RAPHAEL S. DA SILVA et al.

: NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF CHS K JOINTS

1

AbstractThe intensive worldwide use of tubular structural
elements, mainly due to its associated aesthetical and structural
advantages, led designers to be focused on technological and
design issues. Consequently, their design methods accuracy plays
a fundamental role when economical and safety aspects are
considered. Additionally, recent tubular joint studies indicate
further research needs, especially for some joint geometries. This
is even more significant for particular failure modes where the
failure load predictions lead to unsafe or uneconomical solutions.
I n this paper a numerical (i.e. non-linear finite element
simulations) based on a parametric study is presented for the
analysis of K tubular joints where both chords and braces are
made of circular hollow sections. The proposed model was
validated by comparison to the experiments, analytical results
suggested at the Eurocode 3 and at the new CI DECT formulation
and to the classic deformation limits present in the literature.
The main variables of the study were the brace diameter to chord
diameter ratio and the thickness to chord face diameter ratio.
These parameters were chosen based on recent studies results
that depicted some Eurocode 3 rules discrepancies.

I ndex TermsSteel Structures, Tubular J oints, Numerical
Analysis, Nonlinear Analysis

I. INTRODUCTION
HE intensive worldwide use of tubular structural
elements, such as the examples depicted in Figure 1,
mainly due to its associated aesthetical and structural
advantages, led designers to be focused on their technological
and design issues [1], [2]. Currently there is not still in Brazil
any code specifically devoted to the tubular joint design. This
fact induces designers to use other international tubular joint
design codes. Additionally, recent tubular joint studies
indicate that further research is needed, especially for some
particular geometries. This is even more significant for some
failure modes where the collapse load predictions lead to
unsafe or uneconomical solutions.






Manuscript received February 29, 2012.


a) Footbridge Rio de Janeiro CHS K and N joints

b) Footbridge Rio de Janeiro CHS K joints

c) Oil exploration platform [3]
Fig. 1. Examples of structures using hollow sections in Brazil.
One of the first comprehensive investigation published in
this area was made by Korol and Mirza [4] focusing on a
numerical FE model with shell elements, and indicated a
Numerical Evaluation of CHS K Joints
Raphael S. da Silva
1
, Luciano R. O. de Lima
2
, Pedro C. G. da S. Vellasco
2
,
Jos G. S. da Silva
2
and Luis F. da Costa Neves
3
luciano@eng.uerj.br, vellasco@eng.uerj.br, jgss@eng.uerj.br, luis@dec.uc.pt
1
Post Graduate Program in Civil Engineering - UERJ - State University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
2
Structural Engineering Department - UERJ - State University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
3
Civil Engineering Department from University de Coimbra, Portugal

T
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 6, NO. 1, JUNE 2012 2


simultaneous increase of the joint resistance with the variable
and/or with the increase of the variable . The authors also
referred to the need of establishing a deformation limit criteria
for those connections. Packer et al. [5] also observed that the
connection resistance increases with the increase of and/or
with the increase of , but they also developed a failure path
theory to estimate the connection plastic load capacity.
Some authors like Zhao and Hancock [6], Zhao [7], Lu and
Wardenier [8], Cao et al. [9], [10], Kosteski and Packer [11],
[12] and Kosteski et al. [13] also observed that both the
connection resistance and the initial stiffness increase with the
increase of and/or with the increase of .
Recently Lu et al. [14], [15] (cited in Kosteski et al. [13]),
with results also validated and accepted by Zhao [6],
established an approximate 3%d
0
deformation limit criteria.
This 3%d
0
limit (N
u
) is nowadays widely accepted and is also
the value adopted by the International Institute of Welding
(IIW) [20] for the maximum acceptable displacement
associated to the ultimate limit state, while a 1%d
0
limit (N
s
) is
adopted for the serviceability limit state. If the ratio of N
u
/N
s

