 C8 B8 B7
C11 C12 B12 B11
C7 C2
b1/3
70
B1 B6
C6 C1 C11 C9 b1 b1/3 x
B2 B5
200 60 x b1/3
C5 C2 70 C6 C3 70 B9 B10
B3 B4
70 b1/3 b1/3 b1/3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 09/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

60 C5 C4 60
b1
C10 C9 200 200
C4 C3 C10
70 70
70 60 70

200

(a) (b) (c)

Center line of brace section

2mm 2mm
Brace wall
D E E' D'
t1 Lmin F A t1 A' F' Lmin t1

C C'
Toe of fillet weld
t1 B B' t1
45° 45°

Chord boundary

(d)

Center line of brace section

Lmin Lmin
Cr-C Cr-F Cr-F' Cr-C'
Crown area t0 t0 Crown area
Cr-A Cr-A'
Cr-B Cr-B'

2mm 2mm
Brace wall
Sa-D Sa-E Sa-E' Sa-D'
t1 Sa-F t1 Sa-F' t1
Lmin Sa-A Sa-A' Lmin

Saddle area Saddle area

Sa-C Sa-C'
Toe of fillet weld
t1 Sa-B Sa-B' t1
45° 45°

Chord boundary
(e)

Fig. 5. Arrangement of strain gauges: (a) chord section I-I of conventional joints; (b) chord section I-I of square bird-beak joints; (c) brace section II-
II; (d) hot spots of conventional joints (top view from section III-III); and (e) hot spots of square bird-beak joints (top view from section III-III)

© ASCE 04014088-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(11): 04014088

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 09/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Strain gauge distributions: (a) conventional joint; and (b) square bird-beak joint

40 40

30 30
y=1.035x+0.252
R2=0.9978 y=1.055x-0.184
2
(x10-6)
(×10-6)

R =0.9834

20 20 y=x
nom, exp
nom, exp

y=x

10 10

Bird-beak joint Bird-beak joint

Conventional joint Conventional joint
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
-6 -6
(a) nom, theory (×10 ) (b) nom, theory (x10 )

Fig. 7. Experimental nominal strains versus beam theory nominal strains: (a) chord axial force; and (b) brace axial force

600 600
Line A y=2.81x2-58.62x+414.25 P=10kN Line Sa-A 2
y=0.41x -19.70x+393.80 P=10kN
J-3 2
y=2.19x -45.78x+324.05 P=20kN SBBJ-2 2
y=0.32x -14.68x+293.39 P=20kN
500 2 500 2
y=1.62x -33.35x+230.70 P=30kN y=0.24x -10.32x+198.60 P=30kN
Hot spot strains (x10-6)
Hot spot strains (x10-6)

2
y=0.75x -15.70x+110.40 P=40kN y=0.13x2-5.67x+107.60 P=40kN
400 400 y= -12.23x+365.06
y= -19.25x+290.50
y= -6.06x+271.40
y= -15.15x+227.80 y= -6.06x+182.18
300 y= -10.60x+159.20 300
y= -3.26x+98.31
y= -5.20x+77.40
200 200

100 100

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(a) Distance from weld toe (mm) (b) Distance from weld toe (mm)

Fig. 8. Typical strain distributions for different brace axial force levels: (a) along hot line A of conventional specimen J-3; and (b) along hot line Sa-C
of square bird-beak specimen SBBJ-2

© ASCE 04014088-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(11): 04014088

 Square bird-beak joint Square bird-beak joint
Conventional joint Conventional joint
1.0 1.0

0.9 0.9

SCFq
SCFq

SCFl
SCFl 0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 09/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Chord Chord Brace

0.6 0.6

a-F
a-D

A
a-E

a-A
C

a-C

a-B
a-D
-C

-B

a-C

a-B

Cr-
Cr-

Cr-

Cr-
Cr

Cr

rS
rS
rS

rS
rS

rS

rS

rS
rS

Fo
Eo
Co

Bo
Co

Bo

Do

Ao
Do
(a) Hot Spot (b) Hot Spot

Fig. 9. Linear versus quadratic extrapolation: (a) chord axial force; and (b) brace axial force

