7.3 Uniplanar T-joint between longitudinal gusset plate and RHS chord 73.1 Description The object of this chapter is verification of component based finite element method (CBFEM) of the uniplanar welded T-joint of gusset plate to rectangular hollow sections with method of failure modes (FM). The gusset plate is welded directly onto the face of rectangular hollow sections in the lattice truss. 7.3.2 Method of failure modes In these joints usually occurs only failure mode the chord face failure, see Fig. 7.3.1, Welds are designed according to EN 1993-1-8 not to be the weakest component in the joint. In the parts of lattice truss continues load causes design intemal forces in the form of normal forces and bending moments. Action of internal forces in location of T-joint is described as follows’ Axially-loaded RHS chord The normal forces in the chord right and left of T-joint location act in location of chord longitudinal Diffraction-loaded RHS chord For calculation only bending moments right and left of T-joint location in plane of T-joint are considered in the chord and these bending moments rotate around one of the axes in plane of chord cross-section for rotation in plane of T-joint. Axially loaded gusset plate The normal force in the brace of T-joint location acts in location of brace longitudinal axis. Fig. 7.3.1: Chord face failure The design resistance of the chord web is determined using the method given in section 7.6 EN1993-1- 8:2006, which background is described in (Wardenier et al, 2010). The load from the gusset plate has to be transferred through the face of the chord. The design resistance of the join i predicted as Nina = Km fo? Co? * (2+ Iy/by + 4° JT —t/bo)/¥us (7.3.1) where Forn > 0 (compression) + ky = 1,3:(1—n) < 1,0 (7.3.2) Forn < 0 (tensile) > ky, = 1,0 (7.3.3)Plates loaded by axial forces Overview of the considered examples and the material are given in the Tab. 7.3.1. Geometries of joints with dimensions are shown in Fig. 7.3.2. Tab. 7.3.1: Cases of plates loaded by axial forces Chord] Brace] Weld Material Example a) eh Ta] E PS) section | Section f |e Team | DMPA | IMPay | [Pa at | SHSTORS | PaRTOO | 12 | 355 [a | BIO | SISOS PRRIDO | 12) SSF | 90 | 210 a) SHS TORS | PTORIsO] 15) 385 | 490 | 20 a) SHS TORE PANTO | 12) SSF | HO) BIO aS) SHS TORE PaRIZO | 12) 38S | 90 | BIO 36 | SHS 008 | PTOxISO] 13 | 355 ] 490 | 210 aT] SAS T5063 | PaxIO | 12 | 355 | 490 | 210 | SHS TSm63 | PaRIZD] 12 | 355 | 190 | 210 @ | SHS TS0x63 | PTORISO] 1S) 355 | 490 | 210 0 | 210 0 | 21 ai SHS 130x125 | PTsn50] 23.) 355 | 490 | 210 aid SHS 200125 | PISNIS0] 23) 355 | 490 | 10 aid | SHS 200x125] P20N200] 30) 355 | 490 | 210 a1) | SHS 150x125] P T0xI00] 15 ail | SAS 150x125 | P 12x20] 18 als) SHSI00NID |PTSA200] 25) 355 [490 | 210 a16 | SHSSO0RID |P20R300] 50) 355 [490 | TO aIT | SHSI0ONTS |PTSN200) 25) 355 [490 | 10 ait] SHS 300RI6 [P20x300] 30 ] 355 | 490 | 210 Ci Fig. 7.3.2 Joint’s geometry with dimensions 7.3.3. Verification of res tance Results of the method based on failure modes (FM) are compared with the results of CBF comparison was focused on resistance and the critical component of the joint, see in Tab. 7.3.2. The‘Tab. 7.3.2 Comparison of CBFEM and FM for tensile force in plate "Tension im plate Design resistance Example [FE CBFEM Dit ‘Mode of failure Mode of failure [kN] IN] bea al) 32 | Chord face flare 3 Chord face flare) 3 a) 35) Chord hee hire) 60 Chord face faire) @ | | Chord face tare) 67 Chord face Taare) 10 a 132 | Chordiace ile | 159 | Chord face Taare) 5 S| 141 | Chord face ture) 186 | Chord face falure | 10 36 | 154] Chordiace aie | 180 | Chord face falas | 14 a) 74] Chord face failure) 6 Plate lars 7 we | TF | Chordtace fale) 75 Chord fave fare) 2 | 8S | Chord face itunes w Chord face Taare) 1 aid) 288 | Chord ace failure | 267) Chord ace failure) 7 ail) S01 | Chord ee failure | 305) Chord face ailare 1 iz) 30) | Chord ce failure | S48) Chord face tailare ais) 296 | — Chord face ature | 298] Chord face Taitare | 1 aid) 351 | Chord face failure | S47 | Chord face tailare 7 ais) 18 | Chordiacefailure | 171) Chord ace failure) aie) 308 | Chord face failure | 195 | Chord face flare 6 ai?) 4 | Chordeehaile | 3T Plaie failure 9 aig | $32 | Chord ace failure [551 Chord face failure] 3 The parametric studies show good agreement for the applied load cases. To illustrate the accuracy of the CBFEM model, results of the parametric studies are summarized in a diagram comparing CBFEM’s and FM’s design resistance, see Fig. 7.3.3. The results show that the difference of the two calculation methods is in most of eases less than 14%.600 500 400 Zz 2 0 a Samples” # © Samples a B 20 —corEM-FM CBFEM=1,1 FM 100 —cprEh 9 FM 0 100-200-300 400500600, FM [kN] Fig. 7.3.3 Verification of CBFEM to CM for axial force in the brace of the uniplanar T-joint between longitudinal gusset plate and RHS chord 7.3.4 Range of validity CBFEM is verified for T-joints between rectangular hollow section and open section. Range of validity is defined in Tab. 9 in ISO/FDIS 14346, see Tab. 7.3.3. The validation to experiments or verification to validated research model should be prepared in case of application of the CBFEM model outside the range of validity of FM. Tab. 7.3.3 Range of validity of joints between longitudinal gusset plate and RHS chord (Table 9 in ISO/FDIS 14346) class Tor 2; by/ty S40 and ‘Compression ha/ty 40 to S Chord aa Tensile bo/ty < 40 and ho/ty < 40 ‘Aspect ratio O05 S hy/by 52 Longitudinal plate [Compression TShy/by <4 ‘Angle between chord and plate = 90 7.3.8 Benchmark case Inputs Chord © Steel $355 © SHS 200x12,5Gusset plate * Steel $355 Plate PISx150 Weld © Throat thickness a = 23 mm + Fillet weld around the plate Outputs ‘+ Design resistance in tensile is Fexa= 298.4 KN ‘+ Collapse mode is chord face failure