is greater than 1.5, the joint strength should be based on the
serviceability limit state, and if N
u
/N
s
< 1.5, the ultimate limit
state controls the design. In the case of CHS joints, N
u
/N
s
<
1.5 and the appropriate deformation limit to be used to
determine the ultimate joint strength should be equal to
0.03d
0
.
In this paper a numerical study (i.e. based on non-linear
FEM simulations) supported by a parametric study is
presented, for the analysis of K tubular joints where both
chords and braces use circular hollow sections. The proposed
model was validated by comparison to analytical results
suggested by the Eurocode 3 [16], by the new CIDECT [17]
guide and to literature classic deformation limits. The main
variables of the present study were the brace diameter to chord
diameter ratio and the thickness to chord face diameter ratio.
These parameters were chosen based on recent studies results
that indicated some Eurocode 3 recommendations
discrepancies to the real failure loads.

II. EUROCODE 3 AND CIDECT DESIGN CODES PROVISIONS

According to Eurocode 3 [16] and CIDECT [17], some
geometrical limits need to be verified prior to the evaluation
of the joint resistance Equations (1) to (5). These limits are
presented in Figure 2 where d
i
and t
i
represent, respectively,
the tube diameter and thickness.
The formulation for the design of a in plane joint type T, X
and K is based on design equations proposed by Kurobane et
al. [18] and, after some simplifications and design rules
evaluation performed by Wardenier [19], were incorporated in
the IIW Recommendations [20].
For the CHS K joint considered in this work, the Eurocode
3 [16] establishes that the chord plastification failure and
punching shear failure are the ultimate limit state to be
verified since the joint geometrical parameters are in
agreement with the geometrical limits considered in the
Equations (1) to (5). The joint resistances for the chord
plastification failure and punching shear failure are obtained
from Equations (6) and (7), respectively.


Fig. 2. Geometrical properties of the CHS K joint [16].


o o
90 30 s su (1)

0 1 2 0
0
1
.
d
d
. s = s | (2)

50 10
0
0
0
s = s
t
d
(3)

50 10 s = s
i
i
i
t
d
(4)

25
2
0
0
s =
t
d
(5)

( )
5
1
2
0 0
1
2 10 8 1
M
y g p
Rd ,
/ . .
sin
t f k k
N |
u
+ = (6)

5
2
0 0 1
2
1
58 0
M
i
i
i y Rd ,
/
sin
sin
d t f . N
u
u
t
+
= (7)

0 1 3 0 3 0 1
2
. n . n . k
p p p
s + = (8)

( )
(
(

+
+ =
33 1 5 0 1
024 0
1
0
2 1
2 0
. t / g . exp
.
k
.
.
g

(9)
Where N
1,Rd
is the chord plastification failure or punching
shear failure load; is a geometrical parameter according to
Equation (5); k
p
is evaluated according to Equation (8) if n
p
<0,
or equal to 1 if n
p
0 where n
p
is obtained in Equation (15); k
g

is evaluated according to Equation (9); n
p
is equal to o
0p
/ f
y0
;
RAPHAEL S. DA SILVA et al.: NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF CHS K JOINTS


3
o
0p
is the chord normal stress under the compressive brace; f
y0

is the chord yield stress; u
1
is obtained according to Figure 2;
| is a geometrical parameter according to Equation (2) and
M5

is the partial safety factor, in this case equal to 1.
Based on extensive investigations combined with additional
finite elements models, Wardenier et al. [17] proposed a new
design formulation for CHS joints presented in the new
CIDECT Guide [17]. The parameters influence was
determined through a retro analysis of the numerical models.
After some simplifications, the equations were applied to
Makino et al. [21] experimental results and to Qian et al. [22]
numerical models.
The Eurocode 3 [16] geometrical requirements should also
be verified, but, in some particular cases, the validity range of
the parameter could be enlarged. The IIW [20] limited the
ratio to 2 50 and for ratios beyond this limit, states that the
joint design is governed by deformation limits. This is due to
the fact that in those cases the joint deformation capacity will
not be sufficient to redistribute the second order moments. In
the joint design equations, the chord bending effects due to
brace loads are included in function of the chord stress Q
f
,
enabling a better evaluation of the joint capacity. The previous
formulation for the chord plastification failure was based on
experimental results. These results were influenced by the
chord bending due the experimental tests layout. According to
the new formulation proposed in CIDECT [17], the chord
plastification failure and punching shear failure loads are
obtained using Equations (10) and (11), respectively, where
the parameters Q
u
, Q
f
and k
a
are described in Equations (12) to
(14) where d
i
d
0
-2t
0
.