SCFs generated from quadratic extrapolation were used for the
discussion in this paper.
Magnitude of SNCFs at Hot Spots
Table 2 provides the SNCF magnitudes at selected hot spots as de-
termined using the quadratic extrapolation approach. Fig. 10 shows
an intuitive comparison, the normalized SNCF of the measured
spot against the maximum SNCF of whole joint, i.e., normalized
SNCF = measured SNCF/maximal SNCF. Conclusions can be
made as describes next.
For square bird-beak joints subjected to chord axial force, the
following are noted:
• All braces are free from strain concentrations and all chord
SNCFs are less than 1.6, which is identical to conventional
joints;
• The maximum SNCFs in the chord always occur at saddle spots
Sa-D, which is similar with the occurrence at spot D for
conventional joints, and SNCFs at crown spots Cr-C and Cr-B,
between which very small differences were observed, are extre-
mely close to the maximum values at spots Sa-D in most occa-
sions; and
• Small tensile strains were detected at both spots Sa-B in square
bird-beak joints and spot B in conventional joints, which could
be attributed to the effects of Poisson’s ratio because these lines
are always perpendicular to the chord axial force.
For square bird-beak joints subjected to brace axial force, the
following are noted:
• Six of the nine square bird-beak specimens have maximum
chord SNCFs at saddle spots Sa-C. In these cases, saddle spots
Sa-B have the second highest SNCFs (average 86% of Sa-C),
and the average ratios of the SNCFs at spots Cr-C, Cr-B, and Sa-
D to the maximum values at spots Sa-C are 0.65, 0.70, and 0.69,
respectively. As for the remaining three joints (i.e., SBBJ-4,
SBBJ-5, and SBBJ-7), the maximum chord SNCFs occur at
crown spots Cr-C or Cr-B, and saddle spots Sa-C also possess
extremely high strain concentrations, with the SNCFs being
only 4–11% less than the maximum values. Therefore, the high-
est SNCFs in the chord are most likely to appear at spots Sa-C,
and that spots Sa-B, Cr-C, and Cr-B may provide extremely
high SNCFs next to or exceeding the spot Sa-C.
• There are seven square bird-beak specimens whose maximum
brace SNCFs occurred at saddle spots Sa-A (five joints) or Sa-F
(two joints), with the SNCFs at crown spots Cr-F and Cr-A aver-
aging 0.81× and 0.80× the maximum values, respectively. For
the other two joints (i.e., SBBJ-4 and SBBJ-8), where the max-
imum brace SNCFs occurred at crown spots Cr-F and Cr-A,
high strain concentrations (83–85% of the maximum SNCFs)
were also observed at spots Sa-A. Saddle spots Sa-A and
Sa-F have the most possibility of producing the largest SNCFs
in the brace, with the SNCFs at crown spots Cr-F and Cr-A
being similar.

Table 2. Determination of SNCFs

Chord axial force Brace axial force
Chord spot Chord spot Brace spot
Sa-D Sa-C Sa-B Sa-D Sa-C Sa-B Sa-E Sa-F Sa-A
Specimen Cr-C Cr-B or D or C or B Cr-C Cr-B or D or C or B Cr-F Cr-A or E or F or A
J-3 — — 1.19 0.99 −0.15 — — 5.16 6.40 4.17 — — 4.50 4.56 14.11
J-5 — — 1.32 0.80 −0.31 — — 5.13 4.38 6.39 — — 8.54 9.24 11.47
J-7 — — 1.15 0.67 −0.22 — — 4.11 5.73 5.41 — — 3.47 4.49 8.56
SBBJ-1 0.52 0.66 1.01 0.70 −0.32 2.91 3.11 3.04 4.39 3.97 3.30 2.89 2.70 3.85 4.41
SBBJ-2 0.75 0.75 1.20 0.52 −0.32 4.07 4.20 3.79 6.00 5.22 3.93 3.54 2.61 4.52 4.05
SBBJ-3 0.98 0.98 1.28 0.65 −0.22 4.82 4.39 5.37 9.99 7.45 5.18 4.97 3.76 3.78 6.75
SBBJ-4 1.05 1.20 1.56 0.69 −0.49 6.07 5.67 5.89 5.29 4.17 3.59 3.54 — 2.30 2.99
SBBJ-5 1.02 1.09 1.31 0.58 −0.36 3.79 3.60 2.81 3.36 3.73 3.16 4.00 2.71 2.69 4.05
SBBJ-6 0.54 0.80 1.40 0.63 −0.24 3.52 4.13 3.73 5.17 4.15 3.29 3.00 1.82 3.53 3.61
SBBJ-7 0.96 0.81 1.08 0.57 −0.29 3.36 3.46 3.18 3.23 3.02 2.44 1.94 2.21 3.07 2.14
SBBJ-8 0.80 0.72 1.14 0.58 −0.36 3.81 4.27 3.84 4.87 4.57 2.95 3.42 1.74 1.46 2.90
SBBJ-9 0.74 1.09 1.18 0.70 −0.26 2.17 2.30 2.66 3.43 3.03 2.90 2.90 1.27 1.78 3.79

