# Seismic Behaviour of CFST Space Intersecting Nodes in an Oblique Mesh

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

^{†}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Node Construction

## 3. Finite Element Model

#### 3.1. Model Building and Boundary Condition Determination

#### 3.2. Material Constitutive

#### 3.3. Reliability Verification of Finite Element Model

## 4. Influence of Different Parameters on Mechanical Properties of OMSIN

#### Parameter Setting

## 5. Results

## 6. Discussion

#### 6.1. Space Intersecting Angle

#### 6.2. Symmetry Coefficient of Plane Intersecting Angle

#### 6.3. Plane Intersecting Angle

#### 6.4. Section Steel Content

#### 6.5. Out-of-Plane Constraints

#### 6.6. Concrete Strength

## 7. Dimensionless Skeleton Curve Model

_{m}is the displacement corresponding to the peak load; F is load; and F

_{u}is the peak load. The dimensionless processing is performed on the skeleton curves of 23 intersection nodes, and the coordinates of each characteristic point are obtained, as shown in Table 4.

## 8. Theoretical Bearing Capacity of OMSIN

_{i}(i = 1, 2,... 7) is the undetermined coefficient; $\omega $ is a constant term; The undetermined coefficients are shown in Equations (17)–(22):

## 9. Future Research Prospects

## 10. Conclusions

- The ABAQUS three-dimensional solid model based on the core concrete constitutive model and the five-stage quadratic flow model used in this paper can effectively reflect the interaction between components of the OMSIN in seismic cyclic loading and can provide theoretical guidance for subsequent related research.
- The increase in space angle significantly weakens effect on the seismic performance, and the space angle directly affects the failure mode of the nodes. Components with a space angle ≥ 4°are difficult to control regarding out-of-plane displacement, which can easily cause lateral instability failure. Moreover, large out-of-plane deformation has already occurred when the axial displacement is small. Therefore, it is not recommended to use such components in engineering practice due to economic and safety considerations. The asymmetric arrangement of the plane angle will cause the nonlinear development of out-of-plane displacement. When the symmetry coefficient is less than 0.70, the reduction in the ultimate bearing capacity of the nodes is significant. Larger out-of-plane and vertical deformation restraints should be applied for nodes with inconsistent upper and lower limb plane angles.
- The specimens’ ultimate load and overall compressive stiffness are positively correlated with the plane angle. Vertical restraints should be applied to the node positions of components with a plane angle ≥ 70° to reduce vertical residual deformation. Out-of-plane restraint is a key factor affecting the seismic performance of the nodes, and it is proportional to the ultimate load of the components. However, when the ratio of the diameter of the steel rod to the outer diameter of the steel pipe used for out-of-plane constraints is ≥0.15, the change in out-of-plane constraints has no significant improvement effect on the seismic performance of the component.
- The steel content is positively correlated with the components’ positive and negative ultimate loads and overall stiffness. In structural design, if the aim is to improve the mechanical performance of the components by increasing the steel content, larger out-of-plane restraints should be set to utilize the material properties fully. The concrete strength is proportional to the positive ultimate load but has little effect on the negative ultimate load and hysteresis curve evolution. Components with higher concrete strength have a faster decay rate of axial compression stiffness due to their high brittleness in the later stages. When increasing the concrete strength, the hoop coefficient of the components should be increased simultaneously.