1
2
0 0
u sin
t f
Q Q N
y
f u
*
i
= (10)

i
a
i y
*
i
sen
k
d t f , N
u
t
0 0
58 0 = (11)

( )
( )
(
(

+
+ + =
8 0
0
3 0 6 1
2 1
1
1 8 1 65 1
.
. .
u
t / g .
. Q | (12)

( )
1
1
C
f
n Q = (13)

i
i
a
sin
sin
k
u
u
2
1+
= (14)

0
0
0
0
, pl
Sd ,
, pl
Sd , p
M
M
N
N
n + = (15)

Where N
i
*
is the chord plastification load (Equation 10) or
punching shear load (Equation 11); is a geometrical
parameter according to Equation (5) and C
1
is equal to 0.25 if
n<0 (compression) or equal to 0.20 if n0 (tension);
At this point it is important to explain how the chord axial
force is obtained in order to evaluate the n or n
p
parameter. As
it can be observed in Figure 3, the value of N
0p,Sd
is obtained
as the resultant of the axial force under the compression brace
Equation (16). The bending moment evaluation M
0,Sd

Equation (17) - corresponds to the normal stress acting in the
joint connected face. So, at this point, the lever arm to be
considered is e+d
0
/2 where d
0
is the joint eccentricity and d
0
is
the chord diameter.

+ =
i Sd , i Sd , p Sd ,
cos . N N N u
0 0
(16)

( ) |
.
|

\
|
+ + =
2
0
2 2 1 1 0
d
e . cos . N cos . N M
Sd ,
u u (17)

e
d
0
/2
(N
1
cosu
1
+N
2
cosu
2
)

Fig. 3. Deformation limit criteria evaluation

III. DEFORMATION LIMIT CRITERIA
Usually, the steel tubular joints design rules are based on
plastic analysis or in deformation limits criteria [7], [13]. In a
plastic analysis using the yield lines method, each kinetically
allowable failure mechanism is associated to a structural load
multiplier that is greater or equal to its failure multiplier. The
solution however depends on the adopted mechanism. Some
examples may be cited [10], [13], [23], [24]. The deformation
limits criteria usually associated to the out of plane loaded
chord face ultimate limit state corresponds to the maximum
deformation of this component in that direction.
The reason for using deformation limit criteria is that, for
slender chord faces, the joint stiffness does not vanish after
the full yield and may reach elevated values due to membrane
effects. This phenomenon can be observed experimentally and
in the curves obtained from numerical simulations
incorporating the geometrical and physical nonlinearities and
will be discussed later. It is evident that a greater maximum
load is reached in experimental tests, but the absence of the
knee in these curves may difficult the identification of the
point corresponding to the ultimate limit state. Consequently,
comparisons of experimental results to results obtained from
plastic analysis have to be based on deformation limit criteria.
The deformation limit proposed by Lu et al. [14], [15] and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 6, NO. 1, JUNE 2012 4


cited by Choo et al. [25] may be used in the axial or bending
loads evaluation for joints subjected to bending and axial
internal forces. The joint resistance is based on the
comparison of the deformation in the intersection chord-brace
for two loads levels: the ultimate resistance, N
u
, that
corresponds to a chord out of plane displacement of A
u
=
0.03d
0
, and the serviceability limit, N
s
, obtained from a out of
plane displacement A
s
= 0.01d
0
according to Figure 4.

P
A
1%d
0
3%d
0
N
s
N
u

Fig. 4. Deformation limit criteria evaluation [25].