© ASCE 04014088-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(11): 04014088

 SBBJ-1 SBBJ-2 SBBJ-3 SBBJ-4 SBBJ-5 SBBJ-6 SBBJ-7 SBBJ-8 SBBJ-9

Cr-C
Cr-B
Chord Sa-D
Sa-C
Sa-B

0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1
Normalized SNCF
(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 09/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SBBJ-1 SBBJ-2 SBBJ-3 SBBJ-4 SBBJ-5 SBBJ-6 SBBJ-7 SBBJ-8 SBBJ-9

Cr-F
Cr-A
Brace Sa-E
Sa-F
Sa-A

Cr-C
Cr-B
Chord Sa-D
Sa-C
Sa-B

0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1
Normalized SNCF
(b)

Fig. 10. Comparison of SNCF magnitudes for square bird-beak joints at different hot spots: (a) chord axial force; and (b) brace axial force

• In comparison, the maximum chord SNCFs of the six square (DEVSQ), the degree of freedom (DF), the F-value, as well as the
bird-beak joints are greater than the corresponding maximum critical F-value (Fc ) were further introduced. The DEVSQ of
ones in the brace, with the differences between them being factors were calculated as DEVSQ ¼ ðK 1 − K 2 Þ2 þ ðK 2 − K 3 Þ2 þ
11–41%. However, for the other three joints whose highest ðK 3 − K 1 Þ2 by the use of K 1 , K 2 , and K 3 values provided in the
stress concentrations were observed in the braces, the maximum intuitive analysis, and the DEVSQ of error came from the blank
chord SNCFs are as large as 91–99% of the global maximum column of the orthogonal design process which was used to mon-
SNCFs. Therefore, for square bird-beak joints, the chords are itor the random error of the test. The DF was defined as the number
more prone to higher stress concentrations than the braces. of factors minus 1. The F-value, which was defined as the rate of
DEVSQ of two samples, was calculated in this paper as the
DEVSQ of factor divided by the DEVSQ of error. The Fc , which
Influence of Nondimensional Parameters
was used as the comparing reference for the calculated F-value,
Influencing factor analyses based on the experimental results of was determined by the degrees of freedom of the two samples
nine orthogonally designed specimens were conducted to reveal and certain confidence coefficient according to statistical theory.
the relative influences of three nondimensional parameters on The relative influences of the factors were assumed to be reflected
the maximum SNCFs of square bird-beak joints. Both intuitive by their F-values when excluding the impact of error, i.e., a greater
analysis and variance analysis were conducted. F-value represented a more significant influence.
In the research reported in this paper, three nondimensional Table 3 provides the results of the analysis for the chord spot
parameters are considered with each containing three levels, Sa-C and brace spot Sa-A. The two approaches provide similar
i.e., β ¼ 0.45, 0.60, and 0.75, 2γ ¼ 16.67, 20, and 25, and results. For the spot Sa-C, where the maximum SNCFs in the chord
τ ¼ 0.5, 0.65, and 0.8. In the intuitive analysis, three mean values
of the SNCFs corresponding to each level (i.e., K 1 , K 2 , and K 3 )
were first calculated for each factor. Take the case of parameter Table 3. Results of Influencing Factor Analysis for Orthogonally
β as an example, K 1 = mean SNCF of three specimens with β ¼ Designed Bird-Beak Specimens
0.75 (i.e., specimens SBBJ-1, SBBJ-2, and SBBJ-3), K 2 is the
Intuitive analysis Variance analysis
mean SNCF of three specimens with β ¼ 0.60 (i.e., specimens
SBBJ-4, SBBJ-5, and SBBJ-6), and K 3 = mean SNCF of three Spot Factor K1 K2 K3 R DEVSQ DF F Fc
specimens with β ¼ 0.45 (i.e., specimens SBBJ-7, SBBJ-8, and Sa-C A, β 6.79 4.60 3.84 2.95 14.08 2 15.59 9
SBBJ-9). Afterwards, the range R, which was defined as the maxi- B, 2γ 4.30 4.74 6.20 1.89 5.90 2 6.53 9
mum mean value minus the minimum mean value, i.e., R ¼ C, τ 3.73 4.80 6.72 2.99 13.75 2 15.23 9
maxðK 1 ; K 2 ; K 3 Þ − minðK 1 ; K 2 ; K 3 Þ, was calculated and then used Error — — — — 0.90 2 α ¼ 0.1 —
to describe the influencing degree of each factor. A greater R value Sa-A A, β 5.07 3.55 2.94 2.12 7.18 2 7.53 9
signified a more significant influence. However, for the variance B, 2γ 3.18 3.67 4.72 1.54 3.71 2 3.89 9
analysis, in which the random errors of test were considered, addi- C, τ 4.08 3.26 4.22 0.13 1.60 2 1.68 9
Error — — — — 0.95 — α ¼ 0.1 —
tional parameters including the sums of the squares of deviations

