REF59-cidecREPORT-SLOTTED END CONNECTION TO HOLLOW SECTIONS

SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS
by
G. Martinez-Saucedo
and
J. A. Packer
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada
FINAL REPORT TO CIDECT ON PROGRAMME 8G
CIDECT Report 8G-10/06
August 2006
ABSTRACT
This Report deals with the structural behaviour and design of concentrically-aligned single
gusset plate welded connections to the ends of steel hollow section members. Such
connections are commonly found in diagonal brace members of steel framed buildings and also
in roof truss web-to-chord member connections. The types of sections considered are circular
hollow sections and elliptical hollow sections, with the plate either slotted and welded into the
tube or the tube welded into a slotted plate. In addition, the presence (or lack) of an open slot at
the end of a slotted tube connection - a fabrication method particularly favoured in North
America - is evaluated within the scope of this work.
Under quasi-static loading, the behaviour of the connection has been rigorously studied
under both axial tension and axial compression loadings, by both large-scale laboratory
experiments and numerical (finite element) analysis. In addition, an exhaustive review and
analysis of all prior international work in this field has been made. Non-linear finite element
models, validated for all 13 laboratory test specimens, formed the basis of an extensive
parametric study resulting in a further 891 "numerical tests" to supplement the data base of
experiments by the author and other international researchers. In tension the tube failure modes
of circumferential fracture (with or without the presence of shear lag) and tear out (or "block
shear" failure) were clearly identified by both experimental and numerical investigations and the
parameters influencing these limit states were thus clarified. As a result, new unified design
provisions for such connections in tension are presented, which are shown to be a significant
improvement over current international design provisions. In compression, the tube failure
mode of local buckling governed throughout the connection study and the influence of the shear
lag phenomenon - hitherto completely disregarded by all design provisions under compression
loading - has been highlighted. A new static design method for slotted end connections in
compression is hence advocated, which is shown to be applicable to circular, elliptical, square
and rectangular hollow sections. Guidance on the proportioning of the longitudinal fillet welds,
so that these do not govern the connection capacity, is also presented.
The above static design recommendations, which now more truly reflect the actual
connection performance, allow connections to be designed in a more efficient manner.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................iii
NOTATION................................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project overview......................................................................................................... 1-2
CHAPTER 2:LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 The shear lag phenomenon ....................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Tear-out failure ........................................................................................................... 2-4
2.3 International specifications......................................................................................... 2-6
2.4 Summary of Chapter 2............................................................................................. 2-10
CHAPTER 3:EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM......................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Material properties ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Stub column tests.......................................................................................... 3-4
3.2 Test specimens and instrumentation.......................................................................... 3-6
3.3 Experimental test results ......................................................................................... 3-10
3.3.1 Slotted CHS connection - slot end not filled (type A) .................................. 3-10
3.3.2 Slotted CHS connection - slot end filled (with a weld return) (type B) ........ 3-13
3.3.3 Slotted EHS connection - slot end not filled (gusset plate oriented
to give a large eccentricity) ......................................................................... 3-15
to give small eccentricity)............................................................................ 3-18
3.3.5 Slotted gusset plate to tube connections in tension.................................... 3-21
3.3.5.1 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection (type C)........................................ 3-21
3.3.5.2 Slotted gusset plate to EHS connection (gusset plate oriented to
give a large eccentricity) ............................................................................ 3-24
3.3.6 Connections under compression load......................................................... 3-27
3.3.6.1 Slotted CHS to gusset plate connection - slot end not filled ....................... 3-28
3.3.6.2 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection ..................................................... 3-30
3.4 Summary of this experimental program ................................................................... 3-32
iii
CHAPTER 4:EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTS AGAINST DESIGN PROVISIONS ......... 4-1
4.1 Experimental program by British Steel (1992) ........................................................... 4-2
4.2 Experimental program by Korol et al. (1994) ............................................................. 4-3
4.3 Experimental program by Zhao and Hancock (1995) ................................................ 4-4
4.4 Experimental program by Cheng et al. (1996) ........................................................... 4-7
4.5 Experimental program by Zhao et al. (1999) ............................................................. 4-8
4.6 Experimental program by Wilkinson et al. (2002) .................................................... 4-10
4.7 Experimental program by the Authors ..................................................................... 4-10
4.8 Experimental program by Ling (2005)...................................................................... 4-12
CHAPTER 5:FE MODELLING OF CONNECTIONS ........................................................... 5-1

5.1 Material properties ..................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Connection modelling ................................................................................................ 5-4
5.2.1 Element selection.......................................................................................... 5-6
5.2.2 Analysis considerations ............................................................................... 5-6
5.3 Evaluation of FE models against experimental results .............................................. 5-8
5.3.1 Slotted CHS connection - slot end not filled (Type A) ................................... 5-9
5.3.2 Slotted CHS connection - slot end filled (weld return) (Type B).................. 5-12
to give small eccentricity)............................................................................ 5-20
5.3.5 Slotted gusset plate to tube connections in tension.................................... 5-23
5.3.5.1 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection (Type C)....................................... 5-23
5.3.5.2 Slotted gusset plate to EHS (gusset plate oriented
5.3.6 Connections under compression load......................................................... 5-30
5.3.6.1 Slotted CHS to gusset plate connection - slot end not filled ....................... 5-30
5.3.6.2 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection ..................................................... 5-32
CHAPTER 6:PARAMETRIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ............................................... 6-1

6.1 Parametric analysis results of slotted CHS connection - slot end not filled ............... 6-1
iv
6.2 Parametric analysis results of slotted CHS connection -
slot end filled (weld return)......................................................................................... 6-7
6.3 Parametric analysis results of slotted EHS connection -
slot end not filled (gusset plate oriented to give a large eccentricity)....................... 6-11
6.4 Parametric analysis results of slotted EHS connection -
slot end not filled (gusset plate oriented to give small eccentricity) ......................... 6-14
6.5 Slotted gusset plate to tube connection in tension................................................... 6-17
6.5.1 Parametric analysis results of slotted gusset plate to
CHS connection .......................................................................................... 6-17
EHS connection (gusset plate oriented to give a large eccentricity)........... 6-23
6.6 Connections under compression load...................................................................... 6-29
6.6.1 Parametric analysis results of slotted CHS connection -
slot end not filled ......................................................................................... 6-29
CHS connection .......................................................................................... 6-32
6.7 Weld design ............................................................................................................. 6-35
CHAPTER 7: ANALYSIS OF FE AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS................................... 7-1

7.1 CHS connections in tension - CF failure .................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 Shear lag equations suggested for CSA design provision format................. 7-1
7.1.1.1 Equation suggested for slotted CHS to gusset plate connections ................ 7-1
7.1.1.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections
based on ultimate strength............................................................................ 7-3
7.1.1.3 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate connections based on
deformation limit (0.03D)............................................................................... 7-5
7.1.2 Shear lag equations suggested for AISC design provision format................ 7-6
7.1.2.1 Equation suggested for slotted CHS to gusset plate connections ................ 7-7
7.1.2.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections
based on ultimate strength............................................................................ 7-8
deformation limit (0.03D)............................................................................... 7-9
7.2 EHS connections in tension - CF failure .................................................................. 7-11
v
7.2.1 Shear lag equations suggested for CSA design provision format............... 7-11
7.2.1.1 Equation suggested for slotted EHS to gusset plate connections .............. 7-11
7.2.1.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections
based on ultimate strength.......................................................................... 7-12
deformation limit (0.03D2) ........................................................................... 7-14
7.2.2 Shear lag equations suggested for AISC design provision format.............. 7-15
7.2.2.1 Equations suggested for slotted EHS to gusset plate connections............. 7-15
7.2.2.2 Equations suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections
based on ultimate strength.......................................................................... 7-17
7.2.2.3 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections
based on deformation limit (0.03D2) ........................................................... 7-18
7.3 CHS and EHS connections in tension - TO failure .................................................. 7-19

7.4 CHS connections in compression ............................................................................ 7-29
7.4.1 Equation suggested for slotted CHS to gusset plate connections
(under compression loading) ...................................................................... 7-29
7.4.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate connections
(under compression loading) ...................................................................... 7-30
7.5 Evaluation of recommended equations against experimental data ......................... 7-31
7.5.1 Experimental program by British Steel (1992) ............................................ 7-33
7.5.2 Experimental program by Korol (1994) ....................................................... 7-34
7.5.3 Experimental program by Cheng et al. (1996) ............................................ 7-34
7.5.4 Experimental program by the Authors ........................................................ 7-35
7.6 Derivation of reduction (resistance) factors for the recommended equations.......... 7-37
7.6.1 Reduction factors for CHS connections in tension - CF failure................... 7-37
7.6.1.1 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted
CHS connections (CSA design provision format) ....................................... 7-37
7.6.1.2 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted gusset plate to
CHS connections based on ultimate strength
(CSA design provision format) .................................................................... 7-38
CHS connections based on deformation limit
vi
7.6.1.4 Reduction factors for suggested equations for
slotted CHS connections (AISC design provision format)........................... 7-39
CHS connections based on ultimate strength
(AISC design provision format) ................................................................... 7-40
CHS connections based on deformation limit
7.6.2 Reduction factors for EHS connections in tension - CF failure ................... 7-41
7.6.2.1 Reduction factors for suggested equations for
slotted EHS connections (CSA design provision format)............................ 7-41
EHS connections based on ultimate strength
EHS connections based on deformation limit
7.6.2.4 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted EHS connections (AISC
design provision format).............................................................................. 7-42
EHS connections based on ultimate strength
7.6.2.6 Reduction factors for suggested equation for slotted gusset plate to
EHS connections based on deformation limit
7.6.3 Reduction factors for CHS and EHS connection in tension - TO failure ..... 7-44
7.6.3.1 Reduction factors for slotted CHS connections - TO failure ....................... 7-44
7.6.3.2 Reduction factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections -
TO failure .................................................................................................... 7-44
7.6.3.3 Reduction factors for slotted EHS connections - TO failure........................ 7-44
7.6.3.4 Reduction factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections -
vii
TO failure .................................................................................................... 7-45
7.6.4 Reduction factors for CHS connections in compression............................. 7-45
7.6.4.1 Reduction factors for slotted CHS connections in compression ................. 7-45
7.6.4.2 Reduction factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections
in compression............................................................................................ 7-46
7.7 Summary of Chapter 7- recommended static design methods................................ 7-46

7.7.1 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in tension ....... 7-47
7.7.2 Recommended static design method for EHS connections in tension ....... 7-49
7.7.3 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in compression7-50
CHAPTER 8:CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH8-1

8.1 Overview .................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Recommended static design methods...................................................................... 8-2
8.2.1 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in tension ......... 8-2
8.2.2 Recommended static design method for EHS connections in tension ......... 8-4
8.2.3 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in compression 8-5
8.3 Design recommendation for seismic applications...................................................... 8-6
8.4 Recommendations for further research ..................................................................... 8-6
CHAPTER 9:REFERENCES................................................................................................ 9-1
APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ...................................................................... A-1

A.1 Slotted end connections to CHS ................................................................................A-1
A.2 Slotted end connection to EHS ..................................................................................A-3
APPENDIX B: EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTS .............................................................. B-1

B.1 Experimental program by British Steel (1992) ...........................................................B-1
B.2 Experimental program by Korol el al. (1994) .............................................................B-2
B.3 Experimental program by Zhao and Hancock (1995) ................................................B-3
B.4 Experimental program by Cheng et al. (1996) ...........................................................B-5
B.5 Experimental program by Zhao et al. (1999) .............................................................B-6
B.6 Experimental program by the Authors .......................................................................B-8
B.7 Experimental program by Ling (2005)........................................................................B-9
APPENDIX C: STRAIN READINGS .................................................................................... C-1

C.1 Connections under tension ........................................................................................C-1
viii
C.1.1 Slotted CHS connections - slot end not filled (A1 and A2).........................................C-1
C.1.2 Slotted CHS connections - slot end filled (weld return) (B1 and B2) .........................C-3
C.1.3 Slotted EHS connections - slot end not filled (E1 and E2).........................................C-5
C.1.4 Slotted EHS connections - slot end not filled (E5) .....................................................C-7
C.1.5 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection (C1 and C2)................................................C-8
C.1.6 Slotted gusset plate to EHS connection (E3 and E4) ..............................................C-10
C.2 Connections under compression .............................................................................C-12
C.2.1 Slotted CHS to gusset plate connection - slot end not filled (A3C)..........................C-12
C.2.2 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection (C3C)........................................................C-13
ix
NOTATION
Ag = gross cross-sectional area of hollow section
Agt = gross area in tension for block failure
Agv = gross area in shear for block failure
al = weld leg length (size)
An = net cross-sectional area of hollow section
A'ne = effective net cross-sectional area of hollow section
Ant = net area in tension for block failure
Anv = net area in shear for block failure
Aw = area of effective weld throat
B = width of overlapped gusset plate
b = overall width of RHS and SHS, measured 90 degrees to the plane of the connection
CSC = compressive strength of stub column
CHS = Circular Hollow Section
D = outside diameter of CHS
D1 = larger dimension of EHS
D2 = smaller dimension of EHS
Davg = average between larger and smaller dimension of EHS
D/t = ratio between outside diameter and wall thickness of CHS
E = modulus of elasticity
EHS = Elliptical Hollow Section
Fy = yield tensile stress
Fu = ultimate tensile stress
h = overall height of RHS and SHS, measured in the plane of the connection
HAZ = Heat Affected Zone
HSS = Hollow Structural Section
x
K = effective length factor
LVDT = Linear Variable Differential Transformer
Lw = weld length
Lw/w = ratio between weld length and distance between welds
Lw/D = ratio between weld length and outside diameter of CHS
lsl = length of slot in hollow section
Nu = calculated connection strength according to design provisions
Nux = measured connection strength
NuFE = connection strength from FE analysis
NuFE-D= connection strength from FE analysis based on distortion limit
RHS = Rectangular Hollow Section
Rt = tension area mean stress correction factor
Rv = shear area mean stress correction factor
SHS = Square Hollow Section
t = wall thickness of CHS
tp = thickness of gusset plate
Tr = factored tensile resistance
tsl = width of slot in CHS
Tσ-Tε = uniaxial true stress - true strain curve
U = reduction coefficient for shear lag in net section fracture calculation
Ubs = reduction factor for non-uniform stress in block shear
Vr = factored shear resistance
VR = coefficient of variation
w = distance between the welds, measured around the perimeter of the CHS
wp = width of gusset plate
x = eccentricity
xi
x' = eccentricity reduced by half of flange-plate thickness ( = x - tp /2)
x /Lw = ratio between the eccentricity and weld length
x' /Lw = ratio between the reduced eccentricity and weld length
z = longitudinal distance between strain gauges
β = safety index or “reliability index”
γM0 = Eurocode 3 partial safety factor when neither buckling phenomena nor ultimate
resistance in tension is under consideration (= 1.0)
γM2 = Eurocode 3 partial safety factor when ultimate resistance in tension is under
consideration (= 1.25)
εu = ultimate strain at rupture
εef = equivalent fracture strain
ϕm = mean actual-to-predicted ratio
φ = resistance factor
xii
1-1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Circular hollow sections (CHS) have gained in popularity in recent years, particularly for
architecturally exposed structural steel. Architects appreciate the clear form of CHS as well as
their excellent structural properties in compression and torsion. In order to take full advantage of
these properties, the complete tube cross-section should ideally be engaged at the connection.
However, the feasibility of doing this is determined by the shape of the elements merging at the
connection, which may result in a complicated task for detailing and fabrication. As a result, the
use of a simplified connection detail will always be desirable whenever possible.
Gusset plate connections represent one of the easiest methods to connect CHS used as
web members in roof trusses and brace members in buildings. During the fabrication of these
connections, the gusset plate or the CHS can be slotted resulting in several possible fabrication
details. The application of either detail will depend on existing tolerances during the process of
fabrication and erection of the structure. Despite these connection details providing the simplest
manner for connecting CHS, it is important to recognize that an incorrect understanding of their
behaviour may result in their failure or an expensive conservative design. As a consequence of
only part of the CHS cross-section being connected, an uneven stress distribution around the
tube circumference always occurs during the load transfer at the connection. Shear lag (see
Figure 1.1) leads to stress peaks at the beginning of the weld which may result in connection
failure by a circumferential failure (CF) mode. Moreover, a tear-out (or “block shear”) failure
(TO) may also occur under tension loading.
Beginning of the
weld
Figure 1.1 Shear lag in slotted CHS connection
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH1: INTRODUCCION

1-2
Despite both these limit states being addressed in current North American design
provisions (AISC 2005 and CSA 2001), it has been found that the predicted connection strength
(in the parameter range when CF is governing failure mode) will always differ as these two
design provisions use dissimilar methods to account for this phenomenon. Although it is
expected that these AISC and CSA design methods will always predict conservative connection
capacities when CF governs, it has been found that the number of studies (specifically in slotted
end connections to hollow sections) is limited to verify the accuracy and validity limits for each
method. Moreover, the model currently used in design provisions (AISC 2005, CEN 2005 and
CSA 2001) to account for TO failure, which was initially developed for bolted connections, lacks
studies verifying its accuracy and validity limits for these connection types. In a similar manner
to tension loading, an uneven stress distribution can be expected at the connection under
compression loading. However, it has been found that this phenomenon is completely
disregarded by design provisions, despite the fact that it may induce tube local buckling at the
beginning of the welds.
1.1 Project overview

This Report is directed to clarify the behaviour of slotted end connections fabricated with
CHS and Elliptical Hollow Sections (EHS), their possible failure mechanisms and the relation of
these failure modes to the connection geometrical dimensions, under tension and compression
loading. In order to verify the accuracy of models currently used by design provisions, these are
compared against available experimental data from previous studies and data from an
experimental program undertaken at the University of Toronto. Results from these comparisons
revealed the deficiency of these provisions to correctly predict the connection strength and
governing failure mechanisms. A further parametric analysis based on finite element models of
CHS and EHS connections has provided information on the behaviour of these connections and
also provided further evidence of the imprecision of current design provisions. Therefore, a new
comprehensive static design method is recommended here which also illustrates the possibility
of effectively diminishing the influence of shear lag in these connections.
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH1: INTRODUCCION

2-1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The use of slotted end connections to hollow sections is very popular nowadays.
However, the design methods against the most frequent failure modes such as circumferential
tensile fracture (CF) of the HSS (see Figure 2.2) and tear-out (TO) failure along the weld (see
Figure 2.3), seem to still require further attention. During the load transfer from the tube to the
gusset plate, a nonuniform strain distribution takes place in the tube cross-section as the
unconnected material is less able to participate in the load transfer. This phenomenon, known
as Shear Lag, creates a high strain concentration at the weld region which eventually can
trigger the fracture of the tube material there. Moreover, the propagation of this crack (defining a
typical failure mode) and the connection strength are strongly influenced by the weld length
(Lw).
Figure 2.2 Circumferential tensile fracture Figure 2.3 Tear-out failure
2.1 The shear lag phenomenon

Since the first model to account for the shear lag phenomenon was proposed by Chesson
and Munse (1963), it has been included in several design specifications. Initially it was applied
to riveted and bolted connections. Afterwards, the same model was utilized for the design of
welded connections. Even though this phenomenon has been studied extensively for open
structural sections, studies from Easterling and Giroux (1993) and Kirkham and Miller (2000)
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2-2
have revealed that existing design approaches are overly conservative and that further
research may be required. In addition, this model has been applied to tubular connections.
However, the research for these connection types is relatively recent and limited in scope.
To allow for shear lag on connections fabricated with Hollow Structural Sections (HSS),
Packer and Henderson (1992) proposed that the distance between the welds (w) be measured
along the developed perimeter of the HSS (see Figure 2.4). In addition, they also suggested an
efficiency coefficient for connections with Lw/w ratios less than unit. At this time, the use of small
ratios was not considered for CAN/CSA-S16.1-M89 (CSA 1989) since it was estimated that the
weld was critical for Lw/w ratios less than one.
Figure 2.4 Important dimensions in slotted end connections
A specific study of shear lag-induced fracture in tubular connections started in early 1990s
when British Steel (1992) studied gusset plate connections to circular hollow sections (CHS),
square hollow sections (SHS) and rectangular hollow sections (RHS) under tension and
compression loading. An experimental program on slotted SHS and RHS to gusset plate
connections was undertaken by Korol et al. (1994). In this program, a total of 18 specimens with
Lw/w ratios ranging from 0.40 to 1.00 were tested. Their results confirmed that a net section
failure can occur in connections with ratios Lw/w < 1.00. Moreover, a ratio of Lw/w = 0.60 was
proposed as a lower limit for the net section failure mode. A FE analysis of these connections
was made considering only their elastic response, hence the FE models could not predict the
failure mode. Based on these models, a further parametric analysis determined the influence
that geometrical ratios have on the shear lag phenomenon; the Lw/w ratio was shown to have
the major influence and tube effective depth-to-width ratio a minor influence. Finally, the results
indicated the need for variable shear lag factors for slotted SHS and RHS connections.

2-3
Girard et al. (1995) generated a FE model of a connection between a SHS and a gusset
plate. Even though this FE model exhibited some limitations, their results displayed differences
with the equations in CAN/CSA-S16.1-M89 (CSA 1989). Cheng et al. (1996) studied the
phenomenon in CHS, undertaking an experimental program and a FE analysis of these
connections. A total of nine connections were tested, these connections were fabricated with a
slotted tube and, except for one, all had a weld return. The results showed the inaccuracy of the
shear lag factors in CAN/CSA-S16.1-94 (CSA 1994) for this type of connection. Additionally, the
results for the connection with no weld return always presented an uneven strain distribution at
the slotted end. For the same CAN/CSA-S16.1-94 (CSA 1994), Korol (1996) reached a similar
conclusion for slotted gusset plate connections fabricated with SHS and RHS. Cheng et al.
(1998) and Cheng and Kulak (2000) suggested that the reduction in the effective net area would
be eliminated for CHS connections if a minimum weld length (Lw) of 1.3 times the tube diameter
is provided.
Experimental programs in gusset plates slotted into RHS were also undertaken by Zhao
and Hancock (1995), Zhao et al. (1999) and Wilkinson et al. (2002). Although the failure mode
in the latter was not directly related to the shear lag effect, the results suggested the need to
verify the factors to account for shear lag. Recently, CHS connections with very high strength
tubes have been studied by Ling (2005), resulting in a design method which considers the heat
affected zone. However, due to the characteristics of the tube material used during this
experimental program these results may not be suitable for regular grade HSS connections.
Humphries and Birkemoe (2004) studied primarly double channel to gusset plate connections
but these were compared with RHS to gusset plate connections. The results showed that the
channels had a better behaviour than the RHS as they were able to deform reducing the
eccentricity ( x ), thus increasing the connection effiency. This study also pointed out the
influence that the weld leg size (al) has on the connection strength, as an increase in this was
associated with an enhancement of the connection efficiency.
Although these research studies have contributed information related to the influence that
shear lag has in tubular connections, they have also showed the need to continue with more
definitive studies in order to provide design provisions with formulae that accurately reflects this
phenomenon.

2-4
2.2 Tear-out failure
In general, the research on tear-out failure or block failure has been mainly aimed at
bolted connections, using gusset plates, coped beams or angles. The first model for tear-out
failure (based on tests of coped beam connections) was proposed by Birkemoe and Gilmor
(1978) and was eventually included in the AISC specification (1978). This model calculates the
connection resistance by adding the shear resistance of the shear area and the tensile
resistance of the net tensile area. Since then, several investigations have been undertaken on
different bolted connections types.
In order to verify the accuracy of the AISC specification (1978), Yura et al. (1982) tested
twelve beam web shear connections. During these tests, several parameters such as: the edge
distance, standard and slotted holes, coped beams, uncoped beams and bolt arrangement
were studied. The results revealed a decrease in the connection capacity (approximately 20%)
when slotted holes were used, and the use of two rows of bolts clustered at the top of the web
produced a lower safety factor than that expected. Finally, for a connection with a single row of
bolts, a recommendation to calculate the connection capacity as the sum of the bolts single
capacity rather than a group capacity was made. In a further study (Ricles and Yura 1983), a
finite element analysis of these connections (considering only the connection elastic response)
showed a uneven stress distribution along the vertical plane at the cope. These results
disagreed with an ideal stress distribution calculated by simple beam theory. In general, fracture
initially started at the tension region where an uneven stress distribution was taking place and it
was combined with a substantial material yielding along the shear plane. Based on these
results, a new block shear model (with a triangular stress distribution on the tension region) was
proposed for double row bolted connections. Hardash and Bjorhovde (1985) evaluated the
application of the block-shear concept in gusset plates connections via the testing of 28
specimens. The test specimens were fabricated with two lines of bolts with various bolt rows,
pitch spacing and bolt diameters. During these tests, the dominating failure mode corresponded
to the attainment of the ultimate stress along the net area in tension (at the last row of bolts) and
yielding of the gross area in shear (outside of the line of the bolts). In addition to this, the data
from experimental programs at the University of Illinois and the University of Alberta were
combined with these results to develop a new block shear model. In general, this new model
followed the original “block failure” model. Nevertheless, it included several new factors to
calculate the ultimate resistance of the connection which made its use difficult.

2-5
Epstein (1992) undertook an experimental program to study block shear failure in angles,
with a total of 38 angle connection tests. These results showed variations with the values
recommended by AISC design provisions (1986, 1989) at that time. These differences were
mainly associated with the effect that the unconnected leg eccentricity had over the connection
behavior, modifying the failure mechanism. Gross et al. (1995) tested 13 angle connections
fabricated with a single line of bolts and steel grades A-36 and A588. In general, the results
showed good correlation with AISC design provisions (1989, 1994) based on agreement with
the failure load. However, an inconsistency was observed between the failure mechanism
predicted by design provisions and experimental test. Based on data published in previous
experimental programs, Cunningham et al. (1995) suggested a model to predict block shear
failure in connections fabricated with angles and bolts. Orbison et al. (1999) tested several
angles, WT and W sections which failed in block shear (a total of 17 specimens). The failure
mechanism observed during the tests consisted of a fracture at the tension area which was
combined with a considerable inelastic deformation along the gross shear area. Even though
the predicted connection capacity by the (then-current) design provision (AISC 1994) resulted in
conservative values, the expected failure mechanism disagreed with the tests results.
Additionally, several factors such as: low ductility, hole fabrication (punched or drilled) and large
in plane and out-of-plane eccentricities were found to have an influence on the connection
capacity. Finally, a further study of these factors was suggested since they were not considered
in design provisions. Swanson and Leon (2000) tested 48 T-stub specimens under monotonic
and cyclic loading. From all these test specimens, only one failed by block failure (this specimen
was tested under cyclic loading). For this test specimen, the predicted failure mechanism (AISC
1994) did not coincide with the failure observed during the test. Aalberg and Larsen (2000)
tested splice plates, beam web connections loaded in shear and beams connections with a
coped end using high strength steels. The results were compared with design provisions such
as: Eurocode (CEN 1992), CSA (1989) and AISC (1994). In general, an important decrease in
the connection ductility was observed as a result of the use of these steel types and the
importance of limiting the deformation of these connections was addressed. For block shear
failure, only the CSA (1989) method was found to be suitable for high strength steels. A review
of the rules for block shear design (AISC 1999) by Kulak and Grondin (2001) suggested that
these may be conservative for gusset plates, acceptable for angles and non-conservative for
coped beams. This study recommended that further research of this failure mode was required.

2-6
In addition to these experimental programs, several studies have been undertaken with
the assistance of finite element models by Epstein and Chamarajanagar (1996), Epstein and
McGinnis (2000), Barth et al. (2002) and Topkaya (2004). In this last study, new models to
calculate the tear out failure have been suggested.
As result of these research programs, the governing failure criteria defining the block
shear as well as resistance factors have experienced several modifications in existing design
provisions (Geschwindner, 2004). However, the initial model (suggested by Birkemoe and
Gilmor) which adds the resistances in tension and shear continues in use. Nowadays, the new
trend to design by block shear follows this model, but with the use of several reduction factors.
As an example of this, the AISC design provision (2005) has suggested a reduction factor (Ubs)
to consider the uneven stress distribution that can be found in coped beams. Finally, a unified
equation suitable for all types of connections has been recently proposed by Driver et al. (2006),
wherein the initial model is used but several factors are applied depending on the connection
type.
2.3 International specifications

When the capacity of a tension member is governed by the limit state of tensile fracture
affected by shear lag, several values can be calculated from current design provisions as they
do exhibit differences. In general, these provisions consider the non-uniform stress distribution
caused by shear lag by including an efficiency factor (U). This factor decreases the tube net
area (An) at the connection to an effective net area (Ae or A'ne).
Ae = An · U (as in AISC 2000, 2005) (2-1)
A'ne = An · U (as in CSA 2001) (2-2)
This effective net are is then used to calculate the connection strength. In order to
calculate this efficiency factor (U), two general methods are currently most common. The first
method can be found in American specifications (AISC 2000, 2005), where the connection
eccentricity ( x ) is compared with the weld length (Lw), as proposed by Cheeson and Munse
(1963) to allow for the shear lag phenomenon in riveted and bolted connections. Specifications
using this approach are summarized in Table 2.1. By this method:

2-7
x
U = 1 – ------
Lw
D
where x = ---- for CHS; (2-3)
π
2
2 D 1 + 2D 1 D 2-
and x = ------ ----------------------------- for EHS (see Figure 2.5). (2-4)
3π D 1 + D 2
Equation 2-4 considers that the gusset plate is aligned with the dimension D2 (see Figure
2.5). When the gusset plate orientation is parallel to the dimension D1, the dimension D12
should be replaced by D22. The conventional interpretation of x has been the measurement
from the tube centroidal axis. However, when a thick gusset plate is utilized. It may be feasible
to consider a reduced x' , which is the distance from the gusset plate surface to the centre of
gravity of the half tube as shown in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.5 Eccentricity x of top half, for EHS.

The second method compares the circumferential distance between the welds (w) with
the weld length (Lw). Here the efficiency factor (U) is determined by values assigned to the ratio
Lw/w (see Table 2.1). This method can be found in the Canadian specification (CSA 1994,
2001) as well as in the design guide for hollow structural sections by Packer and Henderson
(1997). Moreover, for slotted connections to hollow sections the distance w equals half of the
HSS circumference minus the gusset plate thickness (tp) or the slot width (tsl). Eurocode3 (CEN
2005) only considers the effect of shear lag on bolted connections using angles connected by

2-8
one leg and other unsymmetrically connected tension members. Eurocode3 (2005) hence is not
listed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Shear lag design provisions for round (and elliptical) hollow sections
Specification or design Effective net Range of

Shear lag coefficients
guide area validity
AISC (1999):
x
LRFD Specification for U = 1 – ------ ≤ 0.90
Structural Steel Buildings Lw
D no restric-
AISC (2000): with x = ---- (for CHS)
π tions
LRFD Specification for
2
Steel Hollow Structural Ae = An · U 2 D 1 + 2D 1 D 2
Sections x = ------ -----------------------------
- (EHS, see Figure 2.5)
3π D 1 + D 2
AISC (2005):
x
Specification for Structural U = 1- ------ for 1.3D > L w ≥ D Lw ≥ D
Lw
Steel Buildings
U=1 for L w ≥ 1.3D (only CHS)
CSA (1994): U = 1.0 for L w ⁄ w ≥ 2.0

Limit States Design of Lw ≥ w
Steel Structures U = 0.87 for 2.0 > L w ⁄ w ≥ 1.5
U = 0.75 for 1.5 > L w ⁄ w ≥ 1.0
CSA (2001): U = 1.0 for L w ⁄ w ≥ 2.0

Limit States Design of no restric-
Steel Structures A'ne = An · U U = 0.5 + 0.25 L w ⁄ w for 2.0> L w ⁄ w ≥ 1.0 tions
U = 0.75 L w ⁄ w for L w ⁄ w < 1.0
Packer and Henderson U = 1.0 for L w ⁄ w ≥ 1.0

(1997): shear lag
Hollow Structural Section U = 0.87 for 2.0 > L w ⁄ w ≥ 1.5 not critical
Connections and Trusses - U = 0.75 for 1.5 > L w ⁄ w ≥ 1.0 for
A Design Guide L w < 0.6 w
U = 0.62 for 1.0 > L w ⁄ w ≥ 0.6
Tr = φ Ae Fu (AISC Specification, φ = 0.75) or Tr = 0.85 φ A'ne Fu (CSA Specification, φ = 0.9).
For block shear failure, the connection resistance is calculated by adding the portion of
the load transferred as tension load, Tr, and the portion of load transferred as shear load, Vr.
The different national/regional design specifications (AISC, CSA, Eurocode) either use the
gross or net area for the calculation of Tr and Vr (see Table 2.2). In welded connections, the
gross area becomes equal to the net area for the calculation or Tr and Vr due the absence of
bolt holes. For the calculation of the shear load, the material strength is reduced to 0.60 Fy or Fy

2-9
/ 3 . The factor Ubs used in the American specification (AISC 2005) has been introduced to
account for the stress distribution that can be found in coped beams, where Ubs=0.5 is
recommended. In gusset plate connections Ubs is taken equal to unity.
The Canadian specification (CSA 2001) uses a separate design formula for coped beams
but it also results in the same reduction factor as the American specification. It is worthwhile
noting that the latest Canadian and American specifications, while having essentially the same
model for the block shear limit state, result in considerably different safety levels due to their
different resistance factors ( φ ), as shown in Table 2.2 (although the Canadian value is currently
under review). This is not the case for the shear lag design provisions (Table 2.1), where
( 0.9 ) ( 0.85 ) ≈ 0.75.
Table 2.2 Block shear design provisions
Specification or design guide Block shear strength
AISC (1999): When Ant Fu ≥ 0.6 Anv Fu:

LRFD Specification for Struc-
Tr + Vr = φ [Ant Fu + 0.6 Agv Fy] ≤ φ [Ant Fu + 0.6 Anv Fu]
tural Steel Buildings
AISC (2000): When Ant Fu < 0.6Anv Fu:

LRFD Specification for Steel
Tr + Vr = φ [Agt Fy + 0.6 Anv Fu] ≤ φ [Ant Fu + 0.6Anv Fu]
Hollow Structural Sections
with φ = 0.75
AISC (2005): Tr + Vr = φ Ubs Ant Fu + 0.6 φ Agv Fy ≤ φ Ubs Ant Fu + 0.6 φ Anv Fu
Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings with φ = 0.75 and Ubs= 1
CSA (2001): Tr + Vr = φ Ant Fu + 0.6 φ Agv Fy ≤ φ Ant Fu + 0.6 φ Anv Fu

Limit States Design of Steel
Structures with φ = 0.9
Eurocode (CEN 2005): 1

Design of Steel Structures Tr + Vr = Ant Fu + 1 1 A F
nv y
γ M2 γ M0 3
- General Rules - Part 1-8:
Design of Joints a) γ M 0 = 1.0 and γ M 2 = 1.25
a)
Design rule for bolted connections differs slightly.

2-10
2.4 Summary of Chapter 2
As has been exposed throughout this chapter, research on TO failure has been mainly
focused on several types of bolted connections. As a result of this, the first model suggested to
predict the connection strength has experienced several modifications throughout the years.
Nevertheless, the accuracy of this model still seems to need further attention or verification
(especially for welded tubular connections).
To account for shear lag (inducing a CF) in tubular connections, two general approaches
are prevalent nowadays in current design provisions. However, the accuracy of these models
has not been totally verified for slotted end connections to CHS or EHS.
In order to asses the accuracy and suitability of the models recommended in current
design provisions (which are suggested for the TO failure limit state and to account for shear lag
phenomenon), these models are compared against the results from an experimental program
carried out at the University of Toronto (Chapter 3 of this Report) and other relevant research
programs undertaken on tubular connections (Chapter 4 of this Report).

3-1
CHAPTER 3: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
An experimental program has been undertaken at the University of Toronto on slotted end
connections to hollow sections (CHS and EHS). The objective of this study was to identify the
influence of parameters such as: the weld length (Lw), the eccentricity of the connection ( x ), the
gusset plate orientation (for the EHS) and fabrication detail on the connection strength. In
general, these parameters have been shown to affect the shear lag phenomenon in previous
experimental programs and the calculated connection strength by current design codes is
based on these parameters. As part of this program, a total of 13 connections were fabricated
and tested under quasi-static tension and compression loading. A description of the
connections, the material properties, the testing arrangement and results from the tests are
given in this chapter.
3.1 Material properties

For the fabrication of the connections, a CHS with a nominal size of 168 x 4.8mm was
used and it was cold-formed Class C material with a minimum specified yield stress of 350MPa
(CSA 2004). An EHS with a nominal size of 220x110x6.3mm was used and it was hot-finished
with a minimum specified yield stress of 355MPa (EN 10210-1, CEN 1994). Plates with 25mm
and 32mm thickness were required for the fabrication of the gusset plates; these plates had a
minimum specified yield stress of 300MPa (CSA 2004). A group of test coupons was fabricated
from tubes and plates in order to determine their material properties. Seven test coupons were
taken from the CHS with two of them cut from the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ). A 25mm plate was
used in the fabrication of the CHS connections and two test coupons were cut from this plate.
Four test coupons were cut from the EHS and three 32mm plates were used in the fabrication of
these connections so a total of six coupons were tested from these plates. The size and location
of these coupons were made according to ASTM (2003).
During testing, the engineering stress-strain relationship was acquired before the coupon
test developed a neck. Afterwards, the clip gauge was removed from the test coupon. In some
test coupons from the CHS, it was possible to acquire information beyond the formation of the
neck but eventually the clip gauge had to be removed. In all the cases, the load and maximum
elongation at rupture were determined for each coupon test. The engineering stress-strain
curves from the materials are shown in Figures 3.1 to 3.4 and their measured material
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH 3: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3-2
properties are given in Table 3.1. Additional information from the tube and gusset plate material
is given in Appendix A.
Figure 3.1 Coupon tests for CHS
Figure 3.2 Coupon tests for 25 mm plate

3-3
Figure 3.3 Coupon tests for EHS
Figure 3.4 Coupon tests for 32 mm plate

3-4
Table 3.1 Measured material properties

E(GPa) a) Fy(MPa) a) Fu(MPa) a) εu(%) a)
CHS 196 498 b) 540 25.9
EHS 216 421 530 34.7
Plate (tp=25.7mm) 201 358 482 28.0
Plate (tp=32.0mm) 214 356 472 30.0
a)
Properties determined by the average measurements from several tensile coupon tests.
b)
Using the 0.2% offset method, as material was cold-formed.
3.1.1 Stub column tests

In addition to the test coupons, a stub column test was performed on both the CHS and
the EHS to determine their properties under compression load. The specimen size and the
testing procedure were as recommended by SSRC (Galambos 1998). Before testing, four strain
gauges were placed around the tube’s circumference at the mid-height (see Figure 3.5). This
allowed the generation of an average σ-ε relationships for the tube materials. Results from the
tests are given in Table 3.2
Figure 3.5 Strain gauges on stub columns
Table 3.2 Stub column properties and test results

Length (mm) Weight (Kg) Area a) (mm2) Cscc) (kN)
CHS 150 b) 2.91 2471 -1213
EHS 104.7 b) 2.51 3053 -1393
a)
Measured area obtained by weighing a tube segment and using a density of 7850 kg/m3.
b) Average length measured with a caliper.
c) C = Stub column ultimate compressive strength.
sc

3-5
Using the data acquired through the test of the CHS (see Figure 3.6), the calculation of
average Young’s Modulus agreed with the value previously determined from the tensile test
coupons. A similar conclusion was achieved from the computation of the average yield stress.
For the EHS, the average Young’s Modulus (see Figure 3.7) also agreed well with the value
previously determined by tensile test coupons. However, an increase of 8% was observed when
the EHS stub column yield stress was compared to the tensile test coupons. This difference has
been attributed to the uneven manner in which the EHS stub column changed its shape through
the test, which likely resulted in a higher value.
Figure 3.6 Stub column response of CHS

3-6
Stress (MPa)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200 SGE SGW
150
100 SGN SGS
50
Strain (mm/mm)
0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016 0.0018 0.002
Figure 3.7 Stub column response of EHS
3.2 Test specimens and instrumentation

A total of six connection types were examined throughout this experimental program (see
Figure 3.8). Connection type A was fabricated with a slotted CHS which was connected to a
25mm thick gusset plate by longitudinal fillet welds. Connection type B was originally fabricated
as connection type A, however, the slot was filled in when the weld return was included. This
connection type eliminates the reduction in the gross cross-sectional area of the tube due to
slotting. For connection type C, a 25mm thick gusset plate was slotted so the CHS gross cross-
sectional area remained unaffected. For this connection type, the tube and the gusset plate
were connected by longitudinal fillet welds too.
For the CHS tension tests, two specimens were fabricated for each connection type (A, B
and C) and the main difference between specimens (from a similar connection type) was their
weld length. Hence, they were labelled in a progressive order as the weld length increased.
Additionally, specimens from the connection types A and C were fabricated and tested under
compression loading.
Five EHS specimens were fabricated for tensile testing. In order to avoid confusion
amongst the EHS connections, these were simple labelled in a progressive order (E1 to E5)
3-7
depending on their connection type and weld length. The connection types E1 and E2 were
fabricated with a slotted EHS, with the gusset plates oriented to give a large eccentricity and
only longitudinal weld lengths were used to transfer the load. Connection type E5 was similar to
these connections, however the orientation of the gusset plate was changed to give a smaller
eccentricity. In general, the connection types E3 and E4 were similar to connection type C, but
the EHS was oriented to produce a large eccentricity.
Figure 3.8 Connection types examined
In all cases, the test specimens had a Lw/w ratio within the range from 0.60 to 0.90 which
guaranteed the presence of the shear lag phenomenon during the tests. All gusset plates and
welds were dimensioned so as not to be critical. Fillet welds had a nominal size of 10 or 15 mm
and they were fabricated using E480XX electrodes (CSA 2003). The tube lengths were 1.5 and
2.0 metres for the CHS and EHS respectively. In order to facilitate the tests, two identical
connections were fabricated at each tube end, which allowed the testing of two connections
with very similar weld lengths simultaneously (see Figure 3.9). The average dimensions and
properties of the specimens are shown in Table 3.3. Additionally, all measured dimensions from
the test specimens are given in Appendix A.

3-8
Table 3.3 Measured dimensions and geometric properties of test specimens

al Lw w Lw/w tp Wp
Specimen Tube
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
A1 10 156 0.65 197
A2 10 192 0.80 198
A3C 10 206 238 0.86 197
CHS
B1 9 169 0.71 197
168.5x4.89 25.7
B2 9 208 0.87 198
Aa)=2471 mm2
C1 14 162 0.67 2 x 74.3
C2 14 195 239 0.81 2 x 75.5
C3C 14 200 0.83 2 x 74.3
E1 13 145 0.61 161
234
E2 EHS 14 182 0.77 161
E3 110.9x221.2x5.94 15 146 0.61 32.0 2 x 94.0
237
E4 Aa)=3054 mm2 15 175 0.73 2 x 93.8
E5 15 185 234 0.79 270
a) Measured area calculated by weighing a piece of HSS and using a density of 7850 kg/m3
All the specimens were loaded in quasi-static axial tension to failure in a universal testing
machine and displacement control was used throughout each test. Four LVDTs (linear variable
differential transformers) were placed on each specimen to measure deformations during the
test. The tube deformation reported herein corresponds to the average deformation measured
by two LDVTs from the centre of the tube to the gusset plate. Each specimen was also equipped
with 10 strain gauges to establish the strains in the connection region (see Figure 3.10). All this
information was acquired with a computer during the tests and the use of white-washing
allowed the identification of regions with high strain concentration that in most cases induced an
early fracture in the tube material.
For the compression tests performed on specimens A3C and C3C, a minimum free
distance of 2tp was provided in the gusset plate between the machine clamps and the tube
ends. In addition to the instrumentation used in the tension tests, a fifth LVDT was placed at the
test specimen mid-height to measure its out-of-straightness during the test.