According to this author, if the ratio N
u
/N
s
is less than 1.5,
the joint design should be based on the ultimate limit state, N
u
.
On the other hand, if N
u
/N
s
is greater than 1.5, the joint design
is controlled by the serviceability limit, i.e., N
s
.

IV. NUMERICAL MODEL
The numerical model developed in this work was calibrated
with experimental results performed by Kurobane et al., [18].
This model consists of a CHS K joints with chord and brace
diameters equal to 216.3 and 165.2mm and a thickness of 8.0
and 4.5mm, respectively. The material constitutive law was
considered elastic- perfect plastic with yield stresses of
460MPa for the chord and 409MPa for the braces. The Young
Modulus was considered as 210000MPa. This numerical
model was developed in the Ansys 12.0 FEM package [26]
using shell elements - SHELL181 with six degrees of
freedom per node, i.e., translations and rotations about X, Y
and Z axis. This model is presented in Figure 5, where it can
be noticed that the mesh was more refined near the welds and
more regular and coarse in the remaining parts to avoid
numerical convergence problems [29].
The load control was based on equivalent displacements.
The physical nonlinearity was considered through the von
Mises yield criteria and the geometrical nonlinearity was
evaluated using Updated Lagrangian Formulation. The model
results were compared to the analytical results of the Eurocode
3 [16] in terms of the joint ultimate limit state. Table 1
presents the geometrical and physical properties of the joint
tested by Kurobane et al. [18] and the numerical model
results. Figure 6 presents the numerical model load versus
displacement curves for the joints whose properties are
presented in Table I. As cited before, this CHS K joint was
used in the numerical model calibration.


a) Finite element model




b) Eccentricity representation, loads path and boundary conditions



c) weld geometry d) weld structural model [27]
Fig. 5. Finite element model.



TABLE I
CALIBRATION JOINT GEOMETRICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES [18]
Properties Value Definition
d
0
[mm] 216.3 Chord diameter
d1 [mm] 165.0 Brace diameter
t0 [mm] 7.82 Chord thickness
t
i
[mm] 4.32 Brace thickness
L0 [mm] 1560 Chord length
Li [mm] 800 Braces length
A [mm] 20.0 Applied displacement in the braces
fy [MPa] 460 Chord yield stress
f
y
[MPa] 409 Brace yield stress
RAPHAEL S. DA SILVA et al.: NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF CHS K JOINTS


5
E [GPa] 210 Young modulus
v 0.3 Poisson coeficient

The limits of 1%d
0
and 3%d
0
according to the deformation
limit criteria developed by Lu et al. [14], [15] for
serviceability and ultimate limit states can be observed in
these curves, together with the experimental values obtained
from Kurobane et al. [18] and the analytical values from
Eurocode 3 [16] and new CIDECT [17]. According to
Equation (6), the maximum load to be applied in the braces
that not cause failure in the chord is N
1,Rd
= 427.67 kN
corresponding to the Eurocode 3 design [16]. On the other
hand, by the CIDECT formulation [17], a value of N
1
*
=
832.50 kN is obtained. The experimental value obtained by
Kurobane et al. [18] was equal to 794.00 kN corresponding to
the chord plastification failure followed by the local buckling
in the compression brace. The deformed shapes obtained in
the experimental and numerical evaluations are presented in
Figure 7 showing a good agreement.

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
L
o
a
d

[
K
N
]
Displacement[mm]
ServiciabilityLimitState(1%d0)
UltimateLimitState(3%d0)
ExperimentalUltimateLoad(Kurobaneetal.,1986)
Eurocode3(2003)
CIDECT(Packeretal,2008)
CompressionBrace
TensionBrace