© ASCE 04014088-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(11): 04014088

 y=1.0x
commonly occur, the R (or F) values of β and τ are clearly greater 16
compared to that of 2γ, which indicate that β and τ have more Chord

Maximum SNCF for square bird-beak joint

notable effects than 2γ. The differences between β and τ are 14 Brace
unremarkable because their R and F values are extremely close Joint
to each other. As for the brace spot Sa-A, the SNCFs are still 12 J-3 vs SBBJ-3
the most sensitive to β; however, the influence of τ is quite limited
because the corresponding R and F values are significantly lower. 10 y=0.6x

8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 09/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Comparison between Joint Types

6
y=0.3x
Square Bird-Beak Joints versus Conventional Joints 4
In the chord axial force case, all SNCFs of conventional and square
bird-beak specimens, between which extremely small differences 2
were observed, are less than 1.6. However, it has been specified
in IIW (2008) and Zhao et al. (2000) that the SCFs considered 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
for the fatigue design of conventional RHS joints should not to
Maximum SNCF for conventional joint
be less than 2.0. Therefore, no comparison between two joint types
is needed, and the writers recommend the same requirements for Fig. 11. Maximum SNCFs of square bird-beak joints and conventional
SCFs (i.e., no less than 2.0) to be used for square bird-beak joints joints with identical nondimensional parameters
subject to chord axial forces.
In the brace axial force case, Table 4 lists the SNCFs of the three
pairs of conventional and square bird-beak specimens with identi-
cal nondimensional parameters (i.e., J-3 versus SBBJ-3, J-5 versus the conventional ones (i.e., J-5, VI, and J-7). However, for
SBBJ-5, and J-7 versus SBBJ-7) as well as their comparisons. joints with β ¼ 0.75, the maximum chord SNCFs of SBBJ-1
Another two conventional T-joints, i.e., the joint T0 investigated by and T0 are almost identical, and the maximum chord SNCF of
van Wingerde (1992) and the joint IV investigated by Chiew et al. SBBJ-3 is 1.56× that of J-3. Therefore, the square bird-beak
(2007), are also used. The nondimensional parameters of the two configuration might provide a higher stress concentration in
specimens are quite similar to those of the square bird-beak joints the chord than the conventional joint, especially when β values
SBBJ-1 and SBBJ-6, respectively (Table 4). Furthermore, Fig. 11 are relatively high. This reason could be determined by a dee-
shows the relationships between the maximum SCFs for the two per investigation into the variations of SCF with β for the two
types of joints. The following are observed: types of joints. For conventional SHS joints with β > 0.5,
• The maximum brace SNCFs of all square bird-beak joints con- decreasing SCFs with increasing β have been clarified in
sidered are smaller compared to that of the compared conven- IIW (2008) and Zhao et al. (2000). This trend occurs because
tional joints by 42–65%. as β increases the brace walls become closer to the chord cor-
• With respect to the maximum chord SNCFs, three square ners, where the stiffness in the direction of the brace axis is
bird-beak joints with β ¼ 0.60 and 0.45 (i.e., SBBJ-5, large. Thus, the stiffness differences between the brace walls
SBBJ-6, and SBBJ-7) have values at least 40% smaller than and the chord walls supporting them are of less significance,