3-9
Figure 3.9 Experiment setup for tests
Figure 3.10 Location of strain gauges on test specimens

3-10
3.3 Experimental test results
During the tests, the connection strength was determined principally by one of the
following failure mechanisms: a) a tear out failure (TO) where the crack initiated at the weld
termination then propagated through the tube base material near the weld toes, b) a
circumferential fracture (CF), where the crack initiated at the weld termination then propagated
around the tube circumference, and c) a combination of both failure modes (TO-CF). In the
latter, both failure mechanisms occurred simultaneously at the connection end. The four LVDTs
installed on each test specimen measured the overall elongation from the mid-length of the test
specimen to the gusset plates. Even though two connections were fabricated alike for each test
specimen (one at each tube end), failure was generally concentrated at one end. This
behaviour has been attributed to variations in actual weld lengths and imperfections included
during fabrication. The load-deformation response shown for the test results corresponds to the
failed connection. In general, all the connections exhibited an uneven strain distribution along
the connection and around the tube circumference. From the data acquired during the test, the
strain distribution in the connections is only presented for a stage near the end of the
connection elastic response. The rest of the strain readings are given in Appendix C.
3.3.1 Slotted CHS connection - slot end not filled (type A)

The use of this connection type is advantageous since the fabrication tolerance for the
slot makes assembly of the parts easier. However, the presence of an open slot end can affect
the overall connection behaviour, as seen by the tests. In general, the behaviour of these
connections can be described in several stages. Initially, the connections showed an elastic
response with an equivalent constant stiffness. Afterwards, the strain concentration in the slot
region (due to the presence of the shear lag phenomenon) induced yielding of the tube material
there, thus modifying the overall connection stiffness. The magnitude of the shear lag (affecting
each connection), which is determined by the weld length, increases as the weld length
decreases, and the weld length was the only distinction between the two test specimens.
(Figure 3.11 shows a superior performance for the test specimen with the longer weld length,
A2). At this yielding stage, whitewash flaking confirmed the strain concentration taking place in
the tube base material near the weld start (in the slot region). The strain gauge readings from

3-11
the test specimens also confirmed this, as they showed an uneven strain distribution around the
tube circumference and along the connection (see Figure 3.12).
Figure 3.11 Load-deformation response for connections type A
As the test specimens elongated, deformation was concentrated in the slot region
producing a gradual change of the tube shape (inducing the formation of a neck there). In
addition, the uneven strain distribution at the slot cross-section (due to the shear lag
phenomenon) stimulated a quick increase in the strains at the weld start location, where
straining of the tube material continued until fracture occurred. In general, a longer weld length
allowed a better load transfer over the connection which diminished the connection
deformation, however tube material fracture always governed the connection behaviour. Once
fracture started, the crack continued to propagate gradually from the weld heel to its toe. Then,
depending of the load level and the strain distribution in the connection, the crack would
continue to propagate over the weld length (TO) or around the tube circumference (CF).
Specimen A1 showed both failure modes and specimen A2 only CF (see Figure 3.13). The
maximum load and deformation attained by these test specimens are shown in Table 3.4.

3-12
Figure 3.12 Strain distribution for test specimens A1 and A2 at 800kN
Table 3.4 Ultimate capacity for connections type A

Deformation @
Weld Length Test Load Failure
Max Load Nux/AnFu
(mm) Nux (kN) Mode
(mm)
Specimen A1 156 1032 8.8 TO-CF 0.87
Specimen A2 192 1154 8.8 CF 0.97
Figure 3.13 Failure in test specimens A1 and A2

3-13
3.3.2 Slotted CHS connection - slot end filled (with a weld return) (type B)
The addition of a weld return to these test specimens eliminated the possibility of a failure
through the tube net area. Moreover, it allowed the attainment of the maximum load with small
deformations (see Figure 3.14). In both tests, the load increase produced a strain concentration
that was located at the weld return region (specifically at the weld toe). This behaviour has been
attributed to the difference in the ductility of the return welds, since these were loaded at 90º
with respect to their longitudinal axis which creates a region of high stiffness.
Figure 3.14 Load-deformation response for connections type B
Whitewash flaking confirmed the strain concentration taking place at the weld return
region as the tube material yielded there at an early stage of the tests. Moreover, the readings
of the strain gauges always exhibited very uneven strain distributions around the connections.
Figure 3.15 shows the strain distribution around the tube and along the connection length, at the
end of the elastic response.
The strain gauge readings around the tube circumference showed an improvement
compared to the strain distribution from connections type A. However, the strains experienced
an increase right at the weld return region, relative to connections type A (see Figures 3.15 and
3.12 at z=+50mm). For specimens B1 and B2, the strain distribution presented a dependency

3-14
on the weld length and the specimen B1 (which had the smaller weld length) showed higher
strain at z=+50mm (see Figure 3.15).
Figure 3.15 Strain distribution in test specimens B1 and B2 at 800kN
Once the overall connection stiffness noticeably changed, any load increment was
associated with a gradual increase of the strains in the weld return region and a change in the
tube cross-section shape. The maximum load was limited by the propagation of a crack in the
tube material near the weld return toe. This crack spread gradually at a 45 degree angle from
the gusset plate. Finally, specimen B1 showed a TO failure and specimen B2 a CF (see Figure
3.16). The maximum load and deformation attained by these test specimens are shown in Table
3.5.
Table 3.5 Ultimate capacity for connections type B
Deformation @ Nux/AnFu
Max Load
(mm) Nux (kN) Mode (An=Ag)
(mm)
Specimen B1 169 1087 6.1 TO 0.91
Specimen B2 208 1211 6.1 CF 1.02

3-15
Figure 3.16 Failure in test specimens B1 and B2
3.3.3 Slotted EHS connection - slot end not filled (gusset plate oriented to give a large
eccentricity)
The behaviour of these connections emulated the response of specimens type A.
However, some differences occurred herein which have been associated mainly to the tube
geometry. During these tests, the overall connection response can be described by several
stages. At first, the test specimens had a similar elastic stiffness, while strain concentrations
developed at the slot region (specifically in the tube near the weld start). This eventually caused
tube material yielding at that location and affected the overall connection response. In general,
the magnitude of this strain concentration was directly determined by the weld length. As a
consequence, the elastic response of specimen E1 had an early ending (relative to specimen
E2) as it had the shorter weld length (see Figure 3.17).

3-16
Figure 3.17 Load-deformation response for connections

type E1 and E2
At a load of 600 kN (near the end of the elastic response), the strain gauge readings
around the tube circumference showed an uneven strain distribution (as expected for this
connection type). In both tests, the maximum strain along the longitudinal weld took place at the
weld beginning and a much lower value was recorded at the slot open end (see Figure 3.18). At
this load level, considerable differences were observed between the readings from specimens
E1 and E2 in the weld region. E2 had higher local strains than E1, despite having a longer weld
length, which initially represented an inconsistency with the results from other connections
(where the strain concentration decayed as the weld length increased). A further examination of
specimen E1 revealed that during the fabrication of specimen E1 the tube was over-slotted, with
a slot length of 268 mm. This dimension far exceeded the required weld length which was only
145 mm. Moreover, the weld fabrication started near the slot end leaving a considerable portion
of the slotted tube free behind the welds (see Figure 3.19). Hence, the progressive deformation
of connection E1 was accompanied by a bowing outwards of the free slotted tube portion as the
load increased. This may have positively affected the strain distribution in the connection since
it modified the strain concentration at the slot end. The bowing in the slotted tube E1 did not
eliminate the shear lag phenomenon, but was sufficient to change the connection strain
distribution.

3-17
Figure 3.18 Strain distribution for test specimens E1 and E2 at 600kN
Once the tube material started to yield, the connection deformation began to concentrate
near the open slot region (adjacent to the beginning of the welds). This local straining was
combined with gradual propagation of material yielding in surrounding areas, illustrated by
flaking of the whitewash along the connection. In addition, yield lines emanated from the slot
into the tube. In both test specimens, these yield lines were neatly depicted on the tube surface
(this contrasted with the CHS connections where material yielding was mainly exemplified by a
region rather than lines). This different behaviour has been attributed to the EHS tube material
properties, which exhibited a clear yield plateau unlike the CHS material. Finally, close to the
attainment of the maximum load, the tube started to neck at the open slot region, slowing the
load increase. Then, the connection distortion stopped as the tube material fractured (see
Figure 3.19).

3-18
Figure 3.19 Failure in test specimens E1 and E2
The crack continued propagating around the tube circumference (CF) in both specimens
until complete tube rupture. Although the maximum load in specimen E2 nearly reached the
tube gross cross-sectional area yield load (AgFy =1286 kN), the capacity was still limited by the
uneven strain distribution induced by shear lag. Finally, the maximum load and deformation
attained by these test specimens are shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Ultimate capacity for connections type E1 and E2

Deformation @ Nux/
Max Load
(mm) Nux (kN) Mode AnFu
(mm)
Specimen E1 145 1109 9.9 CF 0.81
Specimen E2 182 1236 11.1 CF 0.90
3.3.4 Slotted EHS connection - slot end not filled (gusset plate oriented to give small
eccentricity)
The change in the gusset plate orientation significantly improved the behaviour of this test
specimen relative to its counterpart with a large eccentricity (see Figure 3.20).

3-19
Figure 3.20 Load-deformation response for connection type E5
At a load of 1040 kN (near the end of the elastic response), the strain gauge readings
around the tube circumference showed a very uneven strain distribution, illustrated by Figure
3.21 (as was observed previously in specimens E1 and E2). Along the parallel welds, the strain
distribution again reached its maximum value at the beginning of the weld as before.
Figure 3.21 Strain distribution in test specimen E5 at 1040 kN

3-20
As part of the transition from an elastic response to a distinct yield plateau, the connection
deformation began to concentrate at the open slot region and shear yield lines (visible due to
the whitewash flaking) also emanated from this region towards the tube mid-length. The low
connection eccentricity significantly improved the load transfer from the EHS to the gusset
plate, relative to its counterpart with a large eccentricity. This also decreased the strain
concentration occurring at the beginning of the weld, thus allowing the attainment of the yield
stress across the tube net section. At this load level, shear yield lines continued to propagate
but now over the entire tube length, increasing the overall deformation from 12 to almost 27mm.
In contrast with test specimens E1 and E2 (where the overall deformation was mainly
concentrated at the slot region), the total deformation here was a combination of the
deformation at the slot region plus the overall tube elongation due to material yielding. In order
to continue increasing the load, the material at the net section started to strain harden. The
uneven strain distribution taking place at the open slot, aggravated by the shear lag
phenomenon, eventually caused tube fracture there (see Figure 3.22).
Once material fracture began, the load decreased as a consequence of the crack
propagation around the tube circumference (CF), until complete tube rupture. Even though the
tube material reached strain hardening, the maximum connection efficiency (Nux/AnFu) was
restrained to only 94%. Nevertheless, this connection did allow the attainment of complete tube
yielding (AgFy=1286 KN) which may represent an advantage of this structural shape over the
CHS. The maximum load and deformation attained by this test specimen is shown in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7 Ultimate capacity for connection type E5

Weld Deformation @ Nux/
Test Load Failure
Length Max Load
Nux (kN) Mode A nF u
(mm) (mm)
Specimen E5 185 1282 31.8 CF 0.94

3-21
Figure 3.22 Failure in test specimen E5
3.3.5 Slotted gusset plate to tube connections in tension

This connection type avoids any loss of the tube cross-sectional area and its potential
effect on connection strength. Even though this may be considered its principal advantage over
slotted tube connections, the slot in the gusset plate can negatively affect the connection
stiffness, leading to excessive deformation of the gusset plate and consequently to the tube
cross-section (as was observed during the tests).
3.3.5.1 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection (type C)

A strain concentration took place at the beginning of the welds (in the CHS) and interior
corners of the gusset plate. Close to 600 kN, the gusset plate yielded and caused flaking of the
whitewash there and a change in the overall connection stiffness (see Figure 3.23).

3-22
Figure 3.23 Load-deformation response for connections type C
For both test specimens, this happened at a lower load level than for the slotted tube
connections. At this load stage, the strain gauge readings around the tube circumference
showed an uneven strain distribution and the maximum strain value took place at the beginning
of the welds (see Figure 3.24). In addition, the minimum value (near zero) was detected for the
strain gauge located at 90º (see Figure 3.24), as for slotted tube connections. Moreover, close
to attainment of the maximum load the readings at 90º switched to negative values (indicating
compressive strains). This initially-unexpected behaviour was attributed to the excessive
distortion of the tube cross-section, due to the gusset plate bowing and the necking of the tube.
The readings along the parallel welds also showed typical variations, with the highest strain
concentration occurring at the beginning of the weld (see Figure 3.24). Of the two tests, the
higher strains were registered in specimen C1 which has the shorter weld length.

3-23
Figure 3.24 Strain distribution in test specimens C1 and C2 at 595kN
Beyond the elastic response, each load increment resulted in increasing distortion of the
tube cross-section. Moreover, the bowing outwards of the gusset plate introduced out-of-plane
strains at the tube surface which are believed to have induced a triaxial state of stress at the
beginning of the weld. This behaviour continued throughout the tests until the material fractured
(see Figure 3.25).
Once the fracture started (at the beginning of the welds), the crack continued propagating
around the tube circumference (CF) in both tests. These tests again corroborated how the
presence of shear lag can affect the strain distribution in such connections. Nevertheless, the
magnitude of this strain concentration (which triggers the material fracture) is a consequence of
factors such as: magnitude of the shear lag, bowing of the gusset plate, tube cross-section
distortions and tube necking. Based on these two tests, it seems necessary to consider the
influence that the gusset plate dimension may have on the connection strength in a further
parametric analysis. Moreover, the potential need to limit the maximum load based on the tube
cross-section distortion has arisen herein since large distortions were observed before the
attainment of the connection maximum load. Finally, the maximum load and deformation
attained by these test specimens are shown in Table 3.8.

3-24
Table 3.8 Ultimate capacity for connections type C
Max Load
(mm)
Specimen C1 162 1107 13.9 CF 0.83
Specimen C2 195 1196 16.8 CF 0.90
Figure 3.25 Failure in test specimens C1 and C2
3.3.5.2 Slotted gusset plate to EHS connection (gusset plate oriented to give a large
eccentricity)
These two connections exhibited a strain concentration taking place in the EHS near the
beginning of the welds and also in the gusset plate adjacent to the end of the welds (at the tube
end). Near 850 kN, the materials in specimen E3 commenced yielding in these regions (as was
confirmed by whitewash flaking) producing a change in the overall connection stiffness (see
Figure 3.26).

3-25
Figure 3.26 Load-deformation response for connections

type E3 and E4
Once yielding started, it continued propagating from there towards the tube mid-length
while the strain concentration continued increasing near the weld region. In addition, shear yield
lines (visible from whitewash flaking) emanated from the connection region to the tube mid-
length. Even though the response of specimen E4 remained elastic at this load level (850 kN), it
followed a similar behaviour afterwards.
In order to transition from an elastic response to a distinct yield plateau, both connections
required a large elongation (approximately of 20 mm). These slotted gusset plates exhibited
smaller deformations throughout this transition, and even during the incursion of the EHS
material into the plastic range, in comparison to their CHS test counterparts (connection type
C). This better behaviour has been related to the higher moment of inertia of the gusset plates
for these connections (E3 and E4). Gusset plates with a 32mm thickness were used herein,
whereas 25.7mm gusset plate were used for connections type C (see Table 3.3).
At a load of 800 kN, the strain gauge readings around the tube circumference showed the
typical uneven strain distribution observed previously. An increase in the weld length (for

3-26
specimen E4) only produced a marginal reduction in the strain magnitude (see Figure 3.27).
Moreover, close to attainment of the maximum load the strain readings at the gusset plate
corners reported a considerable increase which has been attributed to the tube ovalization in
the connection region.
Figure 3.27 Strain distribution for test specimens E3 and E4 at 800kN
Beyond the yield load, the connections entered the strain hardening range, but this load
increase was associated with a gradual increase in the bowing outwards of the gusset plate.
This distorted the tube cross-section and induced a triaxial state of stress near the beginning of
the weld. This gradual degradation of the connection continued until the material fractured (see
Figure 3.28).

3-27
Figure 3.28 Failure in test specimens E3 and E4
Once the fracture started, the crack continued propagating around the tube circumference
(CF) in both tests. In a similar manner to the CHS connections, these tests illustrated the need
to consider the influence that the gusset plate dimensions may have on the connection strength
and the need to potentially limit the maximum load based on the tube cross-section. Finally, the
maximum load and deformation attained by these test specimens are shown in Table 3.9.

Max Load
(mm)
Specimen E3 146 1336 43.9 CF 0.82
Specimen E4 1175 1400 53.4 CF 0.86
3.3.6 Connections under compression load

In order to comprehend the influence that the shear lag phenomenon may have on
connections under compression load, two connection types were studied during this
experimental program; the first connection was a slotted CHS to a gusset plate, and the second
was a slotted gusset plate to a CHS. In both cases, the governing failure mechanism
corresponded to a local bucking (LB) of the CHS at the connection region. Nevertheless, the

3-28
occurrence of this failure mechanism in each connection was influenced by factors
characteristic of each connection type.
3.3.6.1 Slotted CHS to gusset plate connection - slot end not filled
The behaviour of this connection type may be explained by several stages. Initially, the
connection exhibited an elastic response that allowed the attainment of almost 70% of its
maximum load (see Figure 3.29). In a similar manner to the tension tests, a strain concentration
developed at the slot region but, due to the difference in the load condition herein (compression
loading), this strain concentration induced tube local buckling at the slot region rather than
material straining to fracture.
Figure 3.29 Load-deformation response for connection A3C
The tube local buckling started near the beginning of the welds and then gradually
extended to the entire slotted tube cross-section. As result of this, the tube deformation was
concentrated at that part of the connection. With increasing loads, the slot local buckle grew and
the gusset plate moved towards the CHS wall, thus reducing the slot length. From LVDT
readings, it could be ascertained that the tube out-of-straightness increased slowly before the
attainment of the maximum load. At the maximum load, the LVDT indicated an out-of-
straighness of 1.3 mm. After this load, full contact between the gusset plate and the tube wall

3-29
occurred and this triggered an increase on the tube out-of-straightness and the rotation of the
gusset plate free length (the distance left between the CHS and the machine clamps). This
behaviour was associated with the start of overall bucking of the CHS. At this point, the test was
stopped in order to avoid large moments being applied to the testing machine.
In a similar manner to the tension tests, an uneven strain distribution existed throughout
the test. Near the end of the elastic response (at 800 kN), the compressive strain around the
tube circumference reached its maximum at the beginning of the welds in a comparable manner
to the tensile test specimens (see Figure 3.30). The strain distribution along the connection also
reproduced the behaviour seen during the tension tests (see Figure 3.30).
,
z (see Figure 3.10)
Figure 3.30 Strain distribution in test specimen A3C at 800kN.
Even though the maximum load attained corresponded to 93% of AgFy, this required
considerable deformation at the slot (see Figure 3.31). Besides the weld length, the slot length
is likely to have a considerable influence on the connection capacity.These two parameters will
hence be considered in further parametric analysis. For a long member (such as a brace in a
regular building) an efficiency as high as 0.93 AgFy would never be required, as the brace
capacity will be governed by the member slenderness ratio. The maximum load and
deformation attained for the test specimen is shown in Table 3.10.

3-30
Table 3.10 Ultimate capacity for connection type A3C
Deformation @ Nux/
Max Load
(mm) Nux (kN) Mode A gF y
(mm)
Specimen A3C 206 -1145 4.8 LB 0.93
Figure 3.31 Failure in test specimen A3C
3.3.6.2 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection

In a similar manner to the tension test, this connection type had an initial elastic range of
almost 70% of its maximum load. Again, an uneven strain distribution formed at the connection
region with a high strain concentration near the beginning of the welds, resulting in local
buckling of the tube at the location. Even though an un-slotted tube would generally require a
high load to reach local buckling, the bowing inwards of the gusset plate exacerbated the tube
local instability. Near the end of the elastic response (600 kN), whitewash flaking was visible at
interior corners of the gusset plate. Then, the bowing inwards of the gusset plate began to affect
the connection deformation which, became a combination of the deformation of the tube and
the gusset plate. LVDT readings showed that the tube out-of-straightness slowly increased until
the attainment of the maximum load, at which time the out-of-straightness reached a value of
2.0 mm. After the maximum connection deformation progressed in a stable, ductile manner (see
Figure 3.32).

3-31
Figure 3.32 Load-deformation response for connection C3C
In the same way as the tension connection type C, similar uneven strain distributions were
present throughout the test. The connection strain distributions (at 600 kN) recorded are shown
in Figure 3.33. Nevertheless, the lack of a slot reduced the strain concentration in front of the
weld region (at z = 50mm in Figure 3.33).
Figure 3.33 Strain distribution in test specimen C3C at 600kN.

3-32
The bowing inwards of the gusset plate negatively affected the connection behaviour,
causing premature the tube local bucking at the weld region and a subsequent increase in the
tube distortion (see Figure 3.34). Because of this, the maximum load attained here
corresponded to only 70% of AgFy. This illustrates the need to limit the ultimate connection
capacity by a distortion limit, as has been suggested previously for the comparable tension test.
The influence of weld length and gusset plate dimensions will thus be considered in further
parametric analysis. The maximum load and deformation attained for the test specimen is
shown in Table 3.11.
Table 3.11 Ultimate capacity for connection type C3C
Deformation @ Nux/AgFy
Max Load
(mm) Nux (kN) Mode An=Ag
(mm)
Specimen C3C 200 - 869 6.0 LB 0.70
Figure 3.34 Failure in test specimen C3C
3.4 Summary of this experimental program

Even though all the tensile test specimens were designed to avoid failure by modes other
than circumferential fracture (CF), this was only accomplished by the test specimens A2, B2,
C1, C2, E1 and E5. Specimen B1 failed by block shear tear out (TO) of the base material along
the weld and specimen A1 presented a combination of both failure modes (CF-TO). In addition,
failure of the specimens tested under compression loading was due to local bucking at the
connection end (LB). By means of this program, it was found that several factors influenced

3-33
connection failure. In general, all hollow sections showed ovalization of their cross-section
before failure and this was especially pronounced in connections with a slotted gusset plate
(C1, C2, C3C, E3 and E4). Moreover, strain gauge readings always showed a very non-uniform
strain distribution during the tests. (Only some of the strain gauge readings have been shown in
this chapter; the remainder can be found in Appendix C. There, these readings are compared
with readings from FE models of these connections). Finally, a summary of the ultimate
capacities and failure modes for all tests is given in Table 3.12. These results are evaluated
against current design provision in the next chapter.
Table 3.12 Ultimate capacity of test specimens

Test Test Load
Failure Mode
Specimen Nux (kN)
A1 CF-TO 1032
A2 CF 1154
A3C LB -1145
B1 TO 1087
B2 CF 1211
C1 CF 1107
C2 CF 1196
C3C LB -869
E1 CF 1109
E2 CF 1236
E3 CF 1336
E4 CF 1400
E5 CF 1282

4-1
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTS AGAINST DESIGN PROVISIONS
A single governing limit state has not been established for slotted end connections, based
on geometrical properties such as the weld length (Lw), distance between welds (w) or the ratio
between these parameters (Lw/w). On the contrary, the philosophy behind current design
provisions (AISC 2005, CSA 2001 & CEN 2005) demands the check of several limit states
(such as yielding of the gross cross-sectional area, circumferential tensile fracture through the
net area and tear out failure) in order to determine the predicted connection strength. This
chapter hence shows a comparison between the tests results from research undertaken on
tension-loaded slotted end connections to hollow sections (see Table 4.1) and these provisions,
to verify their accuracy.
Table 4.1 Current research on slotted end connection to hollow sections
Research No. of tests Hollow section used Fabrication Type Failure Mode
Slotted tube to CF (16)

British Steel (1992) 24 CHS, RHS & SHS
gusset plate GP or BLa) (8)
Korol et al. (1994) 18 RHS & SHS
gusset plate TO (11)
Slotted tube to
Zhao and Hancock (1995) 48 RHS & SHS TO (48)
gusset plate
Cheng et al. (1996) 9 CHS
gusset plate Necking (7)
Slotted tube to
Zhao et al. (1999) 24 RHS & SHS TO (24)
gusset plate
Wilkinson et al. (2002) 8 RHS

Slotted tube to WFb) (5)
gusset plate TO (3)
CF (9)
Slotted tube to gusset plate and TO (1)
By the author at U of T 13 CHS & EHS TO-CF (1)
Slotted gusset plate to tube
LBd) (2)
TO (25)
Ling (2005) 45 CHS with VHSc) Slotted gusset plate to tube TO-CF (4)
CF (16)
a)
Failure of gusset plate (GP) or through the bolts (BL).
b)
Failure through the welds (WF).
c) Connections fabricated with very high strength tubes (VHS).
d)
Local buckling (LB) of the connection since it was tested in compression.
For these comparisons, all the resistance factors ( φ ) and partial safety factors ( γ M ) have
been equated to 1.0. (This includes the “partial resistance factor” corresponding to fracture
(0.85) in CSA). Only the experimental data corresponding to tear out failure (TO),
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH 4: EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTS

4-2
circumferential tensile fracture (CF) of the HSS or overall tube necking are considered. All test
data pertaining to the tests performed by other researchers are contained in Appendix B.
4.1 Experimental program by British Steel (1992)

British Steel tested 24 specimens fabricated with CHS, RHS and SHS under tension
loading. These specimens were fabricated with a weld return which provided reinforcement to
the connection region (Hence, Ag=An). These specimens had Lw/w ratios ranging from 0.91 to
1.04; 15 specimens failed by CF, one specimen was considered to have developed a neck since
it attained 100% of AnFu, and eight failed through their gusset plate or the bolts. In addition to
these tests, a duplicate set of these 24 specimens was tested under compression loading.
However, the use of a three dimensional ring (to provide pinned ends to the specimens) and the
inclusion of an initial eccentricity due to the support configuration caused failure of the
specimens at lower loads than predicted. Thus, these compression test results have not been
included herein. Since the report from British Steel lacks information on the weld sizes, TO
failure predictions have been included herein using a weld leg size of zero.
Table 4.2 shows a comparison between test results and the predictions from current
codes or guides. From this table, one can appreciate that whereas for CSA (2001) and Packer
& Henderson (1997) the predicted failure mechanism was CF (considering that the connection
strength for all specimens was defined by CF), for AISC this was not the case (since 6 out of 16
specimens were predicted to fail by a TO failure) which does not reproduce accurately what was
seen during the test.
The use of the American design provision (AISC 2005), on average, provides a better
connection strength prediction (with a mean = 1.07) than the Canadian design provision (CSA
2001) when a CF failure is expected. Moreover, the use of a reduced eccentricity ( x' ) in the
AISC equation can improve these predictions even more. Even though AISC provides a better
overall CF prediction than CSA, it fails to consistently predict the correct failure mode (CF) since
the predicted block shear strength (TO) is sometimes lower. The use of the efficiency factors
suggested by Packer & Henderson (1997) results in very conservative design predictions.

4-3
Table 4.2 Actual and predicted connection strength for British Steel (1992) data
Circumferential Tensile Fracture Block Shear
Test AISC AISC AISC

Failure Nux/AnFu CSA
Packer &
(2005) &
Eurocode
Specimen Capacity a) (2005) Nux/ (2005) Nux/ Nux/ Henderson Nux/ (CEN
Nux [kN] Mode (An=Ag)b) (2001) CSA
using x Nu using x' Nu Nu [kN] Nu (1997) Nu (2001)
2005)
Nu [kN] Nu [kN] Nu [kN] Nu [kN]
Nu [kN]
C-Sep-1 256 CF 0.90 285 0.90 285 0.90 191 1.34 177 1.45 232 225
C-Sep-2 326 CF 0.90 362 0.90 362 0.90 246 1.32 224 1.45 315 305
C-Sep-3 371 CF 0.89 416 0.89 416 0.89 285 1.30 312 1.19 355 344
C-Sep-4 522 CF 0.93 561 0.93 561 0.93 363 1.44 348 1.50 420 406
C-Sep-5 652 CF 0.85 763 0.85 763 0.85 499 1.31 473 1.38 583 565
C-Sep-6 795 CF 0.84 952 0.84 952 0.84 631 1.26 590 1.35 811 784
S-Sep-2 274 CF 0.94 223 1.23 251 1.09 188 1.46 181 1.52 291 282
S-Sep-3 505 CF 0.96 393 1.29 462 1.09 336 1.50 325 1.56 524 508
S-Sep-4 478 CF 0.85 435 1.10 472 1.01 365 1.31 348 1.37 475 460
S-Sep-5 833 CF 0.94 686 1.21 759 1.10 587 1.42 549 1.52 890 861
S-Sep-6 949 CF 0.90 805 1.18 911 1.04 680 1.40 650 1.46 935 906
R-Sep-3 475 CF 0.89 421 1.13 492 0.96 347 1.37 332 1.43 576 559
R-Sep-5 384 CF 0.97 292 1.32 329 1.17 258 1.49 245 1.57 406 393
R-Sep-8 711 CF 0.72 815 0.87 914 0.78 633 1.12 610 1.17 970 939
R-Sep-9 913 CF 0.87 867 1.05 1012 0.90 665 1.37 786 1.16 1085 1053
R-Sep-10 560 NK 1.00 409 1.37 437 1.28 363 1.54 346 1.62 509 492
Mean 1.07 0.98 1.37 1.42
COV (%) 17.3 13.8 7.7 10.0
a)
CF represents circumferential fracture and NK represents necking of the HSS;
b) As slot end was welded, it is likely appropriate to assume that An = Ag.
4.2 Experimental program by Korol et al. (1994)

Korol et al. tested 18 specimens, with Lw/w ratios ranging from 0.40 to 1.0 and fabricated
with slotted RHS and SHS. Since these test specimens were assembled with only longitudinal
welds, the strain concentration was located at the start of the welds (near the slot at the weld
heel). The tests failed by CF through the HSS net area in seven specimens while the other 11
failed by TO failure. The HSS steel was reported as CSA Grade 40.21- 350W, however its
measured yield stress and tensile strength were not reported. Because of this, the TO failure
predictions have been omitted in Table 4.3 and the CF comparison has been made based on
the efficiency factors (U) reported by Korol and those predicted by design provisions.
Although the CSA design provision provided a better predicted connection strength than
AISC, and even with a reduced eccentricity, the efficiency attained for specimens failing by CF
always surpassed these predicted values. The causes producing these results have been
related to specific factors affecting each design provision. Even though CSA generally provides
more conservative values than AISC, this was not evident herein. As specimens 1a to 3b had
Lw/w ratios close to 1.0, CSA assigned them an efficiency factor near 0.90. (CSA assigned a

4-4
low efficiency to only specimen 5a which had a Lw/w ratio near 0.60). On the other hand, AISC
does not allow full efficiency attainment for RHS and SHS, as it does for CHS. Because of this,
the efficiency factors by AISC are lower than CSA values, for ratios Lw/w >1.0. Even though
consideration of the plate thickness can improve the calculation of AISC efficiency factors, the
AISC U’ values generally remained below the CSA U values. The influence of the gusset plate
orientation on connection efficiency (Ureal) of RHS was found to be very minor in the test, but
AISC predicted efficiency differs when efficiency factors for specimens 1a vs 3b and 1b vs 3a
are compared.
Table 4.3 Actual and predicted connection efficiency for Korol et al. (1994) data
Circumferential Tensile Fracture
Test Packer &
AISC AISC CSA
Capacity Failure Henderson
Ureal (2005) Ureal (2005) Ureal (2001) Ureal Ureal
Specimen Nux Modea) (1997)
[kN] using x /U using x' / U’ /U /U
[U] [U'] [U]
[U]
1a 811 CF 0.98 0.75 1.31 0.80 1.23 0.89 1.10 0.75 1.31
1b 836 CF 1.04 0.74 1.40 0.80 1.31 0.87 1.19 0.62 1.68
2a 664 CF 0.95 0.79 1.20 0.84 1.13 0.86 1.10 0.62 1.53
2b 725 CF 1.00 0.80 1.26 0.85 1.18 0.89 1.13 0.75 1.33
3a 845 CF 1.05 0.86 1.22 0.91 1.15 0.86 1.23 0.62 1.69
3b 854 CF 1.05 0.87 1.21 0.92 1.15 0.88 1.19 0.75 1.40
5a 612 CF 0.88 0.66 1.33 0.74 1.19 0.75 1.17 0.62 1.42
Mean 1.28 1.19 1.16 1.48
COV(%) 5.8 5.2 4.3 10.6
a)
CF represents circumferential fracture.
4.3 Experimental program by Zhao and Hancock (1995)

Zhao and Hancock tested 48 slotted tube connections fabricated using SHS and RHS
with wall thicknesses varying from 1.6 to 3.0 mm. This program was aimed at assessing the
accuracy of then-current design equations for welds in sections less than 3mm thick and
determining the influence that the gusset plate orientation and weld length may have on the
failure. Hence, the weld length in all the specimens was chosen to prevent CF. (These
specimens had Lw/w ratios ranging from 0.37 to 0.55). Even though all the test specimens failed
by TO failure, Table 4.4 shows a comparison between the test results and the predicted CF and
TO capacities according to current codes. Packer and Henderson (1997) have also suggested
that TO failure will govern for ratios Lw/w < 0.6.

4-5
As shown in Figure 4.4, AISC (2005) predicts TO as the governing failure mechanism for
42 out of 48 specimens. Moreover, the consideration of the plate thickness in the AISC model
would predict solely TO failures. On the other hand, the small ratios Lw/w values herein (ranging
from 0.37 to 0.55) negatively impact the CSA predictions for CF. As a result, CSA predicts CF
as the governing failure mechanism for all tests, which clearly contradicts the test results.
Since the weld sizes are not reported by the authors, TO failure predictions have been
included herein using a weld leg size of zero. Among North American and Eurocode design
provisions, where all have underestimated the connection strength for the check of TO failure, a
slightly better prediction can be obtained by AISC and CSA compared to Eurocode (slightly
lower mean and similar COV). The use of a hypothetical weld leg size of 3mm in all the
specimens would improve these predictions to produce a mean of 1.18, but still conservative
relative to the real test values.

4-6
Table 4.4 Actual and predicted connection strength for Zhao and Hancock (1995) data
Specimen Test AISC (2005) AISC (2005) AISC (2005)
Failure CSA Eurocode
Capacity Nux/AnFu Nux/AgFu & CSA Nux/ Nux/
Nux [kN] Mode a) using x using x' (2001)
(2001)
(CEN 2005)
Nu [kN] Nu Nu [kN] Nu
Nu [kN] Nu [kN] Nu [kN]
R1ENS 228 TO 0.64 0.59 195 224 128 177 1.29 171 1.34
R1ENL 264 TO 0.74 0.68 225 248 157 217 1.21 209 1.26
R2ENS 187 TO 0.58 0.54 174 200 113 159 1.18 153 1.22
R2ENL 198 TO 0.62 0.57 187 211 124 175 1.13 168 1.18
R3ENS 168 TO 0.71 0.63 119 150 85 116 1.45 111 1.51
R3ENL 173 TO 0.73 0.64 133 160 96 131 1.32 126 1.37
R4ENS 140 TO 0.67 0.59 106 134 74 105 1.33 102 1.38
R4ENL 161 TO 0.77 0.67 128 150 93 133 1.21 128 1.26
R5ENS 102 TO 0.61 0.54 85 107 58 82 1.24 79 1.29
R5ENL 132 TO 0.79 0.69 105 121 76 109 1.22 104 1.26
R6ENS 78 TO 0.61 0.54 64 81 43 61 1.28 58 1.34
R6ENL 78 TO 0.61 0.54 71 86 49 69 1.14 66 1.18
R7ENS 185 TO 0.61 0.56 136 167 104 148 1.25 143 1.30
R7ENL 209 TO 0.69 0.63 164 190 125 179 1.17 173 1.21
R8ENS 153 TO 0.63 0.57 110 135 83 116 1.31 112 1.36
R8ENL 188 TO 0.77 0.70 141 160 108 152 1.24 146 1.29
R9ENS 123 TO 0.60 0.55 93 114 68 94 1.31 90 1.36
R9ENL 131 TO 0.64 0.58 105 124 77 106 1.24 102 1.29
R7WNS 199 TO 0.66 0.60 175 207 104 148 1.34 143 1.39
R7WNL 243 TO 0.81 0.73 197 223 125 179 1.35 173 1.41
R8WNS 173 TO 0.71 0.64 142 167 83 116 1.49 112 1.54
R8WNL 220 TO 0.90 0.82 165 185 108 152 1.45 146 1.51
R9WNS 127 TO 0.62 0.56 119 141 68 94 1.35 90 1.41
R9WNL 139 TO 0.68 0.62 129 148 77 106 1.32 102 1.37
R1EYS 262 TO 0.68 b) 211 243 128 205 1.28 198 1.32
R1EYL 309 TO 0.80 b) 244 269 157 245 1.26 237 1.31
R2EYS 235 TO 0.68 b) 189 217 113 184 1.28 178 1.32
R2EYL 251 TO 0.72 b) 203 228 124 199 1.26 192 1.31
R3EYS 203 TO 0.76 b) 136 171 85 146 1.39 141 1.44
R3EYL 224 TO 0.83 b) 151 183 96 161 1.39 156 1.44
R4EYS 174 TO 0.73 b) 121 152 74 131 1.32 127 1.37
R4EYL 209 TO 0.87 b) 145 170 93 159 1.31 154 1.36
R5EYS 133 TO 0.70 b) 96 121 58 103 1.29 100 1.33
R5EYL 169 TO 0.89 b) 119 138 76 129 1.31 125 1.36
R6EYS 103 TO 0.72 b) 72 91 43 76 1.36 74 1.40
R6EYL 111 TO 0.77 b) 81 97 49 84 1.32 81 1.37
R7EYS 215 TO 0.65 b) 150 185 104 177 1.21 172 1.25
R7EYL 243 TO 0.73 b) 182 210 125 208 1.17 201 1.21
R8EYS 190 TO 0.71 b) 121 149 83 139 1.36 135 1.41
R8EYL 228 TO 0.85 b) 156 177 108 175 1.31 169 1.35
R9EYS 154 TO 0.68 b) 102 125 68 113 1.36 109 1.41
R9EYL 170 TO 0.75 b) 116 137 77 125 1.36 121 1.41
R7WYS 240 TO 0.72 b) 194 228 104 177 1.35 172 1.40
R7WYL 268 TO 0.81 b) 218 246 125 208 1.29 201 1.33
R8WYS 184 TO 0.69 b) 143 175 74 127 1.45 123 1.49
R8WYL 248 TO 0.92 b) 182 204 108 175 1.42 169 1.47
R9WYS 165 TO 0.73 b) 131 155 68 113 1.46 109 1.51
R9WYL 173 TO 0.77 b) 140 162 76 123 1.41 119 1.46
Mean 1.31 1.35
COV (%) 6.6% 6.5%
a) TO represents block shear tear-out failure along the weld;


4-7
4.4 Experimental program by Cheng et al. (1996)

Cheng et al. tested nine specimens fabricated with CHS and all but one were reinforced
with a transverse weld (thus, An became equal to Ag). Failure of two of these specimens was by
CF at the connection region and the others developed a neck at their mid-length. The CHS that
developed a neck had Lw/w ratios ranging from 1.00 to 1.14 (as well as a Lw/D>1.3) plus a
transverse weld. One specimen, pwc1, which lacked a transverse weld and had a slot, had a
ratio of Lw/w=1.14 and failed by CF through its net section (see Table 4.5). Nevertheless, this
specimen was able to develop its full efficiency (100% of AnFu). The addition of a transverse
weld on specimen spec2 allowed the attainment of its full efficiency (100% of AgFu). However,
the relatively low ratio for Lw/w of 0.85 increased the presence of shear lag in this specimen
triggering fracture near the weld region and consequently a CF failure mode.
Table 4.5 shows a comparison between the test results and predictions from current
codes/guides. The predicted failure mechanism based on current design provisions is CF, since
the predicted values for TO failure always surpassed the CF predictions. This result is due to
the connection type tested herein and the large Lw/w and Lw/D ratios for these test specimens.
During the CF check by the AISC (2005) design provision, an efficiency factor of U=1.0
has been used for specimens with Lw/D > 1.3. Because of this, the only improvement based on
the use of a reduced eccentricity ( x' ) can be seen in specimen spec2. Nevertheless, in both
cases the AISC design provision underestimates the connection strength for this specimen. On
the other hand, the predicted connection strength by CSA (2001) was always much more
conservative (with a mean of 1.36). Finally, the use of the efficiency factors suggested by
Packer & Henderson (1997) results in extremely conservative predictions.
For the TO failure predictions, Eurocode, AISC and CSA design provisions showed
similarities in their predicted values and the main difference is in the calculation of the maximum
shear stress, since it is calculated as Fy/ 3 by Eurocode and 0.6 Fy by AISC and CSA.

4-8
Table 4.5 Actual and predicted connection strength for Cheng et al. (1996) data
Specimen
Test Nux/ Nux/ AISC AISC AISC Eurocode
Failure CSA Packer &
Capacity (2005) (2005) (2005) & (CEN
Nux [kN] Modea) AnFu AgFu Nux/ Nux/ (2001) Nux/ Henderson Nux/
CSA (2001) 2005) Nu
using x Nu using x' Nu Nu Nu (1997) Nu Nu [kN]
Nu [kN] [kN]
Nu [kN] Nu [kN] [kN]
pwc1 830 CF 1.06 0.98 781 1.06 781 1.06 666 1.25 586 1.42 1081 1043
pwc2 869 Neck 1.02 b) 849 1.02 849 1.02 666 1.30 637 1.36 1138 1100
pwc3 849 Neck 1.00b) 849 1.00 849 1.00 666 1.28 637 1.33 1138 1100
pwc4 875 Neck 1.03b) 849 1.03 849 1.03 666 1.31 637 1.37 1138 1100
pwc5 645 Neck 1.03b) 624 1.03 624 1.03 459 1.40 468 1.38 693 670
pwc6 634 Neck 1.02b) 624 1.02 624 1.02 459 1.38 468 1.36 693 670
pwc7 631 Neck 1.01 b) 624 1.01 624 1.01 459 1.37 468 1.35 693 670
spec1 2160 Neck 1.01 b) 2141 1.01 2141 1.01 1598 1.35 1606 1.35 2339 2258
spec2 2157 CF 1.01b) 1596 1.35 1674 1.29 1325 1.63 1327 1.63 1904 1839
Mean 1.06 1.05 1.36 1.39
COV (%) 10.4 8.6 8.2 6.5
a) CF represents circumferential fracture and NK represents necking of the CHS;

4.5 Experimental program by Zhao et al. (1999)

In a similar manner to the study previously undertaken by Zhao and Hancock (1995),
Zhao et al. (1999) tested 24 slotted tube connections fabricated with RHS but utilizing a high-
strength tube material (with a nominal Fy= 450 MPa) and for a second time wall thickness below
3mm. During this study, the influence of the gusset plate orientation, loading condition and the
connection detailing was studied. For all the test specimens, weld lengths (resulting in Lw/w
ratios ranging from 0.35 to 0.50) were designed to prevent a CF resulting in a generalized TO
failure. Nevertheless, these test results have been evaluated against the CF failure mode as
well. Table 4.6 shows a comparison between the test results and predictions from current
codes. Since small ratios Lw/w were used herein, Packer and Henderson (1997) would also
suggest that TO governs.
For these tests, AISC predicts CF failure as the governing failure mechanism (for 18 out
of 24 specimens were governed). Moreover, the small Lw/w values herein (ranging from 0.35 to
0.50) negatively affected the CSA predictions. CSA predicts CF as the governing failure
mechanism for all specimens. In both cases, these predictions clearly contradict the test results.
On the other hand, the consideration of the plate thickness in the AISC model improve its
predictions considerably, resulting in solely TO failure predictions.