Fig. 6. Load versus displacement curves calibration CHS joint - Chord of
216.3x7.82 mm with 165x4.32 mm braces


a) Experimental deformed shape [18]


b) Numerical deformed shape
Fig. 7. Deformed K joint

Since the ratio N
u
/N
s
is less than 1.5, N
u
controls the joint
design and the maximum load to be applied on the braces is
N
u
= 852.70 kN. With these considerations it is possible to
conclude that the Eurocode 3 [16] design lead to overdesigned
joints when compared to new CIDECT [17] and deformation
limit criteria values [14], [15] and to the experiments [18]. It
was also observed that the values obtained with the new
CIDECT [17] design rules led to safe design values when
compared to the deformation limits but to unsafe predictions
when compared to the experiments. But it is important to
emphasize that the new CIDECT [17] formulation led to a
better agreement with the deformation limits and experiments.
It was also observed that the punching shear resistance for
this joint is greater than the chord plastification failure load
confirming that this ultimate limit state controls the joint
design. This fact indicates that the joint design is controlled by
the ultimate limit state of chord plastification failure. Figure 8
presents the von Mises stress distributions from the numerical
analysis for the three load levels presented in Figure 5.

V. PARAMETRICAL ANALYSIS
The investigation proceeded with a parametrical analysis
varying some geometrical parameters with the aim of
evaluating their influence over the K joints global resistance.
Table II presents the main adopted parameters summarizing
twelve numerical models.
It is important to emphasize that the chosen combinations
were made in agreement with the geometrical limits
preconized by the Eurocode 3 [16] and new CIDECT [17].
Three different profiles were chosen for the chord:
168.3x5mm, 219.1x8mm and 298.5x8mm, respectively [30].
For each chord, four different profiles were used for the
braces, keeping the same relation between the geometrical
parameters. The weld thicknesses were considered equal to
the smaller thickness to be welded in the joint between the
chord and the brace, respectively.

TABLE II
GEOMETRICAL PROPERTIES PARAMETRICAL ANALYSIS
ID Chord Brace | = d
i
/d
0

1 168.3 5.0 16.83 88.9 5.0 17.78 0.53
Local buckling in compression brace
Local buckling in compression brace
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 6, NO. 1, JUNE 2012 6


2 168.3 5.0 16.83 101.6 5.0 20.32 0.60
3 168.3 5.0 16.83 114.3 5.0 22.86 0.68
4 168.3 5.0 16.83 127.0 5.0 25.40 0.75
5 219.1 8.0 13.69 114.3 8.0 14.29 0.52
6 219.1 8.0 13.69 127.0 8.0 15.88 0.58
7 219.1 8.0 13.69 139.7 8.0 17.46 0.64
8 219.1 8.0 13.69 159.0 8.0 19.88 0.73
9 298.5 8.0 18.66 152.4 8.0 19.05 0.51
10 298.5 8.0 18.66 168.3 8.0 21.04 0.56
11 298.5 8.0 18.66 193.7 8.0 24.21 0.65
12 298.5 8.0 18.66 219.1 8.0 27.39 0.73

Table III depicts the numerical results related to the chord
plastification ultimate limit state according to the Eurocode 3
[16], Equation (6), and CIDECT [17], Equation (10) as well
the punching shear ultimate limit state values.
The results indicate that both Eurocode 3 [16] and new
CIDECT [17] lead to safe values when compared to the
numerical results. However, the values obtained from new
CIDECT formulation [17] presented a better agreement with
the deformation limit criteria. The last column of Table III
indicates that the maximum loads to be applied by the braces
in the chord corresponding to the punching shear ultimate
limit state are significantly greater than the chord yield failure
loads, proofing that the ULS controls the K joint design.

TABLE III
RESULTS COMPARISON - PARAMETRICAL ANALYSIS
ID
Rd ,
N
1

*
N
1

u
N
s
N
s
u
N
N

s
Rd ,
N
N
1

s
*
i
N
N

p
N

(Ansys)
1 130 171 240 250 0.96 0.54 0.71 484
2 141 187 282 272 1.04 0.5 0.66 553
3 155 285 316 306 1.03 0.49 0.9 622
4 172 327 354 345 1.03 0.49 0.92 691
5 324 410 592 601 0.99 0.55 0.69 995
6 348 582 648 658 0.98 0.54 0.9 1105
7 377 656 703 719 0.98 0.54 0.93 1216
8 439 776 799 818 0.98 0.55 0.97 1384
9 364 475 682 673 1.01 0.53 0.7 1327
10 384 516 747 736 1.02 0.51 0.69 1465
11 416 571 862 845 1.02 0.48 0.66 1686
12 455 865 988 966 1.02 0.46 0.88 1907

