Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
U NDERGRADUATE S TUDENT:
Martin Jespersen
Student ID: S071919
Technical University of Denmark (DTU)
P ROJECT S UPERVISORS :
Preface
This report was written as a bachelor project by which the author is to acquire the title:
The report is the result of a project work spanning from 30th August 2010 to 24th
January 2011 and is rated to 20 ECTS.
The total project consists of three pieces of material: A Main report (this docu-
ment), a DVD with softcopies of all FEM-models and other material (attached to this
report as Appendix F) and a Appendix report(separate document) containing documen-
tation, which is not crucial for understanding the concepts of this report, but serves as
further documentation of the project work. References to the Appendix report are given
as AR.X, X being the actual section in the Appendix report which is referred to.
The author would like to use this opportunity to thank supervisors and employees
at The Technical University of Denmark as well as Ramboll Telecom, whom have
contributed to the project work.
A special gratitude goes to Mr. Sankara Ganesh and the design team of Ramboll-
IMIsoft Pvt. Ltd. India, whom have provided material for the project.
Martin Jespersen
s071919
5
Summary
This bachelor project considers the buckling of angle bar bracings in lattice towers.
The ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005 tower design standard (in the following referred to as
TIA-G) specifies various effective slenderness ratio expressions for angle bar bracing
members dependent on the slenderness, eccentricity and end-restraints of the member.
Especially provisions related to angle bar end-restraints are of a very general and
superficial nature, even though the stiffness of a joint is totally dependent on its
design. The main scope of this project was to make a comparison between the
effective slenderness ratios acquired by above mentioned design code expressions and
results obtained by adding rotational stiffness results from detailed FEM-analysis of a
type joint to a overall non-linear FEM-analysis of angle bar members. As a secondary
objective a comparison between the commercial tower analysis program
RAMTOWER and alternative methods such as hand calculations and the FEM was to
be conducted. Both comparisons were based on a sample telecommunications tower.
By comparing the effective slenderness ratios obtained from the FEM-analysis and
TIA-G expressions, it has been observed that the non-linear FEM-analysis tends to ar-
rive at a effective slenderness which is somewhat lower that what is obtained by the
TIA-G standard in the case of weak-axis buckling. However the very limited amount
of experimental data available on joint stiffness, would tend to suggest that the joint
stiffness FEM-models applied in the current study over-predict the stiffness of joints,
hence a effective slenderness ratio which is larger than what has been found from the
current studies may be expected, yielding ratios which are closer to the expressions
given in TIA-G when considering weak-axis buckling. The need of more specific ex-
perimental data on joint rotational stiffness behavior is pointed out and areas in need of
further research are identified. The FEM-models indicate that there is a dependency in
rotational stiffness of angle bar joints by the axis of rotation considered, a phenomena
which is not currently taken into account in the TIA-G effective slenderness ratio ex-
pressions, as it is the case for other tower design standards such as EN1993-3-1. The
effective slenderness ratios obtained by FEM-analysis confirms that there is a differ-
ence between the ratio, which should be applied for parallel and weak axis buckling,
due to the difference in rotational stiffness about each axis considered (the two parallel
axis of the profile). Hence for parallel buckling the FEM-analysis arrives at effective
slenderness ratios which exceeds the expressions given in TIA-G hence indicating the
standard be on the unsafe side in relation to parallel buckling of angle bar members.
Through extensive discussion it has been found that if FEM-models can be cali-
brated (through more extensive experimental data) to fully capture the rotational stiff-
ness behavior of angle bar joints, the application of rotational stiffness models to inves-
tigate buckling failure of tower bracing members can be utilized commercially. Large
scale infrastructure projects with great numbers of identical towers or marginally over
utilized towers, where prospects of savings are considerable, has been identified as the
main areas of application.
On the overall scale the comparison between RAMTOWER and other methods,
showed that RAMTOWER performed as per previous experience, yielding no more
than 10% deviation in force distribution compared to equivalent FEM-models. By com-
paring overall tower reactions found from each method, the incorporated wind profile
in RAMTOWER has been found accurate and in accordance with the ANSI/TIA-222-
G:2005 standard.
6
Resumé
Dette diplomafgangsprojekt omhandler udknækning af vinkeljern i gittertårne. Tårn-
design standarden ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005 (i det følgende benævnt TIA-G) specifi-
cerer flere udtryk til bestemmelse af den effektive slankhed for gitterkonstruktion-
selementer afhængigt af deres slankhed, ekscentricitet og rand-betingelser. Specielt
bestemmelserne der vedrører randbetingelserne for vinkeljern er meget generelle og
overfladiske, til trods for at stivheden af samlingerne afhænger af deres udformning.