4-9
The use of small Lw/w ratios produced a comparable outcome as previously seen by Zhao
and Hancock (1995). The best prediction for TO failure (using a weld leg size of zero as weld
sizes are not reported by the authors) corresponded to North American design provisions with a
mean of 1.30. Once more, the hypothetical use of a weld leg size of 3mm in all the specimens
would improve these predictions to a mean of 1.16. Nevertheless, these predictions would still
remain below the real test values in all cases.
Table 4.6 Actual and predicted connection strength for Zhao et al. (1999) data
Test Nux/ Nux/ AISC

Failure AISC (2005) AISC
Specimen Capacity (2005) Eurocode Nux/
Modea) A n Fu A g Fu CSA (2001) (2005) & Nux/
Nux [kN] using x (CEN 2005) Nu
using x' Nu [kN] CSA (2001) Nu Nu [kN]
Nu [kN] Nu [kN]
Nu [kN]
G1EY1 183 TO 0.73 b) 133 165 82 146 1.25 142 1.29
G1EY2 185 TO 0.74 b) 133 165 82 146 1.26 142 1.30
G1EY3 192 TO 0.77 b) 133 165 82 146 1.31 142 1.35
G1EN1 140 TO 0.63 0.56 117 145 82 119 1.18 115 1.22
G1EN2 161 TO 0.73 0.64 117 145 82 119 1.35 115 1.41
G1EN3 148 TO 0.67 0.59 117 145 82 119 1.24 115 1.29
G2EY1 171 TO 0.57 b) 102 139 76 134 1.27 130 1.31
G2EY2 177 TO 0.59 b) 102 139 76 134 1.32 130 1.36
G2EY3 167 TO 0.56 b) 102 139 76 134 1.24 130 1.28
G2EN1 143 TO 0.53 0.48 93 126 76 109 1.31 105 1.37

G2EN2 141 TO 0.52 0.47 93 126 76 109 1.30 105 1.35
G2EN3 141 TO 0.52 0.47 93 126 76 109 1.30 105 1.35
G2WY1 174 TO 0.58 b) 149 186 76 134 1.30 130 1.34
G2WY2 175 TO 0.59 b) 149 186 76 134 1.30 130 1.35
G2WY3 169 TO 0.57 b) 149 186 76 134 1.26 130 1.30
G2WN1 140 TO 0.52 0.47 135 169 76 109 1.29 105 1.34
G2WN2 139 TO 0.51 0.47 135 169 76 109 1.28 105 1.33
G2WN3 140 TO 0.52 0.47 135 169 76 109 1.29 105 1.34
G3EY1 216 TO 0.76 b) 150 186 93 165 1.31 160 1.35
G3EY2 231 TO 0.82 b) 150 186 93 165 1.40 160 1.44
G3EY3 221 TO 0.78 b) 150 186 93 165 1.34 160 1.38
G3EN1 184 TO 0.74 0.65 132 163 93 134 1.37 129 1.43
G3EN2 192 TO 0.77 0.68 132 163 93 134 1.43 129 1.49
G3EN3 183 TO 0.74 0.65 132 163 93 134 1.36 129 1.42
Mean 1.30 1.35
COV(%) 4.2 4.3
a) TO represents block shear tear-out failure along the weld;


4-10
4.6 Experimental program by Wilkinson et al. (2002)

Wilkinson et al. tested eight specimens fabricated with RHS having a nominal size of
100x50mm. These specimens had differences in their weld lengths, weld sizes, gusset plate
orientation and wall thicknesses (having thickness of 4 and 6 mm). They were also fabricated
with end return welds, hence An=Ag. Tests had either weld metal failure or a base metal failure.
These connections had very small Lw/w ratios (ranging from 0.33 to 0.64) that clearly
encourage the presence of a TO failure. However, a lack of proper fusion between the weld
material and the HSS in these tests led to a failure mechanism involving the welds. Even though
this premature failure mode recurred during the tests, the strength from several connections
exceeded the predicted load by prediction equations, which may suggest that those equations
are too conservative. Since the failure mechanisms seen during this experimental program do
not correspond to a CF or a clear TO failure, a comparison of this data with current design
provisions (such as AISC, CSA and Eurocode) specific to these failure mechanisms has been
omitted herein.
4.7 Experimental program by the Authors

The test specimens fabricated for this experimental program were the largest scale done
to date and thus more representative of real structural members. In addition, the weld lengths
used in these specimens produced Lw/w ratios ranging from 0.62 to 0.87 which ensured the
presence of shear lag during the tests and predominantly CF failures.
The predicted governing failure mechanism based on current codes/guides (AISC, CSA
and Packer & Henderson) was always a CF, since the predicted values for TO failure always
exceeded the CF values (see Table 4.7). Nevertheless, this contradicts the result from test
specimen B1 where a clear TO failure occurred. The CF failure mode results showed better
agreement with the predictions made by AISC than CSA. Moreover, the use of a reduced
eccentricity x' with the AISC model improved these predictions (since the mean actual-to-
predicted value was decreased from 1.32 to 1.17 and the COV also decreased). Despite this
upgrading, the modified AISC ( x' ) model still underestimates the real CF connection capacity. In
any case, the use of the AISC provision offers a better result than the CSA provision which
underestimated the connection capacity (resulting in a mean actual-to-predicted value of 1.61).
The use of the efficiency factor by Packer & Henderson (1997) provides a better prediction than
CSA. This can be explained by the manner in which the efficiency factors are calculated. While

4-11
CSA (2001) provides a variable efficiency factor (based on the Lw/w ratio), which may be
excessively conservative for ratios near to 0.60, Packer & Henderson (who follow an earlier
CSA code version) use a constant efficiency factor in this range. Hence, codes/guides failed
herein to predict accurately the connection strength and their corresponding failure mechanism.
Table 4.7 shows a comparison between the test results and predictions from current codes/
guides. For TO failure, the predictions by all three design provisions were similar and
reasonably accurate. AISC and CSA showed a mean actual-to-predicted value of 0.95 and
Eurocode a mean value of 0.99.
Even though the presence of the shear lag phenomenon in connections under
compression loading is completely neglected by design provisions, the specimens tested in
compression (both having very similar weld lengths) failed by local buckling at the connection
region under the influence of this phenomenon. Hence, a more extensive study of shear lag
under compression loading needs to be undertaken in order to provide a clear understanding of
this behaviour.
Table 4.7 Actual and predicted connection strength from University of Toronto data
Test Capacity
Specimen
Nux [kN]
AISC AISC AISC Eurocode

Modea)
Failure
Nux/ Nux/ CSA Packer &

AnFu A g Fu (2005) Nux (2005) Nux (2001) Nux Henderson Nux (2005) Nux (CEN Nux
& CSA 2005) Nu
using x /Nu using x' /Nu Nu /Nu (1997) /Nu /Nu /Nu
[kN] Nu [kN] (2001) [kN]
Nu [kN] Nu [kN] Nu [kN]
A1 1032 CF,TO 0.87 0.77 782 1.32 880 1.17 618 1.67 739 1.40 1017 1.01 983 1.05
A2 1154 CF 0.97 0.86 859 1.34 939 1.23 760 1.52 739 1.56 1228 1185
A3C -1145 LB Nux/Csc=0.94 b)

B1 1087 TO 0.81c) 911 1013 669 827 1219 0.89 1181 0.92
B2 1211 CF 0.91 c) 990 1.22 1073 1.13 824 1.47 827 1.46 1446 1401
C1 1107 CF 0.83 893 1.24 999 1.11 642 1.73 827 1.34 1230 1195
C2 1196 CF 0.90 968 1.24 1055 1.13 772 1.55 827 1.45 1423 1380
C3C -869 LB Nux/Csc=0.72 b)
E1 1109 CF 0.81 0.69 766 1.45 914 1.21 685 1.62 835 1.33 1034 1001
E2 1236 CF 0.90 0.76 898 1.38 1019 1.21 859 1.44 849 1.46 1269 1227
E3 1336 CF 0.83 925 1.44 1102 1.21 689 1.94 1004 1.33 1267 1234
E4 1400 CF 0.86 1040 1.35 1188 1.18 826 1.69 1004 1.40 1441 1401
E5 1282 CF 0.94 0.79 1069 1.20 1187 1.08 874 1.47 841 1.52 1299 1257
Mean 1.32 1.14 1.61 1.42 0.95 0.99
COV (%) 6.9 4.4 9.6 5.7 9.1 9.3
a) CF represents circumferential fracture, TO represents block shear tear-out failure along the weld and LB represents local
buckling at the connection end;
b) Specimen was loaded in compression;
c) As slot end was welded, it is likely appropriate to assume that An = Ag.

4-12
4.8 Experimental program by Ling (2005)

An experimental program on CHS to slotted gusset plate connections utilizing very high
strength tubes (VHS) has been undertaken by Ling. For this program, 45 connections were
fabricated with Lw/w ratios ranging from 0.17 to 1.37. In addition to the longitudinal fillet welds, a
weld return was applied to all the test specimens (hence, Ag=An). Of these specimens, 25 failed
by TO, 16 by CF and 4 had a combination of both (TO-CF).
The predicted failure mode based on current codes/guides (AISC, CSA and Packer &
Henderson) is always a CF, since the predicted values for TO failure always exceeded the CF
values (see Table 4.8). However, this is not in accord with the test results where 25 out of 45
specimens had TO failure. For TO failures, all design provisions have overestimated the
connection strength. Thus, codes/guides have failed herein to accurately predict the connection
strength and their corresponding failure mode. Table 4.8 shows a comparison between test
results and the predictions from current codes/guides.
In general, the results from these specimens have a lower efficiency when they are
compared to other experimental programs. Moreover, despite several connections having a Lw/
w ratio greater than 1.0, their maximum connection strength never exceeded a value of
0.70AnFu (where An=Ag), and thus the attainment of necking was not reported. These results
are related to the tube material properties used herein (which have extremely high Fy and Fu
values) and the undermatched weld metal, which likely diluted the material properties in the
Heat Affected Zone (HAZ). This resulted in premature material fracture there and hence a
generally lower connection efficiency.

4-13
Table 4.8 Actual and predicted connection strength for Ling (2005) data
Test Capacity
Specimen Nux
Nux [kN]
Failure AISC AISC CSA Packer & AISC Eurocode
/AnFub) (2005) (2005) (2005) & Nux Nux
Modea) Nux Nux (2001) Nux Henderson Nux (CEN
(An=Ag) using CSA /Nu /Nu
using x /Nu /Nu Nu /Nu (1997) /Nu 2005)
(2001)
Nu [kN] x' [kN] Nu [kN]
Nu [kN]
Nu [kN]
TV1P15a 101.2 TO 0.44 75 152 55 156 0.65 153 0.66

TV1P15b 103.8 TO 0.43 80 161 58 166 0.63 163 0.64
TV1P30a 137.8 TO, CF 0.57 160 0.86 200 0.69 114 1.21 150 0.92 245 0.56 239 0.58
TV1P30b 122.7 CF 0.53 154 0.80 193 0.64 111 1.11 144 0.85 237 231
TV1P45a 151.3 CF 0.65 233 0.65 233 0.65 154 0.98 175 0.86 317 308
TV1P45b 154.0 CF 0.65 238 0.65 238 0.65 158 0.98 179 0.86 324 315
TV2P20a 126.0 TO 0.48 130 196 84 164 209 0.60 205 0.62
TV2P20b 125.2 TO 0.49 126 190 81 159 202 0.62 198 0.63
TV2P35a 162.6 CF 0.63 183 0.89 220 0.74 143 1.14 160 1.02 291 283
TV2P35b 162.0 TO, CF 0.61 187 0.86 225 0.72 147 1.10 164 0.99 299 0.54 291 0.56
TV2P50a 170.2 CF 0.66 258 0.66 258 0.66 177 0.96 194 0.88 378 367
TV2P50b 167.5 CF 0.63 264 0.63 264 0.63 181 0.92 198 0.85 389 378
VT3P25a 149.8 TO 0.50 176 236 119 184 261 0.57 255 0.59
VT3P25b 151.1 TO 0.51 176 235 119 183 261 0.58 255 0.59
TV3P40a 184.9 CF 0.57 243 0.76 284 0.65 209 0.89 202 0.92 392 382
TV3P40b 180.4 CF 0.61 221 0.82 258 0.70 190 0.95 222 0.81 357 347
TV3P55a 177.3 CF 0.58 305 0.58 305 0.58 220 0.81 229 0.77 464 450
TV3P55b 175.4 CF 0.60 294 0.60 294 0.60 212 0.83 221 0.79 448 435
TV4P25a 120.7 TO 0.40 154 214 98 186 222 0.54 217 0.56
TV4P25a 130.1 TO 0.45 148 206 94 179 213 0.61 208 0.63
TV4P40a 162.2 TO, CF 0.54 208 0.78 246 0.66 157 1.03 185 0.87 306 0.53 297 0.55
TV4P40b 170.4 TO 0.57 208 245 156 185 304 0.56 295 0.58
TV4P55a 188.2 CF 0.64 292 0.64 292 0.64 197 0.96 219 0.86 377 366
TV4P55b 195.4 CF 0.66 294 0.66 294 0.66 199 0.98 221 0.88 382 370
TV5P25a 146.5 TO 0.48 158 219 101 191 231 0.63 225 0.65
TV5P25b 142.8 TO 0.47 155 215 99 187 226 0.63 220 0.65
TV5P40b 182.5 TO 0.59 214 252 161 191 318 0.57 309 0.59
TV5P55a 213.2 CF 0.69 309 0.69 309 0.69 209 1.02 232 0.92 404 392
TV6P35a 193.5 TO 0.54 232 283 164 221 334 0.58 325 0.60
TV6P35b 194.5 TO 0.56 227 276 160 215 326 0.60 317 0.61
TV6P50a 230.5 CF 0.66 348 0.66 348 0.66 229 1.01 261 0.88 423 411
TV6P50b 229.1 CF 0.66 347 0.66 347 0.66 229 1.00 261 0.88 423 411
TV6P65a 238.8 CF 0.69 347 0.69 347 0.69 251 0.95 260 0.92 521 505
TV7W20a 113.7 TO 0.26 38 147 75 187 0.61 183 0.62
TV7W20b 113.2 TO 0.26 39 149 76 191 0.59 187 0.61
TV7W35a 141.7 TO 0.34 202 262 127 260 0.54 253 0.56
TV7W35b 155.2 TO 0.35 212 275 133 273 0.57 266 0.58
TV7W50a 178.4 TO 0.41 276 319 186 269 349 0.51 339 0.53
TV7W50b 188.4 TO, CF 0.43 275 0.68 319 0.59 185 1.02 269 0.70 347 0.54 337 0.56
TV8W18a 113.2 TO 0.20 65 170 0.66 167 0.68
TV8W18b 109.0 TO 0.19 66 172 0.63 169 0.65
TV8W28a 135.5 TO 0.25 81 180 101 219 0.62 214 0.63
TV8W28b 136.8 TO 0.25 79 178 101 219 0.62 214 0.64
TV8W38a 159.2 TO 0.28 210 285 140 277 0.58 269 0.59
TV8W38b 160.6 TO 0.29 207 281 138 273 0.59 266 0.60
Mean 0.71 0.66 0.99 0.87 0.59 0.60
COV (%) 13.1 6.1 9.8 8.1 6.5 6.3
a) CF represents circumferential fracture and TO represents block shear tear-out failure along the weld.

4-14

In general, the application of current code TO failure equations can provide a good
prediction of connection capacity when the test specimen Lw/w ratio moves towards a value of
0.6, but a clear overestimation will occur when this ratio approaches 1.0. On the other hand, the
current code CF prediction equations have shown better correlation to tests when the
connection Lw/w ratio is near to 1.0, and a gradual underestimation of connection capacity as
this ratio is decreased.
In most cases, the predicted failure mechanism (and its corresponding maximum
connection strength predicted by these design provisions) did not agree well with the
experimental results in the Lw/w range from 0.6 to 1.0. Moreover, the results from Zhao and
Hancock (1995) and Zhao et al. (1999) may encourage the idea that a TO failure always
governs for Lw/w ratios below 0.6, but the CF failure check must be avoided in that range since
it may falsely be found to control. Hence, it seems necessary to develop a comprehensive
model that can provide a better connection strength prediction over a wide parameter range.
Finally, it is noted that the use of the experimental results from Ling (2005) may not be
valid for regular strength structural hollow section connections since these results have shown a
considerable scatter relative to the rest of the test programs.

5-1
CHAPTER 5: FE MODELLING OF CONNECTIONS
A total of 13 finite element models were generated and analyzed with the software
package ANSYS 8.1 (Swanson Analysis Systems 2004). The experimental failure mode implied
a fracture of the material under high deformations. This fracture was emulated by the
designation of a maximum equivalent strain which triggered the activation of the “death feature”
of the elements where the stiffness and true stress of an element are reduced to near-zero. The
consideration of large deformations requires the knowledge of a complete material true stress-
strain (Tσ-Tε) curve. Hence, a method to obtain this curve is proposed herein. Once the true
stress-strain curves from the materials were generated, the tests specimens were modelled and
the numerical models verified. In addition to the load-deformation response comparison, the
strain gauge readings from the tests specimens and FE models were compared (load-strain
response).
5.1 Material properties

A multi-linear material Tσ-Tε curve was used to describe the gusset plate, tube and weld
material properties. The generation of the Tσ-Tε curve, based on the engineering stress-strain
(σ-ε) relations with equations (5-1) and (5-2), is suitable prior to the development of necking in
the coupon test.
Tσ = σ ( 1 + ε ) (5-1)
Tε = ln ( 1 + ε ) (5-2)
Afterwards, the stress distribution in the neck region changes from a simple uniaxial to a
complex triaxial case (Aronofsky 1951). In addition, accumulative damage in the material may
lead to the creation of microvoids and microcracks affecting the material internal structure.
Bridgeman (1952) proposed a numerical method for a coupon test with a circular cross-section
which provides an excellent approximation of the stresses and strains in the neck region.
Unfortunately, this method is ineffective for rectangular coupons.
In order to generate the Tσ-Tε curve for a rectangular coupon test in the post-necking
region, several authors have proposed different procedures. Matic (1985) has suggested a
method which describes the change in the tangent modulus of the material versus the absorbed
strain energy density as a hyperbolic function. Shen and Jones (1993) proposed the inclusion of
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH 5: FE MODELLING OF CONNECTIONS

5-2
geometric nonuniformities in the models which are calibrated with the initial trace of the coupon
test. Tvergaard (1993) triggered final necking in the models considering the nucleation and
growth of microvoids in the material. Zhang et al.(1999) proposed an equation which describes
the reduction of the coupon’s cross-sectional area and an approximate true average stress
value based on this area. Geltmacher et al. (1999) proposed an algorithm to generate the true
stress-strain curve based on the experimental load-displacement response data and the
specimen shape evolution based on FE models. Khoo (2000) proposed a material model that
considers material dilatation and a continuum damage mechanism under quasi-static loading.
Dumoulin et al. (2003) suggested an original method to determine a true stress-strain curve
based on a tensile coupon test and an image analysis. In most cases, the testing of several
coupons and the measuring of the necking cross-sectional area during the tests is required.
Moreover, FE models of the coupon test are used to verify the correlation between the response
from the numerically-generated curves and the experimental data.
During the laboratory testing of the coupons, the engineering stress-strain relationships
were acquired before the coupon tests developed a neck. Afterwards, the clip gauge was
removed from the coupons, but the load and maximum elongation at rupture were determined
for each coupon test. In order to complete the coupon test Tσ-Tε curve, the method proposed
by Matic (1985) has been adapted to be used herein. Matic’s curve is generated with a starting
point corresponding to a zero plastic strain on the coupon test curve data. In materials exhibiting
a plastic plateau, a better solution is achieved when Matic’s curve starts at the beginning of the
strain-hardening range. The generation of the Tσ-Tε curve in the post-necking region was thus
calculated starting from the necking point (see Figure 5.1), following the change in the tangent
modulus given by Matic’s curve. An interval step of Tε=0.01 was used to generate this curve;
this interval was small enough to capture the Tσ-Tε curve behaviour. The rate of change of the
tangent modulus can be modified and the best rate is determined by an iterative process. For a
generated Tσ-Tε curve of each material, a FE model of the gauge region was analyzed (see
Figure 5.2) and the load-deformation response from the FE model was compared with the
coupon test response data. This process was repeated until the load and displacement at
fracture from the coupon FE model corresponded to the coupon test result. The response
curves for CHS, EHS and gusset plate materials are shown in Figure 5.3 to Figure 5.6.

5-3
Figure 5.1 Uniaxial Tσ−Tε curve of EHS Figure 5.2 FE model of the gauge region
Figure 5.3 Load-displacement response for Figure 5.4 Load-displacement response for
CHS EHS
The final material property curves used in the FE analyses for all materials are presented
in Figure 5.7. Here the Tσ−Tε uniaxial curves for the two plate materials are very similar as they
exhibited almost identical material properties.

5-4
t t
Figure 5.5 Load-displacement response for Figure 5.6 Load-displacement response for
gusset plate (tp= 25 mm) gusset plate (tp= 32 mm)
Figure 5.7 Uniaxial Tσ−Tε curves of materials
5.2 Connection modelling

In order to simplify the modelling of the connections, symmetric boundary conditions were
applied in the planes of symmetry of the models. This allowed the modelling of only one eighth
of the specimens. In addition to these boundary conditions, the nodes at the tube end were
fixed at the reaction end and the total load acting on the connection was calculated from these
nodes (see Figure 5.8).

5-5
Figure 5.8 Boundary conditions of FE models
Figure 5.9 Gap considered in FE models
For the meshing process, care was taken to avoid distortions and large aspect ratios in
the elements. The size and number of the elements were always selected to produce elements
with a shape as close to cubic as possible. A gradual change in the mesh size was made from
areas with low stresses to areas with high stresses. A fine mesh was used in areas prone to be
affected by the shear lag phenomenon. Three elements were used through the tube thickness
in all the models. For constructional purposes the slot is typically oversized, hence a small gap

5-6
was left between the plate and the tube elements. This ensured that the transmission of the load
was only through the weld (see Figure 5.9). In all the models, the tube material properties were
used for the discretization of the welds.
5.2.1 Element selection

For the FE modelling and analysis of the connections, SOLID45 elements were used
throughout, in the generation of the tube, plate and weld materials. This element is defined by
eight nodes, each node having three translational degrees of freedom, with large deflection and
large strain capabilities. Attempts to use other elements were made. Eight-noded solid elements
with capability for simulating deformations of nearly incompressible elastoplastic materials
(SOLID185) were tried for the modelling, but although these elements enhanced the connection
response they failed to allow distortions in “dead” elements. Twenty-noded solid elements
(SOLID95) were tried with a coarse mesh in the FE models but their CPU time exceeded the
SOLID45 models and lacked any significant improvement.
All the models were analyzed with a fine mesh and a coarser mesh. The use of SOLID95
elements was limited to coarse mesh models due to restrictions in the maximum number of
nodes supported by the software. In general, the coarse mesh models reduced the analysis
time but they were not able to clearly describe the failure modes of the connections.
Furthermore, a comparison between the readings from the strain gauges in test specimens and
the strains in numerical models showed a better agreement for the fine mesh models. The
analysis results for various FE models with different elements are shown in Table 5.1.
5.2.2 Analysis considerations

During the FE analysis of the connections, a nonlinear time step analysis was performed
by applying incremental displacements. This emulates the displacement-control loading
throughout the connection tests. The displacements were applied to the nodes located at the
plate end and nonlinear material properties were considered. Furthermore, the full Newton
Raphson method and frontal equation solver were used. Geometrical non-linearities were taken
into account by allowing large deformations and a uniform reduced integration with hourglass
control was applied. Shape changes (i.e. area, thickness) were considered.
The maximum equivalent strain (εef) used to trigger the activation of the elements’ “death
feature” was obtained by empirical correlations. Initially, all the FE models were analyzed using

5-7
a εef equal to that used during the analysis of the tensile coupon models (approximately 0.9).
However, considerable deformations were needed to generate large strains in the coupons and
trigger the elements’ “death feature”. For this reason, the maximum connection strength and
deformation would over-exceed the experimental results if such εef values were used. This lack
of direct applicability has been related to the difference in the material boundary conditions that
exists between the tensile coupons and the connections. In order to consider the material’s
suppressed necking state that exists in the connections (Salmon and Johnson 1996), all the
connections were analyzed using several εef values and the best correlation between the
experimental and FE analysis results (load-displacement and load-strain responses) was found
using a εef = 0.6.

5-8
Table 5.1 Connection analysis results with different elements used
Element # of # of Mesh Nua) NuFE

Connection Type Nu/ NuFE
used Nodes Elements type (kN) (kN)
SOLID45 16460 12030 Fine 978 1.06

A1 1032
SOLID45 7414 5260 Coarse 1010 1.02
SOLID95 18268 3242 Coarse 1005 1.03
SOLID45 16406 12030 Fine 1130 1.02
A2 1154
SOLID45 7414 5260 Coarse 1135 1.02
SOLID95 18268 3242 Coarse 1159 1.00
SOLID45 13481 9894 Fine 1107 1083 1.02
C1
SOLID45 5529 3878 Coarse 1216 0.91
SOLID95 15351 2716 Coarse 1215 0.91
SOLID45 13481 9894 Fine 1241 0.96
C2 1196
SOLID45 5529 3878 Coarse 1236 0.97
SOLID95 15351 2716 Coarse 1298 0.92
SOLID45 10700 7640 Fine 1098 1.01
E1 1109
SOLID45 5114 5392 Coarse 1198 0.92
SOLID95 13927 2456 Coarse 1126 0.98
SOLID45 10878 7784 Fine 1186 1.04
E2 1236
SOLID45 5838 4138 Coarse 1218 1.01
SOLID95 15901 2832 Coarse 1205 1.02
SOLID45 11243 8036 Fine 1334 1.00
E3 1336
SOLID45 6352 4495 Coarse 1353 0.99
SOLID95 17774 3158 Coarse 1265 1.05
SOLID45 11279 8072 Fine 1401 1.00
E4 1400
SOLID45 6352 4495 Coarse 1186 1.18
SOLID95 17774 3158 Coarse 1267 1.10
SOLID45 11368 8313 Fine 1273 1.01
E5
SOLID45 5522 3676 Coarse 1362 0.94
1282
SOLID95 14320 2536 Coarse 1318 0.97
a) Maximum load attained in the connection test.
5.3 Evaluation of FE models against experimental results

The accuracy of the FE models was determined by comparing their response with the
result previously acquired during the experimental program. This evaluation was based on their
capacity to reproduce the connection load-deformation response, the maximum load attained, a

5-9
comparison between the strain gauge readings in tests specimen and FE models and finally,
their capacity to reproduce correctly the observed failure mechanism. The results of this
evaluation are shown in this section. In addition, the rest of the strain comparison are shown in
Appendix C.
5.3.1 Slotted CHS connection - slot end not filled (Type A)

For the modelling of these connections, the size of the elements was gradually decreased
from the tube end to the slot region and also over the tube circumference. This permitted the
strain distribution to be clearly captured in the critical location and allowed the gradual
propagation of cracking. In general, the FE models reproduced the dimension of the test
specimens as closely as possible and special care was taken during modelling of the weld
region (see Figure 5.10).
Lw FE models A1 and A2
Diameter (D) = 168.3 mm
Tube thickness (t) = 4.8 mm
D/t = 35
Lw/w = 0.66 for connection A1
Lw/w = 0.81 for connection A2
Tube Length (L_tu) = 750 mm
al Weld size (al) = 10 mm
Figure 5.10 FE models of connection type A
The response previously seen during the test specimens was favourably reproduced in
the FE models. In a similar manner, a strain concentration at the slot region induced yielding of
the tube material there, producing change in the connection stiffness and an increase in the
deformations. Afterwards, the tube material carried on straining at the slot region, allowing a
gradual redistribution of strains. For both analyses, the maximum load was near the test value
(see Figure 5.11). Once the first element on the tube cracked, this crack would continue to
propagate thereby affecting the connection stability and stopping the analysis.

5-10
Figure 5.11 Load - deformation response for specimens

and FE models type A
The FE models displayed an uneven stress distribution along the connection length, as a
result of shear lag. The use of a short weld length in specimen A1 generated very high stresses
in the base material along the longitudinal welds (see Figure 5.12). In contrast, a longer weld
length (specimen A2) moderated this stress amplification (see Figure 5.13). In addition, a more
uniform stress distribution was found in this second FE model. Unfortunately, this improvement
was not enough to avoid tube fracture at the net section. Moreover, the connection stress
distribution revealed the potential crack path, which consequently would define a tear-out failure
(TO) or a circumferential fracture (CF) failure. For model A1, the stress distribution suggested
both possible paths. On the other hand, the FE model for A2 showed a clear CF path. In
addition, near the attainment of the FE maximum load, ovalitazion of the tube started to take
place in the net section region, as seen previously during the tests.

5-11
Figure 5.12 Stress distribution (von Mises) at Figure 5.13 Stress distribution (von Mises) at
maximum load for FE model A1 maximum load for FE model A2
In general, the FE models favourably reproduced the uneven strain distribution seen
during the tests. The strain distributions along the weld and around the tube circumference were
reproduced reasonably well. In a similar manner to the tests specimens, a strain concentration
at the beginning of the welds (location of SG-5) triggered yielding of the tube material there in
the FE models. The magnitude of the strains during the FE analyses corresponded to those
observed during the tests (see Figures 5.14 and 5.15).
- Lab
- Lab
- FE - FE
Strain (mm/mm) Strain (mm/mm)
Figure 5.14 Load-strain response at SG-5 in Figure 5.15 Load-strain response at SG-5 in
connection A1 connection A2

5-12
The rest of the strain comparisons can be seen in Appendix C. As seen during the tests, a
gradual degradation in the FE model strains (due to distortion of their geometry and crack
propagation) was observed after achievement of the maximum load. In contrast to FE model
A1, the FE model A2 was able to clearly reproduce a CF failure mode. (Once the crack reached
the weld toes in this FE model, it continued spreading around the tube circumference). The
incapacity to clearly reproduce either failure mode (TO and CF) by FE model A1 has been
attributed to a lack of imperfections in the FE models, since it is believed that imperfections may
have defined the crack path during the test. The maximum loads attained by these FE models
are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Ultimate capacity for connections type A

Connection Test Load FE Analysis Load
Nux / NuFE
Type Nux (kN) NuFE (kN)
A1 1032 978 1.06
A2 1154 1130 1.02
5.3.2 Slotted CHS connection - slot end filled (weld return) (Type B)
As explained before, the fabrication of specimens B1 and B2 was made in two stages.
Initially, the plates and the slotted tubes were joined only by longitudinal welds and a slot was
left open between the end of the plate and the tube. Afterwards, the slot was filled with weld
material during fabrication of the weld return. A difference in the failure mode was found
between the test specimens and their corresponding FE models. In the tests, only small
deformations were necessary to develop the ultimate connection capacity and yielding was
concentrated in the weld return region. There, cracks developed in the tube material near the
weld toe and the propagation of these cracks through the tube thickness followed an inclined
plane (see Figure 5.16). This behaviour may be associated with shear yielding in the tube
material. Even though the FE models initially followed the same elastic load-deformation
response, they always had low strains in the weld return region and failure of elements required
large deformations (see Figure 5.17). This discrepancy in the response was believed to be
associated with a lack of residual stresses in the FE models.

5-13
Figure 5.16 Failure in test specimen B2 Figure 5.17 Initial load - deformation
response of FE models
Several attempts were made to include these initial conditions and modify the FE models‘
behaviour. A FE model introducing an initial change in the weld temperature generated residual
stresses in the weld return region. Although the presence of residual stresses was included, the
connection overall behaviour was not improved. Moreover, the inclusion of initial stresses in
elements located within the heat-affected zone (HAZ) (by means of an input file) had the same
ineffective result. A second FE model including an initial shear strain at all nodes along the weld
toes was generated (see Figure 5.18). Despite this initial strain being minute, the strains
increased rapidly in the elements along the weld toe, hence the failure mode became the same
as for the test specimens. Even though this method improved the response of the models, it
showed inconsistency in a later parametric analysis. There, the FE models constantly repeated
this failure mode but neglected the influence of the weld length on the connection strength.
Finally, considering that connection failure started at the weld return toe region and there the toe
cracking (Stout 1987) had its origin in the HAZ and continued propagating into the base metal, a
new FE model was generated considering the change in strength and ductility of the weld as a
function of the loading angle (Kulak and Grondin 2002) and HAZ. In order to include a change in
the weld properties, the engineering σ-ε curve used for the transverse welds was scaled to
describe the properties of a weld loaded at an orientation of 90° to the weld axis. From this new
data, a Tσ-Tε curve was generated (see Figure 5.19) and this material property was applied to
the elements in the weld return region (loaded at an orientation of 90º to the weld axis).

5-14
Displacement
1e-6mm Displacement
1e-6mm
Figure 5.18 Application of initial strain Figure 5.19 Tσ-Tε curves of fillet welds
A fine mesh was generated in front of the weld return and there the HAZ in the tube was
defined by a region having an average width of 1mm (see Figure 5.20). During its generation,
the tube material properties were applied but a low ductility controlled the material fracture. The
reason for this is the change in the ductility of the HAZ which becomes similar to the weld
material due to the merging of the weld and base material. Thus, the maximum strain in the
HAZ was defined to be equivalent to that in the weld oriented at 90º. This low ductility triggered
the creation of cracks in the HAZ modifying the overall connection behaviour to that observed
during the test. In general, the FE models described the first stages of the failure modes but the
analyses would terminate due to excessively high distortion in the “dead” elements in the weld
return region. Moreover, the behaviour of the FE models was the same as the test specimens
(see Figures 5.21 and 5.22). In addition, the FE models had a similar load-deformation
response curve as the tests (see Figure 5.23) and they reached a comparable maximum load
(see Figure 5.3). Finally, a good correlation can be appreciated between the strain gauge
readings of the specimens and FE models on Appendix C.
Table 5.3 Ultimate capacity for connections type B

Test Load FE Analysis Load
Connection Type Nux / NuFE
Nux (kN) NuFE (kN)
B1 1087 1080 1.01
B2 1211 1216 1.00

5-15
Figure 5.20 Materials in FE models type B
Figure 5.21 Failure mode in FE model B1 and test specimen

5-16
Figure 5.22 Failure mode in FE model B2 and test specimen
Figure 5.23 Load-deformation response for

test specimens and FE models.
5.3.3 Slotted EHS connection - slot end not filled (gusset plate oriented to give a large
eccentricity)
For the modelling of these connections, the size of the elements was gradually decreased
from the tube end to the slot region, and also around the tube circumference. This permitted

5-17
the strain distribution and the gradual propagation of material cracking to be captured in the
critical region (see Figure 5.24).
FE models E1 and E2
Lw
Diameter (D1) = 220 mm
Davg/t = 28
Lw/w = 0.62 for connection E1
al
Weld size (al) = 14 mm
Figure 5.24 FE models of connections type E1 and E2
Initially, these FE models had an elastic response equivalent to their test specimen
counterparts (E1 and E2). The FE models had a lower connection yield load than the tests (see
Figure 5.25), followed by a gradual load increase as well as a large plastic deformation. The
reason for this difference (between tests specimens and FE models) is likely due to occasional
oversizing of the welds during their fabrication process, as a was result of low welding control.
This weld oversizing elevated the test specimens ultimate strength as it slightly reduced the
strain concentration at the slot region, thus delaying the onset of material yielding there. In
contrast, the FE models were not able to reproduce this behaviour as each represented only a
quarter of the connection and they had a uniform weld size.

5-18

and FE models E1 and E2
In the course of the FE analyses, the end of the elastic response was followed by a
transition region that is similar to the transition seen in test specimens E3, E4 and E5 before the
attainment of a yield plateau. Unfortunately, the strain concentration at the slot region of these
FE models prevented the attainment of this plateau, and it triggered the fracture (or "death") of
the elements at the slot region. Even though the weld length of these FE models was similar to
that in test specimen E3, E4 and E5, the large eccentricity in these connections negatively
affected their behaviour. A check of the distortion limit in the tube cross-section was performed
herein, considering D2 (the minor dimension) as the tube diameter, at the end of each time step.
(An ultimate load distortion limit of 3% of the tube outer dimension has been advocated by Lu et
al. (1994) and is now widely used for tubular structures). For both FE models, this limit (0.03D2)
was only exceeded by FE model E2. Despite this, the variation between the load corresponding
to this limit and the maximum load barely exceeded 2%.
At the maximum load, the uneven stress distribution in the FE models demonstrated the
influence of shear lag on the behaviour of these connections. In addition to the characteristic
stress distribution due to shear lag, the use of a short weld length (in FE model E1) produced a

5-19
high stress concentration in the tube base material all along the parallel welds (see Figure
5.26). On the other hand, an increase in Lw (see Figure 5.27) decreased the magnitude of the
stresses along the parallel welds and just a stress concentration at the slot region. In a similar
manner to the test specimens, distortion of the tube cross-section was restrained by the gusset
plate and the large distortion of FE model E2 is due to the gradual formation of a neck in the slot
region. The connection stress distribution suggested a CF failure for both FE models and a
further TO failure for model E1. However, once the crack started its propagation in model E1,
rotation of the end part of the EHS led to a CF failure, as also observed during the test.
maximum load for FE model E1 maximum load for FE model E2
The FE models favourably reproduced the uneven strain distribution and strain magnitude
along the welds and around the tube circumference that was observed in the test (see Figures
5.28 and 5.29). Further FE vs test strain comparisons are given in Appendix C. The maximum
loads attained for these FE models are shown in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4 Ultimate capacity for connections E1 and E2

Distortion Limit Load FE Analysis
Connection Test Load
FE Analysis Ultimate Load Nux / NuFE Nux / NuFE-D
Type Nux (kN)
NuFE-D (kN) NuFE (kN)
E1 1109 - 1098 1.01 -
E2 1236 1174 1186 1.04 1.05

5-20
- Lab
- Lab - FE
- FE
connection E1 connection E2
5.3.4 Slotted EHS connection - slot end not filled (gusset plate oriented to give small
eccentricity)
For this FE model, the element size was gradually decreased from the tube edges to the
slot region and a large number of elements were used in front of the weld start (see Figure
5.30).
FE model E5
Lw Diameter (D2) = 110 mm
Davg/t = 28
Lw/w = 0.79
al Weld size (al) = 15 mm
Figure 5.30 FE models of connection type E5
As observed in test specimen E5, the reduction of the connection eccentricity improved
the load transfer from the EHS to the gusset plate and reduced the strain concentration at the
slot region, in the FE model. In a similar manner to specimens E1 and E2, uneven oversizing of
5-21
the welds was also done during fabrication of this test specimen. This resulted in a connection
overstrength that the FE model was not able to duplicate. Despite this, the response of the FE
model favourably emulated the trend of its test counterpart. Moreover, the FE model
displacement marking the transition from a yield plateau to the hardening region was close to
that of the test specimen. Beyond this point, the FE model continued to achieve larger
displacements until tube fracture started (at a load level near the test result). Based on this, it is
possible to infer that the maximum connection strength is principally determined by the relative
weld length (Lw). Nevertheless, the weld size can affect the strain concentration at the slot
region which may impact the overall connection behaviour (see Figure 5.31).

and FE model E5
In order to determine the distortion in the tube cross-section geometry, the change of the
EHS small dimension (D2) was measured at the end of each time step. In general, the tube
material (in the small dimension) tended to move towards the gusset plate. This caused the
distortion limit to be reached during the transition from the elastic response to a yield plateau.
Even though there was a considerable difference between the connection displacement at the
maximum connection strength and at the distortion limit, there was only a difference of 11%
between their corresponding loads. It appears that, once the distortion limit was exceeded,

5-22
ovalization in the tube cross-section slowly increased until the tube material fractured. In
addition, the demand at the slot region was relaxed as the deformation was re-distributed from
the connection region to the tube mid-length.
At the maximum load, the stress distribution confirmed the presence of shear lag since
the load transfer was mainly concentrated at the slot region, resulting in the fracture of the EHS
there. This phenomenon produced an uneven stress distribution along the weld that was more
marked here than for the rest of the FE models. The ovalization of the slot region, which started
at a relatively early stage, became more visible near the attainment of the maximum load and
continued to increase rapidly after this point (see Figure 5.32). In general, the FE model
favourably reproduced the strain distributions along the weld and around the tube
circumference. Furthermore, the strain gauge readings at the weld start (SG-5) correlated very
well (see Figure 5.33). Further FE vs. test strain comparisons are given in Appendix C.
- Lab
- FE
Strain (mm/mm)
Figure 5.32 Stress distribution (von Mises) at Figure 5.33 Load-strain response at SG-5 in
maximum load for FE model E5 connection E5
The connection stress distribution at the maximum load showed the path that the crack
would follow at a later stage (see Figure 5.32). The failure mode in this FE model corresponded
to that seen during the test (CF). The maximum loads attained for this FE model and also at the
distortion limit are shown in Table 5.5.

5-23
Table 5.5 Ultimate capacity for connections type E5

Distortion Limit
FE Analysis
Connection Test Load Load FE
Ultimate Load Nux / NuFE Nux / NuFE-D
Type Nux (kN) Analysis
NuFE (kN)
NuFE-D (kN)
E5 1282 1113 1273 1.01 1.15
5.3.5 Slotted gusset plate to tube connections in tension

5.3.5.1 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection (Type C)
For these FE models, the elements size was gradually decreased from the tube edges to
the region in front of the start of the welds. In addition, a large number of elements was used at
the inner corner of the gusset plate (see Figure 5.34). This region proved its importance when
the bowing outwards started there, as a consequence of the gusset plate yielding.
FE models C1 and C2
Lw Diameter (D) = 168.3 mm
D/t = 35
Lw/w = 0.68 for connection C1
Lw/w = 0.81 for connection C2
al
Weld size (al) = 14 mm (in both models)
Figure 5.34 FE models of connection type C
The load-deformation response previously seen during the testing of specimens C1 and
C2 was closely replicated by the FE models (see Figure 5.35). In addition, the FE models were
capable of reproducing this response even near the maximum load, despite the large
deformations in the CHS and the gusset plate. Beyond the elastic response, the bowing
outwards of the gusset plate started to increase the distortion of the tube shape. In order to
determine the significance of this distortion, the change in the tube cross-section was computed
at the end of each time-step and then compared with a distortion limit of 3% of the tube
diameter (D). For both FE models, the attainment of this limit occurred at an early stage of the
connection plastic response. Therefore, the use of a limit on the distortion of the tube cross-
5-24
section at the ultimate limit state, to determine the connections ultimate capacity, may be more
reasonable rather than just a maximum load approach (see Figure 5.35).

and FE models type C
The lack of a slot improved the load transfer from the tube to the gusset plate and
enhanced the connection stress distribution, especially in front of the gusset plate (see Figures
5.36 and 5.37). Because of this, both FE models displayed similar stress distributions, despite
having a big difference in their intensity.