- Three-line and two-line models were selected for the axial compression direction, and axial tension direction, respectively. A dimensionless skeleton curve model based on peak load and peak displacement of OMSIN was established. By fitting and modifying the formula for the ultimate bearing capacity of CFST, a formula for calculating the axial compressive yield load and ultimate load that can reflect the influence of all parameters is obtained. The theoretical values are in good agreement with the calculated values of the finite element model and can be used for estimating the mechanical characteristic points of OMSIN under the influence of multiple parameters.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Al-Kodmany, K. The Sustainability of Tall Building Developments: A Conceptual Framework. Buildings
**2018**, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Elena, A.; Tatiana, A.; Larisa, K. Life quality and living standards in big cities under conditions of high-rise construction development. E3S Web Conf.
**2018**, 33, 03013. [Google Scholar] - Al-Kodmany, K. Guidelines for Tall Buildings Development. Int. J. High-Rise Build.
**2012**, 1, 255–269. [Google Scholar] - Moon, K.S.; Connor, J.J.; Fernandez, J.E. Diagrid structural systems for tall buildings: Characteristics and methodology for preliminary design. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build.
**2007**, 16, 205–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jani, K.; Patel, P.V. Analysis and Design of Diagrid Structural System for High Rise Steel Buildings. Procedia Eng.
**2013**, 51, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lee, D.; Shin, S. Advanced high strength steel tube diagrid using TRIZ and nonlinear pushover analysis. J. Constr. Steel Res.
**2014**, 96, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lee, S.H.; Lee, S.J.; Kim, J.H.; Choi, S.M. Mitigation of stress concentration in a diagrid structural system using circular steel tubes. Int. J. Steel Struct.
**2015**, 15, 703–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moon, K.S. Diagrid Structures for Complex-Shaped Tall Buildings. Adv. Mater. Res.
**2012**, 1616, 1489–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, C.Q.; Fang, D.J.; Zhao, L.J.; Zhou, J.H. Seismic fragility estimates of steel diagrid structure with performance-based tests for high-rise buildings. J. Build. Eng.
**2022**, 52, 104459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhao, J.; Wang, F.C.; Zhu, Y.H.; Yang, B. Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber-Reinforced, Recycled, Concrete-Filled Intersecting Nodes in an Oblique Grid. Buildings
**2023**, 13, 935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gao, F.; Zhu, H.; Liang, H.J.; Tian, Y. Post-fire residual strength of steel tubular T-joint with concrete-filled chord. J. Constr. Steel Res.
**2017**, 139, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kong, W.; Yin, R.; Zhang, E.M.; Yin, P. The Research of Strengthening Measures to the Space Type, KK-Intersecting Nodes in the Steel Pipe Tower of Power Transmission. Adv. Mater. Res.
**2013**, 2195, 1104–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fan, B.F.; Yang, N.; Yang, Q.S.; Gardner, L. Analysis of Mechanical Performance Considering Damage Accumulation of Intersecting Joints in Steel Structures. Appl. Mech. Mater.
**2011**, 1447, 583–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhou, W.; Cao, Z.; Zhang, J. Experiment and analysis on reinforced concrete spatial connection in diagrid tube. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build.
**2016**, 25, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Anupama, P.N.; Anu, M.; Kumar, K.K. Numerical analysis of through-beam connection between CFST column and RC beam. Appl. Mech. Mater.
**2016**, 857, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, L.; Zhao, X.; Ke, K. Static behavior of planar intersecting CFST connection in diagrid structure. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
**2011**, 5, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shi, Q.X.; Zhang, F. Simplified calculation of shear lag effect for high-rise diagrid tube structures. J. Build. Eng.
**2019**, 22, 486–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Teng, J.; Guo, W.L.; Rong, B.S.; Li, Z.H. Seismic Performance Research of High-Rise Diagrid Tube-Core Tube Structures. Adv. Mater. Res.
**2010**, 163–167, 2005–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Teng, J.; Guo, W.L.; Rong, B.S.; Li, Z.H.; Dong, Z.J. Research on Seismic Performance Objectives of High-Rise Diagrid Tube Structures. Adv. Mater. Res.