and therefore lower stress concentration factors appear. The
variations are reversed for joints with β < 0.5 because a smaller
Table 4. Comparison of Maximum SNCFs between Square Bird-Beak β indicates that the brace walls are closer to the midspan of the
Joints and Conventional Joints chord’s top wall, where the out-of-plane stiffness is smaller.
However, for the square bird-beak joints, the upper bounds
Nondimensional
of the β ranges, where the SCFs are improved by increasing
parameters Maximum SNCF
β values, will be enhanced from β ¼ 0.5 (for conventional
Specimen β 2γ τ Chord Brace Joint joints) to β ¼ 0.8 or larger due to the oblique configurations
SCFT0 0.7 16.00 0.500 4.37 7.59 7.59 between the chord walls and brace walls. There may exist
SCFSBBJ-1 0.75 16.67 0.500 4.39 4.41 4.41 a critical β value beyond which square bird-beak joints have
SCFSBBJ-1 =SCFT0 — — — 1.00 0.58 0.58 larger stress concentrations compared to that of conventional
SCFJ-3 0.75 25.00 0.750 6.40 14.11 14.11 joints. Therefore, in the case of large brace-to-chord width
SCFSBBJ-3 0.75 25.00 0.750 9.99 6.75 9.99 ratios (e.g., β > 0.8), replacing conventional SHS joints with
SCFSBBJ-3 =SCFJ-3 — — — 1.56 0.48 0.71 square bird-beak configurations may not be recommended.
SCFJ-5 0.60 20.00 0.500 6.39 11.47 11.47
• By considering the global maximum SNCF (i.e., the larger
SCFSBBJ-5 0.60 20.00 0.500 3.79 4.05 4.05
SCFSBBJ-5 =SCFJ-5 — — — 0.59 0.35 0.35 value of the maximum chord SNCF and the maximum brace
SCFIV 0.57 21.88 0.625 11.94 10.06 11.94 SNCF) as the measure, five square bird-beak joints always
SCFSBBJ-6 0.60 25.00 0.625 5.17 3.61 5.17 provide smaller stress concentrations than the corresponding
SCFSBBJ-6 =SCFIV — — — 0.43 0.36 0.43 conventional joints. For the specimens J-3 and SBBJ-3,
SCFJ-7 0.45 16.67 0.667 5.73 5.35 5.73 Table 4 shows that although the maximum chord SNCF of
SCFSBBJ-7 0.45 16.67 0.667 3.46 3.07 3.46 the square bird-beak joint is 56% greater than that of the con-
SCFSBBJ-7 =SCFJ-7 — — — 0.60 0.57 0.60 ventional joint, the global maximum SNCF (i.e., the maximum
Note: SCFs of joint T0 with τ ¼ 0.500 take the averaged values of the chord SNCF) in specimen SBBJ-3 is still 29% smaller than the
measured SCFs of joints with τ ¼ 0.400 and the measured SCFs of global maximum SNCF (i.e., the maximum brace SNCF) in
joints with τ ¼ 0.600, both provided by van Wingerde (1992). specimen J-3.

© ASCE 04014088-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(11): 04014088

 Table 5. Comparison of Maximum SNCFs between Square Bird-Beak brace axial forces. Based on the experimental data, the following
Joints and Diamond Bird-Beak Joints can be concluded for this type of joint:
Nondimensional • A quadric extrapolation approach is suggested for the calcula-
parameters Maximum SNCF tion of hot spot SNCFs/SCFs due to the significant nonlinearity
Specimen β 2γ τ Chord Brace Joint
of strain distributions within extrapolation regions;
• In the chord axial force case, the braces are free from stress
SCFT3 0.72 20.83 0.500 5.08 4.66 5.08 concentrations and the maximum SNCFs occur at the saddle
SCFSBBJ-2 0.75 20.00 0.600 6.00 4.52 6.00 spots Sa-D in the chords;
SCFSBBJ-2 =SCFT3 — — — 1.18 0.97 1.18
• In the brace axial force case, the largest SNCFs in the chord are
SCFT2 0.56 20.83 0.500 4.78 4.32 4.78
most likely to appear at saddle spots Sa-C, with spots Sa-B,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 09/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SCFSBBJ-5 0.60 20.00 0.500 3.79 4.05 4.05