5-25
maximum load for FE model C1 maximum load for FE model C2
This difference in stress magnitude is the result of an interaction between the weld length
and the bowing of the gusset plate. The stress distributions in the gusset plates (see Figures
5.36 and 5.37) again confirmed the presence of shear lag, causing a stress concentration at the
inner corners of the gusset plate and hence plate yielding there and bowing of the gusset plate.
This interaction has been studied further in a subsequent parametric analysis. At the maximum
load, the connection stress distribution revealed the potential crack path which eventually
became a circumferential fracture (CF) for both FE models. Tube ovalization began at an early
stage of the plastic response and continued increasing until it was very prominent at the
maximum load.
Despite the two connections in each test specimen being fabricated alike connection
failure did not always take place at the end where the strain gauges were installed. Since this
was the case for both of these test specimens, the comparison of strain readings from the test
specimens and the FE models has showed some variations. Nevertheless, the general trend
followed by the FE models has always corresponded to that exhibited by the test specimens
(see Figures 5.38 and 5.39). In addition, the uneven strain distribution along the weld and
around the tube circumference was reproduced reasonably well by the FE models. Further FE
vs. test strain comparisons are given in Appendix C.

5-26
- Lab
- FE - Lab
- FE
connection C1 connection C2
The progressive deformation of the FE models was mainly created by the bowing of the
gusset plate, particularly after the attainment of the maximum load when cracks propagated.
Once cracking reached the weld toes it continued around the tube circumference. The
maximum load attained for these FE models is shown in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6 Ultimate capacity for connections type C

Distortion Limit Load FE Analysis
Connection Test Load Nux /
FE Analysis Ultimate Load Nux / NuFE
Type Nux (kN) NuFE-D
C1 1107 858 1081 1.02 1.29
C2 1196 902 1235 0.95 1.32
5.3.5.2 Slotted gusset plate to EHS (gusset plate oriented to give a large eccentricity)
Since the bowing outward of the gusset plate affected the behaviour of this connection
type, as previously seen for connections type C, the element size was gradually decreased from
the tube edges to the region in front of the weld start and also to the inner corner of the gusset
plate (see Figure 5.40).

5-27
FE models E3 and E4
Diameter (D1) = 220 mm
Davg/t = 28
Lw Lw/w = 0.62 for connection E3
al
Figure 5.40 FE models of connections E3 and E4
In a similar manner to the slotted EHS connections, the welds were unevenly over-sized
during fabrication of these test specimens. Once again, this provided these connections with
some over-strength that the FE models did not emulate (because of uniform weld sizing being
used). This resulted in a lower proportional limit and a lower connection yield load, in the FE
models (see Figure 5.41).

and FE models E3 and E4

5-28
Nevertheless, the FE models did reproduce the overall response of the test specimens.
In a similar manner (to connections type C), the bowing outwards of the gusset plate increased
the distortion of the tube cross-section and eventually induced fracture of the tube material at
the weld start. A check on the tube cross-section distortion (using D2 as the tube diameter),
performed at the end of each time-step, revealed the attainment of this deformation limit
(0.03D2) at a relatively small displacement, for both FE models. As a result, the difference
between the maximum load and the load at this ultimate deformation limit was at least 30% (see
Table 5.7).

Distortion Limits FE Analysis
Connection Test Load
FE Analysis Load Nux / NuFE Nux / NuFE-D
Type Nux (kN)
E3 1336 984 1348 0.99 1.36
E4 1400 1078 1413 0.99 1.30
As seen in the FE models C1 and C2, the lack of a slot improved the stress distribution as
the load in the tube in front of the gusset plate could be transferred directly to the weld.
Analogous to the tests, shear lag in the gusset plate encouraged the attainment of the yield
strain in the elements located at the inner corners. This encouraged bowing of the gusset plate,
which increased the element strain at the weld start and triggered element fracture ("death")
there. The EHS connections have exhibited a different stiffness for the gusset plate orientation
relative to each axis and the greatest deformation occurs when gusset plate is oriented to give a
large eccentricity. At the maximum load, FE model E4 (having the longer weld) showed a better
stress distribution than FE model E3 (especially at the inner corners of the gusset plate). This
decreased the gusset plate deformations and consequently the tube cross-section distortion
(see Figures 5.42 and 5.43).

5-29
maximum load on FE model E3 maximum load on FE model E4
Moreover, the stress distribution in the FE models revealed the potential crack path, which
eventually became CF for both models. In general, the uneven strain distribution along the
welds and around the tube circumference was reproduced reasonably well for these FE models.
Similarly, the change in strain at the beginning of the welds (location SG-5) in the FE models
reflected that observed during the tests (see Figures 5.44 and 5.45).
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE
connection E3 connection E4

5-30
Further FE vs. test strain comparisons are given in Appendix C. The maximum load
attained for these FE models is shown on Table 5.7.
5.3.6 Connections under compression load

In a similar manner to the tension tests, a progressive application of compression
displacement was made at the gusset plate end. However, an additional lateral displacement (in
the x-axis direction of the FE models) was applied to emulate the gradual out-of-straightness
seen during the tests. In order to study the behaviour of connections under these compression
loading conditions, a quarter of each test specimen was modelled. The governing failure mode
for this loading condition corresponded to local buckling of the tube (LB). Nevertheless, the
factors responsible for this failure mode varied since they were determined by the connection
type. The results of these analyses are presented in this section.
5.3.6.1 Slotted CHS to gusset plate connection - slot end not filled
The element size in FE model A3C was progressively decreased from the tube ends to
the slot region. In order to determine the need to use contact elements herein, the distance
between the gusset plate and the tube wall (defining the slot end) was reviewed at the end of
each time step. The FE analysis results showed that the maximum load occurred before contact
of the gusset plate and the CHS wall at the end of the slot. As a result, contact elements were
not required. Moreover, this FE model was able to clearly capture the strain distribution at the
slot and the formation of a buckle there, before the open slot length was reduced to zero.
FE model A3C
D/t = 35
Lw Lw/w = 0.86 for connection A3C
al
Figure 5.46 FE model of connection type A3C

5-31
In the same way as for the tension tests, the load transfer from the tube to the gusset
plate produced a strain concentration at the slot region. Because of this, the elements close to
the slot region experienced a progressive major strain increase meanwhile the rest of the tube
remained at small strain values. This strain concentration triggered the formation of local
buckling near the beginning of the welds and marked the change in the connection stiffness.
This initial small buckle continued to grow as the load increased, up to attainment of the
maximum load. Beyond this point, distortion of the connection persisted but the load decreased
gradually (see Figure 5.47). Finally, the FE analysis stopped due to numerical solution problems
associated with excessive distortion of elements at the slot region. Nevertheless, considerable
deformation had taken place in the connection by this stage and the load at this point
corresponded to approximately 80% of the maximum load.
FE
Figure 5.47 Load - deformation response for specimen and

FE A3C
At the maximum load, the FE model displayed an uneven (von Mises) stress distribution
in the connection region. This suggested that the weld length would also influence the intensity
of the shear lag under compression loading (see Figure 5.48), but no other connection was
tested to verify this. Only a slight ovalization of the tube cross-section was observed since the
main deformation was located at the slot region. To generate a buckle of the entire net cross-

5-32
section large deformations were required. The attainment of the suggested distortion limit
(0.03D) required a displacement of 6.9 mm in this FE model, which corresponds to 153% of the
value required to attain the maximum load (4.5 mm). The FE model favourably reproduced the
strain distributions along the welds and around the tube circumference. Moreover, the strain
gauge readings at the beginning of the weld (location SG-5) compared very well with the FE
strains (see Figure 5.49). Further FE vs. test strain comparison are given in Appendix C. The
maximum load attained for this FE model is shown in Table 5.8.
- Lab
- FE
maximum load of FE model A3C connection A3C
Table 5.8 Ultimate capacity for connection A3C

Connection Test Load FE Analysis Load
Nux / NuFE
Type Nux (kN) NuFE (kN)
A3C -1145 -1067 1.07
5.3.6.2 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection
The element size, in FE model C3C was progressively decreased from the tube ends to
the beginning of the welds. In addition, similar modelling was done at the inner corner of the
gusset plate where a large number of elements were used (see Figure 5.50). The requirement
to use contact elements was avoided in this FE model too, since the distance between the
gusset plate edge and the tube surface (the more critical zone of contact) showed insignificant
variations for at least 80% of the FE analysis (which also included the attainment of the

5-33
maximum load). This is due to the restriction on deformation imposed by the welds, since they
were fabricated close to the critical point.
FE models C3C
D/t = 35
Lw/w = 0.84 for connection C3C
Lw
al
Figure 5.50 FE models of connection type C in
In a similar manner to the tension test, the presence of shear lag (which was affected by
the weld length) was found to influence the behaviour of this connection under compression
load. In general, the load-deformation response for the FE model followed that of the test
specimen (see Figure 5.51).
Deformation Limit (0.03D)
FE
Figure 5.51 Load - deformation response for specimen and

FE model C3C

5-34
Moreover, the FE model reproduced the strain concentration (induced by shear lag) at the
beginning of the welds and at the inner corners of the gusset plate (see Figure 5.52). Close to
the end of the elastic response, the gusset plate started to bow inwards exacerbating the tube's
local stability and negatively affecting the connection behaviour. Despite this, the connection
load continued to increase while this distortion and a local buckle, in front of the weld start
position, grew slowly. During this FE analysis, the ultimate load distortion limit (0.03D) was
exceeded near the attainment of the maximum load. Beyond this limit the stability of the
connection was compromised and the tube cross-section distortion continued at an increasingly
rapid rate until local bucking (LB) failure.
(MPa)
- Lab
- FE
maximum load on FE model connection C3C
The FE model displayed an uneven stress distribution in the connection region (see
Figure 5.52), but lack of a slot did enhance the stress distribution there. The FE models
favourably reproduced the strain distribution along the welds and around the tube
circumference. Moreover, the strain readings at the beginning of the welds (location SG-5)
correlated well (see Figure 5.53). Further FE vs. test strain comparison are given in Appendix C.
The maximum load attained for this FE model is shown in Table 5.9.
Table 5.9 Ultimate capacity for connection C3C

Test Load FE Analysis Load
Connection Type Nux / NuFE
Nux (kN) NuFE (kN)
C3C -869 800 1.09

5-35

A method has been suggested herein to generate a complete true stress-strain curve,
including the necking phase, when rectangular tensile coupon tests are used to determine the
material properties. In general, the FE models employed here have described the load-
deformation response and stress distribution acting in the connections, and were capable of
reproducing the failure modes of the test specimens. Moreover, a good agreement was
generally found between strain readings from test specimens and FE models. In a similar
manner to the test specimens, the shear lag phenomenon had a prime influence on the
behaviour of these FE models. Finally, these FE models have shown the possible need for
imposition of an ultimate deformation limit on the tube cross-section, for some connection types.

6-1
CHAPTER 6: PARAMETRIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
In the previous section, the FE models demonstrated their capacity to reproduce the load-
displacement response, the strain distribution at various loads and the failure mode for the test
specimens. Hence, a parametric analysis was undertaken using these FE models to study the
influence of parameters such as: the weld length (Lw), eccentricity reduced by half the gusset
plate thickness ( x' ) and the tube diameter-to-thickness ratio (D/t), on the connection strength. In
total a further 756 FE connections have been modelled during this research phase.
During this parametric analysis, the dimensioning of gusset plates and weld legs was
made so as to avoid failure modes other than Tear Out Failure (TO) or Circumferential Tensile
Fracture (CF) of the tubes. However, this dimensioning stayed within practical design limits in
an attempt to reasonably reproduce the compatibility of deformations existing between the
gusset plate, welds and tube under real design conditions. Moreover, the material properties
used throughout these analyses corresponded to the properties used previously during the
modelling of the specimens, as these were deemed to be realistic. During the tests it was
observed how the weld length influenced the overall connection behaviour and, depending on
this length, the failure mode in the connections varied from TO to CF. Considering this, FE
models were generated using Lw/w ratios ranging from 0.40 to 1.50. Applying this range of
values, the FE models were able to reproduce pure TO failure, a combination of TO and CF, CF
influenced by the shear lag phenomenon and pure CF without shear lag. In addition to this,
using a CHS with a diameter (D) of 180mm, and an EHS with an average diameter (Davg) of 165
mm, several D/t and Davg/t ratios were used in the generation of these FE models. These ratios
covered the range that would be found in practice: 45, 40, 35, 30, 25, 20 and 15. The
specimens tested previously in the laboratory are within the bounds of these ratios.
6.1 Parametric analysis results of slotted CHS connection - slot end not filled
Failure of this connection type was mainly governed by the growth of a crack in the tube
material near the start of the weld. Afterwards, the crack path followed during its propagation
was influenced by the weld length. In most cases, material cracking initiated near the weld
(where a high strain concentration takes place). However, in connections having a weld length
sufficient to develop their full strength, the location of this point was influenced by the tube
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH 6: PARAMETRIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

6-2
thickness. For tubes with a large D/t ratio tube cracking started close to the weld, but a gradual
transition from this point to the slot end was observed as D/t decreased.
In order to determine the efficiency of the net cross-sectional area of the CHS, the
connection strength (NuFE) calculated during the parametric analysis has been normalized with
respect to AnFu. Furthermore, for comparison with current code or specification
recommendations, all resistance factors and partial safety factors have been set equal to unity
during this normalization (even though AISC (2005) and CSA (2001) prescribe different values).
The results from the parametric analysis show a gradual transition between the failure and
CF. The existence of this transition had been suggested before during the test of specimen A1.
There, the combination of both failure modes suggested that the occurrence of either failure
mode depended on the weld length (see Figure 6.1) and small variations produced during the
weld fabrication.
Figure 6.1 Combined TO and CF failure of specimen and FE model A1
FE model A1 showed this combination of failure modes at an early stage. Once fracture
occurred on the net area in tension (for block failure), the strain distribution showed the
possibility of crack propagation by either following a TO failure or CF failure. However, the FE
analysis typically stopped at this post-ultimate stage. In general, the transition between these

6-3
failure modes for the FE models exhibited this trait and the transition occurred at a ratio of Lw/w
near 0.75 (as indicated on Figure 6.2). However, a lower ratio was found for FE models with a
low D/t ratio, which suggests the existence of a correlation between these two parameters.
For FE models with a Lw/w ratio ranging from 0.40 to 0.80, TO failure was found to be the
governing failure mode. During the analyses, a combination of TO failure and weld material
failure (WM) was found in several FE models with a small D/t ratio. In order to prevent weld
material failure, their weld leg length (al) was increased. This produced an increase in the
connection strength as a result of the increase in the net area in tension during block failure.
Despite this connection “over-strength”, all the resulting FE analysis results followed the trend
suggested for the block failure formulae. The prediction for a tube with D/t=45 is shown in
Figure 6.2.
Even though some variation occurred during the calculation of the connection strength for
the lower Lw/w ratios, the overall results suggest that the full efficiency of the net cross-sectional
area can be developed if a ratio of Lw/w ≥ 1.0 is utilized. In Figure 6.2, the FE results are
compared with the formulae currently used to design this connection type. The design
provisions of AISC (2005) recommend the use of a variable efficiency factor for Lw/D ratios <1.3
but for Lw/D ≥ 1.3 AISC deems that the full section capacity can be achieved. The FE parametric
results support this latter rule. However, a considerable variation between the parametric
analysis results and AISC took place for Lw/D ratios <1.3. In general, the use of x' improved the
AISC prediction. Nevertheless, this variable efficiency factor is only applicable in the range of
Lw/w ratios from 0.75 to 0.91 because the TO failure mode governs for smaller Lw/w ratios.
AISC gives no bounds on the tear out (TO) failure mode check so this would always be
performed in conjunction with the circumferential tensile fracture (CF) check. The efficiency
factor (as can be seen in Figure 6.2) recommended by AISC, for application to the CF limit state
check, provides a better solution than CSA (2001) and Packer and Henderson (1997).
Even though the FE models with a Lw/w ratio >1.0 developed the full efficiency (100% of
AnFu) of their net cross-sectional area (see Figure 6.2), the governing failure mode continued to
be net section fracture at the connection. The strains in the tube material away from the
connection remained in the elastic range and the overall deformation was concentrated at the

6-4
slot region (see Figure 6.1). The reason for this behaviour has been attributed to the high Fy/Fu
ratio of the tube material. (The same tube material properties were used in the FE parametric
analysis as established for the verified FE model, which in turn were based on the test
specimens. This high Fy/Fu ratio is thought to be representative of the modern cold-formed tube
material properties). On FE models showing a Lw/w ratio >1.0, this high ratio produced an
average AnFu/AgFy ratio near 0.96. Generally, the presence of a low ratio will impede the
possibility of developing the gross-section tensile yield strength (see Figure 6.3), thus confining
the member deformation to the slot region. While this is still acceptable for statically-loaded
connections it has important implications for these connections under cyclic (seismic) loading.
The results from these parametric analyses are shown in Table 6.1, where the results from FE
models with a failure mode throughout the weld metal (WM) or a combined mode involving the
weld (TO-WM and CF-WM) have been excluded.
Finally, the FE models type A developed the full effective net cross-sectional area before
they exhibited excessive distortion of the tube geometry. However, once material cracking
started a rapid distortion of the tube geometry would still occur.

6-5
1.3 Lw / D
NuFE /A n Fu
1.1
A2 CF
1.0
0.9
A1
0.8
TO Predicted
0.7 D/t=15
for D/t = 45 D/t=20
0.6 D/t=25
D/t=30
0.5 CF D/t=35
Shear D/t=40
D/t=45
0.4 Lag Lab
TO Failure CSA (2001)
0.3 Present AISC (2005)
AISC (2005) x'
0.2 Predicted TO_Table 2.2
Packer & Henderson (1997)
0.1
Lw /w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 6.2 Parametric analysis results and experimental results for connection type A (NuFE/AnFu)
NuFE /Ag Fy
1.1
1.0
A2
A1
0.9
CF
0.8
0.7
0.6
D/t=15
0.5
D/t=20
CF
0.4 D/t=25
D/t=30
Shear Lag
0.3
D/t=35 Present
0.2 D/t=40 TO Failure
D/t=45
0.1 LAB
0.0
L w /w
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 6.3 Parametric analysis results and experimental results for connection type A (NuFE/AgFy)
0.57 0.77 0.83 0.92 1.01 1.05 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.43 1.79 2.11 L w /D
Th D/t 0.40 0.54 0.59 0.65 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.90 0.92 1.01 1.26 1.49 L w /w
A1-0 A1-1 A1-2 AB1-1 A1-22 AB1-2 AB1-3 A1-3 AB1-4 A1-31 AB1-5 AB1-6 A1-32 A1-4 A1-5 A1-6 FE model
515 647 686 747 802 830 853 866 881 889 902 909 911 914 915 914 N uFE load (kN)
3.73 45 TO TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.54 0.67 0.72 0.78 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 N uFE /A g F y
0.55 0.69 0.74 0.80 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 N uFE /A n F u
583 735 779 848 911 941 965 979 995 1004 1017 1022 1023 1026 1027 1027 NuFE load (kN)
4.20 40 TO TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.54 0.68 0.72 0.79 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 NuFE /Ag Fy
0.56 0.70 0.75 0.81 0.87 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 NuFE /An Fu
668 846 898 979 1050 1082 1108 1124 1140 1150 1162 1167 1168 1169 1170 1170 N uFE load (kN)
4.80 35 TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.55 0.69 0.73 0.80 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 N uFE /A g F y
0.56 0.71 0.76 0.82 0.88 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 N uFE /A n F u
753 970 1031 1131 1219 1256 1292 1310 1330 1339 1352 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 N uFE load (kN)
5.60 30 TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.53 0.68 0.72 0.80 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 N uFE /A gF y
0.55 0.70 0.75 0.82 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 N uFE /A nF u
1026 1283 1355 1464 1542 1572 1600 1604 1612 1618 1623 1623 1622 1623 1623 1624 N uFE load (kN)
6.72 25 TO TO TO TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.61 0.76 0.80 0.86 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 N uFE /A g F y
0.62 0.78 0.83 0.89 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 N uFE /A n F u

1632 1726 1854 1957 1989 2004 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2009 2010 2010 N uFE load (kN)
8.40 20 TO-WM TO TO TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.78 0.82 0.88 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 N uFE /A gF y
0.80 0.85 0.91 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 N uFE /A nF u
2633 2643 2641 2636 2639 2639 2639 2633 2635 2635 N uFE load (kN)
11.20 15 WM WM WM WM WM-CF WM-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 N uFE /A g F y
0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 N uFE /A n F u
6-6
Table 6.1 Parametric analysis results for connection type A

6-7
6.2 Parametric analysis results of slotted CHS connection - slot end filled (weld return)
The behaviour of this connection type was governed by the formation of a crack in the
weld return region. The formation and subsequent propagation of this crack was triggered by a
strain concentration at this location which is in turn dependant on the weld length. Despite the
initial reduction of the tube cross-sectional area due to the presence of the slot, the fabrication
of the weld return compensated for the lost material, thus eliminating a possible failure through
the net cross-sectional area. More importantly, the tensile stress area became equal to the
gross cross-sectional area (An=Ag). The connection strength (NuFE) has been normalized with
respect to AnFu in Figure 6.4, where it can be seen that the maximum strength achieved was
still only about 0.95 AnFu (where An=Ag), even for very large Lw/w values. Even though a net
section fracture was avoided here, either TO or CF failure through the gross area remained as
possible failure modes, with the latter being influenced by the shear lag phenomenon in a small
parametric range. The transition between TO and CF occurred for FE models having Lw/w
ratios ranging from 0.70 to 0.80. Moreover, this transition and the achievement of the full
efficiency of the gross cross-sectional area were influenced by the D/t ratio. The elimination of
the shear lag phenomenon was observed for FE models having a small D/t ratio and a Lw/w
ratio close to 0.80, but larger Lw/w values applied for thinner tubes. The vertical lines on Figure
6.4 show only the lower limits for these transitions.
The AISC's efficiency factor of 1.0 for connections with ratios L w ⁄ D ≥ 1.3 agrees with the
parametric analysis results. However, an important variation took place for L w ⁄ D ratios <1.3. In
that range, a sudden drop in the connection efficiency is given by the AISC specification
whereas there is a gradual change shown by the FE models. The efficiency factors
recommended by CSA (2001) and Packer and Henderson (1997) are excessively conservative.
Gross cross-sectional area yielding was achieved for FE models having Lw/w > 1.0 (see
Figure 6.5). However, the amount of deformation sustained by the tubes was limited and their
failure was determined by cracking in the weld return region. This behaviour has been attributed
to the initial fabrication conditions of the specimens and the influence is included in the FE
models. The fabrication of the weld return considerably affected the behaviour of this region,
diminishing its capacity to sustain considerable strains, which would in turn allow the tube to
undergo large deformations and encourage the formation of a neck away from the connection.

6-8
Furthermore, this low ductility precipitates the occurrence of TO failure. Because of this, the
predictions for TO failure from design provisions always exceeded the FE analysis results.
Thus, it is considered that a fabrication process which avoids slot-filling, with the associated
heat concentration in this region, would improve the connection behaviour. The results from
these parametric analyses are shown in Table 6.2, where the results from FE models with a
failure mode throughout the weld metal (WM) or a combined mode involving the weld (TO-WM
and CF-WM) have been excluded.

6-9
1.3 L w / D
1.1
N uFE /An Fu
(An =Ag ) B2
1.0
B1
0.9
0.8 CF
TO Predicted
0.7
for D/t = 45 D/t=15
D/t=20
0.6
D/t=25
0.5 D/t=30
D/t=35
0.4 CF D/t=40
D/t=45
0.3
Shear Lab
TO Failure Lag CSA(2001)
0.2 Present AISC(2005)
AISC(2005) x'
L w /w Packer & Henderson (1997)
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 6.4 Parametric analysis results and experimental results for connection type B (NuFE/AnFu)
1.1
NuFE /A gFy
1.0
B1 B2
0.9
CF
0.8
0.7
D/t=15
0.6 D/t=20
D/t=25
0.5
TO Failure D/t=30
0.4 D/t=35
CF D/t=40
0.3
Shear D/t=45
0.2 Lag Lab
0.1 Present
L w /w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 6.5 Parametric analysis results and experimental results for connection type B (NuFE/AgFy)

0.57 0.77 0.83 0.89 0.95 1.01 1.07 1.13 1.13 1.19 1.25 1.31 1.43 1.79 2.11 Lw /D
thickness D/t 0.40 0.54 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 1.01 1.26 1.49 LW /w
B1-0 B1-1 B1-2 BB1-1 BB1-2 B1-3 BB1-3 BB1-4 B1-4 B1-5 BB1-5 B1-6 B1-7 B1-8 B1-9 FE model
578 709 746 783 819 852 884 913 913 932 947 956 964 970 972 N uFE load (kN)
3.73 45 TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.60 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 NuFE /A gFy
0.56 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 NuFE /A nFu (An=Ag)
648 798 840 881 922 959 996 1030 1030 1052 1070 1077 1086 1092 1094 NuFE load (kN)
4.20 40 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.60 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.89 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.02 NuFE /Ag Fy
0.56 0.68 0.72 0.76 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.94 NuFE /An Fu (An=Ag)
740 910 962 1008 1057 1099 1139 1179 1179 1207 1224 1229 1241 1246 1248 NUFE load (kN)
0.60 0.74 0.79 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.02 NuFE /Ag Fy
0.56 0.69 0.72 0.76 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 NuFE /An Fu (An=Ag)
858 1060 1121 1177 1232 1285 1336 1373 1374 1408 1428 1437 1445 1449 1452 NuFE load (kN)
0.60 0.75 0.79 0.83 0.87 0.90 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 NuFE /A g Fy
0.56 0.69 0.73 0.76 0.80 0.83 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 NuFE /A n Fu (An=Ag)
1067 1346 1419 1488 1557 1621 1673 1709 1709 1729 1734 1739 1735 1740 1746 N uFE load (kN)
6.72 25 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.63 0.79 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.02 1.03 1.03 N uFE /A gFy
0.58 0.73 0.77 0.81 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.95 N uFE /A nFu (An=Ag)
1288 1685 1779 1869 1958 2044 2107 2122 2121 2146 2150 2152 2150 2150 2166 N uFE load (kN)

8.40 20 TO-WF TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.61 0.80 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.98 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 N uFE /A g Fy
0.57 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 N uFE /A n Fu (An=Ag)
2801 2811 2805 2818 N uFE load (kN)
11.20 15 TO-WF WF WF WF WF WF-CF WF-CF WF-CF WF-CF WF-CF WF-CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
1.02 1.02 1.02 1.03 N uFE /A g Fy
0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 N uFE /A n Fu (An=Ag)
Table 6.2 Parametric analysis results for connection type B
6-10
6-11
6.3 Parametric analysis results of slotted EHS connection - slot end not filled (gusset
plate oriented to give a large eccentricity)
In the presentation of the results of these analyses, the average of the larger and smaller
dimension of the EHS was considered as the "tube diameter" (Davg). For the connection type
E1, the region defining the transition between TO failure and CF showed a wide range. Here,
the transition occurred for Lw/w ratios from 0.60 to 0.80 depending on the tube Davg /t ratio. In
order to avoid confusion about the presence of either failure mode, only the lower limit of this
transition is shown in Figures 6.6 and 6.7. In several FE models the use of small D/t ratios
stimulated the presence of WM failure, but an increase in their weld leg length generated similar
results as previously seen for connections type-A. Furthermore, the TO failure predicted by
design provisions is shown here. The parametric analysis results normalized with respect to
their AnFu (Figure 6.6) show a gradual increase in the net cross-sectional area efficiency, but
only a maximum of 94% of AnFu was achieved here despite the use of large Lw/w ratios.
However, the normalization of connection strength (NuFE) with respect to AgFy showed the
achievement of the gross-section yield capacity for these connections (see Figure 6.7) for high
Lw/w ratios.
This behaviour of these connections can likely be attributed to the fact that the FE models
had an average AnFu/AgFy ratio close to 1.09. In most cases, when this ratio is greater than one
it encourages gross-section yielding to occur before net-section fracture. The parametric
analysis results and current design rules are compared in Figures 6.6 and 6.7. In order to
include the AISC (2005) in this comparison, the average dimension of the EHS (Davg) was
considered as its diameter (D). The use of this dimension provided somewhat better results
than using the larger or smaller axis dimension but none of the formulae followed the trend
described by the parametric analysis results. The results from these parametric analyses are
shown in Table 6.3.

6-12
NuFE /A nFu 1.3 Lw / Davg

1.1
1.0 E2
0.9
E1 CF
0.8
TO
0.7 Davg/t=15
Failure Davg/t=20
0.6 Davg/t=25
Davg/t=30
0.5 Davg/t=35
Davg/t=40
0.4 Davg/t=45
Lab
TO Predicted CF CSA(2001)
0.3
for Davg / t =45 Shear Lag AISC(2005)_Davg
0.2 AISC(2005)_Davg x'
Present Predicted TO_Table 2.2
0.1
0.0
L w /w
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 6.6 Parametric analysis results and experimental results for connection type E1 (NuFE/AnFu)
1.1
NuFE /A gFy
1.0
E2
E1
0.9
TO CF
0.8
Failure
0.7 Davg/t=15
Davg/t=20
0.6
Davg/t=25
0.5 Davg/t=30
0.4 Davg/t=35
0.3 CF Davg/t=40
Shear Lag Davg/t=45

0.2
Present Lab
0.1
L w /w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 6.7 Parametric analysis results and experimental results for connection type E1 (NuFE/AgFy)

0.42 0.55 0.70 0.77 0.83 0.89 0.95 1.01 1.07 1.13 1.19 1.31 1.43 1.79 2.11 L w /D
Th Davg /t 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.68 0.73 0.77 0.81 0.85 0.94 1.03 1.28 1.52 L w /w
EB1-1 EB1-2 EB1-3 E1-1 E1-2 EB1-4 EB1-5 E1-3 EB1-6 E1-4 E1-5 E1-6 E1-7 E1-8 E1-9 FE model
430 503 580 611 636 665 687 703 723 733 745 769 782 782 782 N uFE load (kN)
3.67 45 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.55 0.64 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 NuFE /A gFy
0.50 0.59 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.81 0.82 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 NuFE /A nFu
482 565 653 687 717 748 773 791 815 826 844 873 883 883 883 N uFE load (kN)
4.13 40 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.55 0.64 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.01 1.01 N uFE /Ag Fy
0.50 0.59 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 N uFE /A nFu
548 645 743 785 818 853 880 897 929 944 961 994 1005 1002 1003 NuFE load (kN)
4.71 35 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.55 0.65 0.74 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 N uFE /A gFy
0.50 0.59 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.81 0.82 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 NuFE /A nFu
633 750 866 914 955 996 1029 1053 1071 1102 1120 1153 1167 1167 1167 N uFE load (kN)
0.55 0.65 0.75 0.79 0.82 0.86 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.01 1.01 N uFE /A gFy
0.50 0.59 0.69 0.72 0.76 0.79 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 N uFE /A nFu
784 923 1061 1121 1163 1212 1254 1286 1303 1333 1354 1389 1391 1392 1393 N uFE load (kN)
6.60 25 TO TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.57 0.67 0.77 0.81 0.84 0.88 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 N uFE /A gFy
0.52 0.61 0.71 0.75 0.77 0.81 0.83 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 NuFE /A nFu

945 1131 1307 1382 1441 1476 1524 1593 1610 1631 1679 1728 1731 1730 1732 N uFE load (kN)
8.25 20 TO TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.55 0.66 0.76 0.81 0.84 0.86 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.98 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 N uFE /A gFy
0.51 0.61 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 N uFE /A nFu
EB7-1 EB7-2 EB7-3 E7-1 E7-2 EB7-4 EB7-5 E7-3 E7-4 E7-6 E7-7 E7-8 E7-9 FE model
1212 1514 1766 1881 1964 2041 2106 2145 2225 2254 2269 2265 2273 N uFE load (kN)
11.00 15 TO TO TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.54 0.68 0.79 0.84 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 N uFE /A gFy
0.50 0.62 0.73 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.94 N uFE /A nFu
Table 6.3 Parametric analysis results for connection type E1
6-13
6-14
6.4 Parametric analysis results of slotted EHS connection - slot end not filled (gusset
plate oriented to give small eccentricity)
In general, connection types E1 and E5 showed similarities in their results. However, the
change in gusset plate orientation and the resulting minor eccentricity ( x' ) associated with type
E5 positively improved the overall response of these FE models. The region defining the
transition between TO failure and CF was reduced to a Lw/w ratio near to 0.70 (see Figure 6.8),
but a lower Lw/w ratio was found for thick tubes. In general, the net cross-sectional area
efficiency achieved for these FE models did not surpass the value reached for the type E1 (0.94
AnFu). However, the normalization of the connection strength (NuFE) with respect to AgFy
showed an average increase of 3% over their E1 counterparts (see Figure 6.9), and uniform
gross-section yielding took place over the tube length before net-section fracture. Moreover, this
advantageous behaviour started with FE models having a ratio of Lw/w > 0.80. For FE models
with Lw/w > 1.00 the shear lag phenomenon seems to have no more influence on the
connection efficiency and the inability to attain the full efficiency is related to the tube shape.
The use of Davg for the AISC design provision for this connection type approximately agrees
with the end of the shear lag influence, although the range of influence of the shear lag is not
well defined. The application of x' rather than x is an improvement relative to the numerical
results too.
Even though the governing failure mode for low Lw/w ratios was TO failure, the strain
distribution for these FE models showed a small combination with the CF. This has been
associated with the low x' for this connection which enhanced the distribution of the force
between the tube and the gusset plate. Because of this, the connection efficiency of FE models
in this low Lw/w range always exceeded the predicted of TO capacity, according to design
provisions. The results from these parametric analyses are shown in Table 6.4, where the
results from FE models with a failure mode throughout the weld metal (WM) have been
excluded.

6-15
N uFE /An F u 1.3 L w / Davg

1.1
E5 CF
1.0
TO failure
0.9
0.8
TO Predicted Davg/t=15
0.7
for Davg / t = 45 Davg/t=20
0.6 Davg/t=25
Davg/t=30
0.5 Davg/t=35
Davg/t=40
0.4 CF Davg/t=45
Lab
Shear Lag CSA(2001)
0.3
Present AISC(2005)_Davg
AISC(2005)_Davg x'
0.1
L w /w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 6.8 Parametric analysis results and experimental results for connection type E5 (NuFE/AnFu)
NuFE /Ag F y
1.1
E5
1.0
0.9
CF
0.8
0.7 Davg/t=15
0.6 Davg/t=20
Davg/t=25
0.5
Davg/t=30
0.4
TO failure Davg/t=35
0.3
CF Davg/t=40
Shear Lag Davg/t=45
0.2 Present Lab
0.1
L w /w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 6.9 Parametric analysis results and experimental results for connection type E5 (NuFE/AgFy)

0.42 0.56 0.69 0.77 0.83 0.89 0.95 1.01 1.13 1.19 1.31 1.43 1.79 2.11 L w /D
Th Davg /t 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.68 0.73 0.81 0.85 0.94 1.03 1.28 1.52 L w /w
EB51-1 EB51-2 EB51-3 E51-1 E51-2 EB51-4 EB51-5 E51-3 E51-4 E51-5 E51-6 E51-7 E51-8 E51-9 FE model
454 551 635 684 711 736 754 776 790 796 796 796 796 797 N uFE load (kN)
0.58 0.70 0.81 0.87 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 N uFE /A g Fy
0.52 0.64 0.73 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 N uFE /A n Fu
507 611 704 761 796 825 846 867 890 895 897 894 895 895 N uFE load (kN)
0.58 0.70 0.80 0.87 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 N uFE /A g Fy
0.52 0.63 0.72 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 N uFE /A n Fu
561 684 791 858 897 931 957 981 1009 1022 1017 1019 1020 1021 N uFE load (kN)
0.56 0.68 0.79 0.86 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.98 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 N uFE /A g Fy
0.51 0.62 0.72 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 N uFE /A n Fu
620 784 906 978 1028 1072 1104 1112 1166 1182 1194 1192 1191 1192 N uFE load (kN)
0.53 0.68 0.78 0.84 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 N uFE /Ag Fy
0.48 0.61 0.71 0.76 0.80 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 N uFE /An Fu
827 1020 1190 1289 1325 1370 1384 1393 1419 1419 1415 1415 1416 1419 NuFE load (kN)
6.60 25 TO TO TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.60 0.74 0.86 0.93 0.96 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.03 NuFE /A g Fy
0.54 0.67 0.78 0.84 0.87 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 NuFE /A n Fu

955 1208 1436 1563 1625 1664 1702 1769 1744 1767 1767 1767 1773 1766 NuFE load (kN)
8.25 20 TO TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.56 0.71 0.84 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.03 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.03 NuFE /A gFy
0.51 0.64 0.76 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 NuFE /A nFu
E57-3 E57-4 E57-5 E57-6 E57-7 E57-8 E57-9 FE model

2218 2231 2255 2300 2315 2350 2349 N uFE load (kN)
11.00 15 WF WF WF WF WF WF WF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.99 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.05 1.05 N uFE /A gFy
0.90 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.96 N uFE /A nFu
6-16
6-17
A clear tendency of the tube material to align with the line of action of the force was
observed for this connection type E5. This created a distortion of the tube geometry exceeding
the maximum limit proposed in the previous section (3% distortion of the tube cross-section)
prior to maximum load capacity being attained. Because of this distortion, a difference of 10%
was observed between the connection ultimate strength and the load corresponding to this
deformation limit. This contrasted with the FE models type E1, where the gusset plate
orientation in the connection provided a supplementary stiffness which helped the tube avoid
excessive distortion.
6.5 Slotted gusset plate to tube connection in tension

The possibility of avoiding a reduction in the tube gross cross-sectional area is the
principal advantage of this connection type. Because of this, the tube's net area can be
considered equal to the gross cross-sectional area (An=Ag), thus reducing the risk of a brittle
fracture in the connection. However, a strain concentration in the weld region tends to trigger
the growth of a crack, introducing an undesirable failure mechanism. Even though this strain
concentration is basically determined by the connection weld length, the influence of additional
factors such as the gusset plate dimensions and tube shape have been found in the course of
this parametric analysis. Hence, a detailed explanation for each connection configuration
follows.
6.5.1 Parametric analysis results of slotted gusset plate to CHS connection

Test results and the FE connection tensile strength (NuFE) normalized with respect to
AnFu (where An=Ag) are shown in Figure 6.10. For FE models with low Lw/w ratios the
connection strength was principally controlled by TO failure and the connection strengths were
close to the values predicted by design provisions. This has been related to the influence of the
gusset plate deformation which increases the strains in the weld region. Nevertheless, this
effect diminishes as the Lw/w ratio decreases.
The transition between this failure mode and CF failure occurred in FE models at Lw/
w=0.70. For Lw/w ratios between 0.7 and 1.0 the connection strength was limited by shear lag
and bowing out of the gusset plate. This interaction dictated the magnitude of the strains in the
weld region and thus the material cracking there.

6-18
For Lw/w >1.0 cracking in the weld region disappeared at ultimate load allowing the
formation of a neck at the tube mid-length (see Figures 6.10 and 6.11). This shows that the
gradual reduction of strains in the weld region allows large deformations away from the
connection region. Despite the generation of a neck for long connections, the ultimate
connection strength never exceeded 96% of AnFu. This is because of the excessive element
deformations associated with necking, which terminated the numerical solution procedure
prematurely during the FE analysis.
In most cases, the attainment of the connection ultimate capacity was associated with
surpassing the tube's distortion limit. Figure 6.12 shows how the smallest difference occurs for
connections having thick tubes and this difference is within 20% for tubes with a D/t ratio of 15
and 20. Moreover, a gradual increase in the connection strength can be appreciated when the
load at this distortion limit is normalized with respect to AnFu (see Figure 6.13) where a linear
variation is evident. The results from these parametric analyses are shown in Table 6.5 and
Table 6.6, where the results from FE models with a failure mode throughout the weld metal
(WM) have been excluded.