Det overordnet formål med dette projekt var at lave en sammenligning mellem de
førnævnte udtryk givet i standarden og resultater opnået under anvendelse af rotations
stivheder fundet ved en detaljeret FEM-analyse og siden hen påsat vinkeljern i en mere
overordnet ikke-lineær FEM-analyse. Et sekundært formål var at lave en sammen-
ligning mellem det kommercielle tårndesign program RAMTOWER og andre metoder
der indbefattede håndberegninger og FEM-analyse. Førnævnte sammenligninger blev
begge udført under anvendelse af et telekommunikationstårn. Ved at sammenligne den
effektive slankhed opnået under anvendelse af FEM-analyse og TIA-G standarden, er
det observeret at den ikke-lineære FEM-analyse har en tendens til at komme frem til
effektive slankheder der ligger lidt under det der er specificeret i TIA-G standarden
i tilfælde med svag-akse udknækning. Dog viser det meget begrænsede omfang af
eksperimentelt data der er tilgængeligt for stivhed af samlinger at FEM-modellerne,
der er anvendt i dette projekt, overestimerer samlingens stivhed, og derfor kan en ef-
fektiv slankhed der er større end hvad der er bestemt i dette projekt forventes, og som
dermed også ligger tættere på de værdier der er givet i TIA-G standarden for svag-akse
udknækning. Behovet for mere eksperimentelt data påpeges og områder der kræver
forsat forskning er udpeget. FEM-modellerne indikerer at samlingsstivheden ved ro-
tation afhænger af den betragtede rotationsakse, et fænomen der ikke er inkluderet
ved bestemmelsen af effektive slankheder i den nuværende TIA-G standard, som det
er tilfældet i andre standarder såsom EN1993-3-1. FEM-analysen bekræfter at der er
en forskel i de effektive slankheder, som bør anvendes for svag- og parallel-akse ud-
knækning, grundet forskelle i rotationsstivheden omkring de to akser der betragtes for
udknækning af vinkeljern (de to parallelle akser af profilet). FEM-analysen opnår ef-
fektive slankheder der er højere end hvad der er foreskrevet i TIA-G standarden, og
indikerer dermed at udtrykkene givet i standarden er på den usikre side i forbindelse
med parallel-akse udknækning af vinkeljern. Gennem grundig diskussion er det fun-
det at hvis FEM-modellerne kan kalibreres (gennem mere dybdegående forsøg med
stivhed af samlinger) til at kunne skildre rotationsstivheden af vinkeljernssamlinger,
kan rotationsstivhedsmodeller anvendes til at undersøge udknækning af gitterkonstruk-
tionselementer på et kommercielt niveau. Større infrastruktursprojekter med et stort
antal identiske tårne eller marginalt overudnyttede tårne, hvor udsigterne til en større
finansiel besparelse er til stede, er identificeret som det primære anvendelsesområde
for metoden.
Sammenligningen mellem RAMTOWER og andre metoder viste de forventede re-
sultater, hvorved afvigelsen i fordelingen af kræfter i gitteret mellem RAMTOWER og
FEM-analyse ikke var mere end 10 %. Ved at sammenligne de overordnet reaktioner fra
tårnet blev det fundet at det indarbejdede vind profil i RAMTOWER er tilstrækkeligt og
iht. ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005. Baseret på sammenligningens resultater betragtes RAM-
TOWER som et program der giver acceptable resultater, når simpliciteten hvormed at
tårne kan defineres og analyseres tages i betragtning.