SCFSBBJ-5 =SCFT2 — — — 0.79 0.94 0.85 Cr-C, and Cr-B providing high SNCFs near to or exceeding spot
SCFT6 0.56 25.00 0.500 6.22 5.5 6.22 Sa-C; for the brace spots, saddle spots Sa-A and Sa-F have
SCFSBBJ-6 0.60 25.00 0.625 5.17 3.61 5.17 the highest likelihood of producing the maximum SNCFs, with
SCFSBBJ-6 =SCFT6 — — — 0.83 0.66 0.83 similar values at crown spots Cr-F and Cr-A;
• For joints under brace axial force, the maximum SCFs in the
chord are more likely to be greater than that of the brace;
y=1.2x
• Both β and τ exhibit more significant effects than 2γ on the
8 y=1.0x chord SCFs, while the influences of τ on the brace SCFs are
Chord unremarkable; and
Maximum SNCF for square bird-beak joint

7 Brace
T3 vs SBBJ-2 • In the case of identical nondimensional parameters, the maxi-
Joint y=0.8x mum SCFs in square bird-beak T-joints can be 40–65% smaller
6 than that of conventional or diamond bird-beak joints when β is
less than 0.75.
5

4 Acknowledgments
3 The research reported in this paper was undertaken with support
from the Science and Technology Research and Development
2 Plan funded by the Ministry of Railway of the People’s Republic
of China (P.R.C., No. J2011G002).
1

0
0 1 2 3
Maximum SNCF for diamond bird-beak joint
Fig. 12. Maximum SNCFs of square bird-beak joints and diamond
bird-beak joints with identical nondimensional parameters
Square Bird-Beak Joints versus Diamond Bird-Beak
Joints
Certain experimental SNCFs for diamond bird-beak T-joints, as
provided by Tong et al. (2014), are introduced for comparison
because limited data are available for this type of joint. Three dia-
mond bird-beak joints are used (i.e., T3, T2, and T6) and each has
nondimensional parameters similar to those of the square bird-beak
specimens SBBJ-2, SBBJ-5, and SBBJ-6 (Table 5). Fig. 12 shows
the comparisons. Only one comparison group, where β ¼ 0.75,
depicts higher stress concentrations for square bird-beak joints.
The maximum SCFs of the other two square bird-beak joints with
β ¼ 0.6 are approximately 16% smaller than that of the diamond
joints. There is insufficient data to determine which type is better
with regard to stress concentration. Square bird-beak joints appear
to provide smaller SCFs than diamond bird-beak joints in small
brace-to-chord width ratio cases. The conclusion would be stren-
gthened by a comprehensive comparison considering additional
data identified from the test or the numerical analysis.
Conclusions
The research reported in this paper focuses on the stress concen-
tration factors of square bird-beak T-joints subject to chord and
4 5 6 7 8 References
Ansys 12 [Computer software].
Chiew, S. P., Lee, C. K., Lie, S. T., and Ji, H. L. (2007). “Fatigue behaviors
of square-to-square hollow section T-joint with corner crack. I: Exper-
imental studies.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 74(5), 703–720.
Chtistitas, A. D., Pachoumis, D. T., Kalfas, C. N., and Galoussis, E. G.
(2007). “FEM analysis of conventional and square bird-beak SHS joint
subjected to in-plane bending moment–Experimental study.” J. Constr.
Steel Res., 63(10), 1361–1372.
Davies, G., Owen, J. S., and Kelly, R. (1996). “Bird beak T-joints in square
hollow sections: A finite element investigation.” Proc., Int. Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conf., Int. Soc. of Offshore and Polar Engineers,
Mountain View, CA, 1–6.
International Institute of Welding (IIW). (2008). Recommended fatigue de-
sign procedure for welded hollow section joints-part 1: Recommenda-
tions, part 2: Commentary, XV-1035-99, Cedex, France.
Ishida, K. (1992). “Experimental research on fatigue behavior of diamond
bird-beak joint.” Proc., Symp. on Structural Engineering, Architectural
Institute of Japan, Tokyo (in Japanese).
Ishida, K., Ono, T., and Iwata, M. (1993). “Ultimate strength formula for
joints of new truss system using rectangular hollow sections.” Proc., Int.
Symp. on Tubular Structures, E&FN Spon, London, 511–518.
Keizer, R. (2003). “Stress concentration factors in diamond bird beak
T-joints.” M.S. Thesis, Delft Univ. of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
Keizer, R., Romeijn, A., and Wardenier, J. (2003). “The fatigue behaviour
of diamond bird beak T-joints.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Tubular Structures,
Vol. 10, M. A. Jaurietta, et al., eds., E&FN Spon, London, 303–310.
Lei, L. Y. (2009). “The analysis of square bird-beak SHS joint subject to
in-plane bending moment.” M.S. thesis, Xi’an Univ. of Architecture and
Technology, Xi’an, China.
National Standards for the People’s Republic of China. (2002). “Cold
formed steel hollow sections for general structure-dimensions, shapes,
weight and permissible deviation.” GB/T 6728–2002, Beijing.

