PSI - Issue 57

Philipp Ladendorf et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 57 (2024) 589–597 Ladendorf, Herion, Winkler, Dürr / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

593

5

3.2.2. Maximum SCF of RHS and CHS with and without gusset-plates Fig. 5 displays the calculated SCF for the conventional as well as the variants with gusset-plates. Compared to the conventional K-joint, gusset-plate variant 1 reduces the maximum SCF of the RHS for the most important load-cases AX and IPB for nearly all geometries. For the load-case GN, a benefit of the gusset-plates can be shown for geometries no. 3 and 5. By adding manufacturing depth, variants 2 and 3 show a further reduction of the SCF compared to the conventional K-joint, where variant 3 partly shows SCF below the minimum SCF of 2.0 for the load-cases AX and IPB. The effectivity of the gusset- plates is highest for small β -values. For the load-case GN, the benefit can only be shown for high β -va lues and for small β -values, the SCF increases to a SCF slightly above 2.0 but lower than 3.0. For the CHS, the same conclusions as RHS can be drawn with respect to the load-cases AX and IPB. While the SCF of all conventional geometries are smaller than 2.0 for the load case GN, they rise to a level of about 3.0. Since the level of CHS-SCF is in general significantly lower than for RHS, the benefit of gusset-plates by redistributing the stresses to a wider joint-area is not that substantial compared to RHS.

ariant 1

ariant 2

ariant 3

Fig. 5. SCF of investigated RHS and CHS K-joints w/o gusset-plates

3.2.3. Direct comparison of gusset-plates to conventional SCF Another way of showing the influence of gusset-plates in direct comparison to conventional K-joints is shown in Fig. 6. Although this presentation might seem redundant, it clearly identifies the geometries and variants with the most potentials for beneficial SCF-reductions. As stated before for RHS, the higher the manufacturing effort is, the higher are the achievable benefits. Although the chosen way of presentation clearly shows a negative impact of gusset-plates for the load-case GN, the comparably low SCF-level must also be considered. The investigated CHS variants hold much more inconsistent results. While the gusset-plate variant 1 is only bene ficial at the chord for AX and IPB, it shows a negative impact for the brace-location. Variant 2 has a positive influence for AX and IPB at the chord, but a negative influence for GN and IPB at the brace. While variant 3 shows again beneficial tendencies at the chord for AX and IPB, it clearly has a slightly negative influence for AX and geometry no. 3 as well as IPB.