Gennem det telekommunikationstårn der blev anvendt til overnævnte sammen-
ligninger, blev konsekvenserne af tårne med ikke-trianguleret gitter tydeliggjort. Fra et
8
Contents
Preface 3
Summary 5
Resumé 7
Introduction 13
3 Sample tower:
40m Medium duty Tower Design 25
3.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 Design loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3 Hand calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4 RAMTOWER Analysis 29
6 FEM-Analysis 55
6.1 Initial testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.1.1 Simple linear-buckling of angle bar members . . . . . . . . . 55
6.1.2 Linear-buckling load when considering lateral support provided
by incoming members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.1.3 Buckling load for members with eccentric load application . . 59
6.1.4 Non-linear analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.2 Model description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.3 Test runs of FEM-Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.3.1 Effects of secondary bracings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.3.2 Effects of non-fully triangulated hip bracing . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
7 Comparison 73
7.1 RAMTOWER, hand calculation and FEM-results . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.2 Buckling of members with joint stiffness results from FEM-analysis. . 76
8 Perspectives 83
9 Conclusion 85
A Literature 89
Square cross section A tower with a square cross section refers to the tower having
a square shape in a section in the tower horizontal plane, e.i. tower has four
legmembers
Staggered bracing Perpendicular bracings are connected to legmember at different
levels as apose to non-staggered where perpendicular bracings are connected
at same level
TIA-G Refers to the structural design standard for antenna supporting structures and
antennas: ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005
Web pattern Pattern formed by the bracing members of a tower
13
Introduction
With the rapid increase in the global population and constant development within
telecommunications, the need of electrical transmission and telecommunication towers
is greater than ever before. Especially in 3rd world countries these areas of infrastruc-
ture are in growth. The most common and applicable tower design in these countries is
the angle bar tower, square based self supporting lattice towers with legmembers and
bracings made from hot-rolled angle bar members.
Among the many advantages of the angle bar is its availability at suppliers, and the
ease at which it can be applied to form several types of lattice designs.
One area of optimization is the effective slenderness ratio considered for buckling
investigation on tower angle bar bracings. The structural standard ANSI/TIA-222-
G:2005 for telecommunication structures, provide designers with effective slenderness
ratio expressions which depend on the slenderness, eccentricity and end-restraints of
the member under investigation. Especially provisions related to the angle bar end-
restraints are of a very general and superficial nature, even though the stiffness of the
joints is totally dependent on their design.
The main objective of this project is to capture the rotational stiffness of a angle
bar joint by application of a detailed FEM model. The joint rotational stiffness model
obtained from this analysis is then to be applied to a more overall non-linear FEM-
analysis of various angle bar members, and the effective slenderness ratio based on the
buckling load of these members may then be compared with the TIA-G standard.
It should be stressed that it is not the scope of this project to develop new effective
slenderness ratio expressions for the TIA-G standard. As it will be illustrated in the
report the current expressions on effective slenderness are very general and easy to
apply for design calculations providing a fast and reliable result. The objective is rather
to investigate the gains by determining the effective slenderness of members, applied in
generic designs to be produced in large numbers such as transmission tower designs or
backbone telecommunication infrastructure, by application of this alternative method.
A secondary application is for design checks in relation to code revisions or increases in
tower design load. Rather than being forced to strengthen tower members, this method
could provide a alternative which might declare a design safe if only a marginal extra
capacity of the member is required.
The project deals with a sample telecommunication tower, but results may also be
applicable for transmission tower designs.
The project starts off by recapping some of the basic principles related to flexural
buckling of columns.
Next the overall provisions of the TIA-G standard is shortly presented and their
limitations highlighted. From the TIA-G standard RAMTOWER and hand calculations
are performed on the sample telecommunications tower.
14
Following is then the detailed analysis of a type joint by use of the FEM-program
Abaqus, from which a joint rotational stiffness model is acquired.
Finally a overall non-linear FEM-analysis of the sample tower is performed. On the
basis of buckling loads obtained from this analysis, effective slenderness ratios may be
calculated and compared with equivalent TIA-G provisions.
15
• Local Buckling failure: Member fails by local buckling of angle “leg” (refer to
figure 1).
• Flexural-Torsional Buckling failure: Member fails by simultaneous transverse
deflection normal to itself and twisting around its own axis (shear center of the
section).
Later it will be shown why local buckling failure and flexural-torsional buckling is not
relevant in relation to this project, and only flexural buckling of the bracing members
is to be considered. It should be mentioned that because of this emphasis on flexural
buckling, this type of failure may in the following just be referred to as buckling.
The development of the basic column buckling stability theory applied in today’s
standards, can to great extents be credited L.Euler (1707-1783). He originally solved
the case of the axially loaded the build-in column and published his findings in a book
he titled “Methodus inveniendi lineas curvas maximi minimive proprietate gaudentes”
in 1744. The critical Euler load is determined by solving a differential equation of the
deflection curve for an axially compressed column. The differential equation leads to a
general solution, which contains some integration constants. These constants are then
determined based on the boundary conditions of the column. The general expression
for determining the critical load (Euler’s formula) for an ideal column is given by:
π2 · E · I
Fcr = FE = (1)
le2
In this expression le refers to the effective buckling length of the ideal column,
which is governed by the boundary conditions. Effective column lengths are in general
determined by use of Engineering references, but as it will be shown later this is not
always sufficiently accurate, since the boundary conditions of a column are not ideal in
the real world.