6-19
N uFE /AnF u 1.3 L w / D

1.1
(A n =A g )
1.0
TO Failure
0.9
C2
0.8
TO Predicted C1
0.7 for D/t=45
Tension Failure:
0.6 D/t=15 Necking
D/t=20
0.5 D/t=25
D/t=30 Tension
0.4 D/t=35
D/t=40 Failure
0.3 D/t=45 Shear Lag
Lab
0.2 CSA (2001) Present
AISC(2005)
0.1 AISC(2005) x'
Predicted TO_Table 2.2
Packer & Henderson (1997) L w /w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 6.10 Parametric analysis results and experimental results for connection type C (NuFE/AnFu)
NuFE /A gF y
1.1
1.0
TO Failure Tension Failure:
0.9
C2 Necking
0.8
C1
0.7
0.6 D/t=15
D/t=20
0.5
D/t=25
0.4 D/t=30
D/t=35 Tension
0.3
D/t=40 Failure
0.2 D/t=45 Shear Lag
0.1
Lab
Present
0.0
Lw /w
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 6.11 Parametric analysis results and experimental results for connection type C (NuFE/AgFy)

0.57 0.67 0.77 0.83 0.89 0.95 1.01 1.07 1.13 1.19 1.25 1.31 1.43 1.79 2.11 L w /D
Th D/t 0.40 0.47 0.54 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.75 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 1.01 1.26 1.49 Lw /w
C1-1 CB1-1 C1-2 C1-3 CB1-2 CB1-3 C1-4 CB1-4 C1-5 C1-6 CB1-5 C1-7 C1-8 C1-9 C1-10 FE model
708 764 812 842 873 901 933 966 990 998 998 998 998 998 998 N uFE load (kN)
3.73 45 TO TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF NECK NECK Failure mode
0.74 0.80 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.01 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 N uFE /A gF y
0.68 0.73 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 N uFE /A nF u
784 843 897 928 959 992 1029 1061 1092 1118 1120 1120 1120 1121 1121 N uFE load (kN)
4.20 40 TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF NECK NECK Failure mode
0.73 0.78 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.96 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 N uFE /A gF y
0.67 0.72 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 N uFE /A nF u
885 945 1005 1041 1073 1106 1147 1184 1226 1260 1275 1275 1275 1276 1276 N uFE load (kN)
4.80 35 TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF-NECK NECK NECK NECK Failure mode
0.72 0.77 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 N uFE /A gF y
0.67 0.71 0.76 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 N uFE /A nF u
1007 1073 1148 1183 1210 1259 1301 1338 1385 1424 1461 1479 1480 1481 1481 N uFE load (kN)
5.60 30 TO TO TO TO TO CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF-NECK NECK NECK Failure mode
0.71 0.75 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 N uFE /A gF y
0.65 0.70 0.74 0.77 0.78 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 N uFE /A nF u
1315 1405 1483 1529 1578 1626 1675 1726 1763 1766 1766 1766 1767 1767 1768 N uFE load (kN)
6.72 25 TO TO TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF NECK NECK NECK Failure mode
0.78 0.83 0.88 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 N uFE /Ag F y
0.72 0.76 0.81 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 N uFE /An F u
CB6-1 C6-2 C6-3 CB6-2 CB6-3 C6-4 CB6-4 C6-5 C6-6 CB6-5 C6-7 C6-8 C6-9 C6-10 FE model

1817 1930 1989 2060 2115 2174 2182 2185 2186 2186 2186 2186 2187 2188 N uFE load (kN)
8.40 20 WF TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF NECK NECK NECK Failure mode
0.87 0.92 0.95 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 N uFE /Ag F y
0.80 0.85 0.87 0.91 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 NuFE /An F u
CB7-3 C7-4 CB7-4 C7-5 C7-6 CB7-5 C7-7 C7-8 C7-9 C7-10 FE model
2647 2719 2784 2840 2862 2863 2864 2864 2865 2866 N uFE load (kN)
11.20 15 WF WF WF WF WF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF NECK NECK Failure mode
0.96 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 N uFE /Ag F y
0.89 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 N uFE /An F u
Table 6.5 Parametric analysis results for connection type C
6-20
6-21
1.4
NuFE @ max /
NuFE-D Neck
1.3
TO Failure
1.2 D/t=15
D/t=20
D/t=25
D/t=30
Tension
1.1 D/t=35
D/t=40
Failure
D/t=45
Shear Lag Lw / w
Present
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 6.12 Ratio of maximum load to load at the suggested distortion limit (connection type C)
NUFE-D /An Fu
1.1
( An=Ag)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
TO Failure
0.6
D/t=15
0.5
D/t=20
Tension Failure:
0.4 D/t=25 Necking
Tension
0.3 D/t=30 Failure
0.2
D/t=35 Shear Lag
D/t=40 Present
0.1
D/t=45 Lw/w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 6.13 Parametric analysis results: load at distortion limit for connection type C (NuFE/AnFu)
0.57 0.67 0.77 0.83 0.89 0.95 1.01 1.07 1.13 1.19 1.25 1.31 1.43 1.79 2.11 Lw /D
Th D/t 0.40 0.47 0.54 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.75 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 1.01 1.26 1.49 Lw /w
676 671 692 695 696 698 706 723 731 726 745 748 769 805 846 NuFE load (kN)
3.73 45 TO TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF NECK NECK Failure mode
0.70 0.70 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.78 0.80 0.84 0.88 NuFE /AgFy
0.65 0.65 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.81 NuFE /A nFu
716 723 746 753 766 771 774 789 799 813 820 821 847 913 961 NuFE load (kN)
4.20 40 TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF NECK NECK Failure mode
0.67 0.67 0.69 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.79 0.85 0.89 NuFE /AgFy
0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.68 0.68 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.73 0.78 0.82 NuFE /A nFu
799 820 845 850 866 880 884 900 919 918 940 950 980 1054 1109 NuFE load (kN)
4.80 35 TO TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF-NECK NECK NECK NECK Failure mode
0.65 0.67 0.69 0.69 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.80 0.86 0.91 NuFE /AgFy
0.60 0.62 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.71 0.72 0.74 0.79 0.83 NuFE /A nFu
993 953 982 989 1005 1017 1040 1048 1081 1101 1100 1112 1147 1232 1313 NuFE load (kN)
5.60 30 TO TO TO TO TO CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF-NECK NECK NECK Failure mode
0.70 0.67 0.69 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.76 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.81 0.87 0.92 NuFE /AgFy
0.64 0.62 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.74 0.80 0.85 NuFE /A nFu
1216 1250 1272 1287 1309 1333 1347 1369 1376 1396 1429 1433 1469 1582 1660 NuFE load (kN)
6.72 25 TO TO TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF NECK NECK NECK Failure mode
0.72 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.93 0.98 NuFE /AgFy
0.66 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.78 0.80 0.86 0.90 NuFE /A nFu
CB6-1 C6-2 C6-3 CB6-2 CB6-3 C6-4 CB6-4 C6-5 C6-6 CB6-5 C6-7 C6-8 C6-9 C6-10 FE model

1680 1729 1753 1782 1806 1828 1855 1880 1891 1925 1945 1983 2105 2176 NuFE load (kN)
8.40 20 WF TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF NECK NECK NECK Failure mode
0.80 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.95 1.00 1.04 NuFE /AgFy
0.74 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.93 0.96 NuFE /A nFu
CB7-3 C7-4 CB7-4 C7-5 C7-6 CB7-5 C7-7 C7-8 C7-9 C7-10 FE model
2287 2322 2366 2399 2459 2480 2510 2571 2728 2820 NuFE load (kN)
11.20 15 WF WF WF WF WF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF NECK NECK Failure mode
0.83 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.94 0.99 1.03 NuFE /AgFy
0.77 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.86 0.92 0.95 NuFE /AnFu
ble 6.6 Parametric analysis results for connection type C at a distortion limit (0.03D)
6-22
6-23
6.5.2 Parametric analysis results of slotted gusset plate to EHS connection (gusset plate
oriented to give a large eccentricity)
Figures 6.14 shows the connection tensile strength (NuFE) determined in this parametric
analysis (and the test results for specimens E3 and E4), normalized with respect to AnFu (where
An=Ag). This normalization provides a correlation with the efficiency factors recommended in
current design codes/guides. Here, the best estimation of the trend is provided again by the
AISC efficiency factor and the use of x' improves this correlation. However, the maximum
efficiency achieved by the FE results only reaches 0.96 AnFu. This phenomenon (the inability of
these elliptical tubes to reach 100% of AnFu) was also observed for slotted EHS gusset plate
connections with similar EHS orientation. (see type E1, section 6.3, and the discussion of
material properties).
The failure mode for FE models with Lw/w<0.60 was governed principally by TO failure.
Nevertheless, a combination with weld metal failure took place for tubes with a low Davg/t ratio.
The transition between TO failure and CF failure occurred in a good number of FE models
having Lw/w=0.60, but lower values were found for thicker tubes. For FE models with low Lw/w
ratios the connection strength surpassed the prediction from design provisions for TO failure. A
similar behaviour has been observed previously for connection type E5. However, the use of
more FE-generated parametric data in this region is necessary to provide a clearer picture.
In an attempt to reduce the numbers of factors interacting here, three gusset plate
dimensions were used. For FE models with Davg/t ratios ranging from 25 to 45, gusset plates
with similar dimensions were used. The results from this group showed that, in addition to the
shear lag phenomenon, an increase in the tube thickness had a negative influence on the
connection efficiency (as was also seen during the connection type C analysis). For FE models
with Davg/t ratios of 15 and 20, an increase in the gusset plate dimensions enhanced their
efficiency. However, the presence of the shear lag phenomenon always limited this
improvement. Finally, for ratios Lw/w ≥ 1.1 the presence of the shear lag phenomenon was
effectively diminished.
As a general rule, the FE models having L w ⁄ w ≥ 0.60 were able to achieve the tube gross
cross-sectional area yield strength (see Figures 6.15). Moreover, the tube deformation forced
6-24
the tube material into the strain hardening region. This occurred particularly for the FE models
with a large connection weld length. Despite the fact that the formation of a crack in the weld
region always defined the connection failure mechanism (since the EHS were unable to develop
a neck), it is important to note that the tube deformation at failure resulted in a stress of 1.2Fy
over the entire tube length (see Figures 6.15). For the FE models with a Lw/w ratio ranging from
0.60 to 1.1, the connection efficiency was defined by several factors: the strain concentration in
the weld region (due to the presence of shear lag); the amount of distortion of the tube geometry
(and its detrimental effect on the connection strength); gusset plate yielding due to bowing
outwards; and the tube Davg/t ratio.
In the course of this parametric analysis, a considerable difference was found to occur
between the maximum load and the load corresponding to the distortion limit. (The latter was
taken as a deformation of 3% of the smaller dimension of the EHS). Figure 6.16 shows the
variation of these differences and, more importantly, it indicates how the largest difference takes
place in the region with a strong shear lag presence. For the group of FE models having a Davg/
t ratio between 25 and 45, the principal reason for the distortion is associated with bowing of the
gusset plate. For FE models with Davg/t ratios of 15 and 20, the use of larger gusset plates
increased the connection stiffness, however this still did not eliminate the large distortion of the
tube shape. Based on these results, one could suggest that the use of a distortion limit to
predict the connection ultimate capacity might be more appropriate than the maximum load
approach. Furthermore, if one used an ultimate deformation limit corresponding to 3% of the
larger dimension of the EHS, this deformation limit would still govern. For increasing values of
Lw/w, a gradual increase in the connection strength can be appreciated when the load at this
distortion limit is normalized with respect to AnFu (see Figure 6.17), for most of the Lw/w range.
The results from these parametric analyses are shown in Table 6.7 and Table 6.8, where the
results from FE models with a failure mode throughout the weld metal (WM) have been
excluded.

6-25
1.3 L w / Davg
1.1
N uFE /AnF u
(An =Ag ) E4
1.0
TO Failure
0.9
TO Predicted
0.8
for Davg / t = 45
0.7
E3
0.6
Davg/t=15
0.5 Davg/t=20
Davg/t=25
Davg/t=30 Tension Failure
0.4 Davg/t=35
0.3
Davg/t=40
Davg/t=45
Tension Failure
Lab Shear Lag
0.2 CSA(2001)
AISC(2005)_Davg Present
AISC(2005)_Davg x'
Packer & Henderson (1997) L w /w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 6.14 Parametric analysis results and experimental results, connection type E3 (NuFE/AnFu)
NuFE /Ag Fy
1.3
1.2
TO Failure
1.1
1.0
E3 E4
0.9
0.8
0.7 Davg/t=15
0.6
Davg/t=25
0.5
Davg/t=30
0.4
0.3
Davg/t=40 Shear Lag
0.2 Davg/t=45 Present
0.1 Lab
L w /w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 6.15 Parametric analysis results and experimental results, connection type E3 (NuFE/AgFy)

0.30 0.54 0.65 0.77 0.83 0.92 1.01 1.07 1.13 1.19 1.25 1.31 1.43 1.79 2.11 L w /D
Th Davg/t 0.22 0.39 0.47 0.56 0.60 0.67 0.73 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.91 0.95 1.03 1.29 1.53 L w /w
BE31-1 E31-1 BE31-2 E31-2 E31-3 BE31-3 E31-4 BE31-4 E31-5 E31-6 BE31-5 E31-7 E31-8 E31-9 E31-10 FE model
557 700 764 824 850 892 901 926 944 944 944 944 946 946 N uFE load (kN)
0.71 0.89 0.98 1.05 1.09 1.14 1.15 1.18 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 N uFE /A g Fy
0.57 0.71 0.78 0.84 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 N uFE /A n Fu
623 788 861 924 952 993 1027 1042 1053 1059 1059 1059 1059 1061 1061 N uFE load (kN)
4.13 40 TO TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.80 0.90 0.98 1.05 1.08 1.13 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 N uFE /Ag Fy
0.63 0.71 0.78 0.84 0.86 0.90 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 N uFE /An Fu
670 895 972 1035 1063 1103 1143 1164 1179 1193 1203 1201 1203 1204 1204 NuFE load (kN)
0.67 0.90 0.97 1.04 1.06 1.10 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 NuFE /A g Fy
0.53 0.71 0.77 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 NuFE /A n Fu
727 1025 1106 1174 1206 1244 1285 1310 1335 1355 1372 1386 1397 1397 1398 NuFE load (kN)
5.50 30 TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.73 0.88 0.95 1.01 1.04 1.07 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.20 1.20 NuFE /A g Fy
0.58 0.70 0.76 0.80 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 NuFE /A n Fu
E35-1 BE35-2 E35-2 E35-3 BE35-3 E35-4 BE35-4 E35-5 E35-6 BE35-5 E35-7 E35-8 E35-9 E35-10 FE model
1191 1278 1354 1376 1439 1477 1519 1534 1559 1584 1615 1649 1663 1664 NuFE load (kN)
6.60 25 WM TO TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.86 0.92 0.98 0.99 1.04 1.07 1.10 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.20 NuFE /Ag Fy
0.68 0.73 0.78 0.79 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.96 NuFE /An Fu

1582 1664 1787 1827 1887 1946 1984 2038 2065 2063 2066 2070 2081 2081 NuFE load (kN)
8.25 20 WM TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.92 0.97 1.04 1.07 1.10 1.14 1.16 1.19 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.22 1.22 NuFE /A g Fy
0.73 0.77 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 NuFE /A n Fu
BE37-2 E37-2 E37-3 BE37-3 E37-4 BE37-4 E37-5 E37-6 BE37-5 E37-7 E37-8 E37-9 E37-10 FE model
2056 2234 2302 2368 2443 2489 2542 2579 2606 2623 2676 2686 2684 NuFE load (kN)
11.00 15 WM WM TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.92 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.20 NuFE /Ag Fy
0.73 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 NuFE /An Fu
6-26
6-27
1.40
N uFE @ max / NuFE-D
1.35
1.30
Davg/t=15
1.25
Davg/t=20
Davg/t=25
1.20
Davg/t=30
Davg/t=35
1.15
Davg/t=40
1.10
TO Failure Tension Failure
1.05 Shear Lag
Present
Lw /w
1.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 6.16 Ratio of the maximum load to load at suggested distortion limit, connection type E3
N UFE-D /A nFu
0.9
(Ag=An)
0.8
TO Failure
0.7
0.6
Davg/t=15
0.5
Davg/t=20
0.4
0.3 Davg/t=30
Tension Failure
0.2
Davg/t=35 Shear Lag
Davg/t=40 Present
0.1 Davg/t=45
L w /w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 6.17 Parametric analysis results, load at distortion limit, connection type E3 (NuFE/AnFu)

0.30 0.54 0.65 0.77 0.83 0.92 1.01 1.07 1.13 1.19 1.25 1.31 1.43 1.79 2.11 Lw /D
Th Davg/t 0.22 0.39 0.47 0.56 0.60 0.67 0.73 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.91 0.95 1.03 1.29 1.53 Lw /w
538 636 680 739 754 789 823 836 830 830 827 823 807 754 NuFE load (kN)
0.69 0.81 0.87 0.94 0.96 1.01 1.05 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.03 0.96 NuFE/AgFy
0.55 0.65 0.69 0.75 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.82 0.77 NuFE/AnFu
563 678 725 792 828 841 846 848 849 849 849 849 849 848 833 NuFE load (kN)
0.64 0.77 0.83 0.90 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.95 NuFE/AgFy
0.51 0.61 0.66 0.72 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.75 NuFE/AnFu
646 773 828 879 895 910 923 925 930 934 938 942 939 941 920 NuFE load (kN)
0.65 0.77 0.83 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 NuFE/AgFy
0.51 0.61 0.66 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.73 NuFE/AnFu
899 900 942 969 982 1000 1016 1010 1022 1031 1026 1046 1059 1073 1046 NuFE load (kN)
5.50 30 TO TO TO TO-CF TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.77 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.90 NuFE/AgFy
0.62 0.62 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.69 0.70 0.71 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.72 NuFE/AnFu
1029 1056 1085 1096 1122 1126 1138 1154 1150 1178 1172 1190 1247 1218 NuFE load (kN)
6.60 25 WM TO TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.74 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.90 0.88 NuFE/AgFy
0.59 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.68 0.67 0.68 0.72 0.70 NuFE/AnFu

1353 1387 1422 1436 1444 1469 1488 1522 1516 1529 1543 1568 1619 1593 NuFE load (kN)
8.25 20 WM TO TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.79 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.93 NuFE/AgFy
0.63 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.71 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.74 NuFE/AnFu
BE37-2 E37-2 E37-3 BE37-3 E37-4 BE37-4 E37-5 E37-6 BE37-5 E37-7 E37-8 E37-9 E37-10 FE model
1692 1740 1764 1797 1830 1865 1881 1905 1940 1951 1990 2078 2070 NuFE load (kN)
11.00 15 WM WM TO TO-CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF Failure mode
0.75 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.93 0.92 NuFE/AgFy
0.60 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.71 0.74 0.73 NuFE/AnFu
Table 6.8 Parametric analysis results for connection type E3 at a distortion limit (0.03 D2)
6-28
6-29
6.6 Connections under compression load
6.6.1 Parametric analysis results of slotted CHS connection - slot end not filled
The maximum load of the connections fabricated with a slotted tube was governed by the
failure mode of local buckling in the tube slot region. The formation of this local buckle was
influenced by the tube D/t ratio and the strain concentration at the beginning of the weld, the
latter being due to the presence of shear lag. For a short weld length, the shear lag
phenomenon increased the strain concentration at the beginning of the weld, thus provoking the
premature formation of a buckle, and on occasions the failure of the weld material. On the other
hand, a large weld length diminished the strain concentration and allowed a local bucking failure
of the entire cross-section at the slot region (see Figure 6.18).
In order to describe the connection behaviour on a common basis, the connection

strength (NuFE) calculated during the parametric analyses (and the test result for specimen
A3C) has been normalized with respect to AgFy in Figure 6.19.
For FE models with Lw/w<0.92, the connection behaviour can be described by a

combination of several factors. The strain concentration taking place in front of the weld region
triggered the formation of a buckle affecting the tube geometry there. In most cases, the load
necessary to produce this buckle was not enough to modify the geometry of the entire cross-
section. In general terms, the Lw/w ratio determined the strain concentration at the weld region
and the D/t ratio determined the connection's ability to redistribute these strains to the entire
cross-section, which could improve the efficiency factor. For FE models having Lw/w> 0.92, the
maximum efficiency was determined only by the tube D/t ratio and the length of the slot (lsl),
because the shear lag phenomenon had no influence.

6-30
Figure 6.18 Local buckling of FE models with a slotted tube, for short and long welds
NuFE /Ag F y
1.1
1.0
Shear Lag A3C
0.9
Phenomenon
0.8 Present
Local buckling of
0.7
Eentire cross-section
0.6 D/t=15
D/t=20
0.5
D/t=25
0.4 D/t=30
0.3 D/t=35
D/t=40
0.2
D/t=45
0.1 Lab
L w /w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Figure 6.19 Parametric analysis results and experimental result, connection type A under
compression (NuFE/AgFy)

6-31
In the course of these analyses, the slot length (lsl) was set to be equal to the thickness of
the gusset plate (tp). However, to establish the importance of the slot size on the connection
efficiency, the length of the slot was increased in several FE models with a ratio of Lw/w= 0.92.
In Figure 6.20 the connection efficiency for the most representative D/t ratios decreases as the
ratio of lsl/tp increases. A maximum slot length of three times the thickness of the gusset plate
has been considered here, as this dimension was expected to be within the construction
tolerances commonly found in practice. Even with the use of a large slot, the maximum
decrease in connection efficiency did not exceed 10% in all cases, relative to the short slot
case.
In most of the FE models, the maximum load was close to the tube distortion limit load
and once this limit was exceeded rapid distortion of the tube shape governed the tube
behaviour. So no significant difference between the maximum load and the load corresponding
to the distortion limit was found. The results from these parametric analyses are shown in
Table 6.9, where the results from FE models with a failure mode throughout the weld metal
(WM) have been excluded.
Figure 6.20 Local buckling of FE models with a slotted tube, for short and long slot lengths

6-32
0.57 0.77 0.83 1.01 1.13 1.19 1.31 1.43 1.79 L w /D

Th D/t 0.40 0.54 0.59 0.71 0.80 0.84 0.92 1.01 1.26 L w /w
CA1-0 CA1-1 CA1-2 CA1-3 CA1-4 CA1-5 CA1-6 CA1-7 CA1-8 FE model
3.73 45 482 604 636 732 791 808 823 827 829 NuFE load (kN)
0.50 0.63 0.66 0.76 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.86 NuFE /Ag Fy
CA2-0 CA2-1 CA2-2 CA2-4 CA2-5 CA2-6 CA2-7 CA2-8 FE model

4.20 40 551 687 724 900 931 947 950 949 NuFE load (kN)
0.51 0.64 0.67 0.84 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 NuFE /A gFy
4.80 35 630 794 838 967 1043 1076 1101 1102 1101 N uFE load (kN)
0.51 0.65 0.68 0.79 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 N uFE /Ag Fy
5.60 30 777 975 1028 1182 1263 1293 1310 1309 1306 N uFE load (kN)
0.55 0.69 0.72 0.83 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 NuFE /Ag Fy
6.72 25 894 1144 1212 1417 1522 1557 1592 1595 1593 N uFE load (kN)
0.53 0.68 0.72 0.84 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 NuFE /A gFy
CA6-3 CA6-4 CA6-5 CA6-6 CA6-7 CA6-8 FE model

8.40 20 WF WF WF 1816 1958 1998 2044 2051 2053 N uFE load (kN)
0.87 0.93 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98 N uFE /Ag Fy
CA7-5 CA7-6 CA7-7 CA7-8 FE model

11.20 15 WF WF WF WF WF 2647 2730 2760 2772 NuFE load (kN)
0.96 0.99 1.01 1.01 N uFE /Ag Fy
Table 6.9 Parametric analysis results for connection type A3C
6.6.2 Parametric analysis results of slotted gusset plate to CHS connection

For FE models of connections fabricated with a slotted gusset plate, the failure mode of
local buckling of the tube gross cross-sectional area (see Figure 6.21) was influenced by
several factors: a strain concentration at the beginning of the weld (due to shear lag) which was
determined by the Lw/w ratio; the bowing inwards of the gusset plate exacerbating the tube's
local stability which is related to the plate's flexural stiffness and load applied; and the tube
thickness which defines the D/t ratio and hence the tube local buckling load. In order to describe
the behaviour of these connections on a common basis, the connection strength (NuFE) has
been normalized with respect to AgFy (see Figure 6.22). The D/t ratios for the CHS used in this
parametric analysis always corresponded to at least a Class 3 section (CSA 2001).
In an attempt to reduce the number of parameters having an influence on the FE models'

behaviour, a constant plate moment of inertia at the slot region was tried throughout this

6-33
parametric analysis. However, this was possible only for FE models with D/t ratios from 25 to 45
(Plate1). With FE models having a thicker tube, the presence of out-of-plane gusset plate
buckling required an increase in the plate dimensions (Plates 2 and 3). Due to these
differences, the FE analysis results are collated according to their plate properties.
For FE models with low Lw/w ratios and high D/t ratios (using Plate 1), the efficiency was
determined predominantly by the tube thickness. For thin tubes, the (low) load necessary to
produce tube local bucking induces only a slight deformation on the gusset plate, hence
reducing the effect of plate bowing on the connection efficiency. On the other hand, the local
bucking load associated with thicker tubes produces considerable deformation of the gusset
plate, amplifying the effect of plate bowing on the connection efficiency. Figure 6.22 shows a
gradual diminution of the variation between the efficiencies of the tubes using Plate 1 with
increasing Lw/w.
For FE models with larger plates (Plates 2 and 3), a clear increase in the gross cross-
sectional area efficiency was shown. However, these showed a similar rate of change in
connection efficiency as the Plate 1 group. Figure 6.22 indicates that the factors affecting the
connection efficiency continue to be present even for large weld lengths.
Throughout these analyses, a check of the tube cross-section ultimate strength distortion
limit (3%D) was made. In most cases the maximum load occurred after surpassing this
distortion limit. Once this limit was exceeded, rapid distortion of the tube geometry took place,
limiting much increase of the load beyond this limit. As a result of this, the ratio of the maximum
load to the load corresponding to this distortion limit never exceeded 1.06. The results from
these parametric analyses are shown in Table 6.10, where the results from FE models with a
failure mode throughout the weld metal (WM) have been excluded.

6-34
Figure 6.21 Local buckling of FE models with a slotted gusset plate, for short and long welds
Figure 6.22 Parametric analysis results and experimental result, connection type C under
compression (NuFE/AgFy)

6-35
Table 6.10 Parametric analysis results for connection type C3C
6.7 Weld design

Figure 6.23 shows the theoretical relationship between a Weld Material (WM) failure and
a Tear-Out (TO) failure with the fillet weld leg length (al) in slotted CHS connections. (Here al
was normalized with respect to the tube thickness (t) and all resistance factors were set to 1.0).
According to this figure, the shear strength of the weld will gradually increase as al is
augmented, resulting in a change in the governing failure mechanism (from a WM to a TO
failure). Even though this figure suggests that an al equivalent to t may prevent the presence of
a WM failure in the connection, a further parametric analysis (with 90 FE models of slotted CHS
connections considering several al values, Lw/w ratios and D/t ratios) has suggested that this
assumption may be incorrect.

6-36
AwXu / (AntFu + 0.6 AnvF y)

2.20
2.00
1.80
Tear-Out failure
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
Weld Material failure
0.60
0.40
0.20
al / t
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Figure 6.23 Theoretical influence of the al/t ratio in the governing failure
mechanism of a slotted CHS connection (without weld return)
As a result of the stress concentration at the beginning of the welds, it is expected that the
tube material will yield there and then fracture. However, it has been found that this stress
concentration can also induce weld yielding there (which will result in a subsequent WM failure)
for connections with al/t ratios barely exceeding 1.0. Therefore, based on these analyses, it is
suggested to use an al ≥ 1.7t and 1.5t for slotted CHS connections with and without a weld
return respectively, when a TO failure is expected (i.e for ratios Lw/w < 0.7). On the other hand,
as the Lw/w ratio increases and the failure mechanism changes from a TO to a CF failure, the
decrease in the magnitude of the stress concentration at the beginning of the weld will allow one
to use a smaller al. Thus, al ≥ 1.5t is conservative for ratios Lw/w ≥ 0.7 (i.e. when a CF failure is
expected).
For slotted gusset plate to CHS connections, a further analysis of 45 FE models has
suggested the use of al ≥ 2t for connections with ratios Lw/w < 0.60 (where the TO failure
governs). For the region marking the transition from a TO to a CF failure (i.e for ratios
0.6 ≤ L w ⁄ w ≤ 0.8 ), al ≥ 1.7t is suggested and al ≥ 1.5t may be used for ratios Lw/w > 0.8.

6-37
The range of validity of all these recommendations corresponds to connections with D/t
ratios ranging from 25 to 40. For connections with D/t=20, the use of al ≥ 2.5t is recommended
for ratios Lw/w < 0.8 and al ≥ 2t for larger ratios. For thicker tubes, the use of an alternative
welding procedure is recommended, especially for connections with ratios Lw/w < 0.8. All these
recommendations are summarized in Table 6.11 and Table 6.12.
Table 6.11 Recommended weld size for slotted CHS connections
Suggested weld leg length Range of validity
al ≥ 1.7t (without a weld return)

Lw/w < 0.7
D
al ≥ 1.5t (with weld return) 25 ≤ ---- ≤ 40
t
Lw/w ≥ 0.7 al ≥ 1.5t (both details)
Lw/w < 0.8 al ≥ 2.5t (both details)

D
20 ≤ ---- < 25
t
Table 6.12 Recommended weld size for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections
Suggested weld leg length Range of validity
Lw/w < 0.6 al ≥ 2t

D
0.6 ≤ L w ⁄ w ≤ 0.8 al ≥ 1.7t 25 ≤ ---- ≤ 40
t
Lw/w > 0.8 al ≥ 1.5t
Lw/w < 0.8 al ≥ 2.5t (both details)

D
20 ≤ ---- < 25
t
It must be borne in mind that the above fillet weld size recommendations are independent
of resistance factors being applied, to both the weld design model and the tear-out design
model.

6-38
In this chapter, the FE models showed a gradual transition between the failure modes of
"block shear" tear-out and circumferential tensile fracture, with a continual monotonic increase
in the connection capacity as the weld length increased. The transition point between these
failure modes depended on factors such as: the connection type, the weld length, the tube
diameter-to-thickness ratio and the connection eccentricity. This gradual transition between
failure modes is in contrast to the behaviour given by design models in current specifications,
since these specifications do not consider a gradual change between these limit states.
For the slotted CHS connections, the use of a weld length-to-distance between welds
ratio of Lw/w > 1.0 allowed the attainment of 100% efficiency of the tube net area (AnFu).
However, it was not possible to develop the gross-section yield strength of these tubes because
of their low AnFu/AgFy ratio, and only 96% of AgFy was attained. The efficiency for the slotted
EHS connections was limited to 94% of the tube net area (AnFu). Nevertheless, these were able
to attain the gross-section yield strength (100% AgFy) because of a higher AnFu/AgFy ratio. In
general, the CHS showed better behaviour than the EHS, since the distortion of their shape
mostly occurred near attainment of connection ultimate strength and the x value had only a
small influence on their behaviour. Unfortunately, for both tubes large strains always took place
in the slot region, even with the use of long welds. The inclusion of a weld return provides the
possibility to eliminate net area fracture and transfer this deformation away from the connection.
In general this objective was accomplished for connections with a weld return, as they were
capable of attaining their gross-section yield strength (100% of AgFy). However, the initial
fabrication conditions that were included in the FE models always had a negative effect on the
behaviour of connections with a weld return, thus limiting the overall tube deformations. This
limited the tube net area efficiency to 95% of AnFu, where An=Ag, for this connection type.
In slotted gusset plate to CHS connections loaded in tension, with Lw/w >1.0, the
decrease in strain concentration at the weld region allowed the creation of a neck away from the
connection. However, the associated deformations in the tube cross-section shape suggest the
imposition of a distortion limit. On the other hand, for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections
brittle fracture continued to be the principal failure mechanism, even with long weld lengths.
These connections only attained a net cross-sectional area efficiency of 96% of AnFu, (where

6-39
An=Ag), but were capable of exceeding the gross-section yield strength and promoting strain-
hardening of the tube material, reaching capacities of 1.2 AgFy. In addition, the level of distortion
for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections was similar to that for their CHS counterparts.
For the connections loaded under compression, the parametric analysis results have
shown the possibility to diminish the influence of shear lag on slotted CHS connections with a
ratio of Lw/w > 0.92. The gross-cross sectional area efficiency here ranged from 86% to 100% of
AgFy. This range is due to the net area cross-sectional properties at the slot region. (Results
were normalized with respect to Ag because this is a compression case). The behaviour of the
slotted gusset plate to CHS connection type was less promising and also confirmed the
negative effect of gusset plate deformation prevalent with this connection type. However, from
these analyses it can be noted that the use of a large gusset plate (with a large moment of
inertia) can improve the gross cross-sectional area efficiency, as the FE models with a larger
gusset plate reached an efficiency close to 100% of AgFy.
For connections under quasi-static tension loading, the current design provisions for
"block shear" tear out and circumferential tension fracture have been evaluated against the
experimental research and parametric analysis results. For the treatment of shear lag, the
American Specification (AISC 2005) provides the closest solution to the trend followed by these
results. Furthermore, the accuracy of this design method can be improved by reducing the
eccentricity of the half connection, x , by half of the gusset plate thickness (i.e., by using x' = x
-tp/2). Despite this improvement this preferred model is still over-conservative and not
representative of the true connection behaviour. Against block shear failure, the Canadian (CSA
2001) and American (AISC 2005) specifications use the same design model. However their
application range is not clear and the parametric results have shown that this application range
can vary depending on several factors. Based on all these results, a new design methodology is
provided in the next chapter of this Report.
Since the stress concentration taking place at the beginning of the weld can also affect the
weld behaviour and, more importantly, lead to a weld material failure, it was decided to also
provide a series of recommendations to dimension the fillet size for CHS connection details.

7-1
CHAPTER 7: ANALYSIS OF FE AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The weakness shown by current design provisions to provide accurate connection

efficiency factors, close to the experimental data and the parametric analysis results, for slotted
CHS and EHS connections, has been illustrated in previous chapters. Therefore, new equations
that model the connection behaviour more accurately, based on either the Lw/w or x' /Lw ratio,
are suggested in this chapter. Moreover, the efficiency factors based on these new equations
are then compared to previous experimental programs and are shown to correlate favourably.
In addition, as seen throughout the experimental program and the parametric analysis of
the slotted gusset plate connections, the attainment of the maximum connection strength was
always associated with excessive distortion of the tube cross-section. For this reason, the use
of a distortion limit has been recommended to control the maximum strength for this connection
type. Hence, ultimate capacity equations providing efficiency factors based on this limit are also
suggested herein.
7.1 CHS connections in tension - CF failure

7.1.1 Shear lag equations suggested for CSA design provision format
7.1.1.1 Equation suggested for slotted CHS to gusset plate connections
In order to provide an equation representing the trend shown for CF failure by parametric
analysis results, where a gradual increase in the connection efficiency (U) occurred at the same
time as the weld length, several equation formats were examined. A very good fit to this data is
given by equation (7-1), which only utilizes the Lw/w ratio as suggested by the current CSA
(2001), which presumes that this has the primary influence. Moreover, this same behaviour was
seen during both the experimental program and the parametric analysis.
1
U = 1 – --------------------------------
Lw a b (7-1)
1 +  ------
 w
The coefficients a and b were determined by nonlinear regressions with the use of the
software Sigmaplot 9.0 (Systat Software 2004). Despite this software being able to provide
coefficients with four significant figures, it was found that these could be rounded to two or only
one significant figure (in order to simplify the use of these equations for design provisions)
without affecting the accuracy of the equations to predict the connection efficiency.
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH 7: ANALYSIS OF FE AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

7-2
The use of coefficients a=2.4 and b=5.7 can provide a very good prediction of the
connection efficiency for slotted CHS connections, with a mean actual-to-predicted ratio equal
to 1.00 and a coefficient of variation (COV) of 4%. Hence, the recommended expression for a
CSA format can be written as:
1
U CSA – slotted – tube = 1 – --------------------------------------- (7-2)
L 2.4 5.7
1 +  -----w-
 w
Despite the fact that the application of this equation seems appropriate for Lw/w ratios
below 0.70 (see Figure 7.1), its range of validity has been limited to ratios of Lw/w ≥ 0.7, in
accordance with the parametric analysis results, because the transition from a TO failure to a
CF failure took place in a region near this value. Moreover, the failure mechanism involved in a
TO failure diverges from the CF approach. Nevertheless, a convergence on the actual
connection strength with either prediction approach is expected in this low Lw/w region.
1.1
NuFE/ AnFu
1.0
TO Failure
0.9
0.8 CF
0.7
1
U = 1 – --------------------------------------
0.6 L w 2.4 5.7
( )
CSA-slotted-tube
1+ ------
0.5 w
0.4
U suggested
CF
0.3 Shear
0.2 Slotted CHS (no weld return) Lag
Present
0.1 Slotted CHS (weld return)
Lw / w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 7.1 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted CHS
Besides the influence of the Lw/w ratio on connection efficiency, the parametric analysis
results have also illustrated some effect of the tube D/t ratio on this efficiency. During these
analyses, connections having similar Lw/w ratios but a lower D/t ratio attained a higher
efficiency than their counterparts with a high D/t ratio. Hence, equation (7-2) can be modified as
follows:

7-3
  
  1  – 0.05
U CSA – slotted – tube -   1.18  D
=  1 –  -------------------------------------- ----  ≤ 1.0 (7-3)
  L 2.4 5.7
    t  
 - w
  1 +  ----- w  
The equation format and coefficients offering the best-fit are given by equation (7-3). The
use of this modified equation does not have a significant impact on the connection efficiency as
the mean remained the same (1.0) and only represented an improvement to the COV (as it
decreased from 4% to 3.6%). Once again, the range of validity for this equation corresponds to
the ratios previously defined for equation (7-2), namely 15 ≤ D/t ≤ 45 and Lw/w ≥ 0.7. Based on
the results from equation (7-3), it is possible to infer that the connection Lw/w ratio has the main
influence on the connection efficiency and equation (7-2) favourably represents this general
behaviour. Since the inclusion of the D/t ratio in equation (7-3) does not have a significant
impact on the predicted connection efficiency, the use of the simplified equation (7-2) seems
appropriate for design provisions. The results of these comparisons are summarized in
Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted CHS

FE results / FE results /
FE results a) equation (7-2) equation (7-3)
Slotted CHS (no weld return) and 1.00 1.00 Mean
146
Slotted CHS (weld return) 4.0% 3.6% COV
a) Data corresponding to FE connections with L w ⁄ w ≥ 0.7 .
7.1.1.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on
ultimate strength
In an attempt to generalize the use of equation (7-2), it was also applied to the parametric
analysis results of slotted gusset plate connections resulting in a mean actual-to-predicted ratio
of 1.00 and a COV of 2.9%. Despite this result, a new regression was carried out exclusively
with the data corresponding to the parametric analysis results from the slotted gusset plate
connections as a means to provide an equation following the general trend of this data.
Equation (7-4) shows these new coefficients based on these data points.
1
U CSA – slotted – gusset = 1 – -----------------------------------------
L 1.4 4.65
1 +  -----w- (7-4)
 w
The use of coefficients 1.4 and 4.65 provided a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and
a COV of 2.6%. These results are almost identical to the correlation provided by equation (7-2).
7-4
The closeness observed between both results is attributed to the range of validity of these
equations. Figure 7.2 shows that, whereas for ratios L w ⁄ w ≥ 0.7 both curves get closer (as the
predicted connection efficiency scatter diminishes as the Lw/w ratio increases), for smaller
ratios these curves diverge because equation (7-4) predicts higher values. The scatter in this
data has been attributed to a combination of factors such as a lack of a slot in the tube and the
gusset plate bowing outwards, the latter being especially influential for small Lw/w ratios.
1.1
NuFE/AnFu
1.0
0.9
TO Failure
0.8
0.7
Necking
0.6
CF
0.5
Shear
0.4 Slotted gusset plate Lag
0.3 U suggested (7-2) Present
U suggested (7-4)
0.2
0.1
Lw/w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 7.2 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted gusset plate
to CHS connections (based on ultimate strength)
Since the use of either equation (7-2) or (7-4) provided the same mean (1.0) and a very
small COV, it was decided not to develop an additional equation including the effect of the D/t
ratio. Based on these results (see Table 7.2), the use of equation (7-2) still seems adequate for
slotted gusset plate connections, within the validity limits of 15 ≤ D/t ≤ 45 and Lw/w ≥ 0.7.
Table 7.2 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted gusset plate connections
FE results / FE results / FE results /
FE results a) equation equation equation
(7-2) (7-3) (7-4)
1.00 1.00 1.00 Mean
Slotted gusset plate to CHS 63
2.9% 3.1% 2.6% COV

7-5
7.1.1.3 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate connections based on deformation
limit (0.03D)
As seen throughout the parametric analysis, the attainment of the maximum strength for
this connection type was always accompanied by excessive distortion in the tube cross-section.
Therefore, the use of an ultimate deformation limit of 0.03D (which typically occurs before the
presence of any failure mechanism) has been suggested herein as a means to control this
distortion. Based on the connection strength calculated at this limit throughout the parametric
analysis, equation (7-5) was derived to give a connection efficiency, which is also dependent on
the connection Lw/w ratio.
L
U CSA – slotted – gusset – 0.· 03D = 0.23  -----w- + 0.55 ≤ 1.0
 w (7-5)
The best-fit for the coefficients in equation (7-5) corresponded to 0.23 and 0.55 which
produced a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 7.1%. Figure 7.3 shows the
suggested efficiency factor and the parametric analysis results.
NuFE/ AnFu
1.0
0.9
0.8
TO failure
0.7
0.6
0.5
No failure of connection
( )
0.4 Lw
U = 0.23 -----
- + 0.55 <1.0
0.3 U suggested for 0.03 D CSA-slotted-gusset-0.03D w
0.2 Slotted gusset plate at 0.03 D
0.1
Lw / w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Figure 7.3 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted gusset
plate to CHS connections at 0.03D deformation limit
The validity of equation (7-5) has been limited to ratios Lw/w ≥ 0.40. Below this range, it is
expected that TO failure will govern the behaviour of the connection. In contrast, at a ratio of Lw/
w=1.95, 100% of the connection efficiency is achieved, but the connection efficiency is clearly
limited to 1.0. This follows the behaviour that was seen throughout the parametric analysis

7-6
results, where the use of a long weld allowed the attainment of the connection maximum
strength at almost the same time as the distortion limit.
It was observed throughout the parametric analysis that the use of stockier tubes
postponed the deformation of the cross-section and permitted the attainment of higher
connection strength at the deformation limit. The influence that the D/t ratio may have on the
connection efficiency has thus been considered, resulting in equation (7-6):
L D –0.18
U CSA – slotted – gusset – 0.03D =  0.23  -----w- + 0.55  1.81  ---- ≤ 1.0 (7-6)
  w   t 
Equation (7-6) provided a mean and COV of 1.01 and 3.5% respectively. Once again, a
lower bound (a ratio of Lw/w =0.40) has been suggested as a validity limit for this equation since
TO failure will govern for lower values. The attainment of the full efficiency for thinner tubes may
require longer welds than for thicker tubes, but the maximum possible efficiency will be always
limited to 100% of AnFu. Although the inclusion of the D/t ratio in equation (7-6) improved the
calculated COV (see Table 7.3), it is suggested to use the simplified equation (7-5).
Table 7.3 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted gusset plate connections using an
ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D
1.00 1.01 Mean
7.1% 3.5% COV
a)
Data corresponding to the connection strength at a deformation limit of 0.03D, for slotted gusset plate connections
to CHS.
7.1.2 Shear lag equations suggested for AISC design provision format
As seen during the parametric analyses, the transition from a TO failure to a CF failure
and the attainment of tube necking were clearly defined by the connection Lw/w ratios. In order
to transfer these limits (based on Lw/w) to the AISC design provision, the use of the ratio x /Lw
(as used by AISC) was found to be inappropriate since a number of Lw/w ratios can be
calculated (from a single x /Lw ratio) once several plate thicknesses are considered. Therefore,
the use of a reduced eccentricity ( x' ) is considered more appropriate because its calculation
provides a unique x' /Lw ratio since it accounts for the plate thickness (as the Lw/w ratio

7-7
approach also does). Hence, equations making use of the reduced eccentricity ( x' ) are
suggested herein.
7.1.2.1 Equation suggested for slotted CHS to gusset plate connections

Equation (7-7) shows the suggested equation to calculate the connection efficiency based
on the x' /Lw ratio. The use of coefficients of 3.2 and 9.9 provided a mean actual-to-predicted
ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 3.9%.
1
U AISC – slotted – tube = ---------------------------------------
3.2 9.9
(7-7)
x'
1 + ------

 L w
This equation is suitable for ratios x' /Lw< 0.245. This limit corresponds to the point of
change from a CF to a TO failure during the parametric analysis (see Figure 7.4). Beyond this
ratio, it is expected that a TO failure mechanism governs.
1.1
NuFE/AnFu
1.0 1
U = -------------------------------------
3.2 9.9
-
0.9
( )
AISC-slotted-tube
1 + ------ X’
0.8 Lw
CF
0.7
CF
0.6
Shear
0.5 Lag
0.4 Slotted CHS (no weld return) Present
TO Failure
0.3 Slotted CHS (weld return)
0.2 U suggested
0.1
0.245 x'/Lw
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 7.4 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted CHS (AISC
design provision format)
The influence of the D/t ratio was then included in equation (7-8) and a further regression
was carried out to determine the coefficients providing the best-fit. In contrast to previous
experience, the addition of this ratio only provided just a slight modification to the COV (see
Table 7.4). Hence, the sole use of equation (7-7) is suggested in order to simplify the calculation
of the connection efficiency.

7-8
 
 1  D – 1.95
U AISC – slotted – tube - +  ----
=  -------------------------------------- ≤ 1.0 (7-8)
 1 +  ----- x'- 3.2 9.9  t 
  L w 
Table 7.4 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted CHS connections (AISC)
146
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.245 .
7.1.2.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on
ultimate strength
A regression was carried out with the slotted gusset plate connection data and equation
(7-9) shows the new coefficients based on these data.
1
U AISC – slotted – gusset = --------------------------------------
-
 x'  2.4 3.2 (7-9)
1 + ------
 L w
The use of the coefficients 2.4 and 3.2 in equation (7-9) provided a mean actual-to-
predicted ratio of 1.01 and a COV of 2.4%. In addition, equation (7-7) was also applied to this
data resulting in a similar mean and COV (1.0 and 2.4% respectively). The range of validity for
these equations corresponds to 15 ≤ D/t ≤ 45 and x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.245 . In a similar manner to section
7.1.1.2, where the equation suggested for slotted tubes was applied to slotted gusset plates for
the CSA format, these two equations showed closeness for small x' ⁄ L w ratios (see Figure 7.5).
Since the use of either equation (7-7) or (7-9) provided almost the same mean (1.0 &
1.01) and a very small COV, it was decided not to develop an equation including the effect of
the D/t ratio. Based on these results (see Table 7.5), the use of equation (7-7) is recommended
to calculate the connection efficiency of slotted gusset plate connections within the validity limits
of 15 ≤ D/t ≤ 45 and x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.245.