Figures 8 to 11 present the load versus displacement curves
for all numerical models evaluated in this work with the main
objective of illustrating the attainment of the numerical joint
resistance according to the deformation limit criteria. It is
important to emphasize that these values were obtained for the
joints compression braces considering that these values are
less than the joints tension braces values after the first yielding
- Figure 7.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
The structural steel welded tubular joints design is covered
by the Eurocode 3 part 1.8 [16] for various tubular sections.
This design code recommends the ratios of the main
geometrical parameters that should be satisfied and the
different ultimate limit states that control the tubular joint
design. The design guidance can only be used if some specific
geometrical limitations are satisfied. In 2008, the CIDECT
published the second edition of the Design Guide for Circular
Hollow Section (CHS) Joints Under Predominantly Static
Loading [17] with a new formulation to evaluate CHS joints
resistances. The present paper presented a comparative study
between these two design codes: Eurocode 3 [16] and new
CIDECT [17]. It is important to emphasize that the design
recommendations from Eurocode 3 [16] were based on the
first edition of the CIDECT design guide [28].
This paper also presented a numerical study through Finite
Element Method using Ansys software [26] of circular hollow
section K joints, calibrated with an experimental test
performed by Kurobane et al. [18]. The results were compared
to analytical results obtained from the Eurocode 3 [16] and
CIDECT formulations [17] and to deformation limit criteria
proposed by Zhao [7] and Lu et al. [14], [15].
Figures 9 to 11 indicate that the increase of the | parameter
conducted to an increase of the joint capacity, being in line
with Equations (6) and (10). It is important to highlight that
the parameter also contributes to the higher joint capacity.
The von Mises stress distribution presented in Figure 8
indicates that the chord plastification failure is the ultimate
limit state that controls the joint design corroborating the
Eurocode 3 [16] and new CIDECT design rules [17]. This
condition was verified through a comparison of the ultimate
limit states for the K joint: chord plastification and punching
shear failure.


a) Brace compression load = 561.51 kN

RAPHAEL S. DA SILVA et al.: NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF CHS K JOINTS


7

b) Brace compression load = 704.10 kN


c) Brace compression load = 808.56 kN
Fig. 8. Von Mises stress distribuition calibratrion joint

Figures 9 to 11 indicate that the increase of the | parameter
conducted to an increase of the joint capacity, being in line
with Equations (6) and (10). It is important to highlight that
the parameter also contributes to the higher joint capacity.
The von Mises stress distribution presented in Figure 8
indicates that the chord plastification failure is the ultimate
limit state that controls the joint design corroborating the
Eurocode 3 [16] and new CIDECT design rules [17]. This
condition was verified through a comparison of the ultimate
limit states for the K joint: chord plastification and punching
shear failure.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
L
o
a
d

[
K
N
]
Displacement[mm]
CHS_168.3x88.9Beta0,53compression
CHS_168.3x101.6_Beta0,60compression
CHS_168.3x114.3_Beta0,68compression
CHS_168.3x127_Beta0,75compression
Serviceabilitylimitstate(1%ofd0)
Ultimatelimitstate(3%ofd0)

Fig. 9. CHS K joint chord 168.3 x 5.0mm - curves load x displacement

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
C
a
r
g
a

[
K
N
]
Deslocamento[mm]
CHS_219.1x114.3_Beta0,52compression
CHS_219.1x127_Beta0,58compression
CHS_219.1x139.7_Beta0,64compression
CHS_219.1x159_Beta0,73compression
Serviceabilitylimitstate(1%ofd0)
Ultimatelimitstate(3%ofd0)