Some also prefer a alternative expression of the Euler’s formula
(kl)2 · E · I
Fcr = FE = (2)
l2
where the value of kl is governed by the boundary conditions of the column.
16
Figure 1: Principal axis definitions for buckling for angle bar members
will briefly be presented below, since they are strongly tied to the provisions of today’s
structural standards.
Determining the critical buckling stress of an eccentrically loaded beam-column
is based on the Secant formula. Basically we are seeking a critical stress σc.Y P , for
which the extreme fibers in the beam-column reaches the yield point stress σY P , by the
expression:
r
e l σc.Y P
σY P = σc.Y P · 1 + · sec (3)
s 2r E
In the Secant formula given by expression (3), e is the eccentricity of the applied
axial compression force, s is the core radius2 , l is the geometric length, r is the radius
of gyration and E is the modulus of elasticity. By utilizing the Secant formulation,
curves for the critical stress dependent on the slenderness of the beam-column can be
developed for various eccentricities(quantified as a ratio to s) as it is done in figure 2a.
It should be noted that expression (3) only applies for members with same eccentricity
in load application at both ends. Timoshenko also deals with the case of beam-columns
subjected to load application with different eccentricities at the ends, expressing them
by the ratio β = eea , where ea and eb are the eccentricities at the ends. In the case of
b
varying eccentricities the critical stress σc.Y P is given by:
σY P
σc.Y P = (4)
1 + esa ψcosec(2u)
where q p
2u = kl = rl σEY P and ψ= β 2 − 2β cos(2u) + 1
For tower bracings this expression is mostly relevant in the case where β = 0 cor-
responding to a load application which is concentric at one end and eccentric at the
other. This would be the case for buckling of a member which is continuous at one
end and connected to other structural members by the methods previously described
at the other end. Buckling curves for member with β = 0 is given in figure 2b. Both
figures are based on and elastic modulus of 210.000MPa and a yield point stress of
σY P = 250MPa. For reference the buckling curve for the corresponding TIA-G case
is included in both figures, refer to section 2 here on. It should be mentioned that the
curves in TIA-G also includes imperfections and thus a complete comparison can not
be made. Also the expression 4 is not defined for β = 0, thus only values very close to
β = 0 can be applied.
2 Core radius s = AZ , where Z is the section modulus and A is the cross-sectional area.
18
150 Euler
TIA‐G curve 3
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Slenderness L/r [-]
150 Euler
TIA‐G curve 2
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Slenderness L/r [-]
Figure 2: Critical load curves for beam-column with various ratios of es compared to relevant
TIA-G buckling curve. Material parameters: fy = 250MPa and E = 210.000MPa
19
s
E w E
0.85 < ≤ 25 Fy0 = 0.0332 · π 2 ·
Fy t w 2
t
According to the standard the width to thickness ratio should not exceed 25.
P = Pn · φc
where
Pn = Ag · Fcr
φc = 0.9
where
r
K ·L Fy0
λc = ·
r·π E
Ag = gross area of member [mm2 ]
K = effective length factor
L = laterally unbraced length of member [mm]
r = governing radius of gyration about the axis of buckling [mm]
Figure 3: Is the buckling resistance of angle bar members with these end-restraints (connections)
the same? Yes according to the TIA-G standard. 2 bolts (left), 3 bolts (center) and
welding (right)
Effective slenderness
Curve Slenderness Parameter
expression
L
KL L
1 r < 120 Concentric at both ends. r = r
KL
L = 30 + 0.75 · Lr
2 r < 120 Concentric at one end and normal r
framing eccentricity at the other.
KL
L = 60 + 0.50 · Lr
3 r < 120 Eccentric at both ends. r
L
KL L
4 r ≥ 120 Unrestrained against rotation. r = r
KL
L = 28.6 + 0.762 · Lr
5 r ≥ 120 Partially restrained against rotation r
at one end and unrestrained at the
other.
KL
L = 46.2 + 0.615 · Lr
6 r ≥ 120 Partially restrained against rotation r
at both ends.
