## 5 Guidelines
There were some variations in the SHSS results in the case of linear stress state, but for non-linear stress state, the results were quite consistent when the nodal averaging feature was turned on (Figure 10). This means that the ASME TTSL method gave better results when stress was highly non-linear. This method linearized the stress over the thickness of the plate at the weld-toe. Therefore, it included part of the non-linear stress peak present at the weld-toe, while other SHSS evaluation methods did not, as the readout points were away from the weld-toe. In this method, results were more converged in the deck and the rib-plate except for solid single parabolic elements (CH20E) that had higher stress results. For the better SHSS results, the ASME TTSL method should be used with solid parabolic (1/2-CH20) or shell parabolic (1/2-CQ8) elements for non-linear stress and with solid parabolic single (CH8E) or shell linear (1/2-CQ4) elements for nominal stress calculation, as shown in Figure 10.
* The Xiao-Yamada method for the evaluation SHSS has very strict mesh limitations. Therefore, it can only be applied to certain cubic hexahedral elements (1/2 CH20/8). This method gave quite scattered results in non-linear stress state; the 2.0 mm solid elements (2-CH20/8) showed quite high stress results as compared to 1.0 mm solid elements (1-CH20/8), whereas for the linear stress, the results were somewhat higher as compared to other methods. These anomalies in SHSS results are not encouraging for the use of this method. * The Haibach and Xiao and Yamada methods are more sensitive to element type and mesh size variation as compared to other methods. The scatter in SHSS results was quite justified, as we relied on a single readout point for their results (i.e., at 2.5 mm and 1.0 mm, respectively) as compared to other methods. Therefore, IIW SSE or ASME TTSL methods should be preferred for the better evaluation SHSS. * The stress values were reduced by nodal averaging, but their impact on SHSS results was insignificant in IIW SSE and Haibach methods, whereas the ASME TTSL method showed a considerable decrease in results, especially for solid single parabolic elements (CH20E). Moreover, the Xiao and Yamada method did not have much influence of nodal averaging in the linear stress state, while for the non-linear stress state, it showed a significant decrease in results. In general, parabolic solid or shell elements (CH20/20E/CQ8) were not affected by nodal averaging, whereas linear solid or shell elements (CH8/8E/CQ4) showed a decrease in SHSS results. * The coarser meshing (4/8-CQ4/8) is only applicable to LSE 515 and ASME TTSL methods because other SHSS methods have mesh size limitations, but their results were not convincing, especially for linear shell elements (CQ4). Additionally, nodal averaging had a major influence on their results. Moreover, the solid linear parabolic elements (CH8) gave highly scattered results for all the SHSS evaluation methods used in this study. Hence, these meshing techniques should be avoided. In general, shell elements (CQ8/4) gave consistent SHSS results as compared to solid elements (CH8/20 and CH8E/20E) for both stress states. Moreover, shell parabolic elements (CQ8) showed better SHSS results as compared to shell linear elements (CQ4), but mesh size should be restricted to 4.0 mm.