Fig. 10. CHS K joint chord 219.1 x 8.0mm - curves load x displacement

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
C
a
r
g
a

[
K
N
]
Deslocamento[mm]
CHS_298.5x152.4_Beta0,51compression
CHS_298.5x168.3_Beta0,56compression
CHS_298.5x193.7_Beta0,65compression
CHS_298.5x219.1_Beta0,73compression
Serviceabilitylimitstate(1%ofd0)
Ultimatelimitstate(3%ofd0)

Fig. 11. CHS K joint chord 298.5 x 8.0mm - curves load x displacement

A parametrical analysis was also performed to evaluate the
| parameter influence over the global joint behavior. Twelve
different combinations were chosen with a set of four braces
and three chords. This choice was based on structural
elements diameters of common use in Brazil. Observing the
obtained numerical results, it can be concluded that the joint
resistance is proportional to the | parameter. It could also be
concluded that within the geometrical limits preconized by the
Eurocode 3 [16], the numerical results, the analytical results
and the deformation limit criteria values were found to be
compatible and satisfactory.
Table III indicates that the Eurocode 3 [16] results
presented values substantially conservative when compared to
deformation limit criteria values.
On the other hand, the results obtained from new CIDECT
[17] formulation presented a good agreement with the
deformation limit criteria values and still, led to a safe design
when compared to the numerical results.
The values for the punching shear ultimate limit state were
also presented to highlight that the analyzed joints do not have
their design controlled by this ultimate limit state. Finally it
can be concluded that for the studied K joints, respecting all
geometrical limits, the chord yield failure will control the joint
design. The results obtained from the Eurocode 3 [16] led to a
significantly uneconomical design contrary to the results
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, VOL. 6, NO. 1, JUNE 2012 8


obtained from the new CIDECT formulation [17].
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian National
and State Science Support Agencies: CAPES, CNPq and
FAPERJ for the financial support granted to this research
program. Thank are also due to LABCIV - Civil Engineering
Computer Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, UERJ for the
computational support.