7-9
1.1
NuFE/A nFu 1.0
0.9
Necking
0.8
0.7 CF
0.6 Shear
Lag
0.5
Present TO Failure
0.4
0.3 Slotted gusset plate
0.2 U suggested (7-7)
U suggested (7-9)
0.1
X'/ Lw
0.245
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
plate to CHS connections (AISC design provision format)
Table 7.5 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted gusset plate connections (AISC design
provision format)
FE results / equation FE results /
FE results a) (7-7) equation (7-9)
1.00 1.01 Mean
2.4% 2.4% COV
a) Data corresponding to FE connections with x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.245 .
limit (0.03D)
In contrast to section 7.1.1.3, the data herein described a nonlinear variation when it was
plotted against the x' /Lw ratio. Therefore, a new equation format was suggested and the best-fit
to the data corresponds to equation (7-10). The coefficients 0.26 and 0.40 produced a mean
actual-to-predicted ratio 1.00 and a COV of 7.1%.
 
 1 
U AISC – slotted – gusset – 0.03D = 0.26  1 + ------------------
0.4
(7-10)
 x'  
 -----
 -
L   w
This equation is suitable for connections with ratios x' /Lw< 0.44. Above this ratio, a TO
failure will govern the behaviour of these connections (see Figure 7.6). In order to attain the full

7-10
connection efficiency, a ratio of x' /Lw=0.073 will be required. This equation will demand the use
of a longer weld length than that recommended by equation (7-5). This discrepancy can be
attributed to the difference in the formulation of these equations; while the first shows a linear
variation, this second one does not.
1.0
NuFE/AnFu
0.9
0.8 TO failure
0.7
No failure of connection
0.6
0.5
( )
0.4 U suggested for 0.03D
1 -
Slotted gusset plate at 0.03D U = 0.26 1 + -------------------
0.3
( )
x' 0.4
AISC-slotted-gusset-0.03D
------
0.2 Lw
0.1
0.44 X'/ Lw
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Figure 7.6 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted gusset plate
to CHS connections at 0.03D deformation limit (AISC design provision format)
The influence of the D/t ratio is included in equation (7-11) where the coefficients 1.77 and
-0.17 produced a mean actual-to-predicted ratio equal to 1.00 and a COV of 3.7%.
 
 1  D
– 0.17
U AISC – slotted – gusset – 0.03D = 0.26  1 + -----------------
-  1.77 ----  ≤ 1.0
 x'  0.4 
 -----
 t  (7-11)
 - 
 L w
In a similar manner as equation (7-10), the validity of this equation has been limited to
ratios x' /Lw< 0.44 and the maximum attainable connection efficiency is defined as 100% of
AnFu. In the same way as equation (7-6), the inclusion of the D/t ratio in equation (7-11) has
captured the scatter in the data and improved the prediction of the efficiency factor (see
Table 7.6).

7-11
Table 7.6 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted gusset plate connections using an
ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D (AISC design provision format)
FE results / equation FE results / equation
FE results a) (7-10) (7-11)
Slotted gusset plate to 1.00 1.00 Mean
99
CHS 7.1% 3.7% COV
a)
to CHS.
7.2 EHS connections in tension - CF failure

As seen in the previous section 7.1, the use of equations initially suggested to predict the
efficiency of slotted CHS connections provided acceptable results (within their validity limits)
when they were applied to slotted gusset plate connections. Therefore, the applicability of these
equations to results from EHS connections is studied herein. As a result, several new equations
are suggested to be used specifically for EHS connections.
7.2.1 Shear lag equations suggested for CSA design provision format
7.2.1.1 Equation suggested for slotted EHS to gusset plate connections
Even though equation (7-2) appears close to the data representing the response of
slotted EHS connections, especially for ratios of Lw/w ranging from 0.6 to 0.9 (see Figure 7.7), it
shows an early attainment of the full efficiency that contrasts with the trend shown by the EHS
data. Equation (7-2) can provide a mean actual-to-predicted ratio equal to 0.97 and a COV of
4.6% for data having ratios of Lw/w>0.6. A regression carried out exclusively with the data from
EHS connections produced the coefficients of 1.3 and 3.8 in equation (7-12) which resulted in a
mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 3.7%.
1
U CSA – slotted – tube – EHS = 1 – ---------------------------------------
L 1.3 3.8
1 +  ------
w
 w (7-12)
In Figure 7.7, equation (7-12) exhibits a better prediction of the connection efficiency than
equation (7-2), particularly showing accuracy for connections with large Lw/w ratios. Moreover,
in contrast to the trend shown by equation (7-2), this proximity continues occurring for Lw/w
ratios below 0.6 where a TO failure is expected to govern. Note also that Figure 7.7 includes
data for slotted EHS in both the major and minor axis directions.

7-12
NuFE/AnFu
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8 TO Failure CF
0.7
0.6
0.5 CF
0.4 Shear
0.3 Slotted EHS with small x Lag
0.2 Slotted EHS with large x Present
Suggested for CHS (7-2)
0.1 Suggested for EHS (7-12)
Lw/w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 7.7 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results from slotted EHS
A further regression was undertaken to include the influence of the Davg/t ratio in equation
(7-13). However, this new equation (with a coefficient of -2.9) resulted in a similar mean actual-
to-predicted ratio and COV as equation (7-12). Since this clearly does not represent an
improvement with respect to the initial equation, the use of the simplified equation (7-12) for this
connection type is recommended. Finally, the results from these comparisons are shown in
Table 7.7.
  
  1  D avg – 2.9
U CSA – slotted – tube – EHS -  +   -----------
=  1 –  -------------------------------------- ≤ 1.0
  L w 1.3 3.8
   t   (7-13)

  1 +  ----- w
- 
Table 7.7 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted EHS connections

FE results a) equation (7-2) equation (7-12) equation (7-13)
Slotted EHS having small 0.97 1.00 1.00 Mean
143
and large x' 4.6% 3.7% 3.7% COV
7.2.1.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on
ultimate strength
The use of equation (7-2) with data corresponding to slotted gusset plate to EHS
connections provided a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 0.99 and a COV of 4.1%. Even though

7-13
this appears to be a good result, it is mainly a consequence of the close correlation of data
located in the range of Lw/w from 0.6 to 1.0 (see Figure 7.8). Moreover, for ratios of Lw/w < 0.6
equation (7-2) does not follow the data trend, as has been the philosophy of the equations
provided previously. On the contrary, equation (7-12) can follow this trend, however it
underestimates the efficiency of these connections and provides a mean actual-to-predicted
ratio of 1.03 and a COV of 3.1%. Despite this, the use of this equation may still be accepted as
it offers a lower bound. A further regression undertaken with the data from slotted gusset plate
connections produced the coefficients of 1.2 and 4.3 in equation (7-14), with a mean actual-to-
predicted ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 2.5%.
1
U CSA – slotted – gusset – EHS = 1 – ---------------------------------------
L w 1.2 4.3 (7-14)
1 +  ------
 w
1.1
NuFE/AnFu
1.0
TO Failure
0.9
0.8
CF
0.7
0.6 CF
0.5 Shear Slotted gusset plate to EHS
0.4 Lag Suggested for CHS (7-2)
0.3
Present Suggested for slotted EHS (7-12)
Suggested for slotted gusset
0.2 Gplate to EHS (7-14)
0.1
Lw/w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 7.8 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results for slotted gusset plate
to EHS connections
Since the use of equation (7-14) provided an excellent mean (1.0) and a very small COV,
it was decided not to developed an equation including the effect of the Davg/t ratio. Although
equation (7-2) may be also used for this connection type, the use of an equation that is able to
follow the trend of the data (including beyond the CF failure region), such as (7-12) but
especially (7-14), is strongly recommended. The results from these comparisons are shown in
Table 7.8.

7-14
Table 7.8 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections
Slotted gusset plate 0.99 1.03 1.00 Mean
76
to EHS 4.1% 3.1% 2.5% COV
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with L w ⁄ w ≥ 0.6 .
limit (0.03D2)
In contrast to slotted gusset plate connections to CHS, where a clear linear increase in the
connection efficiency occurs as the weld length increases (as well as the possibility of attaining
100% of AnFu), the data from EHS connections did not show a clear tendency (see Figure 7.9).
Despite a gradual increase in the connection efficiency (as the weld length increases), herein
the maximum efficiency attained never exceeded 90% of AnFu. Moreover, the presence of
shear lag produced a data scatter in the region where this phenomenon has a major influence.
Therefore, a new equation format was suggested in equation (7-15) to fit this data. This
equation has a range of validity between the Lw/w ratios of 0.2 and 1.5. A regression with this
data provided the coefficients 0.75, 1.5 and 1.2, which resulted in a mean actual-to-predicted
ratio of 1.01 and a COV of 6.8%.
0.75
U CSA – slotted – gusset – EHS – 0.03D 2 = --------------------------------------------------
2
 L -----w- – 1.2  (7-15)
  w   
 1 +  -------------------------- 
  1.75  
   
Due to the complex nature of the data distribution, it was decided not to present an
additional equation including the effect of the Davg/t ratio. The results from this comparison are
shown in Table 7.9.
Table 7.9 Evaluation of suggested equation for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections using
an ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D2
FE results a) FE results / equation (7-15)
1.01 Mean
6.8% COV
a)Data corresponding to the connection strength at a deformation limit of 0.03D2, for slotted gusset plate connections
to EHS.

7-15
NuFE/AnFu
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Slotted gusset plate to EHS at 0.03 D2
0.2
Suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS at 0.03 D2
0.1
Lw/w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 7.9 Suggested efficiency factor and parametric analysis results for slotted gusset plate
to EHS connections at 0.03 D2
7.2.2 Shear lag equations suggested for AISC design provision format
7.2.2.1 Equations suggested for slotted EHS to gusset plate connections
In contrast to the study of slotted EHS for the CSA design format, where all the data
showed close correlation as they were located in a region bounded approximately by Lw/w
ratios of 0.3 and 1.5, a plot of these results against the x' /Lw ratio produces a greater data
scatter as they are grouped based on the eccentricity of each connection type (see Figure
7.10). Several attempts were made in order to provide a single equation format which could
predict the connection efficiency based on the ratio x' /Lw and the connection eccentricity.
However, this option was reconsidered because of the differences in applicability limits for each
connection and their data trends. Hence, two equations have been suggested here which can
be applied depending of the connection eccentricity.
For EHS connections with a small eccentricity ( x' ), a further regression carried out
exclusively with the data of this connection type produced the coefficients of 2.15 and 9.3 in
equation (7-16), with a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 2.7%. The range of
validity for this equation is 0 ≤ x' /Lw ≤ 0.14 (where 0.14 x' /Lw corresponds to 0.7 Lw/w, which
delineated the transition in connection behaviour during the parametric analysis, with values
below this producing a TO failure). Moreover, equation (7-16) can also provide a good
prediction of the efficiency of connections near this limit but in the TO failure region.
7-16
1
U AISC – slotted – EHS – small ( x' ) = -----------------------------------------
x' 2.15 9.3
1 + ------
 (7-16)
 L w
For EHS connections with a large eccentricity, a further regression produced the
coefficients 2.1 and 2.8 in equation (7-17), with a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and a
COV of 2.4%. The range of validity for this equation is 0 ≤ x' /Lw ≤ 0.33 (where 0.33
corresponds to the transition region defined by 0.6 Lw/w, beyond which a TO failure is
expected). Nevertheless, equation (7-17) may also provide a close prediction for connections
showing a larger x' /Lw ratio but still near this limit (as did equation (7-16)).
1
U AISC – slotted – EHS – l arg e ( x' ) = ---------------------------------------
x' 2.1 2.8
1 +  ------ (7-17)
 L w
Figure 7.10 shows the connection efficiency given by equation (7-7), in an attempt to
generalize this equation (initially developed for CHS). Its use is inappropriate for connections
having a small eccentricity as it would over estimate their real behaviour, but equation (7-7) has
close correlation to the data of EHS connections having a large eccentricity. Here, the
application of equation (7-7) resulted in a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 0.98 and a COV of
2.8%.
NuFE/AnFu
1.1
Shear lag present
1.0
0.9 CF
0.8
Shear lag
present
0.7
0.6
0.5
TO Failure
0.4 Slotted EHS with large x' TO Failure
Slotted EHS with small x'
0.3 Suggested for large x' (7-17)
0.2 Suggested for small x' (7-16)
Suggested for CHS (7-7)
0.1
0.14 0.33 x'/Lw
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
connections (AISC design provision format)

7-17
Since both equations (7-16) and (7-17) provide a good mean (1.0 for both equations) and
a very small COV, it was decided not to develop additional equations including the effect of the
Davg/t ratio. The results from these comparisons are shown in Table 7.10.
Table 7.10 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted EHS connections (AISC design
provision format)
FE FE results/ FE FE results/ FE results/
results eq(7-16) results eq(7-7) eq(7-17)
Slotted EHS 61 a) 1.00 Slotted EHS 0.98 1.00 Mean
76 b)
with small x' 2.7% with large x' 2.8% 2.4% COV
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.14.
b)
Based on these results, it is noted that the parameter defining the connection efficiency is
principally the Lw/w ratio, and the eccentricity merely determines the capacity of each
connection to attain a higher efficiency if Lw/w is low. Furthermore, the use of the x' /Lw ratio to
explain the behaviour of these connections may be inappropriate as it requires two separate
equations.
7.2.2.2 Equations suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on
ultimate strength
In an attempt to generalize the use of the equation (7-7), it was applied to this data. Figure
7.11 shows that this equation can provide an acceptable result as it produced a mean and COV
of 1.03 and 4.2% respectively. Equations (7-16) and (7-17) were also extended to this
connection type. While the prediction from equation (7-16) clearly disagrees with the data trend,
equation (7-17) was able to emulate the behaviour of this connection type. The use of this
equation produced a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.05 and a COV of 3.3%. Since the use
of equation (7-17) can provide a lower bound, its use is recommended for this connection type.
The range of validity of this equation corresponds to 0 ≤ x' /Lw ≤ 0.33 (The upper limit
corresponds to a ratio of Lw/w=0.6 which defined the transition in behaviour during the
parametric analysis, where beyond this value a TO failure is expected to govern). The results
from this comparison are shown in Table 7.11.

7-18
NuFE/AnFu
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
CF
0.7
CF
0.6
Shear
0.5 Lag
Present
0.4 Slotted gusset plate to EHS
TO Failure
0.3 Suggested for CHS(7-7)
0.2
Suggested for small x' (7-16)
Suggested for large x' (7-17)
0.1
0.33
x'/Lw
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40
(AISC design provision format)
Table 7.11 Evaluation of potential equation for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections (AISC
FE results a) FE results / equation (7-7) FE results / equation (7-17)
Slotted gusset plate 1.03 1.05 Mean

76
to EHS 4.2% 3.3% COV
a)
7.2.2.3 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on
deformation limit (0.03D2)
As shown during the study of this data for the CSA format, this data lacks a defined trend
(see Figure 7.12). However, when this data was plotted against the x' /Lw ratio, it was possible
to apply a simplified equation format. The use of coefficients of -0.35 and 0.8 in Equation (7-18),
resulted in a mean actual-to-predicted ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 6.7%.
x'
U AISC – slotted – gusset – EHS – 0.03D2 = – 0.35  ------ + 0.8 (7-18)
 L w
The range of validity of this equation is 0.13 ≤ x' /Lw ≤ 0.52, which corresponds to the
region where the data is available. Beyond these boundaries the use of equation (7-18) is not
recommended. Due to the complex nature of the data distribution, it was decided not to present
an additional equation including the effect of the Davg/t ratio. The result from this comparison is

7-19
NuFE/AnFu
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Slotted gusset plate to EHS at 0.03 D2
0.3
Suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS at 0.03 D2
0.2
0.1
x’/Lw
0.0
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
plate to CHS connections at 0.03D2 (AISC design provision format)
Table 7.12 Evaluation of potential equation for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections using an
ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D2 (AISC design provision format)
FE results /
FE results a) equation (7-18)
1.00 Mean
Slotted gusset plate to EHS 96
6.7% COV
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.13 ≤ x' /Lw ≤ 0.52.
7.3 CHS and EHS connections in tension - TO failure

To determine the factored tensile resistance (Tr) of connections failing by “block shear”,
there are various models currently advocated in design provisions. However, only the accuracy
of the model suggested by CSA and AISC, which combines the tensile resistance of the area in
tension and the shear resistance of the area in shear, is evaluated here. This tensile resistance
is given by:
Tr = φ [Ant Fu + 0.6 Agv Fy ≤ Ant Fu + 0.6 Anv Fu] (7-19)
where, φ = resistance factor (this is defined by the design provision, but was equated to 1.0 in
this section), Agv= gross area subject to shear, Anv= net area subject to shear (where Anv= Agv
since these are welded connections), Ant= net area subject to tension, Fu= specified minimum
tensile strength and Fy= specified minimum yield stress.
7-20
From the moment when the first model was suggested by Birkemoe and Gilmor (1978),
subsequent research has recognized the importance that the connection type may have on the
stress distribution and consequently the connection strength. Therefore, that model
experienced several modifications (as described in Chapter Two) and nowadays various
coefficients affecting the tensile resistance are recommended in design provisions. In addition,
Cunningham et al. (1995) and Topkaya (2004) have also suggested alternative models for
specific connection types, however their use may be too complicated for practical engineers.
Equation (7-20) shows a modification to the original model recently suggested by Driver et al.
(2006), following the philosophy of adding resistance terms, that combines effective stresses
and mean stress correction factors affecting the tension area (Rt) and the shear area (Rv), to
account for non-uniform stress distributions characteristic to each connection type.
F y + F u
Tr = φ [Rt Ant Fu + Rv Agv  -----------------
- ]

(7-20)
2 3
Even though all this research has significantly improved the accuracy of design equations
for bolted connections, the lack of data corresponding to welded connections has been found to
be a potential limitation to the use of these equations for these connection types. Furthermore,
the applicability of these models to slotted end connections to HSS may also need further
attention. Therefore, the FE analysis results failing by TO have been compared against the
predicted strength by equations (7-19) and (7-20) to assess their accuracy. In all cases, the
weld size was considered to calculate the tensile resistance of the net area in tension (Ant).
These two models presume that the attainment of the maximum load occurs by fracture
along Ant and by shear yielding along Agv. As a general rule, these connections show non-
uniform stress distributions along Ant as the load increases (see Figure 7.13), however this
distribution becomes fairly uniform at the maximum load as excessive deformation occurs in this
small region (see Figure 7.14). In order to attain fracture of Ant the material there must reach a
strain equivalent to the ultimate tensile strain whence it becomes unable to redistribute load to
Agv. This increases the magnitude of stresses at Agv which continues until fracture of Ant occurs.
At fracture the load level at Ant is below its expected value ( A nt ⋅ F u ) and stresses along Agv
exceed 0.6 Fy or F y ⁄ 3 , as suggested by current models. The stress level along Agv ranges
from 0.6 Fy to Fu and in some cases necking will start there (at the beginning of the weld).

7-21
Finally, once the material breaks, a rapid load decrease takes place as the crack continues
propagating to the weld toe and then towards the tube end (along the weld).
(MPa)
Figure 7.13 Typical stress distribution (von

Mises) at the slot region
(MPa)
Figure 7.14 Stress distribution (von Mises) at the

maximum load

7-22
Figure 7.15 shows an ultimate strength comparison between the slotted CHS connections
and the loads predicted by equation (7-19). Even though this data shows some scatter, its trend
clearly exhibits a linear variation that stays close to a ratio of 1.0 (providing a mean actual-to
predicted ratio of 0.99 and a COV of 1.8%). Based on these results, it is possible to suggest that
this model predicts acceptably the strength of connections failing by TO in the range of Lw/w
ratios from 0.40 to 0.70. Beyond these limits, it is expected that this equation will produce
unsafe results as the governing failure mechanism changes.
1.10
NuFE / (AntFu + 0.6 AnvF y)
TO Failure
1.05
1.00
0.95 D/t=15
D/t=20
0.90
D/t=25
CF
0.85
D/t=30 Shear
0.80 D/t=35 Lag
Present
D/t=40
0.75
D/t=45
Lw/w
0.70
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
Figure 7.15 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted CHS connections (no weld return)
As explained before, the attainment of fracture at Ant will always be associated with a non-
uniform stress distribution along Agv, which in most cases exceeds a value of 0.6 Fy. For
connections fabricated with materials having a considerable difference in their mechanical
properties (Fy and Fu), the model suggested by equation (7-20) can provide a better prediction
as it will raise the effective stress acting along Agv. In contrast, this equation will not provide a
significant improvement for connections fabricated with materials showing closeness in their
properties, such as those from the CHS herein (where Fu/Fy=1.08). The calculated mean and
COV for correlation with equation (7-20) is 0.99 and 1.8% respectively, which represents no

7-23
improvement from the previous prediction. In order to increase the mean value to 1.0, a
correction factor Rv=0.99 could be applied to this equation. Nevertheless, stress correction
factors equal to 1.0 are suggested herein as a means of simplifying the use of equation (7-20)
for this connection type (see Figure 7.16).
NuFE/[Rt Ant Fu+Rv Agv ((F y+F u)/2 3)]
1.10
TO Failure Rt = 1.0 Rv = 1.0
1.05
1.00
0.95
D/t=15
0.90 D/t=20
D/t=25
0.85 CF
D/t=30 Shear
0.80 D/t=35 Lag
D/t=40 Present
0.75
D/t=45
0.70 Lw/w
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
Figure 7.16 Correlation of equation (7-20) for slotted CHS connections (no weld return)
For slotted CHS connections having a weld return, the model suggested by equation (7-
19) can also provide a good prediction of the connection strength (see Figure 7.17) in the range
of Lw/w ratios from 0.40 to 0.70. Once again, the trend shown for the data herein shows a linear
variation which almost becomes constant. Even though the mean and COV are 0.93 and 1.7%
respectively, the inability of these connections to attain a higher mean value (e.g. 1.0) is due to
the inclusion of a Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) during the FE modelling. (This HAZ emulated a
lack of ductility in this region which triggered the premature material failure there affecting the
overall connection strength (especially for small weld lengths)). On the other hand the use of
equation (7-20), with correction factors equal to 1.0, provided a similar outcome as it gave no
significant improvement. The use of a correction factor of Rv=0.91 would enhance this
prediction equation, changing the average ratio to 1.0 and the COV to 1.5%. Nevertheless, it is
suggested that a further study of this connection type, and the importance that the HAZ may

7-24
have on the connection strength. be conducted before a stress correction factor is
recommended.
1.10
1.1
1.0
1.05 B1 B2
0.9 TO Failure
1.00 CF
0.8
D/t=15
0.7
0.95
D/t=20
0.6 D/t=25
0.90 D/t=15 D/t=30
0.5
TOD/t=20
Failure D/t=35
CF
0.85
0.4 D/t=25 D/t=40
CF Shear
D/t=30 D/t=45
0.3 Lag
0.80 Shear Lab
D/t=35
0.2 Lag Present
D/t=40
0.75
0.1 Present
D/t=45
Lw/w
0.70
0.0
0.0
0.30 0.1 0.350.2 0.3
0.40 0.4 0.450.5 0.50
0.6 0.70.550.8 0.60
0.9 1.00.651.1 0.70
1.2 1.30.751.4 0.80
1.5
Figure 7.17 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted CHS connections (with weld return)
Figure 7.18 shows how equation (7-19) can provide an unsafe strength prediction for
slotted gusset plate connections to CHS having thick tubes and Lw/w ratios approaching 0.70.
The reason for this behaviour is due to the philosophy behind this model, which expects a
gradual increase in the connection strength as the weld length increases. Nevertheless, it does
not consider the negative effect that the bowing outwards of the gusset plate has on the overall
connection response. As seen during the study of the CF mechanism, gusset plate bowing will
increase the level of strains at the Ant region precipitating fracture of the material there (which in
this case defines the attainment of the maximum load by TO failure). For connections with Lw/
w<0.70, the mean actual-to-predicted ratio for equation (7-19) is 0.98 with a COV of 5.3%. The
use of stress correction factors equal to 1.0 in equation (7-20) will modify this mean to 1.0 and
the COV to 5.5%. However, this “improvement” is only the result of a shift in the trend previously
calculated by equation (7-19). A real improvement can be made with stress correction factors of
Rt=0.7 and Rv=1.65 (see Figure 7.19).

7-25

1.10
TO Failure
1.05 Tension
Failure
1.00 Shear Lag
Present
0.95
D/t=15
0.90
D/t=20
0.85 D/t=25
D/t=30
0.80 D/t=35
0.75
D/t=40
D/t=45
Lw /w
0.70
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
Figure 7.18 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections
NuFE/[Rt Ant Fu+Rv Agv ((F y+F u)/2 3)]
1.20
1.15
TO Failure
1.10
1.05
1.00 D/t=15
0.95 D/t=20
D/t=25 Rt = 0.7
0.90
D/t=30 Rv = 1.65
0.85 Tension
D/t=35 Failure
0.80
D/t=40 Shear Lag
Present
0.75 D/t=45
Lw/w
0.70
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
Figure 7.19 Correlation of equation (7-20) for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections
7-26
When these factors were applied to equation (7-20), the mean and COV changed to 1.04
and 3.6% respectively and it also adjusted the overall correlation. Despite this, the predicted
strength for thick tubes with D/t=15 still remains unsafe. Nonetheless, connections fabricated
with this ratio consistently had weld failure (for small Lw/w ratios) throughout the parametric
analysis. Thus, the application of a different welding procedure such as full penetration groove
welds may be required for thick tubes.
In contrast to the trend displayed during the strength correlation from slotted CHS
connections (where it almost became constant), the correlation for slotted EHS connections has
exhibited contrasting trends. For EHS connections having a large eccentricity, the comparison
showed that equation (7-19) generally provides conservative strengths values. The actual-to-
predicted ratio will decrease as the Lw/w ratio increases. This trend is approximately linear (see
Figure 7.20) except for thick tubes. The trend for connections with a small eccentricity follows a
more complex variation (see Figure 7.21). In both cases, the model suggested by equation (7-
19) provides an adequate mean actual-to-predicted ratio and COV. For connections with Lw/w <
0.60 and a large eccentricity, this equation provided values of 1.06 and 5.8% respectively;
alternatively, a mean of 1.12 and a COV of 5.9% for connections with a small eccentricity.
Despite these favourable results, the predicted strength for connections having a wall
slenderness of D/t=15 will be unsafe.
As could be expected, equation (7-20) predicted better strengths for slotted EHS
connections. The EHS material properties had a ratio of Fu/Fy=1.258 which increased the
expected stress acting at Agv from 0.6 Fy to 0.65 Fy. For connections with a large eccentricity,
the use of stress correction factors (Rt, Rv) equal to 1.0 produced a mean actual-to-predicted
ratio of 0.99 and a COV of 5.9%. Even though this mean is practically 1.0, this equation will also
predict unsafe strengths for connections fabricated with thick tubes. In the same way, the use of
factors (Rt, Rv) equal to 1.0 (providing a mean and COV of 1.05 and 5.6% respectively) in
connections with a small eccentricity predicts unsafe strengths for thick tubes.

7-27

1.30
1.25
1.20 TO
Failure
1.15
1.10
1.05
Davg/t=15
1.00
Davg/t=20
0.95
Davg/t=25
0.90
Davg/t=30 CF
0.85
Davg/t=35 Shear Lag
0.80 Present
Davg/t=40
0.75
Davg/t=45 Lw/w
0.70
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
Figure 7.20 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted EHS connections (large eccentricity)
1.30
1.25 CF
TO failure Shear Lag
1.20 Present
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00 Davg/t=15
0.95 Davg/t=20
Davg/t=25
0.90
Davg/t=30
0.85
Davg/t=35
0.80
Davg/t=40
0.75 Davg/t=45
Lw/w
0.70
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
Figure 7.21 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted EHS connections (small eccentricity)
7-28
In a similar manner to slotted gusset plate to CHS connections, the bowing outwards of
the gusset plate also modified the strength of their EHS counterparts, as it induced premature
fracture at Ant. In general, the trend shown by the comparison with equation (7-19) is
approximately quadratic (see Figure 7.22). Tubes with Davg/t = 15 are not considered herein as
weld failure governed the response of these connections when they had a ratio of Lw/w < 0.60.
For this data, the mean and COV values were 0.89 and 5.4% respectively with the actual-to-
predicted ratio ranging form 0.75 to 0.95.
1.30
Davg/t=15
1.25
Davg/t=20
1.20
Davg/t=25
1.15 Davg/t=30
1.10 Davg/t=35
CF
1.05 Davg/t=40
Shear Lag
1.00 Davg/t=45 Present
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
TO failure
0.75
Lw/w
0.70
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
Figure 7.22 Correlation of equation (7-19) for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections
The use of equation (7-20), with stress correction factors equal to 1.0 produced a mean
and COV of 0.85 and 5% respectively. This equation lowers the mean (from 0.89 to 0.85) and
also decreases the data scatter. The parametric analysis showed that weld failure will govern for
low Davg/t ratios and short welds, thereby requiring the need for a different welding procedure.
As a final note, even though the predicted connection strength can be modified by
application of these Rt and Rv correction factors, a better TO failure model capable of accurately
capturing the response of slotted gusset plate connections is preferable. Also, as noted before,
equal Rt and Rv factors serve the same purpose as one resistance factor applied to the whole
prediction equation.
7-29
7.4 CHS connections in compression
7.4.1 Equation suggested for slotted CHS to gusset plate connections (under
compression loading)
As explained during the parametric analysis, the strain concentration at the slot may
encourage the development of a local buckle there. When small Lw/w ratios are used, this may
potentially prevent the attainment of the member design load. However, this phenomenon can
be minimized to the point where the connection strength only depends on the tube D/t ratio and
the slot length (if ratios Lw/w > 0.92 are used). Equation (7-21) shows the coefficients calculated
based on the data for slotted CHS connections under compression loading. The use of 1.7 and
3.7 herein resulted in a mean and COV of 1.0 and 5.3% respectively.
1
U CSA – slotted – tube – compression = 1 – --------------------------------------
1.7 3.7
- (7-21)
 L w
1 + ------
 w
Figure 7.23 shows the equation following the trend of the data within the validity range
defined here as 15 ≤ D/t ≤ 45 and 0.4 ≤ Lw/w ≤ 1.26.
1.1
NuFE/ AgFy
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Shear lag Tube local buckling of the
0.6
present entire cross-section
0.5
0.4
0.3
Slotted CHS (C)
0.2
U suggested for slotted CHS (C)
0.1
0.92 Lw / w
0.0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
under compression loading
Since the data used herein corresponds to FE models having a slot length equivalent to
the gusset plate thickness, the use of this equation is only valid for connections emulating this
condition. The use of a longer slot will negatively impact the connection efficiency, as explained
in Section 6.6.1. Considering that the D/t ratio had a significant influence on the efficiency of this
connection detail, this ratio was included in equation (7-22).

7-30
 
 1  D –0.13
U CSA – slotted – tube – compression -  1.58  ----
=  1 – -------------------------------------- ≤ 1.0 (7-22)
1.7 3.7   t 

1 L w
------

 +
 w 
The use of the coefficients 1.58 and -0.13 herein resulted in a mean and COV of 0.99 and
3.0% respectively. The ranges of validity for this equation are the same as for equation (7-21).
Moreover, the maximum efficiency is limited to 100% of AgFy. Even though the use of a
simplified equation such as (7-21) may be suggested (especially for small Lw/w ratios (where
the data tends to gather), the use of equation (7-22) is optional as the inclusion of the D/t ratio
tends to positively improve the calculated efficiency. The results from these comparisons are
Table 7.13 Evaluation of potential equations for slotted CHS connections (under compression
loading)
FE results / equation FE results / equation
FE results a) (7-21) (7-22)
1.00 0.99 Mean
Slotted CHS 54
5.3% 3.0% COV
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.4 < L w ⁄ w < 1.26 .
7.4.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate connections (under compression
loading)
Since the efficiency of these connections increased at a constant rate as the weld length
(see Figure 7.24), it was feasible to simplify the format of the equation used here. The use of the
coefficients 0.24 and 0.5 in equation (7-23) produced a mean and COV of 0.99 and 6.9%
respectively.
L
U CSA – slotted – gusset – compression =  0.24 -----w- + 0.5 ≤ 1.0 (7-23)
 w 
In contrast to slotted CHS connections, here the D/t ratio did not have significant influence
on the attainment of a higher efficiency. On the contrary, the data was mainly dependent on the
gusset plate width (B) at the slot region. To consider this, it was decided to relate this parameter
(B) to the tube thickness (t). As a result, the data was ordered in a range of B/t ratios from 11 to
20. Then, further regressions were undertaken with equation (7-23) but with this equation
modified by the B/t ratio according to several formats. However, the final outcome always
resulted in very minor modifications to equation (7-23), which minimized the influence of this

7-31
parameter. The range of validity for equation (7-23) has been limited to 15 ≤ D/t ≤ 45, 0.4 ≤ Lw/
w and 11 ≤ B/t ≤ 20. The result from this comparison is shown in Table 7.14.
NuFE/ AgFy
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Slotted gusset plate to CHS (C)
0.2
U suggested for slotted gusset plate to CHS (C)
0.1
Lw/w
0.0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
under compression loading
Table 7.14 Evaluation of potential equation for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections (under
compression loading)
0.99 Mean
Slotted CHS 66
6.9% COV
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.4 ≤ Lw/w.
7.5 Evaluation of recommended equations against experimental data

The results from previous sections have shown that equation (7-2), initially developed for
CF in slotted CHS connections using the CSA format, may also be applied to slotted gusset
plate connections with good results. Even though the use of this equation for EHS connections
may also provide acceptable results within the defined validity limits, the use of the CF equation
(7-12) is recommended as it can offer a continuous trend in the predicted efficiency for Lw/w
ratios near the transition region. Figure 7.25 shows the CF connection efficiency suggested by
equation (7-2) in comparison to the data from previous experimental programs. Herein, the ratio
Lw/w = 0.70 is defined as the transition point from a CF to a TO failure. Nevertheless, it should
be remembered that this value corresponds to a lower bound defined by the CHS connections
and a ratio Lw/w = 0.60 was exhibited by EHS connections.

7-32
U
1.1
1.0
0.9 CF
0.8
0.7
British
0.6
Korol
0.5 CF Cheng
0.4 Shear UofT
0.3 Lag U - CSA
TO Failure Present Zhao-1995
0.2
0.1 Zhao-1999
Lw/w
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Figure 7.25 Suggested efficiency factor by equation (7-2) and experimental results
In contrast, CF equations recommended for AISC design provision format offered less
encouraging result. It was found that equation (7-7) can be extended to slotted EHS
connections with a large eccentricity and slotted gusset plate connections. However, its use in
slotted EHS connections with a small eccentricity is clearly inappropriate. The connection
efficiency proposed by CF failure equation (7-7) is plotted in combination with the data from
previous experimental programs in Figure 7.26. Here a ratio of x' /Lw = 0.245 specifies the
transition from a CF to a TO failure. Nonetheless, different ratios have been established for EHS
connections.
1.1
U
1.0
0.9
0.8 CF
0.7
CF
0.6
British
Shear
0.5 Lag
Korol
Present
0.4 Cheng
TO Failure
0.3 UofT
U-AISC
0.2
Zhao-1995
0.1
Zhao-1999 0.245 x'/Lw
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
Figure 7.26 Suggested efficiency factor by equation (7-7) and experimental results

7-33
7.5.1 Experimental program by British Steel (1992)
Table 7.15 shows the experimental data by British Steel (1992) and the best prediction
given by the modified AISC(2005) design provision when x' is used. In addition, the predicted
connection strengths from equations (7-2) and (7-7) are presented. Even though these new
equations seem to have a somewhat poor correlation herein (with a mean of 0.92), there are
several factors directly related to the data affecting these results that must be considered. The
experimental data showed considerable scatter in the region where a high efficiency may be
expected (see Figures 7.25 and 7.26). Based on the data from other experimental programs,
and especially from the parametric analyses, one could expect high efficiency values (i.e.
values above 90% of AnFu) when a connection has a ratio of Lw/w > 0.9 or x' /Lw < 0.2.
However, the data here exhibited lower values that even reached an efficiency as low as
0.72AnFu. The inability of these connections to attain higher values has been related to the
likely presence of welding defects, as these connections were fabricated with a weld return,
which may have triggered their premature fracture during testing. Despite these facts, the new
equations provided a better prediction for CHS connections than AISC (modified). The main
reason for the higher AISC mean is that the AISC specification does not allow the full efficiency
attainment for RHS and SHS connections (even with long weld lengths), unlike for CHS
connections. Hence, the AISC predicted efficiency stayed close to the low experimental data for
RHS/SHS connections in the data group.
Table 7.15 Actual and predicted connection strength for British Steel (1992) data
Test AISC
Nux/AnFu
Specimen Lw/w x' /Lw Capacity (2005) Eq(7-2) Nux/ Eq(7-7) Nux/
(An=Ag) Nux/ Nu
Nux [kN] using x' Nu [kN] Nu [kN]
Nu Nu
Nu [kN]
C-Sep-1 0.94 0.18 256 0.90 285 0.90 277 0.92 274 0.93
C-Sep-2 0.97 0.16 326 0.90 362 0.90 353 0.92 351 0.93
C-Sep-3 1.01 0.14 371 0.89 416 0.89 408 0.91 408 0.91
C-Sep-4 0.91 0.19 522 0.93 561 0.93 541 0.96 533 0.98
C-Sep-5 0.94 0.18 652 0.85 763 0.85 741 0.88 734 0.89
C-Sep-6 0.94 0.18 795 0.84 952 0.84 924 0.86 916 0.87
S-Sep-2 0.94 0.14 274 0.94 251 1.09 283 0.97 286 0.96
S-Sep-3 0.94 0.12 505 0.96 462 1.09 508 0.99 518 0.97
S-Sep-4 0.94 0.16 478 0.85 472 1.01 544 0.88 546 0.88
S-Sep-5 0.96 0.14 833 0.94 759 1.10 864 0.96 868 0.96
S-Sep-6 0.96 0.13 949 0.90 911 1.04 1023 0.93 1033 0.92
R-Sep-3 0.94 0.08 475 0.89 492 0.96 519 0.91 533 0.89

7-34
R-Sep-5 0.94 0.17 384 0.97 329 1.17 384 1.00 385 1.00
R-Sep-8 0.96 0.07 711 0.72 914 0.78 960 0.74 982 0.72
R-Sep-9 1.04 0.03 913 0.87 1012 0.90 1032 0.88 1047 0.87
R-Sep-10 0.91 0.22 560 1.00 437 1.28 538 1.04 518 1.08
Mean 0.98 0.92 0.92
COV 13.8% 7.6% 8.4%
7.5.2 Experimental program by Korol (1994)

Table 7.16 shows the experimental data by Korol (1994), the predicted connection
efficiency from CSA(2001) and the efficiency from equations (7-2) and (7-7). In contrast to the
British Steel experimental program, here the connections exhibiting a ratio of Lw/w > 0.95 or x' /
Lw < 0.20 were able to attain at least 95% of AnFu, which is in accord with the trend suggested
by equations (7-2) and (7-7). As a result, these equations provided better predictions than CSA.
In order to establish the efficiency of specimen 5a, these equations were applied beyond their
validity range. However, their predicted efficiencies compared favourably with the specimen
data and the best prediction corresponded to equation (7-7). Despite this positive result, the
check for a TO failure must also be performed for this specimen (5a) as a TO failure mechanism
is expected to govern for this ratio. However, a closeness in the predicted connection strengths
may be expected by either failure mode in this region (from 0.6 to 0.7 Lw/w).
Table 7.16 Actual and predicted connection strength for Korol (1994) data.
Specimen Lw/w x' /Lw U real CSA

Ureal / Eq(7-2) U real / Eq(7-7) U real /
(2001)
U [U] U [U] U
[U]
1a 1.00 0.20 0.98 0.89 1.11 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.04
1b 0.98 0.20 1.04 0.87 1.19 0.98 1.06 0.94 1.11
2a 0.98 0.16 0.95 0.86 1.10 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.98
2b 1.01 0.15 1.00 0.89 1.13 0.98 1.02 0.98 1.03
3a 0.98 0.09 1.05 0.86 1.23 0.98 1.07 1.00 1.05
3b 1.01 0.08 1.05 0.88 1.19 0.98 1.07 1.00 1.05
5a 0.61 0.26 0.88 0.76 1.16 0.78 1.13 0.88 1.00
Mean 1.16 1.05 1.04
COV 4.1% 5.0% 4.0%
7.5.3 Experimental program by Cheng et al. (1996)

Table 7.17 shows the experimental data by Cheng et al. (1996), the connection strength
predicted by AISC(2005) when x' is used, and the predicted connection strength based on

7-35
equations (7-2) and (7-7). Even though these equations provided a mean actual-to-predicted
ratio similar to AISC, there are several advantages related to their use that should be
considered. As seen throughout the parametric analyses, the connections showed a gradual
increase in their efficiency and a clear tendency to converge as their Lw/w ratios approached
1.0. Moreover, the influence of the D/t ratio during this process was also noted. In general, this
contrasts with the approach by AISC where a ratio of 1.3 Lw/D guarantees the attainment of the
connection full efficiency but a slightly lower ratio is heavily penalized. Since the first eight
specimens had a ratio of Lw/D > 1.3, AISC provided them with an efficiency factor of 1.0. But,
AISC clearly failed to suggest an acceptable efficiency for the last specimen (spec2). In
contrast, equations (7-2) and (7-7) predict a close efficiency for the first specimens (as all they
have a ratio Lw/w > 1.0) and a much better prediction for spec2, which finally resulted in a better
COV.
Table 7.17 Actual and predicted connection strength for Cheng et al. (1996) data
Test AISC
Nux/ Nux/
Specimen Lw/w x' /Lw Capacity
AnFu AgFu (2005) Nux/ Eq(7-2) Nux/ Eq(7-7) Nux/
Nux [kN] using x' Nu [kN] Nu [kN]
Nu Nu Nu
Nu [kN]
pwc1 1.14 0.16 830 1.06 0.98 781 1.06 775 1.07 759 1.09
pwc2 1.14 0.16 869 1.02 849 1.02 843 1.03 825 1.05
pwc3 1.14 0.16 849 1.00 849 1.00 843 1.01 825 1.03
pwc4 1.14 0.16 875 1.03 849 1.03 843 1.04 825 1.06
pwc5 1.00 0.18 645 1.03 624 1.03 612 1.05 598 1.08
pwc6 1.00 0.18 634 1.02 624 1.02 612 1.04 598 1.06
pwc7 1.00 0.18 631 1.01 624 1.01 612 1.03 598 1.06
spec1 1.06 0.17 2160 1.01 2141 1.01 2114 1.02 2064 1.05
spec2 0.85 0.22 2157 1.01 1674 1.29 2025 1.06 1986 1.09
Mean 1.05 1.04 1.06
COV 8.6% 1.9% 1.9%
7.5.4 Experimental program by the Authors

Table 7.18 shows the data from the experimental program undertaken at the University of
Toronto, the predicted connection strength by AISC(2005) when x' is used and the predicted
connection strength based on equations (7-2) and (7-7). In order to facilitate the comparisons,
the data is gathered here based on the structural shape (i.e. CHS versus EHS). In contrast to
the AISC design provision, the use of equations (7-2) and (7-7) for CHS connections predicted
7-36
strengths close to the experimental data, including connections with ratios below the validity
limit (such as specimens A1 and C1). Moreover, the use of either equation (suggested for
different design provision format) can provide comparable results. Despite equations (7-2) and
(7-7) being developed for CHS connections, their application to EHS connections provides
acceptable results, including specimens located beyond the validity limit (E1 and E3). However,
it must be remembered that the use of equations (7-2) and (7-7) may result in a overestimation
of the connection capacity (the first equation for connections with Lw/w ratios approaching 0.6,
and the second equation for connections with small eccentricity). Because of this, the use of
equations (7-12), (7-16) and (7-17) is still recommended for these connection types to address
the CF limit state. The evaluation of equations (7-20), (7-22) and (7-23) is also included in this
table Table 7.18.
Table 7.18 Actual and predicted connection strength for data by the Authors
Test
Nux/ Nux/
Specimen Lw/w x' /Lw Capacity AISC (2005)
AnFu AgFu Nux/ Eq(7-2) Nux Eq(7-7) Nux/
Nux [kN] using x'
Nu Nu [kN] /Nu Nu [kN] Nu
Nu [kN]
A1 0.66 0.26 1032 0.87 0.77 880 1.17 988 1.04 1042 0.99
A2 0.81 0.21 1154 0.97 0.86 939 1.23 1109 1.04 1112 1.04
B1 0.71 0.24 1087 0.91 0.81 1013 1167 1203
B2 0.87 0.20 1211 1.02 0.91 1073 1.13 1274 0.95 1265 0.96
C1 0.68 0.25 1107 0.83 999 1.11 1133 0.98 1185 0.93
C2 0.82 0.21 1196 0.90 1055 1.13 1247 0.96 1249 0.96
Mean 1.15 0.99 0.98
COV 4.1% 4.5% 4.1%
E1 0.62 0.32 1109 0.81 0.69 914 1.21 1067 1.04 1047 1.07
E2 0.78 0.26 1236 0.90 0.76 1019 1.21 1256 0.98 1298 1.02
E3 0.62 0.32 1336 0.83 1102 1.21 1275 1.05 1257 1.06
E4 0.74 0.27 1400 0.86 1188 1.18 1447 0.97 1404 1.00
E5 0.79 0.13 1282 0.94 0.79 1187 1.08 1253 1.02 1393 0.96
Mean 1.18 1.01 1.02
COV 4.9% 3.5% 4.6%
Nux/ AgFy Eq(7-20) Nux/Nu Eq(7-22) Nux/Nu Eq(7-23) Nux/Nu
B1 0.71 0.24 1087 0.81 1221 0.89
A3C 0.87 0.20 -1145 0.93 -1174 0.98
C3C 0.84 0.20 -869 0.71 -935 0.93
A further comparison is shown in Table 7.19 for equations specifically developed for EHS
connections, which show an improved mean relative to the AISC design provision format.