Table 1: Parameters for selection of relevant effective slenderness ratio expression for bracing
members in TIA-222-G:2005 (Curve 1 to 6 refers to the curves in figure 4a)
22
160
140
Eccentricity governs
120
100
80
60 End‐restraint governs
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Slenderness L/r [-]
150
100
50
0
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
Effective slenderness KL/r [-]
(b) TIA-G buckling curve compared to Euler and EN1993-1-1. Material parame-
ters: fy = 250MPa and E = 210.000MPa
3 Sample tower:
40m Medium duty Tower Design
In order for the project to be as specific as possible a Medium duty Tower Design
was considered. This would not only give an impression of the possible gains by the
methods developed through this project, but also keep the project at a level at which the
methods developed are practically realistic to implement for future design calculations.
Finally the sample tower design could contribute with a realistically proportioned tower
in regards to member sizes, joint details and outer geometry.
In the following the sample tower is shortly described and in the last part of the section
a traditional hand calculation of the sample tower is presented. This will not only
illustrate the application of the TIA-G standard described in section 2, but also the
traditional methods which has been applied before more computational methods were
introduced to the design of lattice towers. Finally the hand calculations were also to
serve the comparison of force distribution with results given by RAMTOWER.
3.1 Description
The sample tower is a 40m so-called “Medium duty” tower, medium referring to its
equipment bearing capacity. It consists of 13 sections, with non-staggered X-bracing
patterns. The 4 top sections are parallel in order to accommodate fixture of telecommu-
nication equipment. The 3 bottom sections are fitted with several secondary bracings,
including internal hip-bracing.
If the hip-bracing is studied more closely it is seen to conflict with the provisions
in TIA-G in regards to complete triangulation of the lattice web pattern. Consequences
of this will be illustrated and discussed at a later stage of the project.
A overall layout drawing of the tower is included as Appendix B
Effective projected
Load description Level Shielding
wind area (EPA)
1 No. 2.4m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna 38.75m 0% 4m2
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
1 No. 1.8m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna 38.75m 30% 1.6m2
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
5 Nos. 1.2m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna 31.25m 50% 4m2
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
3 Nos. CDMA Panel Antenna
33.75m 0% 3m2
(2.62mx0.37m)
9 Nos. GSM Panel Antenna
33.75m 30% 3.78m2
(1.917mx0.262m)
Cable & Access Ladder 2
(Along tower center line)
0 − 35m Complete 0.3 mm
shielding
from
35-40m
Figure 6: Relevant wind load directions for design of towers with square cross sections.
29
4 RAMTOWER® Analysis
RAMTOWER® is a commercial software developed by Ramboll Telecom for the de-
sign and analysis of self-supporting lattice towers. The program features analysis of
towers with triangular or square cross-sections, composed of a wide variety of lattice
and member types.
Other than the force distribution performed by the RAMTOWER analysis, which
was going to be compared with other methods, the analysis was also used to establish
wind areas of the tower body, to be applied in the hand calculation of the sample tower
previously described. Large deviations between the RAMTOWER analysis and hand
calculation is not expected, since both methods assume that the tower is a statically
determinate structure.
The basic assumptions and analysis concept of RAMTOWER is shortly described
in the following:
RAMTOWER is a Visual Basic Application (VBA) based tower analysis and de-
sign software. The program considers the tower as a cantilever beam(free at one end
and fixed at the other) with relevant loads(it be horizontal or vertical from tower body,
appurtenances, ice etc.) applied at relevant levels. For this beam model is then cal-
culated moment, shear and normal force at the top and bottom of each tower section,
upon which axial forces in section members (by equilibrium equations at the center of
each section) is determined. RAMTOWER can consider sections containing multiple
diagonal members (of same profile type), determining member forces only for the bot-
tom member of the section. All this is done while assuming that the tower lattice is
statically determinant, a assumption which is not always correct since a tower some-
times contain horizontal or other members yielding it statically indeterminate. During
the development of RAMTOWER thorough comparisons with FEM-models were per-
formed and these yielded no more than 10% deviation in distribution of section forces.
RAMTOWER is programmed with common structural standards within the telecom-
munication tower industry incorporated, defining wind-profiles, buckling curves, ice-
loads, default safety factors and material parameters. On several occasions throughout
its more than 12 years of existence3 , RAMTOWER has proved itself as a simple and
fast tool, obtaining results with good accuracy.