**2010**, 163–167, 1100–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Huang, C.; Han, X.L.; Ji, J.; Tang, J.M. Behavior of concrete-filled steel tubular planar intersecting connections under axial compression, Part 1: Experimental study. Eng. Struct.
**2009**, 32, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Huang, C. Research on Compressive Behavior of Intersecting Connection of Concrete Filled Steel Tubulardiagrid Structures. Ph.D. Thesis, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China, 2010. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Han, X.L.; Huang, C.; Fang, X.D.; Wei, H.; Ji, J.; Tang, J.M. Experimental study on spatial intersecting connections used in obliquely crossing mega lattice of the Guangzhou West Tower. J. Build. Struct.
**2010**, 31, 63–69. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] - Huang, C.; Han, X.L.; Wang, C.F.; Ji, J.; Li, W. Parametric analysis and simplified calculating method for diagonal grid structural system. J. Build. Struct.
**2010**, 31, 70–77. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] - Huang, C.; Han, X.L.; Ji, J.; Wu, J. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Axial Behavior of Connection in CFST Diagrid Structures. Tsinghua Sci. Technol.
**2008**, 13, 108–113. [Google Scholar] - Fang, X.D.; Han, X.L.; Wei, H. Experimental study on plannar intersecting connections used in obliquely crossing mega lattice of the Guangzhou West Tower. J. Build. Struct.
**2010**, 31, 56–62. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] - Jung, I.Y.; Kim, Y.J.; Ju, Y.K.; Kim, S.D.; Kim, S.J. Experimental investigation of web-continuous diagrid nodes under cyclic load. Eng. Struct.
**2014**, 69, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guo, J.R.; Shi, Q.X.; Ma, G.; Cai, W.; Li, T.; Yang, R. Mechanical behavior of concrete-filled steel tubular space intersecting nodes in high-rise oblique diagrid tube structures. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
**2022**, 26, 4584–4602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhao, F.; Zhang, C. Diagonal arrangements of diagrid tube structures for preliminary design. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build.
**2015**, 24, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Han, L.H. Concrete Filled Steel Tubular Structure-Theory and Practice; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2004; p. 69. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.G.; Chen, Z.P.; Xue, Y.Y. Test and Finite Element Analysis of Seismic Performance for Recycled Aggregate Concrete Filled Circular Steel Tube Column. J. Basic Sci. Eng.
**2016**, 24, 582–594. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] - Tian, Y. Research on the Compressive Properties of RRACFSTSC and STCRRACSC. Master’s Thesis, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China, 2020. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Park, R. State of the art report ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing. In Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo/Kyoto, Japan, 2–9 August 1988; pp. 605–616. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, P.; Qiang, H.L.; Ye, L.P. Discussion and definition on yield points of materials, members and structures. Eng. Mech.
**2017**, 34, 36–46. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] - Xu, Y.W.; Yao, J.; Li, Z.X. Cyclic axial compression tests on concrete-filled elliptical steel tubular stub columns. J. Harbin Eng. Univ.
**2020**, 41, 635–642. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] - Cai, W.Z.; Shi, Q.X.; Wang, B. Research on restoring force model of concrete-filled steel tube columns under axial cyclic loading. Eng. Mech.
**2021**, 38, 170–179+198. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] - Khalid, H.M.; Ojo, S.O.; Weaver, P.M. Inverse differential quadrature method for structural analysis of composite plates. Comput. Struct.
**2022**, 263, 106745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kabir, H.; Aghdam, M.M. A generalized 2D Bézier-based solution for stress analysis of notched epoxy resin plates reinforced with graphene nanoplatelets. Thin-Walled Struct.
**2021**, 169, 108484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Oblique Mesh Intersecting Nodes Structure (2α is plane oblique angle; β is space oblique angle). (