7-37
Table 7.19 Actual and predicted connection strength by the Author, continued
Test
Nux/ Nux/
Specimen Lw/w x' /Lw Capacity AISC (2005) Eq(7-12)a Eq(7-16)c
AnFu AgFu Nux/ Nux Nux
Nux [kN] using x' Nu or (7-14)b or (7-17)d
Nu /Nu /Nu
[kN] Nu [kN] Nu [kN]
E1 0.62 0.32 1109 0.81 0.69 914 1.21 1084 1.02 1052b 1.05
E2 0.78 0.26 1236 0.90 0.76 1019 1.21 1196 1.03 1172b 1.05
E3 0.62 0.32 1336 0.83 1102 1.21 1373 0.97 1269b 1.05
E4 0.74 0.27 1400 0.86 1188 1.18 1451 0.94 1367b 1.02
E5 0.79 0.13 1282 0.94 0.79 1187 1.08 1190 1.08 1220a 1.05
Mean 1.18 1.01 1.05
COV 4.9% 4.7% 1.3%
a) Equation (7-12) for slotted EHS connections.
b)
Equation (7-14) for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections.
c)
Equation (7-16) for EHS connections with small eccentricity.
d) Equation (7-17) for EHS connections with large eccentricity.
7.6 Derivation of reduction (resistance) factors for the recommended equations

In order to provide an adequate level of safety to the equations developed in previous
sections, a simple reliability analysis was undertaken to derive reduction factors ( φ ) suitable for
these equations which will provide an adequate level of safety. The calculation of the reduction
factors is based on the classic equation derived by Ravindra and Galambos(1978):
φ = exp ( – 0.55 ⋅ β ⋅ V R ) ⋅ ϕ m (7-24)
Herein β , known as the safety index or “reliability index”, represents the target probability
of failure during a structure’s service life. In the study by Ravindra and Galambos, a target value
of 4.5 was generally suggested for connections. However, several values were studied herein
as some design bodies now advise smaller values. A value of β = 4.0 is now advocated by
AISC specification committee for connections. ϕ m represents the mean actual-to-predicted ratio
of data against the prediction by equation(s) and V R represents the coefficient of variation
about that mean.
7.6.1 Reduction factors for CHS connections in tension - CF failure

7.6.1.1 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted CHS connections (CSA
Table 7.20 shows the suggested resistance factors for slotted CHS connections and
several safety indices (3.5, 4.0 and 4.5). In contrast to what may be expected, the use of these

7-38
different safety indices resulted in extremely similar resistance factors. As a result, the use of a
reduction factor equal to 0.90 for both equations is recommended, as this value surpass all
target safety levels considered.
Table 7.20 Calculated resistance factors for slotted CHS connections

146
β φ φ
3.5 0.923 0.932
4.0 0.913 0.923
4.5 0.903 0.914
a)
7.6.1.2 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted gusset plate to CHS
connections based on ultimate strength (CSA design provision format)
The use of the suggested equations ((7-2), (7-3) and (7-4)) for the data from slotted
gusset plate connections produced means equal to 1.0 and very small COVs. As a result, the
calculated reduction factors also are also very close (see Table 7.21). Hence, a reduction factor
of 0.90 is again suggested in an attempt to achieve uniformity with resistance factors previously
suggested for slotted CHS connections.
Table 7.21 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections
FE results a) equation equation equation
(7-2) (7-3) (7-4)
1.00 1.00 1.00 Mean
2.9% 3.1% 2.6% COV
β φ φ φ
3.5 0.942 0.940 0.954
4.0 0.934 0.932 0.949
4.5 0.927 0.924 0.942
a)

7-39
connections based on deformation limit (CSA design provision format)
The larger COV associated with equation (7-5) ranged produced lower φ factors ranging
from 0.84 to 0.87 (see Table 7.22). As a result, the use of a reduction factor of 0.80 for this
equation is conservative. On the other hand, the inclusion of the D/t ratio, enhancing the
prediction accuracy of equation (7-5), also improved the reduction factors for equation (7-6), a
reduction factor of 0.90 is conservative (see Table 7.22). Since equation (7-6) can provide a
better prediction and a higher resistance factor, its use may be considered over equation (7-5).
Table 7.22 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections using an
ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D
99
CHS 7.1% 3.5% COV
β φ φ
3.5 0.869 0.944
4.0 0.853 0.935
4.5 0.836 0.926
a)
to CHS.
7.6.1.4 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted CHS connections (AISC
The equations suggested for the AISC design provision format have shown their capacity
to predict the connection strength of CHS connections accurately. As a result, the mean and
COV generated reduction factors close to those given by the equations suggested for the CSA
format (always above 0.90). Hence, a resistance factor equal to 0.90 is also suggested for these
equations (see Table 7.23).
Table 7.23 Calculated resistance factors for slotted CHS connections (AISC)
146
β φ φ
3.5 0.926 0.926
4.0 0.917 0.916
4.5 0.907 0.907
a)
7-40
connections based on ultimate strength (AISC design provision format)
The good results provided by the use of equations (7-7) and (7-9) for slotted gusset plate
connections (see Table 7.24) also suggest the use of a resistance factor at least of 0.9.
Table 7.24 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections (AISC)
1.00 1.01 Mean
2.4% 2.4% COV
β φ φ
3.5 0.953 0.960
4.0 0.947 0.954
4.5 0.941 0.947
a)
connections based on deformation limit (AISC design provision format)
In a similar manner to the CSA equations, equation (7-11) might be preferred over
equation (7-10) as it is more accurate (lower COV) and hence has a higher resistance factor,
with φ = 0.9 for equation (7-11) still being conservative recommendation.
Table 7.25 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections using an
ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D (AISC)
99
CHS 7.1% 3.7% COV
β φ φ
3.5 0.869 0.929
4.0 0.852 0.920
4.5 0.836 0.910
a) Data corresponding to the connection strength at a deformation limit of 0.03D, for slotted gusset plate connections
to CHS.

7-41
7.6.2 Reduction factors for EHS connections in tension - CF failure
7.6.2.1 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted EHS connections (CSA
The calculated reduction factors are shown in Table 7.26, and again a resistance factor of
φ = 0.9 would be conservative for equations (7-12) and (7-13)
Table 7.26 Calculated resistance factors for slotted EHS

Slotted EHS having 0.97 1.00 1.00 Mean
143
small and large x' 4.6% 3.7% 3.7% COV
β φ φ φ
3.5 0.885 0.929 0.929
4.0 0.874 0.920 0.920
4.5 0.863 0.910 0.910
a)
7.6.2.2 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted gusset plate to EHS
connections based on ultimate strength (CSA design provision format)
Despite equations (7-2) and (7-12) produce a good prediction of the connection efficiency
(see Table 7.27) the use of equation (7-14), with a reduction factor equivalent to 0.9, is
recommended as it provides the best prediction.
Table 7.27 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections
Slotted gusset plate 0.99 1.03 1.00 Mean
76
to EHS 4.1% 3.1% 2.5% COV
β φ φ φ
3.5 0.917 0.971 0.950
4.0 0.907 0.962 0.944
4.5 0.897 0.954 0.937
connections based on deformation limit (CSA design provision format)
For equation (7-15) a resistance factor of would be adequately conservative (see
Table 7.28).

7-42
Table 7.28 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections using
an ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D2
1.01 Mean
6.8% COV
β φ
3.5 0.886
4.0 0.869
4.5 0.853
a)
Data corresponding to the connection strength at a deformation limit of 0.03D2, for slotted gusset plate connections
to EHS.
7.6.2.4 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted EHS connections (AISC
A conservative resistance factor of 0.9 is possible for all equations covered in Table 7.29.
Table 7.29 Calculated resistance factors for slotted EHS equation (AISC)
FE FE results FE results/ FE results/
FE results
results eq (7-16) eq (7-7) eq (7-17)
Slotted EHS 1.00 Slotted EHS 0.98 1.00 Mean
61a) 76b)
with small x' 2.7% with large x' 2.8% 2.4% COV
β φ β φ φ
3.5 0.945 3.0 0.927 0.955
4.0 0.938 3.5 0.920 0.948
4.5 0.931 4.5 0.913 0.942
a) Data corresponding to FE connections with x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.14.
b) Data corresponding to FE connections with x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.33 .
connections based on ultimate strength (AISC design provision format)
The extension of equations (7-7) and (7-17) to this connection type have resulted in the
resistance factors shown in Table 7.30. Therefore, the use of a resistance factor of 0.9 is also
suggested.

7-43
Table 7.30 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS (AISC)
76
EHS 4.2% 3.3% COV
β φ φ
3.5 0.948 0.988
4.0 0.937 0.979
4.5 0.926 0.970
a)
7.6.2.6 Reduction factors for suggested equation for slotted gusset plate to EHS
connections based on deformation limit (AISC design provision format)
For equation (7-25) a resistance factor of 0.85 is suggested (see Table 7.31).
Table 7.31 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections using an
ultimate deformation limit state of 0.03D2 (AISC)
1.00 Mean
6.7% COV
β φ
3.5 0.882
4.0 0.866
4.5 0.850
a) Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.06 < x' ⁄ L w < 0.25 .

7-44
7.6.3 Reduction factors for CHS and EHS connection in tension - TO failure
7.6.3.1 Reduction factors for slotted CHS connections - TO failure
Since the behaviour of connections with a weld return was unique, the data from these
connections was separated here (see Table 7.32). However, it was found that a resistance
factor of 0.9 may be used for both connection types.
Table 7.32 Calculated resistance factors for slotted CHS connections -TO failure
FE FE results / FE FE results /
results a) equation (7-20) results a) equation (7-20)
Slotted CHS 0.99 Slotted CHS 0.93 Mean

24 29
(no weld return) 1.8% (with weld return) 1.7% COV
β φ β φ
3.5 0.958 3.5 0.903
4.0 0.953 4.0 0.899
4.5 0.948 4.5 0.895
a) Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.4< Lw/w<0.7, 0.24 < x' ⁄ L w < 0.44 , Rt=1.0 and Rv=1.0.
7.6.3.2 Reduction factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections - TO failure
The improvement in the predicted connection strength by equation (7-20), due to the
application of stress modification factors of 0.7 and 1.65 (for Rt and Rv respectively), resulted in
the resistance factor shown in Table 7.33, which suggests the use of a resistance factor equal to
0.9.
Table 7.33 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections - TO failure
1.04 Mean
Slotted gusset plate to CHS connections 36
3.6% COV
β φ
3.5 0.972
4.0 0.962
4.5 0.953
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.4< Lw/w<0.7, 0.24 < x' ⁄ L w < 0.44 , Rt=0.7 and Rv=1.65.
7.6.3.3 Reduction factors for slotted EHS connections - TO failure

Despite equation (7-20) improving the prediction accuracy for these connections, the data
from EHS connections with a large eccentricity generated resistance factors ranging from 0.858
to 0.886. Hence, a resistance factor of 0.85 is recommended for these connection types.

7-45
Table 7.34 Calculated resistance factors for slotted EHS connections - TO failure
FE FE results / FE FE results /
resultsa) equation (7-20) resultsb) equation (7-20)
Slotted EHS 1.05 Slotted EHS with 0.99 Mean
24 35
with small x' 5.6% large x' 5.9% COV
β φ β φ
3.5 0.943 3.5 0.886
4.0 0.928 4.0 0.872
4.5 0.914 4.5 0.858
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with small eccentricity, 0.3< Lw/w<0.6, 0.31 < x' ⁄ L w < 0.66 , Rt=1.0 and
Rv=1.0.
b)
Data corresponding to FE connections with large eccentricity, 0.3< Lw/w<0.6, 0.16 < x' ⁄ L w < 0.33 , Rt=1.0 and
Rv=1.0.
7.6.3.4 Reduction factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections - TO failure
A resistance factor of 0.75 is recommended for this connection type (see Table 7.35).
Table 7.35 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections - TO failure
0.85 Mean
Slotted gusset plate to EHS connections 24
5.0% COV
β φ
3.5 0.773
4.0 0.762
4.5 0.752
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.3< Lw/w<0.6, 0.31 < x' ⁄ L w < 0.66 Rt=1.0 and Rv=1.0.
,
7.6.4 Reduction factors for CHS connections in compression

7.6.4.1 Reduction factors for slotted CHS connections in compression
SInce equation (7-22) can provide the best prediction of the connection strength with the
use of a reduction factor of 0.9, the use of this equation is recommended.

7-46
Table 7.36 Calculated resistance factors for slotted CHS connections (compression)
FE results a) FE results / equation (7-21) FE results / equation (7-22)
1.00 0.99 Mean
Slotted CHS 54
5.3% 3.0% COV
β φ φ
3.5 0.908 0.934
4.0 0.895 0.926
4.5 0.882 0.918
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.4 ≤ Lw/w ≤ 1.26.
7.6.4.2 Reduction factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections in compression
Since the calculated resistance factor here ranged from 0.835 to 0.868, a resistance
factor of 0.8 is recommended for this equation.
Table 7.37 Calculated resistance factors for slotted gusset plate connections (compression)
0.99 Mean
Slotted gusset plate connections to CHS 66
6.9% COV
β φ
3.5 0.868
4.0 0.852
4.5 0.835
a)
Data corresponding to FE connections with 0.4 ≤ Lw/w.
7.7 Summary of Chapter 7- recommended static design methods

Even though the experimental data and FE analysis data trends suggested the possibility
of using a single equation to cover all stages of the connection tension response, the difference
in failure mechanisms and the parameters involved in each mechanism prevented this option.
However, the gradual transition from a TO failure to a CF failure has allowed the check of each
failure mechanism to be confined to a specific range of Lw/w ratios. Because of this, the check
for CF failure (with equations developed in previous sections) is recommended for CHS
connections with Lw/w>0.7 and for EHS connections with Lw/w>0.6. Below these ratios, it is
expected that TO failure will govern, especially for connections fabricated with thin tubes.
The application of these new CF failure equations can be extended to even lower Lw/w
ratios as they followed the trend of the data in the TO failure region. This eliminates the

7-47
inconsistency exhibited in current design provisions when the governing failure mechanism
changes from a CF failure to a TO failure. In addition, it is expected that the predicted strength
of connections with Lw/w ratios ranging from 0.6 to 0.7 in CHS and 0.5 to 0.6 in EHS will receive
a comparable strength value when this is calculated by equations from each failure mechanism.
The model for tear out used by AISC and CSA provided good results for slotted CHS
connections. However, it failed to describe the response of slotted gusset plate to CHS
connections. As a result, the use of equation (7-20), with its corresponding correction factors, is
suggested to improve this prediction. Moreover, this same model showed problems in
emulating the behaviour of EHS connections. Because of this, the application of equation (7-20)
is also recommended, as it can provide a better TO strength prediction, especially for small Lw/
w ratios.
As seen during the parametric analysis, the presence of shear lag under compression
loading may induce local buckling of the tube at the beginning of the welds. Therefore, three
new equations considering this condition are suggested herein.
7.7.1 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in tension

Table 7.38 Design method for slotted CHS connections
 
 1  for Lw/w ≥ 0.7
CF failure T r – CSA = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  1 – --------------------------------------
2.4 5.7
-
 Lw 
 1 +  ------ 
 w
Fy + Fu
TO failure T r – CSA = φ ⋅ F u ⋅ R t A nt + R v A gv ⋅  ------------------ for Lw/w < 0.7
 2 3 
 
 1 
CF failure T r – AISC = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  --------------------------------------
3.2 9.9
- for x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.245
 1 +  ----- x'- 
  L w 
Fy + Fu
TO failure T r – AISC = φ ⋅ F u ⋅ R t A nt + R v A gv ⋅  ------------------ for x' ⁄ L w > 0.245
 2 3 
where φ = 0.9 , An= critical net area of connections with and open slot or An=Ag when a weld return is used, Fu=
specified minimum tensile strength, Rt=1.0 and Rv=1.0.

7-48
Table 7.39 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on ultimate
strength
 
 1 
CF failure T r – CSA = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  1 – --------------------------------------- for Lw/w ≥ 0.7
L 2.4 5.7
 
 1 +  -----w- 
 w
F y + F u
TO failure T r – CSA = φ ⋅ F u ⋅ R t A nt + R v A gv ⋅  -----------------
- for Lw/w < 0.7
 2 3 
 
 1 
3.2 9.9
- for x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.245
 1 +  ----- x'- 
  L w 
F y + F u
TO failure T r – AISC = φ ⋅ F u ⋅ R t A nt + R v A gv ⋅  -----------------
- for x' ⁄ L w > 0.245
 2 3 
where φ = 0.9 , herein An = Ag (gross cross-sectional area) as the gusset plate is slotted, Fu= specified minimum
tensile strength, Rt=0.7 and Rv=1.65.
Table 7.40 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on deformation
limit (0.03D)
L D –0.18
T r – CSA – 0.03D = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  0.23  -----w- + 0.55  1.81  ---- ≤ 1.0 for L w ⁄ w ≥ 0.4
  w   t 
  
  1  D – 0.17
T r – AISC –0.03D = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  0.26  1 + ------------------   1.77  ---- ≤ 1.0 for x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.245
  x'  0.4  
 -----
 t 
  -
L   w
where φ = 0.9 , herein An equates to Ag (gross cross-sectional area) as the gusset plate is slotted and Fu=
specified minimum tensile strength.

7-49
7.7.2 Recommended static design method for EHS connections in tension
Table 7.41 Design method for slotted EHS connections

 
 1 
- for Lw/w ≥ 0.6
 L w 1.3 3.8
 1 +  ------ 
 w
F y + F u
- for Lw/w < 0.6
 2 3 
 
  for a small x'
1
T r – AISC = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  -----------------------------------------
2.15 9.3
 and
 1 +  ----- x'- 
  L w  x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.14
CF failure
  for a large x'
 1 
T r – AISC = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  --------------------------------------
2.1 2.8
- and
 1 +  ------ x' 
  L w  x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.33
for a small x' ,

F y + F u x' ⁄ L w > 0.14
-
 2 3  for a large x' ,
x' ⁄ L w > 0.33
where φ = 0.9 and 0.85 for CF and TO respectively, An= critical net area of the slotted EHS, Fu= specified
minimum tensile strength, Rt=1.0 and Rv=1.0.
Table 7.42 Design method for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on ultimate
strength
 
 1 
 L w 1.2 4.3
 1 +  ------ 
 w
F y + F u
- for Lw/w < 0.6
 2 3 
 
 1 
2.1 2.8
- for x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.33
 1 +  ----- x'  
-
  L w 
F y + F u
- for x' ⁄ L w > 0.33
 2 3 
where φ = 0.9 and 0.75 for CF and TO respectively, herein An equates to Ag (gross cross-sectional area) as the
gusset plate is slotted, Fu= specified minimum tensile strength, Rt=1.0 and Rv=1.0.

7-50
Table 7.43 Design method for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on deformation
limit (0.03D2)
 
 
 
 
 0.75 
T r – CSA – 0.03D = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  -------------------------------------------------
2
- for 0.2 < L w ⁄ w < 1.5
 L 
 -----w- – 1.2  
 w   
  1 +  --------------------------  
  1.75   
   
x'
T r – AISC – 0.03D2 = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  – 0.35  ------ + 0.8 for 0.52 > x' ⁄ L w > 0.13
  L w 
where φ = 0.85 , An equates to Ag (gross cross-sectional area) and Fu= specified minimum tensile strength.
7.7.3 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in compression
Table 7.44 Design method for slotted CHS connections under compression loading
 
 1  D
– 0.13
LB C r – CSA = φ ⋅ A g ⋅ F y ⋅  1 – --------------------------------------
-  1.58 ----  ≤ 1.0
for 1.26 > L w ⁄ w > 0.4
L 1.7 3.7   t 
failure  
1 +  ------
w
  w 
where φ = 0.9 , Ag= gross cross-sectional area and Fy= yield stress.
Table 7.45 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections under compression
loading
LB L
C r – CSA = φ ⋅ A g ⋅ F y ⋅  0.24 -----w- + 0.5 ≤ 1.0 for L w ⁄ w ≥ 0.4
failure  w 
where φ = 0.8 , Ag= gross cross-sectional area and Fy= yield stress

8-1
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH
8.1 Overview
Currently, the predicted connection strength and the predicted governing failure
mechanism of slotted end connections to hollow sections loaded in tension, are prescribed by
various general provision in steel design specification and codes. A comparison of these
provisions with data available from experimental programs undertaken specifically with hollow
structural sections, including data from a program carried out at the University of Toronto with
Circular and Elliptical Hollow Sections (CHS and EHS), has shown that the accuracy of their
predictions is strongly determined by the geometrical dimensions of the connection. Despite this
data revealing flaws in these design provisions, appropriate modifications to these provisions
could not be substantiated. A further parametric analysis, based on 891 FE models of slotted
end connections to CHS and EHS, was hence undertaken and this provided a detailed
explanation of the behaviour of these connections. Based on this, it was possible to identify a
gradual increase in the connection strength, with transitions through several failure
mechanisms, as the connection Lw/w ratio increased. These connections exhibited a Tear-Out
(TO) failure, a Circumferential Fracture (CF) failure strongly influenced by shear lag, a solely CF
without shear lag and, in some cases, the attainment of the tube necking under tension loading.
Moreover, under compression loading it was possible to appreciate a Local Buckling (LB) failure
mode of the tubes, which is strongly influenced by shear lag when a small Lw/w ratio is used.
As a rule, the TO and CF failure mechanisms have a mutual origin. In both cases, these
failure mechanisms are initiated by the tube material cracking at the point of maximum stress
(which is directly determined by the connection Lw/w ratio). Once this crack reaches the weld
toe, it will continue extending towards the tube end or around the tube circumference,
depending of the level of stress along the connection which is also defined by this Lw/w ratio. As
a result, these failure mechanisms can now be confined to a well defined range of Lw/w ratios,
which is not currently done in existing design methods. Therefore, this Report recommends a
new static design method for slotted end connections to CHS and EHS under tension and
compression loading, with applicability also to RHS. Moreover, some recommendations for
seismic applications are also given.
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH 8: CONCLUSIONS

8-2
8.2 Recommended static design methods
Based on results from the parametric analysis, possible options for design equations were
studied, developed and are now summarized here in the CSA and AISC design provision
formats. Since failure mechanisms occurred in a well defined range of Lw/w or x' ⁄ L w ratios, the
use of these equations (defining a TO or CF failure) is also suggested based on the validity
ranges given. Finally, this method provides a gradual monotonic increase in the connection
strength as Lw increases (even for ratios approaching the transition between these failure
mechanisms), thus eliminating the inconsistencies currently found in design provisions.
8.2.1 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in tension
Table 8.1 Design method for slotted CHS connections

 
 1 
L 2.4 5.7
 
 1 +  -----w- 
 w
Fy + Fu
TO failure T r – CSA = φ ⋅ F u ⋅ R t A nt + R v A gv ⋅  ------------------ for Lw/w < 0.7
2 3
 
 1 
3.2 9.9
- for x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.245
 1 +  ----- x'  
-
  L w 
F y + F u
- for x' ⁄ L w > 0.245
 2 3 
where φ = 0.9 , An= critical net area of connections exhibiting a slot or An=Ag when a weld return is used, Fu=
specified minimum tensile strength, Rt=1.0 and Rv=1.0.

8-3
Table 8.2 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on ultimate
strength
 
 1 
L 2.4 5.7
 
 1 +  -----w- 
 w
F y + F u
- for Lw/w < 0.7
 2 3 
 
 1 
3.2 9.9
- for x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.245
 1 +  ----- x'- 
  L w 
Fy + Fu
TO failure T r – AISC = φ ⋅ F u ⋅ R t A nt + R v A gv ⋅  ------------------ for x' ⁄ L w > 0.245
 2 3 
where φ = 0.9 , herein An = Ag (gross cross-sectional area) as the gusset plate is slotted, Fu= specified minimum
tensile strength, Rt=0.7 and Rv=1.65.
Table 8.3 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections based on deformation
limit (0.03D)
L D – 0.18
T r – CSA – 0.03D = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  0.23  -----w- + 0.55  1.81  ---- ≤ 1.0 for L w ⁄ w ≥ 0.4
  w   t 
  
  1  D – 0.17
T r – AISC –0.03D = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  0.26  1 + ------------------   1.77  ---- ≤ 1.0 for x' ⁄ L ≤ 0.245
  x'  0.4  
 -----
 t  w
  -
L   w
where φ = 0.9 , herein An equates to Ag (gross cross-sectional area) as the gusset plate is slotted and Fu=
specified minimum tensile strength.

8-4
8.2.2 Recommended static design method for EHS connections in tension
Table 8.4 Design method for slotted EHS connections

 
 1 
-  for Lw/w ≥ 0.6
 L w 1.3 3.8
 -----
 1 + - 
 w
F y + F u
- for Lw/w < 0.6
 2 3 
 
 1  for a small x'
T r – AISC = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  -----------------------------------------
2.15 9.3

 1 +  ----- x'   and x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.14
-
  L w 
CF failure
 
 1  for a large x'
T r – AISC = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  --------------------------------------
2.1 2.8
-
 1 +  ------ x'  and x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.33
  L w 
for a small x' ,

F y + F u x' ⁄ L w > 0.14
-
 2 3 
for a large x' ,
x' ⁄ L w > 0.33
where φ = 0.9 and 0.85 for CF and TO respectively, An= critical net area of the slotted EHS, Fu= specified
minimum tensile strength, Rt=1.0 and Rv=1.0.
Table 8.5 Design method for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on ultimate
strength
 
 1 
1.2 4.3
- for Lw/w ≥ 0.6
 Lw 
 1 +  ------ 
 w
Fy + Fu
TO failure T r – CSA = φ ⋅ F u ⋅ R t A nt + R v A gv ⋅  ------------------ for Lw/w < 0.6
 2 3 
 
 1 
2.1 2.8
- for x' ⁄ L w ≤ 0.33
 1 +  ----- x'- 
  L w 
F y + F u
- for x' ⁄ L w > 0.33
 2 3 
where φ = 0.9 and 0.75 for CF and TO respectively, herein An equates to Ag (gross cross-sectional area) as the
gusset plate is slotted, Fu= specified minimum tensile strength, Rt=1.0 and Rv=1.0.

8-5
Table 8.6 Design method for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections based on deformation
limit (0.03D2)
 
 
 
 
 0.75 
T r – CSA – 0.03D = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  -------------------------------------------------
2
- for 0.2 < L w ⁄ w < 1.5
 L 
 -----w- – 1.2  
 w   
  1 +  --------------------------  
  1.75   
   
x'
T r – AISC – 0.03D2 = φ ⋅ A n ⋅ F u ⋅  – 0.35  ------ + 0.8 for 0.52 > x' ⁄ L w > 0.13
  L w 
where φ = 0.85 , An equates to Ag (gross cross-sectional area) and Fu= specified minimum tensile strength.
8.2.3 Recommended static design method for CHS connections in compression
Table 8.7 Design method for slotted CHS connections under compression loading
 
 1  D
– 0.13
for
LB C r – CSA = φ ⋅ A g ⋅ F y ⋅  1 – --------------------------------------
-  1.58 ----  ≤ 1.0
1.7 3.7   t 
failure  L  1.26 > L w ⁄ w > 0.4
1 +  ------
w
  w 
where φ = 0.9 , Ag= gross cross-sectional area and Fy= yield stress.
Table 8.8 Design method for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections under compression
loading
LB L
C r – CSA = φ ⋅ A g ⋅ F y ⋅  0.24 -----w- + 0.5 ≤ 1.0 for L w ⁄ w ≥ 0.4
failure  w 
where φ = 0.8 , Ag= gross cross-sectional area and Fy= yield stress
The foregoing tables summarize the design recommendations according to variables

used by CSA and AISC specifications. The CSA format is recommended as the connection
behaviour is more accurately captured by the ratio Lw/w. This should be borne in mind by other
independent (e.g. CEN) code committees, where the inverse of φ also corresponds closely to
the Eurocode partial safety factor, γ M .

8-6
8.3 Recommendations for further research
Research in the following areas is suggested, to enhance the design efficiency of slotted
end connections to hollow sections:
1.- For connections under tension loading, further refinement of the model used to
account for TO failure in slotted gusset plate to CHS connections is recommended, and
especially for EHS connections and, by extension, RHS connections.
2.- Since the open slot length used during the parametric analysis of slotted CHS
connections under compression loading corresponded principally to the gusset plate thickness,
and only a few connections were analysed with a larger slot, it is recommended to extend this
study to connections considering a greater range of slot lengths, Lw/w ratios and D/t ratios. For
slotted gusset plate connections, further study of these connections is also recommended.
However, this study must consider the size of gusset plates typically used in practice.

9-1
CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES
Aalberg, A. and Larsen, P.K. 2000. Strength and ductility of bolted connections in normal and
high strength steels. Proceedings IMPLAST_2000, Melbourne, Australia: 487-494.
AISC. 1978. Specification for the design, fabrication and erection of structural steel for
buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 1986. Manual of steel construction, Load and resistance factor design. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 1989. Manual of steel construction, Allowable stress design. American Institute of
Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 1994. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 1999. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 2000. Load and resistance factor design specification for steel hollow structural
sections. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
AISC. 2005. Specification for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-05. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.
Aronofsky, J. 1951. Evaluation of stress distribution in the symmetrical neck of flat tensile
bars. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 3: 75-84.
ASTM. 2003. Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials [Metric], ASTM-
E8M-03. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA.

SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, CH 9: REFERENCES
9-2
ASTM. 2003. Standard specification for cold-formed welded and seamless carbon steel
structural tubing in rounds and shapes, ASTM-A500. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
USA.
Barth, K.E., Orbison, J.G. and Nukala, R. 2002. Behavior of steel tension members subjected
to uniaxial loading. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58: 1103-1120.
Birkemoe, P.C. and Gilmor, M.I. 1978. Behavior of bearing critical double-angle beam
connections. Engineering Journal, AISC, 15(4), 4th Quarter: 109-115.
Bridgeman, P.W. 1952. Studies in large plastic flow and fracture. McGraw-Hill, New York,
USA.
British Steel. 1992. Slotted end plate connections, Report No. SL/HED/TN/22/-/92/D.
Swinden Laboratories, Rotherham, England.
CEN. 1994. Hot finished structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain structural
steels–part 1: technical delivery requirements, EN 10210-1. European Committee for
Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN. 1992. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - part 1.1: general rules, prEN1993-1-1:
1992. European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium
CEN. 2005. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - part 1.1: general rules, EN1993-1-1:
2005(E). European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium
CEN. 2005. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - part 1.8: design of joints, EN1993-1-8:
2005(E). European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, Belgium.

9-3
Cheng, J.J.R., Kulak, G.L. and Khoo, H. 1996. Shear lag effect in slotted tubular tension
members. Proceedings of the 1st CSCE Structural Speciality Conference, Edmonton, Canada:
1103-1114.
Cheng, J.J.R., Kulak, G.L. and Khoo, H. 1998. Strength of slotted tubular tension members.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25: 982-991.
Cheng, J.J.R. and Kulak, G.L. 2000. Gusset plate connection to round HSS tension
members. Engineering Journal, AISC, 37(4), 4th Quarter: 133-139.
Chesson, E. Jr. and Munse, W.H. 1963. Riveted and bolted joints: truss type tensile
connections. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 89(1): 67-106.
CSA. 1989. Limit states design of steel structures, CAN/CSA-S16.1-M89. Canadian
Standards Association, Toronto, Canada.
CSA. 1994. Limit states design of steel structures, CAN/CSA-S16.1-94. Canadian Standards
Association, Toronto, Canada.
CSA. 2001. Limit states design of steel structures, CAN/CSA-S16-01. Canadian Standards
Association, Toronto, Canada.
CSA. 2003. Welded steel construction (Metal Arc Welding), CAN/CSA-W59-03. Canadian
Standards Association, Toronto, Canada.
CSA. 2004. General requirements for rolled or welded structural quality steel / structural
quality steel, CAN/CSA-G40.20-04 / G40.21-04. Canadian Standards Association, Toronto,
Canada.

9-4
Cunningham, T.J., Orbison, J.G. and Ziemian, R.D. 1995. Assessment of American block
shear load capacity predictions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 35: 323-338.
Driver, R.G., Grondin, G.Y. and Kulak, G.L. 2006. Unified block shear equation for achieving
consistent reliability. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 62:210-222.
Dumoulin, S., Tabourot, L., Chappuis, C., Vacher, P. and Arrieux, R. 2003. Determination of
the equivalent stress-strain relationship of a copper sample under tensile loading. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 133:79-83.
Easterling, W.S. and Giroux, L.G. 1993. Shear lag effects in steel tension members.
Engineering Journal, AISC, 30(3), 3rd Quarter: 77-89.
Epstein, H.I. 1992. An experimental study of block shear failure of angles in tension.
Engineering Journal, AISC, 29(2), 2nd Quarter: 75-84.
Epstein, H.I. and Chamarajanagar, R. 1996. Finite element studies for correlation with block
shear tests. Computers and Structures, 61: 967-974.
Epstein, H.I. and McGinnis, M.L. 2000. Finite element modeling of block shear in structural
tees. Computers and Structures, 77: 571-582.
Galambos, T.V., editor. 1998. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures. 5th Ed.,
Appendix B.3, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
Geltmacher, A.B., Matic, P. and Everett, R.K. 1999. Integrated experimental-computational
characterization of TIMETAL 21S. Materials Science and Engineering, (A)272:99-113.

9-5
Geschwindner, L.F. 2004. Evolution of shear lag and block shear provisions in the AISC
specification. Proceedings of the ECCS/AISC Workshop: Connections in Steel Structures V,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 21-26.
Girard, C., Picard, A. and Fafard, M. 1995. Finite element modelling of the shear lag effects
in an HSS welded to a gusset plate. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 22: 651-659.
Gross, J.M., Orbison, J.G. and Ziemian, R.D. 1995. Block shear test in high-strength steel
angles. Engineering Journal, AISC, 32(3), 2rd Quarter: 117-122.
Hardash, S.G. and Bjorhovde, R. 1985. New design criteria for gusset plates in tension.
Engineering Journal, AISC, 22(2), 2nd Quarter: 77-84.
Humphries, M.J.R. and Birkemoe, P.C. 2004. Shear lag effects in fillet-welded tension
connections of channels and similar shapes. Proceedings of the ECCS/AISC Workshop:
Connections in Steel Structures V, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 381-392.
Khoo, H.A. 2000. Ductile fracture of steel, Ph.D. thesis. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Kirkham, W.J. and Miller, T.H. 2000. Examination of AISC LRFD shear lag design provisions.
Engineering Journal, AISC, 37(3), 3rd Quarter: 83-98.
Korol, R.M., Mirza, F.A. and Mirza, M.Y. 1994. Investigation of shear lag in slotted HSS
tension members. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Tubular Structures,
Melbourne, Australia: 473-482.
Korol, R.M. 1996. Shear lag in slotted HSS tension members. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 23: 1350-1354.

9-6
Kulak, G.L. and Grondin, G.Y. 2001. AISC LRFD rules for block shear in bolted connections -
a review. Engineering Journal, AISC, 38(4), 4th Quarter: 199-203.
Kulak, G.L. and Grondin, G.Y. 2002. Limit states design in structural steel. 7th Ed., Canadian
Institute of Steel Construction, Toronto, Canada.
Ling, T.W. 2005. The tensile behaviour of gusset-plate welded connections in very high
strength (VHS) tubes, Ph.D. thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Lu, L.H., de Winkel, G.D., Yu, Y. and Wardenier, J. 1994. Deformation limit for the ultimate
strength of hollow sections joints. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Tubular
Structures, Melbourne, Australia: 341-347.
Matic, P. 1985. Numerically predicting ductile material behavior from tensile specimen
response. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 4: 13-28.
Orbison, J.G., Wagner, M.E. and Fritz, W.P. 1999. Tension plane behavior in single-row
bolted connections subject to block shear. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 49: 225-
239.
Packer, J.A. and Henderson, J.E. 1992. Design guide for hollow structural section
connections. 1st Ed., Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Toronto, Canada.
Packer, J.A. and Henderson, J.E. 1997. Hollow structural section connections and trusses -
a design guide. 2nd Ed., Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Toronto, Canada.
Ravindra M.K. and Galambos, T.V. 1978. Load and resistance factor design for steel. Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, 104(9): 1337-1353.

9-7
Ricles J.M. and Yura, J.A. 1983. Strength of double-row bolted-web connections. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 109(1): 126-141.
Salmon, C.G. and Johnson, J.E. 1996. Steel structures: design and behaviour emphasizing
load and resistance factor design. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York, USA.
Shen, W.Q. and Jones, N. 1993. Uniaxial true stress-true strain curve for a ductile material.
Nuclear Engineering and Design, 140: 153-158.
Stout, R.D. 1987. Weldability of steels. Welding Research Council, New York, USA.
Swanson Analysis Systems. 2004. ANSYS release 8.1. Houston, USA.
Swanson, J.A. and Leon, R.T. 2000. Bolted steel connections: tests on t-stub components.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 126(1): 50-56.
Systat Software Inc. 2004. SigmaPlot 9.0. Richmond, USA.
Topkaya, C. 2004. A finite element parametric study on block shear failure of steel tension
members. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 60: 1615-1635.
Tvergaard, V. 1993. Necking in the tensile bars with rectangular cross-section. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 103: 273-290.
Wilkinson, T., Petrovski, T., Bechara, E. and Rubal, M. 2002. Experimental investigation of
slot lengths in RHS bracing members. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Advances in Steel Structures, Hong Kong, China: 205-212.
Yura, A.J., Birkemoe, P.C. and Ricles, J.M. 1982. Beam web shear connections: an
experimental study. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 108(2):311-325.

9-8
Zhang, Z.L., Hauge, M., Ødegård, J. and Thaulow, C. 1999. Determining material true
stress-strain curve from tensile specimens with rectangular cross-section. International Journal
of Solids and Structures, 36:3497-3516.
Zhao, X.L. and Hancock, G.J. 1995. Longitudinal fillet welds in thin cold-formed RHS
members. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 121(11):1683-1690.
Zhao, X.L., Al-Mahaidi, R. and Kiew, K.P. 1999. Longitudinal fillet welds in thin-walled C450
RHS members. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 125(8):821-828.