REFERENCES
[1] Rondal, J., Wurker, K.G., Wardenier, J., Dutta, D., and Yeomans, N,
(1992). Structural Stability of Hollow Sections, CIDECT.
[2] Wardenier, J., (2000). Hollow Sections in Structural Applications,
CIDECT.
[3] Lodge, G. S. Oil Rig Photos. Texaco/Chevron. United Kingdom. 2006.
[4] Korol, R., Mirza, F. (1982). Finite Element Analysis of RHS T-Joints.
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol.108, (pp. 2081-2098).
[5] Packer, J. , Morris, G., Davies, G., A limit states design method for
welded tension connections to I-section webs, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, vol.12, pp 33-53, 1989.
[6] Zhao, X., Hancock, G., "Plastic Mechanism analysis of T-joints in RHS
subject to combined bending and concentrated force", Proceedings of the
Fifth International Symposium on Tubular Connections held at
Nottingham, UK, 1993, E & FN Spon, London, pp 345-352, 1993.
[7] Zhao, X., "Deformation limit and ultimate strength of welded T-joints in
cold-formed RHS sections", Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
vol. 53, pp 149-165, 2000.
[8] Lu, L.H., Wardenier, J., "The ultimate mean strength of I-beam to RHS
column connections", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 46:
1-3, paper n 139, 1998.
[9] Cao, J.J., Packer, J.A., Kosteski, N., "Determination of connection
strength between longitudinal plates and RHS columns", Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, vol. 46: 1-3, paper n134, 1998.
[10] Cao, J.J., Packer, J.A., Yang, G.J., "Yield line analysis of RHS
connections with axial loads", Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
vol. 48, n1, pp 1-25, 1998.
[11] Kosteski, N., Packer, J.A., "Bracing connections to rectangular HSS
columns", Connections in Steel Structures IV - Behaviour Strength and
Design, Proceedings Fourth International Workshop Oct 2000, Roanoke,
Virginia, USA, AISC/ECCS, 2002, pp 788-797, 2000.
[12] Kosteski, N., Packer, J.A., "Welded Tee-to-HSS connections", Journal
of Structural Engineering, vol. 129, n2, pp 151-159, 2003.
[13] Kosteski, N., Packer, J.A., Puthli, R.S., "A finite element method based
yield load determination procedure for hollow structural section
connections", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 59, pp 453-
471, 2003.
[14] Lu LH, Puthli RS, Wardenier J. In: Ultimate deformation criteria for
uniplanar connections between I-beams and RHS columns under in-
plane bending. Proceedings of the 4th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, ISOPE-94, Osaka (Japan), 1994.
[15] Lu, L.H., de Winkel, G.D., Yu, Y., Wardenier, J., Deformation limit for
the ultimate strength of hollow section joints, 6th International
Symposium on Tubular Structures, Melbourne, pp 341-347, 1994.
[16] Eurocode 3, ENV 1993-1-1, 2003: Design of steel structures - Structures
- Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, ECCS, Brussels,
2003.
[17] Wardenier, J, Kurobane, Y, Packer, JA, van der Vegte, GJ and Zhao XL,
Design Guide - For Circular Hollow Section (CHS) Joints Under
Predominantly Static Loading 2nd Edition, CIDECT, 2008.
[18] Kurobane, Y., Ogawa, K., Ochi, K., Makino, Y., (1986). Local Buckling
of Braces in Tubular K-Joints. Thin-Walled Structures, (pp. 23-40).
[19] Wardenier, J. (1982). Hollow section joints, Delft University Press,
Delft,The Netherlands.
[20] International Institute of Welding (IIW). (1989). Design
recommendation for hollow section jointsPredominantly statically
loaded, 2nd Ed., IIW Document XV-701-89, Cambridge, U.K.
[21] Makino, Y., Kurobane, Y., Ochi, K., Vegte, G.J. van der, and
Wilmshurst, S.R., 1996: Database of test and numerical analysis results
for unstiffened tubular joints. IIW Doc. XV-E-96-220.
[22] Qian, X.D., Choo, Y.S., Vegte, G.J. van der, and Wardenier, J., 2008:
Evaluation of the new IIW CHS strength formulae for thick-walled
joints. Proceedings 12th International Symposium on Tubular Structures,
Shanghai, China, Tubular Structures XII, Taylor & Francis Group,
London, UK, pp. 271-279.
[23] Packer, J.A., Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Dutta, D., Yeomans, N.,
Assemblages de sections creuses rectangulaires sous chargement statique
predominant, Srie CIDECT "Construire avec des profiles creux",
Verlag TUV Rheinland, Koln, 1993.
[24] Packer, J.A. Moment Connections between Rectangular Hollow
Sections, J.Constructional Steel Research 25, pp 63-81, 1993.
[25] Choo, Y. S., Qian, X. D., Liew, J. Y. R, Wardenier, J., Static strength of
thick-walled CHS X-joints - Part I, JCSR, vol.59, pp. 1201-1228, 2003.
[26] Ansys 12.0 , ANSYS - Inc. Theory Reference, 2010.
[27] Lee, M.M.K., "Strength, stress and fracture analyses of offshore tubular
joints using finite elements", Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
vol. 51, pp 265-286, 1999.
[28] Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Packer, J.A., Dutta, D., and Yeomans, N.,
1991: Design guide for circular hollow section (CHS) joints under
predominantly static loading. 1st Edition, CIDECT series, Construction
with hollow sections No. 1, TV-Verlag, Kln, Germany.
[29] Bittencourt, M.C., Avaliao de Ligaes Soldadas de Perfis Tubulares
em Estruturas de Ao Atravs do Mtodo dos Elementos Finitos, MSc
Dissertation, PGECIV Post Graduate Program in Civil Engineering
UERJ, 2008 (in portuguese).
[30] Vallourec & Mannesmann do Brasil, 2004. Catlogo de Produtos: Tubos
Estruturais de Sees Circulares, Quadradas e Retangulares, 8 pp.