Idea Statica
  • Steel
  • Concrete
  • BIM & Workflows
  • Support & Learning
  • Pricing
  • Company
  • Steel overview
  • Connection design
  • Member design
  • Parametric design
  • Steel case studies
  • Concrete overview
  • Walls and D-regions
  • Anchoring design
  • Concrete case studies
  • BIM Overview
  • Supported integrations
  • Checkbot
  • Viewer
  • APIs
  • Support Center
  • E-learning & certification
  • Blog
  • Downloads & Licensing
  • Plans
  • Free community tool
  • Enterprise customers
  • Students & educators
  • How much will you save?
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Research & development
  • Authorized resellers
  • Meet our customers
  • Career
  • Steel
    Steel overviewConnection designMember designParametric designSteel case studies
  • Concrete
    Concrete overviewWalls and D-regionsAnchoring designConcrete case studies
  • BIM & Workflows
    BIM OverviewSupported integrationsCheckbotViewerAPIs
  • Support & Learning
    Support CenterE-learning & certificationBlogDownloads & Licensing
  • Pricing
    PlansFree community toolEnterprise customersStudents & educatorsHow much will you save?
  • Company
    About usContactResearch & developmentAuthorized resellersMeet our customersCareer
14-Day Trial
14-Day Trial
  • Steel
  • Concrete
  • BIM & Workflows
  • Support & Learning
  • Pricing
  • Company

Subscribe to our newsletter

Company

  • About us
  • Partners
  • Careers
  • Patent

Resources

  • Customer projects
  • Case studies
  • Connection Library
  • Verification books

Legal

  • EULA
  • Privacy policy
  • California Privacy
  • TOS Viewer
  • Licensing

Help

  • Contact
  • Quote request
  • Resellers
  • Downloads
FacebookInstagramLinkedInYouTube

© IDEA StatiCa 2009-2026

Trusted and used worldwide by engineers, fabricators & consultants.

Support CenterVerification examplesComparative Analysis of CHS Connection Resistance: CBFEM vs Design Codes (EN, FprEN, and AISC)
CHS K connection
SteelConnection designVerificationsEN (Eurocode)CBFEM

Comparative Analysis of CHS Connection Resistance: CBFEM vs Design Codes (EN, FprEN, and AISC)

This article is also available in
ENCZDEESFRITPTNLHUROKRPLTHTRVIZH

This study investigates circular hollow section (CHS) connections — specifically code-defined T & Y, X, and K types — by comparing component-based finite element method (CBFEM) results with manual calculations performed to relevant design codes (EN 1993-1-8, AISC 360-22, and Fpr EN 1993-1-8).

Description 

In this study, the normal force resistance of circular hollow section (CHS) connections was investigated by comparing results from the component-based finite element method (CBFEM) against relevant European and American code standards (EN 1993-1-8 and AISC 360-22). Comparisons were also made with the draft of the new European code standard (Fpr EN 1993-1-8), which contains the latest state-of-the-art.

CHS Connection types

The study verified the full range of validity defined in the design codes. This range specifies the spectrum of connection cross-sections covered by the codes, based on geometric and material properties established through research and experimental investigations. For circular hollow sections (CHS), these properties include diameter, wall thickness, and steel grade. The range of validity ensures that only the intended failure modes govern the connection response; for example, it excludes cases where local buckling would influence connection resistance.

The study evaluated a large set of cross-section pairs using both code-based procedures and the component-based finite element method (CBFEM). Analyses included variations in geometric and material parameters, such as cross-section dimensions, steel grade, chord preloading, and brace angle. All computations were implemented with Python scripts and executed within a Python environment. CBFEM analyses were performed via the IDEA StatiCa Connection REST API.

IDEA StatiCa Connection REST API

Results

EN 1993-1-8 and AISC 360-22 produce nearly identical results, as they are based on the same methodology. The draft standard Fpr EN 1993-1-8, however, introduces improvements for circular hollow section (CHS) connections. The draft predicts a generally less conservative resistance than EN 1993-1-8—by up to 55% for the selected parameters—and its results correlate better with the component-based finite element method (CBFEM).

Example of X joint comparison of CBFEM to Fpr EN 1993-1-8 with normal stress in the chord

CBFEM results for cases without chord preloading generally align with the code provisions. When the chord member is preloaded, however, CBFEM results diverge from the codes. Further investigation will be performed to determine whether the codes’ current resistance reduction function for preloaded chords requires improvement.

Verification examples:

  • Component-based finite element design of steel connections: book chapter CHS 
  • Component-based finite element design of steel connections: book chapter RHS 

Access the full thesis here: Design of Hollow Joints: Comparison of design methods

GitHub with entire project: Design of Hollow Joints: Comparison of design methods