A-1
APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
This appendix gives the measured size of test specimens, used in the the experimental
program at the University of Toronto.
A.1 Slotted end connections to CHS
Table A.1 Measured dimensions of test specimens A1, A2 and A3C
CHS Plate Weld

Specimen end
Slot width
Push-in
Length
length
Width
Tube-
Avg.
Slot
Tw TL Td Lw a1 a2 a3 a4
ai
A1-1 186 156 148 128 197 178 167 156 12 9 9 11 10.3
A1-2 185 157 147 130 197 178 167 155 10 10 8 9 9.3
A2-1 223 158 150 130 198 218 167 190 9 10 9 10 9.5
A2-2 226 157 149 127 197 220 166 194 11 9 10 9 9.8
A3C-1 240 158 149 112 196 235 166 206 10 10 9 10 9.8
A3C-2 240 158 148 111 197 234 167 205 10 9 10 9 9.5
Table A.2 Measured dimensions of test specimens B1 and B2
CHS Plate Weld

Specimen end
Slot width
Back ay
Back ax
Push-in
Length
length
Width
Tube-
Slot
Tw TL Td a1 a2 a3 a4
B1-1 186 156 147 129 196 177 166 11 11 10 10 9 14

Lw 170 166 165 165 7 10
B1-2 186 156 147 129 196 177 166 10 10 10 10 11 9
Lw 170 172 170 172 9 9
B2-1 222 157 149 123 197 220 167 10 11 10 10 10 7
Lw 210 205 208 208 9 7
B2-2 222 157 149 123 197 220 167 11 11 11 8 11 10
Lw 206 212 210 205 11 9
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, APPENDIX A

A-2
Figure A.1 Dimensions of test specimens type A and B
Table A.3 Measured dimensions of test specimens C1, C2 and C3C
CHS Plate Weld

Specimen end
Slot width
Push-in
Length
length
Width
Tube-
Avg.
Slot
Tw TL Td Lw a1 a2 a3 a4
ai
C1-1 204 156 148 175 321 190 172 163 14 13 14 15 14

C1-2 203 156 148 180 321 190 173 160 14 14 14 14 14
C2-1 240 158 147 179 323 229 171 193 15 14 14 13 14
C2-2 239 157 147 178 322 231 172 196 15 16 14 14 14.8
C3C-1 241 157 148 178 321 228 172 197 14 14 15 14 14.3
C3C-2 240 157 147 180 322 230 174 202 15 13 13 13 13.5

A-3
Figure A.2 Dimensions of test specimens type C
A.2 Slotted end connections to EHS
Table A.4 Measured dimensions of test specimens E1 and E2

Push-
Slot Slot Push-in
End in Gap Lw a1 a2 End Gap Lw a1 a2
length length Length
Length
E1/A-1 17 144 13 15 E1/B-1 19 144 13 15
E1/A-2 14 143 13 13 E1/B-2 14 145 12 15
268 252 266 250
E1/A-3 14 140 13 15 E1/B-3 15 145 12 14
E1/A-4 17 150 12 13 E1/B-4 16 145 13 16
L_plate Width Tp L_plate Width Tp
Plate A 550 160 32 B 498 162 32
E2/A-1 10 181 13 16 E2/B-1 12 185 13 16

E2/A-2 9 180 12 10 E2/B-1 10 183 12 15
217 208 215 204
E2/A-3 10 181 12 14 E2/B-3 9 182 15 16
E2/A-4 9 184 11 15 E2/B-4 10 182 12 14
L_plate Width Tp L_plate Width Tp
Plate A 497 160 32 B 500 162 32

A-4
Figure A.3 Dimensions of test specimens type E1 and E2
Table A.5 Measured dimensions of test specimens E3 and E4
EHS Plate Weld

End
Slot Push-in Slot
Tw TL TD Width Lw a1 a2
length Length width
E3/A-1 145 17 12
E3/A-2 147 14 15
E3/A-3 262 161 250 198 300 249 112 147 16 12
E3/A-4 151 15 14
E3/B-1 140 17 16
E3/B-2 145 18 16
E3/B-3 263 160 247 205 00 249 112 148 16 12
E3/B-4 143 16 12
E4/A-1 175 17 12
E4/A-2 172 16 16
E4/A-3 209 159 275 198 302 203 112 178 16 12
E4/A-4 178 17 12
E4/B-1 173 15 14
E4/B-2 175 17 13
E4/B-3 209 160 275 202 298 201 113 178 17 14
E4/B-4 174 15 14

A-5
Figure A.4 Dimensions of test specimens type E3 and E4
Table A.6 Measured dimensions of test specimen E5
EHS Plate Weld

End
Slot Push-in
Tw TL TD Width Lw a1 a2
length Length
E5/A-1 186 14 13
E5/A-2 185 15 13
E5/A-3 231 162 260 130 273 218 190 18 13
E5/A-4 185 14 14
E5/B-1 185 14 14
E5/B-2 180 20 10
E5/B-3 231 161 250 134 266 217 184 17 19
E5/B-4 181 16 14

A-6
Figure A.5 Dimensions of test specimen type E5

B-1
APPENDIX B: EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTS
This appendix gives the data pertaining to the tests performed by other researches on slotted
end connections to hollow sections.
B.1 Experimental program by British Steel (1992)
Table B.1 Data from British Steel (1992)

Test Nux/
D t tp Ag Lw w Fy Fu Failure
Specimen Lw/D Lw/w Capacity AnFu
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) N [kN] Mode
ux (An=Ag)
C-Sep-1 60.3 3.22 1.3 9.9 577 80 84.8 0.94 325 494 256 0.90 CF
C-Sep-2 60.3 4.18 1.3 12.3 737 80 82.4 0.97 329 491 326 0.90 CF
C-Sep-3 60.3 4.78 1.3 15.3 834 80 79.4 1.01 307 499 371 0.89 CF
C-Sep-4 114.3 3.55 1.3 15.3 1235 150 164.2 0.91 290 454 522 0.93 CF
C-Sep-5 114.3 4.82 1.3 20.0 1658 150 159.5 0.94 285 460 652 0.85 CF
C-Sep-6 114.3 6.32 1.3 20.0 2144 150 159.5 0.94 307 444 795 0.84 CF
b t
(mm) (mm)
S-Sep-2 50 3.40 15.3 634 80 84.7 0.94 373 460 274 0.94 CF
S-Sep-3 50 6.20 20.0 1086 75 80.0 0.94 362 482 505 0.96 CF
S-Sep-4 90 3.70 20.0 1277 150 160.0 0.94 308 439 478 0.85 CF
S-Sep-5 90 5.20 24.5 1764 150 155.5 0.96 407 502 833 0.94 CF
S-Sep-6 90 6.13 29.4 2056 145 150.6 0.96 352 510 949 0.90 CF
h b t
(mm) (mm) (mm)
R-Sep-3 60 40 6.65 20.0 1153 75 80.0 0.94 378 464 475 0.89 CF
R-Sep-5 40 60 4.06 15.3 746 80 84.7 0.94 436 530 384 0.97 CF
R-Sep-8 120 60 5.45 29.4 1843 145 150.6 0.96 421 534 711 0.72 CF
R-Sep-9 120 60 6.42 40.1 2146 145 139.9 1.04 373 488 913 0.87 CF
R-Sep-10 60 120 3.55 15.3 1228 150 164.7 0.91 360 454 560 1.00 NK
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, APPENDIX B

B-2
Table B.2 Data from British Steel (1992) continued

U
Nux/ AISC
Failure x x' AISC CSA
Specimen AnFu U
Mode (mm) (1.3Lw/D) (mm) U' Ua)
(An=Ag)
C-Sep-1 CF 0.90 19.2 1.00 14.2 1.00 0.67

C-Sep-2 CF 0.90 19.2 1.00 13.0 1.00 0.68
C-Sep-3 CF 0.89 19.2 1.00 11.5 1.00 0.68
C-Sep-4 CF 0.93 36.4 1.00 28.7 1.00 0.65
C-Sep-5 CF 0.85 36.4 1.00 26.4 1.00 0.65
C-Sep-6 CF 0.84 36.4 1.00 26.4 1.00 0.66
AISC AISC CSA
U U' U
S-Sep-2 CF 0.94 18.8 0.77 11.1 0.86 0.64
S-Sep-3 CF 0.96 18.8 0.75 8.8 0.88 0.64
S-Sep-4 CF 0.85 33.8 0.78 23.8 0.84 0.65
S-Sep-5 CF 0.94 33.8 0.78 21.5 0.86 0.66
S-Sep-6 CF 0.90 33.8 0.77 19.1 0.87 0.65
AISC AISC CSA
U U' U
R-Sep-3 CF 0.89 16.0 0.79 6.0 0.92 0.65
R-Sep-5 CF 0.97 21.0 0.74 13.4 0.83 0.65
R-Sep-8 CF 0.72 25.0 0.83 10.3 0.93 0.64
R-Sep-9 CF 0.87 25.0 0.83 5.0 0.97 0.64
R-Sep-10 NK 1.00 40.0 0.73 32.4 0.78 0.65
a)
U = A'ne/An, where A'ne is calculated according to CSA(2001) and An=Ag
for un-slotted tubes or when slot end is welded.
B.2 Experimental program by Korol el al. (1994)
Table B.3 Data from Korol et al. (1994)

Test Capacity
Failure Mode
Specimen
U
Nux [kN]
ba) hb) t tp Ag An Lw w
Lw/w Nux/ x AISC x' AISC CSA
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
AnFu (mm)
U (mm) U' Ua)
1a 125 50 6.40 16 1970 1727 160 160 1.00 811 CF 0.98 40.2 0.75 32.2 0.80 0.89
1b 125 50 6.20 16 1912 1676 157 160 0.98 836 CF 1.04 40.2 0.74 32.2 0.80 0.87
2a 88 88 6.15 16 1916 1682 157 160 0.98 664 CF 0.95 33.0 0.79 25.0 0.84 0.86
2b 88 88 6.40 16 1983 1740 162 160 1.01 725 CF 1.00 33.0 0.80 25.0 0.85 0.89
3a 50 126 6.15 16 1916 1682 156 159 0.98 845 CF 1.05 21.4 0.86 13.4 0.91 0.86
3b 50 126 6.25 16 1943 1706 161 159 1.01 854 CF 1.05 21.4 0.87 13.4 0.92 0.88
5a 89 89 6.00 16 1899 1671 98 161 0.61 612 CF 0.88 33.4 0.66 25.4 0.74 0.76
a) U = A'ne/An, where A'ne is calculated according to CSA(2001) and An=Ag for un-slotted tubes or when slot end is welded.

B-3
B.3 Experimental program by Zhao and Hancock (1995)

Table B.4 Data from Zhao and Hancock (1995)
Ag An Test
h b t tp Lw w Fy Fu Failure
Specimen Lw/w Capacity
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm ) (mm ) (mm) (mm)
2 2 (MPa) (MPa) N [kN] Mode
ux
R1ENS 75.15 75.20 2.99 10 840 774 62.0 140.4 0.44 398.5 461.5 228 TO
R1ENL 75.15 75.20 2.99 10 840 774 76.0 140.4 0.54 398.5 461.5 264 TO
R2ENS 75.15 75.52 2.49 10 709 654 62.0 140.7 0.44 429.5 489.5 187 TO
R2ENL 75.15 75.52 2.49 10 709 654 68.0 140.7 0.48 429.5 489.5 198 TO
R3ENS 49.96 50.13 2.98 10 538 472 38.0 90.1 0.42 426.0 499.5 168 TO
R3ENL 49.96 50.13 2.98 10 538 472 43.0 90.1 0.48 426.0 499.5 173 TO
R4ENS 50.08 50.25 2.49 10 459 404 38.0 90.3 0.42 464.5 520.5 140 TO
R4ENL 50.08 50.25 2.49 10 459 404 48.0 90.3 0.53 464.5 520.5 161 TO
R5ENS 49.96 50.16 1.97 10 369 326 38.0 90.1 0.42 459.0 515.0 102 TO
R5ENL 49.96 50.16 1.97 10 369 326 50.0 90.1 0.55 459.0 515.0 132 TO
R6ENS 49.95 50.49 1.55 10 296 262 38.0 90.4 0.42 429.5 486.5 78 TO
R6ENL 49.95 50.49 1.55 10 296 262 43.0 90.4 0.48 429.5 486.5 78 TO
R7ENS 50.09 75.20 2.99 10 690 624 48.0 115.3 0.42 431.0 482.0 185 TO
R7ENL 50.09 75.20 2.99 10 690 624 58.0 115.3 0.50 431.0 482.0 209 TO
R8ENS 50.08 75.12 2.50 10 585 530 48.0 115.2 0.42 404.5 459.0 153 TO
R8ENL 50.08 75.12 2.50 10 585 530 62.5 115.2 0.54 404.5 459.0 188 TO
R9ENS 50.04 75.13 1.96 10 465 422 48.0 115.2 0.42 415.5 485.0 123 TO
R9ENL 50.04 75.13 1.96 10 465 422 54.0 115.2 0.47 415.5 485.0 131 TO
R7WNS 75.20 50.09 2.99 10 690 624 48.0 115.3 0.42 431.0 482.0 199 TO
R7WNL 75.20 50.09 2.99 10 690 624 58.0 115.3 0.50 431.0 482.0 243 TO
R8WNS 75.12 50.08 2.50 10 585 530 48.0 115.2 0.42 404.5 459.0 173 TO
R8WNL 75.12 50.08 2.50 10 585 530 62.5 115.2 0.54 404.5 459.0 220 TO
R9WNS 75.13 50.04 1.96 10 465 422 48.0 115.2 0.42 415.5 485.0 127 TO
R9WNL 75.13 50.04 1.96 10 465 422 54.0 115.2 0.47 415.5 485.0 139 TO
R1EYS 75.15 75.20 2.99 10 840 774 62.0 140.4 0.44 398.5 461.5 262 TO
R1EYL 75.15 75.20 2.99 10 840 774 76.0 140.4 0.54 398.5 461.5 309 TO
R2EYS 75.15 75.52 2.49 10 709 654 62.0 140.7 0.44 429.5 489.5 235 TO
R2EYL 75.15 75.52 2.49 10 709 654 68.0 140.7 0.48 429.5 489.5 251 TO
R3EYS 49.96 50.13 2.98 10 538 472 38.0 90.1 0.42 426.0 499.5 203 TO
R3EYL 49.96 50.13 2.98 10 538 472 43.0 90.1 0.48 426.0 499.5 224 TO
R4EYS 50.08 50.25 2.49 10 459 404 38.0 90.3 0.42 464.5 520.5 174 TO
R4EYL 50.08 50.25 2.49 10 459 404 48.0 90.3 0.53 464.5 520.5 209 TO
R5EYS 49.96 50.16 1.97 10 369 326 38.0 90.1 0.42 459.0 515.0 133 TO
R5EYL 49.96 50.16 1.97 10 369 326 50.0 90.1 0.55 459.0 515.0 169 TO
R6EYS 49.95 50.49 1.55 10 296 262 38.0 90.4 0.42 429.5 486.5 103 TO
R6EYL 49.95 50.49 1.55 10 296 262 43.0 90.4 0.48 429.5 486.5 111 TO
R7EYS 50.09 75.20 2.99 10 690 624 48.0 115.3 0.42 431.0 482.0 215 TO
R7EYL 50.09 75.20 2.99 10 690 624 58.0 115.3 0.50 431.0 482.0 243 TO
R8EYS 50.08 75.12 2.50 10 585 530 48.0 115.2 0.42 404.5 459.0 190 TO
R8EYL 50.08 75.12 2.50 10 585 530 62.5 115.2 0.54 404.5 459.0 228 TO
R9EYS 50.04 75.13 1.96 10 465 422 48.0 115.2 0.42 415.5 485.0 154 TO
R9EYL 50.04 75.13 1.96 10 465 422 54.0 115.2 0.47 415.5 485.0 170 TO
R7WYS 75.20 50.09 2.99 10 690 624 48.0 115.3 0.42 431.0 482.0 240 TO
R7WYL 75.20 50.09 2.99 10 690 624 58.0 115.3 0.50 431.0 482.0 268 TO
R8WYS 75.12 50.08 2.50 10 585 530 43.0 115.2 0.37 404.5 459.0 184 TO
R8WYL 75.12 50.08 2.50 10 585 530 62.5 115.2 0.54 404.5 459.0 248 TO
R9WYS 75.13 50.04 1.96 10 465 422 48.0 115.2 0.42 415.5 485.0 165 TO
R9WYL 75.13 50.04 1.96 10 465 422 53.0 115.2 0.46 415.5 485.0 173 TO

B-4
Table B.5 Data from Zhao and Hancock (1995) continued

Test
Failure x AISC x' AISC CSA
Specimen Capacity U
Nux [kN]
Mode (mm) U (mm) U' Ua)
R1ENS 228 TO 0.64 28.2 0.55 23.2 0.63 0.56

R1ENL 264 TO 0.74 28.2 0.63 23.2 0.69 0.60
R2ENS 187 TO 0.58 28.3 0.54 23.3 0.62 0.61
R2ENL 198 TO 0.62 28.3 0.58 23.3 0.66 0.63
R3ENS 168 TO 0.71 18.8 0.51 13.8 0.64 0.51
R3ENL 173 TO 0.73 18.8 0.56 13.8 0.68 0.55
R4ENS 140 TO 0.67 18.8 0.50 13.8 0.64 0.53
R4ENL 161 TO 0.77 18.8 0.61 13.8 0.71 0.58
R5ENS 102 TO 0.61 18.8 0.51 13.8 0.64 0.57
R5ENL 132 TO 0.79 18.8 0.62 13.8 0.72 0.58
R6ENS 78 TO 0.61 18.9 0.50 13.9 0.63 0.55
R6ENL 78 TO 0.61 18.9 0.56 13.9 0.68 0.62
R7ENS 185 TO 0.61 26.3 0.45 21.3 0.56 0.56
R7ENL 209 TO 0.69 26.3 0.55 21.3 0.63 0.60
R8ENS 153 TO 0.63 26.3 0.45 21.3 0.56 0.54
R8ENL 188 TO 0.77 26.3 0.58 21.3 0.66 0.57
R9ENS 123 TO 0.60 26.3 0.45 21.3 0.56 0.56
R9ENL 131 TO 0.64 26.3 0.51 21.3 0.61 0.59
R7WNS 199 TO 0.66 20.0 0.58 15.0 0.69 0.52
R7WNL 243 TO 0.81 20.0 0.65 15.0 0.74 0.52
R8WNS 173 TO 0.71 20.0 0.58 15.0 0.69 0.48
R8WNL 220 TO 0.90 20.0 0.68 15.0 0.76 0.49
R9WNS 127 TO 0.62 20.0 0.58 15.0 0.69 0.54
R9WNL 139 TO 0.68 20.0 0.63 15.0 0.72 0.55
R1EYS 262 TO 0.68 28.2 0.55 23.2 0.63 0.49
R1EYL 309 TO 0.80 28.2 0.63 23.2 0.69 0.51
R2EYS 235 TO 0.68 28.3 0.54 23.3 0.62 0.48
R2EYL 251 TO 0.72 28.3 0.58 23.3 0.66 0.50
R3EYS 203 TO 0.76 18.8 0.51 13.8 0.64 0.42
R3EYL 224 TO 0.83 18.8 0.56 13.8 0.68 0.43
R4EYS 174 TO 0.73 18.8 0.50 13.8 0.64 0.42
R4EYL 209 TO 0.87 18.8 0.61 13.8 0.71 0.45
R5EYS 133 TO 0.70 18.8 0.51 13.8 0.64 0.43
R5EYL 169 TO 0.89 18.8 0.62 13.8 0.72 0.45
R6EYS 103 TO 0.72 18.9 0.50 13.9 0.63 0.42
R6EYL 111 TO 0.77 18.9 0.56 13.9 0.68 0.44
R7EYS 215 TO 0.65 26.3 0.45 21.3 0.56 0.48
R7EYL 243 TO 0.73 26.3 0.55 21.3 0.63 0.52
R8EYS 190 TO 0.71 26.3 0.45 21.3 0.56 0.43
R8EYL 228 TO 0.85 26.3 0.58 21.3 0.66 0.47
R9EYS 154 TO 0.68 26.3 0.45 21.3 0.56 0.44
R9EYL 170 TO 0.75 26.3 0.51 21.3 0.61 0.45
R7WYS 240 TO 0.72 20.0 0.58 15.0 0.69 0.43
R7WYL 268 TO 0.81 20.0 0.65 15.0 0.74 0.47
R8WYS 184 TO 0.69 20.0 0.53 15.0 0.65 0.40
R8WYL 248 TO 0.92 20.0 0.68 15.0 0.76 0.43
R9WYS 165 TO 0.73 20.0 0.58 15.0 0.69 0.41
R9WYL 173 TO 0.77 20.0 0.62 15.0 0.72 0.44
a)
U = A'ne/An, where A'ne is calculated according to CSA(2001) and An=Ag

B-5
B.4 Experimental program by Cheng et al. (1996)
Table B.6 Data from Cheng et al. (1996)
Ag An Test
D t tp Lw w* a) w Fy Fu
Specimen Lw/D Lw/w* a) Lw/w Capacity
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm 2) (mm2) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) N [kN]
ux
pwc1 101.6 6.32 1.67 10 1891 1739 170 160 1.06 150 1.14 393 449 830
pwc2 101.6 6.32 1.67 10 1891 1739 170 160 1.06 150 1.14 393 449 869
pwc3 101.6 6.32 1.67 10 1891 1739 170 160 1.06 150 1.14 393 449 849
pwc4 101.6 6.32 1.67 10 1891 1739 170 160 1.06 150 1.14 393 449 875
pwc5 101.7 4.53 1.47 10 1383 1274 150 160 0.94 150 1.00 375 451 645
pwc6 101.7 4.53 1.47 10 1383 1274 150 160 0.94 150 1.00 375 451 634
pwc7 101.7 4.53 1.47 10 1383 1274 150 160 0.94 150 1.00 375 451 631
spec1 219.7 7.45 1.57 20 4967 4639 345 345 1.00 325 1.06 348 431 2160
spec2 219.7 7.45 1.25 20 4967 4639 275 345 0.80 325 0.85 348 431 2157
a)
Since w* and Lw/w* excluded the plate thickness, new dimensions were computed
Table B.7 Data from Cheng et al. (1996) continued

Test
Specimen Capacity Ureal
Nux [kN]
Mode (mm) U (mm) U' Ua)
pwc1 830 CF 1.06 32.3 1.00 27.3 1.00 0.85

pwc2 869 Neck 1.02 32.3 1.00 27.3 1.00 0.78
pwc3 849 Neck 1.00 32.3 1.00 27.3 1.00 0.78
pwc4 875 Neck 1.03 32.3 1.00 27.3 1.00 0.78
pwc5 645 Neck 1.03 32.4 1.00 27.4 1.00 0.74
pwc6 634 Neck 1.02 32.4 1.00 27.4 1.00 0.74
pwc7 631 Neck 1.01 32.4 1.00 27.4 1.00 0.74
spec1 2160 Neck 1.01 69.9 1.00 59.9 1.00 0.75
spec2 2157 CF 1.01 69.9 0.75 59.9 0.78 0.62
a)U = A'ne/An, where A'ne is calculated according to CSA(2001) and An=Ag

B-6
B.5 Experimental program by Zhao et al. (1999)

Table B.8 Data from Zhao et al. (1999)
Ag An Test
h b t tp Lw w Fy Fu Failure
Specimen Lw/w Capacity
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) 2
(mm ) (mm ) 2 (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) Mode
Nux [kN]
G1EY1 49.91 49.95 2.36 10 435 383 40 89.9 0.45 525.5 577 183 TO
G1EY2 49.91 49.95 2.36 10 435 383 40 89.9 0.45 525.5 577 185 TO
G1EY3 49.91 49.95 2.36 10 435 383 40 89.9 0.45 525.5 577 192 TO
G1EN1 49.91 49.95 2.36 10 435 383 40 89.9 0.45 525.5 577 140 TO
G1EN2 49.91 49.95 2.36 10 435 383 40 89.9 0.45 525.5 577 161 TO
G1EN3 49.91 49.95 2.36 10 435 383 40 89.9 0.45 525.5 577 148 TO
G2EY1 50.03 75.16 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 171 TO
G2EY2 50.03 75.16 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 177 TO
G2EY3 50.03 75.16 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 167 TO
G2EN1 50.03 75.16 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 143 TO
G2EN2 50.03 75.16 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 141 TO
G2EN3 50.03 75.16 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 141 TO
G2WY1 75.16 50.03 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 174 TO
G2WY2 75.16 50.03 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 175 TO
G2WY3 75.16 50.03 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 169 TO
G2WN1 75.16 50.03 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 140 TO
G2WN2 75.16 50.03 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 139 TO
G2WN3 75.16 50.03 2.32 10 545 494 40 115.2 0.35 488.5 547 140 TO
G3EY1 50.01 50.12 2.81 10 511 449 40 90.1 0.44 497 554 216 TO
G3EY2 50.01 50.12 2.81 10 511 449 40 90.1 0.44 497 554 231 TO
G3EY3 50.01 50.12 2.81 10 511 449 40 90.1 0.44 497 554 221 TO
G3EN1 50.01 50.12 2.81 10 511 449 40 90.1 0.44 497 554 184 TO
G3EN2 50.01 50.12 2.81 10 511 449 40 90.1 0.44 497 554 192 TO
G3EN3 50.01 50.12 2.81 10 511 449 40 90.1 0.44 497 554 183 TO

B-7
Table B.9 Data from Zhao et al. (1999) continued

Test
Specimen Capacity Ureal
Nux [kN]
Mode (mm) U (mm) U' U a)
G1EY1 183 TO 0.73 18.7 0.53 13.7 0.66 0.33

G1EY2 185 TO 0.74 18.7 0.53 13.7 0.66 0.33
G1EY3 192 TO 0.77 18.7 0.53 13.7 0.66 0.33
G1EN1 140 TO 0.63 18.7 0.53 13.7 0.66 0.37
G1EN2 161 TO 0.73 18.7 0.53 13.7 0.66 0.37
G1EN3 148 TO 0.67 18.7 0.53 13.7 0.66 0.37
G2EY1 171 TO 0.57 26.3 0.34 21.3 0.47 0.26
G2EY2 177 TO 0.59 26.3 0.34 21.3 0.47 0.26
G2EY3 167 TO 0.56 26.3 0.34 21.3 0.47 0.26
G2EN1 143 TO 0.53 26.3 0.34 21.3 0.47 0.28
G2EN2 141 TO 0.52 26.3 0.34 21.3 0.47 0.28
G2EN3 141 TO 0.52 26.3 0.34 21.3 0.47 0.28
G2WY1 174 TO 0.58 20.0 0.50 15.0 0.62 0.26
G2WY2 175 TO 0.59 20.0 0.50 15.0 0.62 0.26
G2WY3 169 TO 0.57 20.0 0.50 15.0 0.62 0.26
G2WN1 140 TO 0.52 20.0 0.50 15.0 0.62 0.28
G2WN2 139 TO 0.51 20.0 0.50 15.0 0.62 0.28
G2WN3 140 TO 0.52 20.0 0.50 15.0 0.62 0.28
G3EY1 216 TO 0.76 18.8 0.53 13.8 0.66 0.33
G3EY2 231 TO 0.82 18.8 0.53 13.8 0.66 0.33
G3EY3 221 TO 0.78 18.8 0.53 13.8 0.66 0.33
G3EN1 184 TO 0.74 18.8 0.53 13.8 0.66 0.38
G3EN2 192 TO 0.77 18.8 0.53 13.8 0.66 0.38
G3EN3 183 TO 0.74 18.8 0.53 13.8 0.66 0.38
a)
U = A'ne/An, where A'ne is calculated according to CSA(2001) and An=Ag for un-slotted tubes or when
slot end is welded.

B-8
B.6 Experimental program by the Authors

Table B.10 Data from University of Toronto
Ag An Test
D t tp Lw w Fy Fu
Specimen D/t Lw/D Lw/w Capacity
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm2) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) Nux [kN]
A1 168.5 4.89 34.5 0.93 26 2471 2207 156 238 0.66 498 540 1032
A2 168.5 4.89 34.5 1.14 26 2471 2207 192 238 0.81 498 540 1154
A3C 168.5 4.89 34.5 1.22 26 2471 206 238 0.87 498 540 -1145
B1 168.5 4.89 34.5 1.00 26 2471 2207 169 238 0.71 498 540 1087
B2 168.5 4.89 34.5 1.23 26 2471 2207 208 238 0.87 498 540 1211
C1 168.5 4.89 34.5 0.96 26 2471 162 239 0.68 498 540 1107
C2 168.5 4.89 34.5 1.16 26 2471 195 239 0.82 498 540 1196
C3C 168.5 4.89 34.5 1.19 26 2471 200 239 0.84 498 540 -869
D1 D2 t
(mm) (mm) (mm)
E1 221.2 110.9 5.94 0.66 32 3054 2542 145 234 0.62 421 530 1109
E2 221.2 110.9 5.94 0.83 32 3054 2584 182 234 0.78 421 530 1236
E3 221.2 110.9 5.94 0.66 32 3054 146 237 0.62 421 530 1336
E4 221.2 110.9 5.94 0.80 32 3054 175 237 0.74 421 530 1400
E5 221.2 110.9 5.94 0.84 32 3054 2560 185 234 0.79 421 530 1282
Table B.11 Data from University of Toronto continued

Test
Failure Nux/ Nux/ x AISC x' AISC CSA
Specimen Capacity
Nux [kN]
Mode AnFu AgFu (mm) U (mm) U' Ua)
A1 1032 CF,TO 0.87 0.77 53.6 0.66 40.8 0.74 0.52

A2 1154 CF 0.97 0.86 53.6 0.72 40.8 0.79 0.64
A3C -1145 LB
B1 1087 TO 0.81 53.6 0.68 40.8 0.76 0.50
B2 1211 CF 0.91 53.6 0.74 40.8 0.80 0.62
C1 1107 CF 0.83 53.6 0.67 40.8 0.75 0.48
C2 1196 CF 0.90 53.6 0.73 40.8 0.79 0.58
C3C -869 LB
E1 1109 CF 0.82 0.69 62.6 0.57 46.6 0.68 0.51

E2 1236 CF 0.90 0.76 62.6 0.66 46.6 0.74 0.63
E3 1336 CF 0.83 62.6 0.57 46.6 0.68 0.43
E4 1400 CF 0.86 62.6 0.64 46.6 0.73 0.51
E5 1282 CF 0.94 0.79 39.2 0.79 23.2 0.87 0.64
a)U = A'ne/An, where A'ne is calculated according to CSA(2001) and An=Ag for un-slotted tubes or when
slot end is welded.

B-9
B.7 Experimental program by Ling (2005)

Table B.12 Data from Ling (2005)
Ag Test
D t tp Lw w Fy Fu Failure
Specimen Lw/D Lw/w Capacity
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm ) 2 (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) Mode
Nux [kN]
TV1P15a 31.7 1.58 0.47 10 150 15 39.8 0.38 1376 1538 101.2 TO
TV1P15b 31.6 1.68 0.47 10 158 15 39.6 0.38 1376 1538 103.8 TO
TV1P30a 31.9 1.65 0.94 10 157 30 40.1 0.75 1376 1538 137.8 TO, CF
TV1P30b 31.7 1.60 0.95 10 151 30 39.8 0.75 1376 1538 122.7 CF
TV1P45a 31.8 1.60 1.42 10 152 45 40.0 1.13 1376 1538 151.3 CF
TV1P45b 31.8 1.64 1.42 10 155 45 40.0 1.13 1376 1538 154.0 CF
TV2P20a 32.0 1.80 0.63 10 171 20 40.3 0.50 1388 1552 126.0 TO
TV2P20b 31.9 1.74 0.63 10 165 20 40.1 0.50 1388 1552 125.2 TO
TV2P35a 32.0 1.75 1.09 10 166 35 40.3 0.87 1388 1552 162.6 CF
TV2P35b 31.9 1.80 1.10 10 170 35 40.1 0.87 1388 1552 162.0 TO, CF
TV2P50a 32.0 1.75 1.56 10 166 50 40.3 1.24 1388 1552 170.2 CF
TV2P50b 31.8 1.80 1.57 10 170 50 40.0 1.25 1388 1552 167.5 CF
VT3P25a 31.9 2.00 0.78 10 188 25 40.1 0.62 1330 1582 149.8 TO
VT3P25b 31.8 2.00 0.79 10 187 25 40.0 0.63 1330 1582 151.1 TO
TV3P40a 32.0 2.20 1.25 10 206 40 40.3 0.99 1330 1582 184.9 CF
TV3P40b 31.8 2.00 1.26 10 187 40 40.0 1.00 1330 1582 180.4 CF
TV3P55a 32.0 2.05 1.72 10 193 55 40.3 1.37 1330 1582 177.3 CF
TV3P55b 31.9 1.98 1.72 10 186 55 40.1 1.37 1330 1582 175.4 CF
TV4P25a 38.3 1.65 0.65 10 190 25 50.2 0.50 1401 1583 120.7 TO
TV4P25a 38.2 1.58 0.65 10 182 25 50.0 0.50 1401 1583 130.1 TO
TV4P40a 38.1 1.65 1.05 10 189 40 49.8 0.80 1401 1583 162.2 TO, CF
TV4P40b 38.3 1.64 1.04 10 189 40 50.2 0.80 1401 1583 170.4 TO
TV4P55a 38.3 1.60 1.44 10 184 55 50.2 1.10 1401 1583 188.2 CF
TV4P55b 38.2 1.62 1.44 10 186 55 50.0 1.10 1401 1583 195.4 CF
TV5P25a 38.2 1.80 0.65 10 206 25 50.0 0.50 1340 1493 146.5 TO
TV5P25b 38.3 1.76 0.65 10 202 25 50.2 0.50 1340 1493 142.8 TO
TV5P40b 38.3 1.80 1.04 10 206 40 50.2 0.80 1340 1493 182.5 TO
TV5P55a 38.4 1.80 1.43 10 207 55 50.3 1.09 1340 1493 213.2 CF
TV6P35a 38.3 2.05 0.91 10 233 35 50.2 0.70 1358 1524 193.5 TO
TV6P35b 38.2 2.00 0.92 10 228 35 50.0 0.70 1358 1524 194.5 TO
TV6P50a 38.3 2.00 1.31 10 228 50 50.2 1.00 1358 1524 230.5 CF
TV6P50b 38.2 2.00 1.31 10 228 50 50.0 1.00 1358 1524 229.1 CF
TV6P65a 38.2 2.00 1.70 10 227 65 50.0 1.30 1358 1524 238.8 CF
TV7W20a 57.3 1.65 0.35 10 288 20 80.0 0.25 1362 1507 113.7 TO
TV7W20b 57.3 1.68 0.35 10 293 20 80.0 0.25 1362 1507 113.2 TO
TV7W35a 57.3 1.60 0.61 10 280 35 80.0 0.44 1362 1507 141.7 TO
TV7W35b 57.4 1.68 0.61 10 294 35 80.2 0.44 1362 1507 155.2 TO
TV7W50a 57.1 1.65 0.88 10 287 50 79.7 0.63 1362 1507 178.4 TO
TV7W50b 57.5 1.64 0.87 10 288 50 80.3 0.62 1362 1507 188.4 TO, CF
TV8W18a 75.2 1.62 0.24 10 374 18 108.1 0.17 1326 1496 113.2 TO
TV8W18b 75.2 1.64 0.24 10 379 18 108.1 0.17 1326 1496 109.0 TO
TV8W28a 75.1 1.60 0.37 10 369 28 108.0 0.26 1326 1496 135.5 TO
TV8W28b 75.4 1.60 0.37 10 371 28 108.4 0.26 1326 1496 136.8 TO
TV8W38a 75.1 1.64 0.51 10 378 38 108.0 0.35 1326 1496 159.2 TO
TV8W38b 75.2 1.62 0.51 10 374 38 108.1 0.35 1326 1496 160.6 TO

B-10
Table B.13 Data from Ling (2005) continued

Test U
Specimen Capacity Nux/ AnFu
Nux [kN]
Mode
(Ag=An) (mm) U (mm) U' Ua)
TV1P15a 101.2 TO 0.44 10.1 0.33 5.1 0.66 0.44

TV1P15b 103.8 TO 0.43 10.1 0.33 5.1 0.66 0.43
TV1P30a 137.8 TO, CF 0.57 10.2 0.66 5.2 0.83 0.57
TV1P30b 122.7 CF 0.53 10.1 0.66 5.1 0.83 0.53
TV1P45a 151.3 CF 0.65 10.1 1.00 5.1 1.00 0.65
TV1P45b 154.0 CF 0.65 10.1 1.00 5.1 1.00 0.65
TV2P20a 126.0 TO 0.48 10.2 0.49 5.2 0.74 0.48
TV2P20b 125.2 TO 0.49 10.2 0.49 5.2 0.74 0.49
TV2P35a 162.6 CF 0.63 10.2 0.71 5.2 0.85 0.63
TV2P35b 162.0 TO, CF 0.61 10.2 0.71 5.2 0.85 0.61
TV2P50a 170.2 CF 0.66 10.2 1.00 5.2 1.00 0.66
TV2P50b 167.5 CF 0.63 10.1 1.00 5.1 1.00 0.63
VT3P25a 149.8 TO 0.50 10.2 0.59 5.2 0.79 0.50
VT3P25b 151.1 TO 0.51 10.1 0.60 5.1 0.80 0.51
TV3P40a 184.9 CF 0.57 10.2 0.75 5.2 0.87 0.57
TV3P40b 180.4 CF 0.61 10.1 0.75 5.1 0.87 0.61
TV3P55a 177.3 CF 0.58 10.2 1.00 5.2 1.00 0.58
TV3P55b 175.4 CF 0.60 10.2 1.00 5.2 1.00 0.60
TV4P25a 120.7 TO 0.40 12.2 0.51 7.2 0.71 0.40
TV4P25a 130.1 TO 0.45 12.2 0.51 7.2 0.71 0.45
TV4P40a 162.2 TO, CF 0.54 12.1 0.70 7.1 0.82 0.54
TV4P40b 170.4 TO 0.57 12.2 0.70 7.2 0.82 0.57
TV4P55a 188.2 CF 0.64 12.2 1.00 7.2 1.00 0.64
TV4P55b 195.4 CF 0.66 12.2 1.00 7.2 1.00 0.66
TV5P25a 146.5 TO 0.48 12.2 0.51 7.2 0.71 0.48
TV5P25b 142.8 TO 0.47 12.2 0.51 7.2 0.71 0.47
TV5P40b 182.5 TO 0.59 12.2 0.70 7.2 0.82 0.59
TV5P55a 213.2 CF 0.69 12.2 1.00 7.2 1.00 0.69
TV6P35a 193.5 TO 0.54 12.2 0.65 7.2 0.79 0.54
TV6P35b 194.5 TO 0.56 12.2 0.65 7.2 0.80 0.56
TV6P50a 230.5 CF 0.66 12.2 1.00 7.2 1.00 0.66
TV6P50b 229.1 CF 0.66 12.2 1.00 7.2 1.00 0.66
TV6P65a 238.8 CF 0.69 12.2 1.00 7.2 1.00 0.69
TV7W20a 113.7 TO 0.26 18.2 0.09 13.2 0.34 0.26
TV7W20b 113.2 TO 0.26 18.2 0.09 13.2 0.34 0.26
TV7W35a 141.7 TO 0.34 18.2 0.48 13.2 0.62 0.34
TV7W35b 155.2 TO 0.35 18.3 0.48 13.3 0.62 0.35
TV7W50a 178.4 TO 0.41 18.2 0.64 13.2 0.74 0.41
TV7W50b 188.4 TO, CF 0.43 18.3 0.63 13.3 0.73 0.43
TV8W18a 113.2 TO 0.20 23.9 -0.33 18.9 -0.05 0.20
TV8W18b 109.0 TO 0.19 23.9 -0.33 18.9 -0.05 0.19
TV8W28a 135.5 TO 0.25 23.9 0.15 18.9 0.32 0.25
TV8W28b 136.8 TO 0.25 24.0 0.14 19.0 0.32 0.25
TV8W38a 159.2 TO 0.28 23.9 0.37 18.9 0.50 0.28
TV8W38b 160.6 TO 0.29 23.9 0.37 18.9 0.50 0.29
a)
U = A'ne/An, where A'ne is calculated according to CSA(2001) and An=Ag for un-slotted tubes or when
slot end is welded.

C-1
APPENDIX C: STRAIN READINGS
A comparison between the strain readings in the test specimens and FE outputs is given
here. These comparisons have provided information about the change in strains along the weld
(SG-1, SG-3 and SG-5) and around the tube circumference (SG-6, SG-7 and SG-8).
C.1 Connections under tension

C.1.1 Slotted CHS connections - slot end not filled (A1 and A2)
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE
Figure C.1 SG-1 in connection A1 Figure C.2 SG-3 in connection A1
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE
SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS, APPENDIX C

C-2
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- Lab
- FE - FE
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE

C-3
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE

C.1.2 Slotted CHS connections - slot end filled (weld return) (B1 and B2)
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE
Figure C.13 SG-1 in connection B1 Figure C.14 SG-3 in connection B1
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE

C-4
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- Lab
- FE
- FE
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE

C-5
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE

C.1.3 Slotted EHS connections - slot end not filled (E1 and E2)
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE
Figure C.25 SG-1 in connection E1 Figure C.26 SG-3 in connection E1
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE

C-6
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE - Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE

C-7
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE

C.1.4 Slotted EHS connections - slot end not filled (E5)
- Lab
- FE - Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE - Lab
- FE

C-8
- Lab
- Lab - FE
- FE

C.1.5 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connections (C1 and C2)
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE
Figure C.43 SG-1 in connection C1 Figure C.44 SG-3 in connection C1
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE

C-9
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- Lab
- FE
- FE
- Lab
- Lab - FE
- FE

C-10
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE

C.1.6 Slotted gusset plate to EHS connections (E3 and E4)
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- Lab - FE
- FE

C-11
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE

C-12
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE
C.2 Connections under compression

C.2.1 Slotted CHS to gusset plate connections - slot end not filled (A3C)
- Lab
- FE - Lab
- FE
Figure C.67 SG-1 in connection A3C Figure C.68 SG-3 in connection A3C

C-13
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE
C.2.2 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connections (C3C)
- Lab - Lab
- FE - FE
Figure C.73 SG-1 in connection C3C Figure C.74 SG-3 in connection C3C
C-14
- Lab
- Lab
- FE
- FE
- Lab
- FE
- Lab
- FE

REF59-cidecREPORT-SLOTTED END CONNECTION TO HOLLOW SECTIONS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

REF59-cidecREPORT-SLOTTED END CONNECTION TO HOLLOW SECTIONS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SLOTTED END CONNECTIONS TO HOLLOW SECTIONS

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada

FINAL REPORT TO CIDECT ON PROGRAMME 8G

CIDECT Report 8G-10/06

CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1-1

CHAPTER 2:LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................... 2-1

CHAPTER 3:EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM......................................................................... 3-1

3.3.5.1 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection (type C)........................................ 3-21

3.3.5.2 Slotted gusset plate to EHS connection (gusset plate oriented to

give a large eccentricity) ............................................................................ 3-24

3.3.6 Connections under compression load......................................................... 3-27

3.3.6.2 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection ..................................................... 3-30

3.4 Summary of this experimental program ................................................................... 3-32

CHAPTER 5:FE MODELLING OF CONNECTIONS ........................................................... 5-1

5.3.5.1 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection (Type C)....................................... 5-23

5.3.5.2 Slotted gusset plate to EHS (gusset plate oriented

to give a large eccentricity) ......................................................................... 5-26

5.3.6 Connections under compression load......................................................... 5-30

5.3.6.2 Slotted gusset plate to CHS connection ..................................................... 5-32

5.4 Summary of Chapter 5............................................................................................. 5-35

CHAPTER 6:PARAMETRIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ............................................... 6-1

CHAPTER 7: ANALYSIS OF FE AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS................................... 7-1

7.1.1.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections

based on ultimate strength............................................................................ 7-3

7.1.1.3 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate connections based on

deformation limit (0.03D)............................................................................... 7-5

7.1.2.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections

based on ultimate strength............................................................................ 7-8

7.1.2.3 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate connections based on

deformation limit (0.03D)............................................................................... 7-9

7.2 EHS connections in tension - CF failure .................................................................. 7-11

7.2.1.2 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections

based on ultimate strength.......................................................................... 7-12

7.2.1.3 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate connections based on

deformation limit (0.03D2) ........................................................................... 7-14

7.2.2.2 Equations suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections

based on ultimate strength.......................................................................... 7-17

7.2.2.3 Equation suggested for slotted gusset plate to EHS connections

based on deformation limit (0.03D2) ........................................................... 7-18

7.3 CHS and EHS connections in tension - TO failure .................................................. 7-19

7.6.1.1 Reduction factors for suggested equations for slotted

CHS connections (CSA design provision format) ....................................... 7-37

CHS connections based on ultimate strength

(CSA design provision format) .................................................................... 7-38

CHS connections based on deformation limit

(CSA design provision format) .................................................................... 7-39

slotted CHS connections (AISC design provision format)........................... 7-39

CHS connections based on ultimate strength

(AISC design provision format) ................................................................... 7-40

CHS connections based on deformation limit

(AISC design provision format) ................................................................... 7-40

7.6.2.1 Reduction factors for suggested equations for

slotted EHS connections (CSA design provision format)............................ 7-41

EHS connections based on ultimate strength

(CSA design provision format) .................................................................... 7-41

EHS connections based on deformation limit

(CSA design provision format) .................................................................... 7-41

EHS connections based on ultimate strength

(AISC design provision format) ................................................................... 7-42

EHS connections based on deformation limit

(AISC design provision format) ................................................................... 7-43

7.6.3.2 Reduction factors for slotted gusset plate to CHS connections -

TO failure .................................................................................................... 7-44