**a**) Front view. (

**b**) Lateral view.

**Figure 2.**Finite Element Model. (

**a**) Overall model. (

**b**) Mesh division of external steel pipes. (

**c**) Mesh division of core concrete. (

**d**) Circumferential constraints. (

**e**) Backing plate and spherical hinge.

**Figure 3.**Comparison between Test Curve and Finite Element Curve. (

**a**) Axial displacement-load curve. (

**b**) Axial displacement-lateral displacement curve. (

**c**) Load-axial strain curve.

**Figure 4.**Comparison of Failure Modes between Finite Element Model and Test Component. (

**a**) Failure pattern of finite element model. (

**b**) Bending failure of lower extremity steel pipe of test member. (

**c**) Steel pipe bulging in joint area of finite element model. (

**d**) Steel pipe bulging in the joint area of test member. (

**e**) Mises stress of restrained steel parts. (

**f**) Mises stress of elliptic connecting plate.

**Figure 5.**Relevant mechanical property parameter curves of components with different space angles. (

**a**) Displacement load curve. (

**b**) Skeleton curve. (

**c**) Stiffness degradation curve. (

**d**) Axial displacement-out of plane displacement curve. (

**e**) Energy consumption curve.

**Figure 6.**Mises stress and concrete compression damage of members with different space angles. (

**a**) β = 1°. (

**b**) β = 2°. (

**c**) β = 3°. (

**d**) β = 4°. (

**e**) β = 5°. (

**f**) β = 1°. (

**g**) β = 4°. (

**h**) β = 5°.

**Figure 7.**Relevant mechanical property parameter curves of members with different symmetry coefficients. (

**a**) Displacement load curve. (

**b**) Skeleton curve. (

**c**) Stiffness degradation curve. (

**d**) Axial displacement-out of plane displacement curve. (

**e**) Energy consumption curve.

**Figure 8.**Mises stresses of members with different plane symmetry coefficients. (

**a**) Symmetry coefficient = 0.70. (

**b**) Symmetry coefficient = 0.50. (

**c**) Symmetry coefficient = 0.39.

**Figure 9.**Relevant mechanical property parameter curves of members with different plane angles. (

**a**) Displacement load curve. (

**b**) Skeleton curve. (

**c**) Axial displacement-out of plane displacement curve. (

**d**) Energy consumption curve.

**Figure 10.**Mises stress nephogram and overall displacement nephogram of specimens with different plane angles. (

**a**) 2α = 20°. (

**b**) 2α = 70°. (

**c**) 2α = 90°.

**Figure 11.**Relevant mechanical property parameter curves of members with different steel contents. (

**a**) Displacement load curve. (

**b**) Skeleton curve. (

**c**) Stiffness degradation curve. (

**d**) Axial displacement-out of plane displacement curve. (

**e**) Energy consumption curve.

**Figure 12.**Mises stress nephogram and compression damage nephogram of members with different steel content. (

**a**) φ = 0.05. (

**b**) φ = 0.05. (

**c**) φ = 0.20. (

**d**) φ = 0.25.

**Figure 13.**Relevant mechanical property parameter curves of members with different out of plane constraint sizes. (

**a**) Displacement load curve. (

**b**) Skeleton curve. (

**c**) Stiffness degradation curve. (

**d**) Axial displacement-out of plane displacement curve. (

**e**) Energy consumption curve.

**Figure 14.**Mises stress nephogram of components with different out of plane constraint sizes. (

**a**) ώ = 0.00. (

**b**) ώ = 0.20.

**Figure 15.**Relevant mechanical property parameter curves of members with different concrete strength. (

**a**) Displacement load curve. (

**b**) Skeleton curve. (

**c**) Stiffness degradation curve. (

**d**) Axial displacement-out of plane displacement curve. (

**e**) Energy consumption curve.

**Figure 16.**Mises stress nephogram of members with different concrete strength. (

**a**) f

_{c}= 30 MPa. (

**b**) f

_{c}= 120 MPa.

Steel Type | Model Number | $\mathbf{Elastic}\mathbf{Modulus}{\mathit{E}}_{\mathit{s}}/\mathrm{MPa}$ | $\mathbf{Yield}\mathbf{Strength}{\mathit{f}}_{\mathit{y}}/\mathrm{MPa}$ | Ultimate Strength f_{u}/MPa |
---|---|---|---|---|

Outer steel pipe | Q345B | 2.06 × 10^{5} | 380 | 574 |

Elliptic connecting plate | Q345B | 2.06 × 10^{5} | 365 | 570 |

ϕ42 steel bar | 40Cr | 2.06 × 10^{5} | 785 | 930 |

Parameter Name | Space Angle (β) | Plane Angle (2α) | Symmetry Coefficient (Ψ) | Steel Content (φ) | Out-of-Plane Constraint (ώ) | Concrete Strength (f_{c}) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Standard group | 3° | 35° | 1.00 (35°/35°) | 0.13 | 0.15 | 90 MPa |

