Jiachen Liu, Jinghai Gong. Research on the Effect of Joint Deviation on the Mechanical Performance of Arc-Shaped Tubular Truss[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2021, 36(12): 15-22. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20121301
Citation: Jiachen Liu, Jinghai Gong. Research on the Effect of Joint Deviation on the Mechanical Performance of Arc-Shaped Tubular Truss[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2021, 36(12): 15-22. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20121301

Research on the Effect of Joint Deviation on the Mechanical Performance of Arc-Shaped Tubular Truss

doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20121301
  • Received Date: 2020-12-13
    Available Online: 2022-03-12
  • In spatial tubular truss structure, in order to avoid the concentration of weld seams caused by truss chord connections and tubular nodes, the construction method of joint deviation is often used. When segments with different arc curvature exist, joint deviation leads to local changes of the structure and difference from the designed model, which will affect the mechanical performance of the tubular truss with variable arc curvature. To explore the specific influence of joint deviation on the mechanical performance of arc-shaped tubular truss structure, a practical engineering project model is selected, deviation to the chord joint according to the common construction plan is applied, the force of the model before and after the deviation is calculated and compared. Specifically, two representative truss parts at different positions in the structure are analyzed. According to the intersection of diagonal members, the theoretical minimum offset of the appropriate members where the arc curvature changes is calculated. The actual minimum offset at the joint is decided with safety distance and rounded. The model is adjusted to the minimum offset, two times minimum offset, and three times minimum offset respectively. The axial force, bending moment, and stress of upper and lower chord members, diagonal members and the adjacent chord members at the joint are compared under self-weight load condition and the most unfavorable load condition.
    The results showed that the axial force of the member was mainly affected by the overall structure design and its cross section, which was not obviously affected by the joint offset. The offset of the joint deviation generates eccentricity between the members at the joint with different arc curvature compared to the designed tubular truss model. The eccentricity caused the axial force on the members at both ends of the joint to generate a bending moment, which would increase the bending moment of the chord members at the joint. When the axial force did not change significantly, the bending moment increased, the stress of the member increased correspondingly. With the minimum offset, the bending moment of the chord members at the joint could increase up to 200% and the stress could increase by 10%-15%. With three times minimum offset, the stress of the chord members at the joint would increase by 70% under the self-weight load condition, and 100% under the most unfavorable load condition. When the eccentricity increased, the bending moment of the members at the joint also increased greatly. At three times minimum offset, the stress ratio of some chord members at the joint exceeded 1, and corresponding joint deviation resulted in an eccentricity of 0.15-0.3 m. Under various working load conditions, the stress of the member increased significantly, which might cause damage under the most unfavorable load condition.
    The conclusions are as follows:1) the joint offset has no obvious effect on the axial force of the members in the structure; 2) bending moment increases greatly with the increase of eccentricity caused by joint offset; 3) under the joint action of axial force and bending moment, the joint offset increases the stress correspondingly, causing hidden dangers to the overall structure. During construction, the deviation of the actual chord joint should be checked or the influence of the joint deviation should be considered in the design stage to eliminate the potential danger of the structure.
  • [1]
    唐兵传, 丁晓东. 大跨度空间管桁架设计与施工的若干问题[J]. 钢结构, 2006, 21(3):28-32.
    [2]
    Earls B K C J. Bearing capacity in long-span tubular truss chords[J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2007,133(3):356-367.
    [3]
    杜晨珉, 陈宇亮. 空间结构相贯节点设计和加固方法研究[J]. 广东土木与建筑, 2018,25(12):23-28.
    [4]
    李海旺, 王红霞, 张宗升. 三心圆钢管拱桁架的动力弹塑性分析[J]. 工业建筑, 2011,41(增刊1):320-324.
    [5]
    Andrade S A L D, Vellasco P C G D, Silva J G S D, et al. Tubular space trusses with simple and reinforced end-flattened nodes-an overview and experiments[J]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2005,61(8):1025-1050.
    [6]
    Liu M L, Zhao J C, Jin M. An experimental study of the mechanical behavior of steel planar tubular trusses in a fire[J]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2010, 66(4):504-511.
    [7]
    张良兰. 无锡大剧院屋顶钢结构设计[J]. 建筑钢结构进展, 2014, 16(5):44-51.
    [8]
    张祥龙, 刘明宝, 黄传青. 圆钢管桁架焊接变形控制[J]. 山东广播电视大学学报, 2020(3):86-88.
    [9]
    中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部.钢结构设计标准:GB 50017-2017[S].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2018.
  • Relative Articles

