Abstract
In their paper (Kim and Kim, 2013), Kim and Kim presented predictions that exhibited significant differences in bending-shear coupling for the CUS box beam from their own analysis vis-à-vis from VABS (Yu et al., 2002, 2012). The actual differences between results obtained from VABS (Yu et al., 2002, 2012) and the RTV theory (Kim and Kim, 2013), when executed properly, are shown herein to be very minor. Indeed, both stiffness models yield very acceptable results for a static analysis. Specifically, VABS does not significantly deviate, qualitatively or quantitatively, from 3D FEM predictions, in contrast to results presented in Kim and Kim (2013).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