Change group | 1° | 20° | 0.70 (35°/50°) | 0.05 | 0.00 | 30 MPa |

2° | 50° | 0.50 (35°/70°) | 0.20 | 0.05 | 50 MPa | |

4° | 70° | 0.39 (35°/90°) | 0.25 | 0.10 | 70 MPa | |

5° | 90° | - | - | 0.20 | 120 MPa |

Control Parameters | Component Name | F_{y} (+)/kN | F_{y} (−)/kN | F_{u} (+)/kN | F_{u} (−)/kN | δ_{u}/mm | Θ /(kN·m) | k_{c} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Standard group | Node-Standard | 5890.10 | 4222.78 | 6222.11 | 5200.26 | 1.91 | 397.22 | 0.830 |

Space angle | Node-Space1 | 5886.34 | 4222.65 | 6349.58 | 5141.26 | 0.83 | 373.67 | 0.847 |

Node-Space2 | 6029.15 | 4168.06 | 6503.35 | 5061.76 | 1.21 | 366.03 | 0.867 | |

Node-Space4 | 5750.80 | 4004.15 | 6150.36 | 4698.79 | 36.18 | 373.65 | 0.820 | |

Node-Space5 | 5520.37 | 3033.03 | 5531.21 | 4117.00 | 54.25 | 327.09 | 0.738 | |

Symmetry coefficient | Node-Sym0.70 | 5977.81 | 4044.65 | 6570.09 | 4871.63 | 33.92 | 415.31 | 0.876 |

Node-Sym0.50 | 5304.08 | 4013.65 | 6242.73 | 4210.26 | 33.39 | 490.71 | 0.833 | |

Node-Sym0.39 | 4406.12 | 3213.28 | 5478.11 | 3913.25 | 6.40 | 455.27 | 0.731 | |

Plane angle | Node-Plane20 | 5628.60 | 4130.05 | 6199.52 | 5246.72 | 1.95 | 456.59 | 0.827 |

Node-Plane50 | 6275.72 | 4156.00 | 6697.62 | 4977.11 | 1.81 | 336.06 | 0.893 | |

Node-Plane70 | 6513.06 | 4372.05 | 7186.35 | 5451.78 | 1.56 | 535.89 | 0.959 | |

Node-Plane90 | 6234.46 | 4316.43 | 7111.80 | 5289.62 | 1.09 | 542.79 | 0.949 | |

Out-of-plane constraint | Node-Con0.00 | 4529.30 | 3847.95 | 4709.06 | 4651.71 | 102.90 | 464.23 | 0.628 |

Node-Con0.05 | 5350.91 | 3775.79 | 5401.88 | 4606.21 | 50.07 | 330.19 | 0.721 | |

Node-Con0.10 | 5888.68 | 3873.45 | 6333.64 | 4681.38 | 46.88 | 352.01 | 0.845 | |

Node-Con0.20 | 6024.17 | 4275.48 | 6314.38 | 5179.72 | 1.32 | 395.24 | 0.842 | |

Steel content | Node-Steel0.05 | 4578.04 | 1499.75 | 4910.12 | 1843.28 | 1.20 | 367.54 | 0.823 |

Node-Steel0.20 | 7552.80 | 6272.14 | 9026.46 | 7853.92 | 45.20 | 591.60 | 0.976 | |

Node-Steel0.25 | 8463.85 | 7520.42 | 10,377.04 | 9079.87 | 39.90 | 725.48 | 0.893 | |

Concrete strength | Node-Concrete30 | 4641.21 | 4113.87 | 5336.96 | 5100.29 | 1.44 | 748.13 | 1.092 |

Node-Concrete50 | 5520.37 | 4108.39 | 5576.77 | 5147.45 | 1.55 | 728.89 | 0.971 | |

Node-Concrete70 | 5492.21 | 4140.10 | 5929.77 | 5156.74 | 1.63 | 752.17 | 0.947 | |

Node-Concrete120 | 6463.56 | 4166.67 | 7004.76 | 5193.63 | 2.15 | 806.57 | 0.792 |

_{y}denotes the yield load of the node, and the yield point is defined according to references [32,33]. The method for determining the yield point is as follows: the straight line passing through the origin and 0.75 F

_{u}point intersects with the horizontal line passing through the peak point of the curve at a certain point, which is the yield point, where (+) and (−) denote compression and tension along the axis, respectively. F

_{u}denotes the ultimate load of the node, and the interpretation in parentheses is the same as that of F

_{y}. δ

_{u}denotes the maximum displacement of the node in the plane, Θ denotes the total energy dissipation of the node, and k

_{c}denotes the strength enhancement coefficient [34]. k

_{c}= F

_{u}/F

_{u0}, where F

_{u0}= A

_{s}f

_{y}+ A

_{c}f

_{c}represents the simple superposition of the bearing capacity of the steel tube and concrete. It intuitively reflects the mutual compensation effect between the steel tube and the concrete.