    [1]Libo Yang. A Review on the Research and Application of Steel-UHPC Composite Beam[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2024, 39(9): 1-14. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS24022001
    [2]ZHAO Qiu, CAI Wei, CHEN Peng, YU Ao, LIN Yongxin. Study on Refined Numerical Simulation Method of Mechanical Behavior of Prefabricated Bailey Beam[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2023, 38(2): 23-31. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS22111601
    [3]WANG Wei-yong, WANG Zi-qi, TAN Xing-kui, PANG Shi-yun, HUANG Dan, HUANG Yong-dong. Load Bearing Capacity and Economic Analysis of Cold-Formed Stiffened High-Strength Steel Beams[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2022, 37(10): 32-42. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS22033101
    [4]Derun Du, Jintong Liu, Jitong Jiang. Study on the Mechanical Properties of Primary-Secondary-Beam Joints of U-Shaped Steel-Encased Concrete[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2022, 37(5): 28-35. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS22011402
    [5]Tang Qiang, Liu Qiang, Wang Liankun, Yang Huixian, Guo Yu, Yan Ziqiang, Wang Jicong. Analysis of Mechanical Performance of Steel Frames Composed of Non-Compact Members[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2021, 36(11): 8-13. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20092302
    [6]Xiaodong Feng, Shengwei Liu, Weijia Yang, Yaozhi Luo. Research on Mechanical Properties of Truss String Structure with Spring Rods[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2021, 36(7): 1-8. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgS20042502
    [7]Xiang Zhou, Tianxiang Xu, Xuanding Wang, Jiepeng Liu. Analysis on the Mechanical Behavior of RC Column to Truss Joint in Staggered Truss System[J]. STEEL CONSTRUCTION(Chinese & English), 2020, 35(11): 40-54. doi: 10.13206/j.gjgSE20042001
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(1)

    1. 陈勇, 刘青松, 沈国辉, 邢月龙, 郭勇, 高志林, 胡中正. 鞍板和环板加劲K形相贯节点承载力试验研究. 建筑结构学报. 2020(09): 165-177 .

    Other cited types(1)

  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-04051015
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 20.1 %FULLTEXT: 20.1 %META: 74.9 %META: 74.9 %PDF: 4.9 %PDF: 4.9 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 6.8 %其他: 6.8 %其他: 0.2 %其他: 0.2 %China: 4.2 %China: 4.2 %上海: 0.7 %上海: 0.7 %东莞: 0.7 %东莞: 0.7 %九江: 0.7 %九江: 0.7 %包头: 0.2 %包头: 0.2 %北京: 1.6 %北京: 1.6 %呼和浩特: 0.2 %呼和浩特: 0.2 %太原: 0.2 %太原: 0.2 %宁德: 0.7 %宁德: 0.7 %宿州: 0.2 %宿州: 0.2 %常州: 0.5 %常州: 0.5 %常德: 0.2 %常德: 0.2 %广州: 1.2 %广州: 1.2 %廊坊: 0.2 %廊坊: 0.2 %张家口: 0.9 %张家口: 0.9 %成都: 0.5 %成都: 0.5 %昆明: 0.7 %昆明: 0.7 %昌吉: 0.7 %昌吉: 0.7 %杭州: 0.5 %杭州: 0.5 %武汉: 1.2 %武汉: 1.2 %沈阳: 0.2 %沈阳: 0.2 %泉州: 0.7 %泉州: 0.7 %济南: 0.2 %济南: 0.2 %深圳: 0.2 %深圳: 0.2 %漯河: 0.2 %漯河: 0.2 %烟台: 0.5 %烟台: 0.5 %芒廷维尤: 11.2 %芒廷维尤: 11.2 %芝加哥: 0.2 %芝加哥: 0.2 %西宁: 56.2 %西宁: 56.2 %西安: 0.5 %西安: 0.5 %贵阳: 0.2 %贵阳: 0.2 %运城: 1.2 %运城: 1.2 %郑州: 0.2 %郑州: 0.2 %重庆: 0.9 %重庆: 0.9 %长沙: 0.9 %长沙: 0.9 %阳泉: 1.2 %阳泉: 1.2 %青岛: 1.9 %青岛: 1.9 %其他其他China上海东莞九江包头北京呼和浩特太原宁德宿州常州常德广州廊坊张家口成都昆明昌吉杭州武汉沈阳泉州济南深圳漯河烟台芒廷维尤芝加哥西宁西安贵阳运城郑州重庆长沙阳泉青岛

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Article Metrics

    Article views (318) PDF downloads(21) Cited by(2)
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return