4.7 Article

Elevated temperature resistance of welded tubular joints under axial load in the brace member

期刊

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
卷 59, 期 -, 页码 574-586

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.11.014

关键词

Circular hollow section (CHS); Square hollow section (SHS); T-joints; K-joints; X-joints; Y-joints; N-joints; Finite element model; Ultimate capacity; Elevated temperatures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the results of a study to obtain the ultimate capacity of welded steel tubular joints at elevated temperatures. Finite Element (FE) simulations of welded tubular joints with axially loaded brace member made of CHS or SHS at different elevated temperatures were carried out using the commercial Finite Element software ABAQUS v6.10-1 [1]. After validation, extensive numerical simulations were conducted on T-, Y-, X-, N- and non-overlapped K-joints subjected to brace axial compression or tension, considering a wide range of geometrical parameters. The material and geometrical nonlinearities, which have significant influence on the ultimate strength of tubular joints at elevated temperatures, were taken into account. Uniform temperature distribution was assumed for both the chord and brace members. Results of the numerical simulation were compared with calculation results using the design equations in Eurocode EN 1993-1-2 [3] and CIDECT design guide [16] but replacing the yield stress of steel at ambient temperature by those at elevated temperatures. It is found that for gap K- and N-joints and for T-, Y- and X-joints with the brace member under axial tensile load, this approach is suitable. However, for CHS T-, Y- and X-joints under brace compression load, this method overestimates the ultimate load carrying capacity of the joint. In fact, for these situations, the joint strength reduction at increasing temperatures follows more closely the reduction in the elastic modulus of steel at elevated temperatures. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据