Name of the Test Piece | Yield Point | Peak Point | Limit Point | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

δ_{y}/δ_{m} | F_{y}/F_{m} | δ_{m}/δ_{m} | F_{m}/F_{m} | δ_{u}/δ_{m} | F_{u}/F_{m} | |

Node-Standard | 0.651 (−0.431) | 0.964 (−0.848) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.926 |

Node-Space1 | 0.734 (−0.421) | 0.948 (−0.853) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.910 |

Node-Space2 | 0.704 (−0.430) | 0.945 (−0.854) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.900 |

Node-Space4 | 0.416 (−0.370) | 0.956 (−0.897) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.996 |

Node-Space5 | 1.000 (−0.299) | 0.998 (−0.783) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 4.000 | 0.718 |

Node-Sym0.70 | 0.682 (−0.444) | 0.926 (−0.830) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.882 |

Node-Sym0.50 | 0.609 (−0.948) | 0.863 (−0.988) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.709 |

Node-Sym0.39 | 0.591 (−0.385) | 0.830 (−0.849) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.846 |

Node-Plane20 | 0.643 (−0.457) | 0.939 (−0.816) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.946 |

Node-Plane50 | 0.674 (−0.410) | 0.956 (−0.856) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.873 |

Node-Plane70 | 0.647 (−0.426) | 0.915 (−0.837) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.854 |

Node-Plane90 | 0.609 (−0.411) | 0.904 (−0.844) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.868 |

Node-Con0.00 | 1.000 (−0.614) | 0.985 (−0.867) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 4.000 | 0.900 |

Node-Con0.05 | 1.000 (−0.577) | 0.998 (−0.852) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 4.000 | 0.873 |

Node-Con0.0.01 | 0.667 (−0.387) | 0.933 (−0.874) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.749 |

Node-Con0.20 | 0.662 (−0.442) | 0.971 (−0.861) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.914 |

Node-Steel0.05 | 0.950 (−0.463) | 0.948 (−0.969) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 4.000 | 0.759 |

Node-Steel0.20 | 0.803 (−0.473) | 0.938 (−0.900) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.333 | 0.891 |

Node-Steel0.25 | 0.744 (−0.470) | 0.935 (−0.853) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.881 |

Node-Concrete30 | 0.516 (−0.457) | 0.887 (−0.847) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.600 | 1.001 |

Node-Concrete70 | 0.796 (−0.444) | 1.000 (−0.834) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.600 | 0.990 |

Node-Concrete90 | 0.720 (−0.443) | 0.943 (−0.840) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.962 |

Node-Concrete120 | 0.648 (−0.433) | 0.938 (−0.843) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 1.00 (−1.00) | 2.667 | 0.891 |

_{y}and F

_{y}are the yield displacement and yield load of the node, respectively. 0.651 (−0.431) indicates that the abscissa of the positive yield point is 0.651; the abscissa of the negative yield point is 0.431.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Zhao, J.; Wang, F.; Yang, B.; Ma, B.
Seismic Behaviour of CFST Space Intersecting Nodes in an Oblique Mesh. *Appl. Sci.* **2023**, *13*, 5943.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app13105943

**AMA Style**

Zhao J, Wang F, Yang B, Ma B.
Seismic Behaviour of CFST Space Intersecting Nodes in an Oblique Mesh. *Applied Sciences*. 2023; 13(10):5943.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app13105943

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Zhao, Jun, Feicheng Wang, Bai Yang, and Bin Ma.
2023. "Seismic Behaviour of CFST Space Intersecting Nodes in an Oblique Mesh" *Applied Sciences* 13, no. 10: 5943.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app13105943