© ASCE 04014088-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(11): 04014088

 Ono, T., Iwata, M., and Ishida, K. (1991). “An experimental study on joints
of new truss system using rectangular hollow sections.” Proc., Int.
Symp. on Tubular Structures, E&FN Spon, London, 344–353.
Ono, T., Iwata, M., and Ishida, K. (1993). “Local failure of joints of new
truss system using rectangular hollow sections subjected to in-plane
bending moment.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Tubular Structures, E&FN
Spon, London, 503–510.
Ono, T., Iwata, M., and Ishida, K. (1994). “Local failure of joints of new
truss system using rectangular hollow sections subjected to out-of-plane
bending moment.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Tubular Structures, E&FN
Spon, London, 441–448.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 09/20/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Owen, J. S., Davies, G., and Kelly, R. B. (1996). “A comparison of the
behaviour of RHS bird beak T-joints with normal RHS and CHS sys-
tems.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Tubular Structures, E&FN Spon, London,
173–180.
Owen, J. S., Davies, G., and Kelly, R. B. (2001). “The influence of member
orientation on the resistance of cross joints in square RHS construction.”
J. Constr. Steel Res., 57(3), 253–278.
Owen, J. S., and Kelly, R. B. (2001). “The effect of purlin loads on the
capacity of overlapped bird-beak K joints.” Proc., Int. Symp. and Euro-
conf., CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 229–238.
© ASCE 04014088-11
J. Struct. Eng., 2014, 140(11): 04014088
Packer, J. A., and Wardenier, J. (1998). “Stress concentration factors for
non-90° X-connections made of square hollow sections.” Can. J.
Civ. Eng., 25(2), 370–375.
Tong, L. W., Fu, Y. G., Liu, Y. Q., and Zhao, X. L. (2014). “Stress
concentration factors of diamond bird-beak SHS T-joints under brace
loading.” Thin Walled Struct., 74(1), 201–212.
van Wingerde, A. M. (1992). “The fatigue behaviour of T- and X-joint
made of square hollow section.” HERON, 37(2), 1–180.
van Wingerde, A. M., Packer, J. A., and Wardenier, J. (1997). “SCF
formulae for fatigue design of K-connections between square hollow
sections.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 43(1), 87–118.
Wardenier, J., Packer, J. A., Zhao, X. L., and van der Vegte, G. J. (2010).
Hollow sections in structural applications, Comité International pour le
Développement et l’Etude de la Construction Tubulaire, Bouwen met
Staal, Zoetermeer, Netherlands.
Zhao, X.-L., et al. (2000). “Design guide for circular and rectangular
hollow section joints under fatigue loading.” Comité International pour
le Développement et l’Etude de la Construction Tubulaire, TÜV-Verlag,
Köln, Germany.
Zhu, Z. Q., and Liu, S. L. (2012). “Nonlinear finite element analysis of
diamond bird-beak TX-joints.” Adv. Mater. Res., 446(1), 151–155.
J. Struct. Eng.