• Steel and Composite Structures
• /
• v.50 no.6
• /
• pp.705-720
• /
• 2024

Analyzing the collapse behavior of thin-walled steel structures holds significant importance in ensuring their safety and longevity. Geometric imperfections present on the surface of metal materials can diminish both the durability and mechanical integrity of steel shells. These imperfections, encompassing local geometric irregularities and deformations such as holes, cavities, notches, and cracks localized in specific regions of the shell surface, play a pivotal role in the assessment. They can induce stress concentration within the structure, thereby influencing its susceptibility to buckling. The intricate relationship between the buckling behavior of these structures and such imperfections is multifaceted, contingent upon a variety of factors. The buckling analysis of thin-walled steel shell structures, similar to other steel structures, commonly involves the determination of crucial material properties, including elastic modulus, shear modulus, tensile strength, and fracture toughness. An established method involves the emulation of distributed geometric imperfections, utilizing real test specimen data as a basis. This approach allows for the accurate representation and assessment of the diversity and distribution of imperfections encountered in real-world scenarios. Utilizing defect data obtained from actual test samples enhances the model's realism and applicability. The sizes and configurations of these defects are employed as inputs in the modeling process, aiding in the prediction of structural behavior. It's worth noting that there is a dearth of experimental studies addressing the influence of geometric defects on the buckling behavior of cylindrical steel shells. In this particular study, samples featuring geometric imperfections were subjected to experimental buckling tests. These same samples were also modeled using Finite Element Analysis (FEM), with results corroborating the experimental findings. Furthermore, the initial geometrical imperfections were measured using digital image correlation (DIC) techniques. In this way, the response of the test specimens can be estimated accurately by applying the initial imperfections to FE models. After validation of the test results with FEA, a numerical parametric study was conducted to develop more generalized design recommendations for the stainless-steel shell structures with the initial geometric imperfection. While the load-carrying capacity of samples with perfect surfaces was up to 140 kN, the load-carrying capacity of samples with 4 mm defects was around 130 kN. Likewise, while the load carrying capacity of samples with 10 mm defects was around 125 kN, the load carrying capacity of samples with 14 mm defects was measured around 120 kN.

• Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
• /
• v.54 no.1
• /
• pp.37-44
• /
• 2019

Purpose: Tumor infiltration around the knee joint or skip metastasis, repeated infection sequelae after tumor prosthesis implantation, regional recurrence, and mechanical failure of the megaprosthesis might require combined distal femur and proximal tibia replacement (CFTR). Among the aforementioned situations, there are few reports on the indication, complications, and implant survival of CFTR in temporarily arthrodesed patients who had a massive bony defect on either side of the knee joint to control infection. Materials and Methods: Thirty-four CFTR patients were reviewed retrospectively and 13 temporary arthrodesed cases switched to CFTR were extracted. All 13 cases had undergone a massive bony resection on either side of the knee joint and temporary arthrodesis state to control the repeated infection. This paper describes the diagnosis, tumor location, number of operations until CFTR, duration from the index operation to CFTR, survival of CFTR, complications, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. Results: According to Kaplan-Meier plot, the 5- and 10-year survival of CFTR was 69.0%±12.8%, 46.0%±20.7%, respectively. Six (46.2%) of the 13 cases had major complications. Three cases underwent removal of the prosthesis and were converted to arthrodesis due to infection. Two cases underwent partial change of the implant due to loosening and periprosthetic fracture. The remaining case with a deep infection was resolved after extensive debridement. At the final follow-up, the average MSTS score of 10 cases with CFTR was 24.6 (21-27). In contrast, the MSTS score of 3 arthrodesis cases with failed CFTR was 12.3 (12-13). The average range of motion of the 10 CFTR cases was 67° (0°-100°). The mean extension lag of 10 cases was 48° (20°-80°). Conclusion: Although the complication rates is substantial, conversion of an arthrodesed knee to a mobile joint using CFTR in a patient who had a massive bony defect on either side of the knee joint to control infection should be considered. The patient's functional outcome was different from the arthrodesed one. For successful conversion to a mobile joint, thorough the eradication of scar tissue and creating sufficient space for the tumor prosthesis to flex the knee joint up to 60° to 70° without soft tissue tension.