The analysis of the sample tower was performed according the TIA-G standard,
when considering buckling curves, safety factors etc. Two different RAMTOWER
analysis were performed: One with a model loaded by the windprofile which is defined
within the program for the TIA-G standard and another model considering point loads,
related to wind on the tower body and appurtenances found in the hand calculation,
defined at the relevant levels in the RAMTOWER model. The differences between
the results obtained from these two models are treated in section 7. For the model
which applied the incorporated wind profile, wind load from secondary bracings had to
be calculated by hand and then included as additional section wind areas, since RAM-
TOWER can not consider bracing patterns containing secondary members. Calculation
of the additional wind load from secondary bracings is given in Appendix AR.C. For
both models the restraint against buckling provided by the secondary bracings had to
be taken into account by effective column length reduction factors in the analysis. A
automatically generated design report from RAMTOWER is given in Appendix AR.A
and AR.B for each of the two models considered.
3 RAMTOWER was initially introduced with the name XLMAST
30
Parameter Value
Bolt size M16
Hole clearance 1.6mm
Bolt torque 114.27kNmm
Angle bar type L100x100x6
5.3 Contact
Modeling the contact between the different model parts is one of the most critical
processes. If contact is improperly modeled, results of the analysis will most definitely
not reflect the real life behavior of the joint. The model consist of various surfaces in
contact . These can be categorized as:
• Contact between bolt head, nut and shank to the surface of the two angle bar
members and their holes.
• Contact between the angle bars
The contact surfaces may be viewed in figure 8. A contact pair in Abaqus consist of
2 surfaces, one referred to as a slave and the other a master. The major difference be-
tween these two is that the slave surface may not penetrate the master, but the master
33
(b) Angle bar contact surface for bolt head, nut (c) Angle bar to angle bar contact surface
and shank
can penetrate the slave surface (between the nodes of the slave surface), thus it is rec-
ommended5 that the slave surface is the more finely meshed of the two surfaces. In
the case of contact between the bolt and angle bar surfaces, the bolt was defined as the
master surface and the angle bar made slave. In the case of the contact between the two
angle bars, one of the angle bars was of course to be of master type and the other of
slave type.
The master and slave surface is gathered in a interaction6 , to which is assigned a
interaction property. In this case two relevant properties were considered: Tangential
and Normal behavior of the contact surface interaction. For tangential behavior was
defined a frictional coefficient of 0.4 and the allowable elastic slip, refer to [4], was set
to a absolute distance of 0.05mm with zero stiffness. Normal behavior was defined as
“hard”. This property assumes that constraints related to contact can only occur, when
the surfaces are touching (no sticking between the contact surfaces).
Figure 9: Springs between bolt and hole for convergence during slip. Angle bar material is
shaded and bolt material crossed. Cut through bolt shank(left) and cut through the
entire length of the bolt (right).
body motion). In order for the FEM iterations to converge the following steps (other
than the mandatory “initial step”) were applied:
• “Establish bolt tension” - Bolt tension is established by applying bolt load.
• “Load - region 1” - Load until joint is close to slipping.
• “Load - region 2” - Close to constant load during joint slip.
Figure 10: Nodes for displacement history output requests (marked by red dots)
(b) BC’s for angle bar in step “Initial” (Only one angle bar shown)
(b) BC’s on model for steps: “Load - region 1”,“Load - region 2” and “Load - region 3”
Figure 12: Boundary conditions(Marked orange) for steps: “Load - region 1”,“Load - region 2”
and “Load - region 3”
39
5.6 Loads
5.6.1 Bolt load for tensioning of bolt
The joint bolts were modeled as a solid bolt model (with head and nut) a method
recommended by Jeong Kim et. al. in [8] to give the best imitation of real bolt behavior
(although larger computational effort is required). The magnitude of the force which
is imposed by the prescribed torque (listed in table 3) was calculated on the basis of
formulas given in [15]:
2MA
FM = (5)
1.155µG d2 + µK Dkm + πP
dk is the inside diameter of the contact surface (diameter of bolt hole) dk = 17.6mm
DB is the outside diameter of the contact surface (bolt head outside diameter) DB =
27.7mm
From (5) a tension force in the bolt of 11kN or 54.7MPa (for bolt as a solid ø16 rod) is
obtained.
The actual tensioning of the bolt was achieved by means of imposing a Abaqus
“bolt load” in a plane at the center of the bolt shank as illustrated on figure 13. This
bolt load will cause the bolt to obtain internal stresses due to contact pressure between
the bolt-head/nut and angle bars.
Figure 14: Principal force-displacement curve for joint slip (For linear-elastic material, with no
plasticity)
where
n is the number of friction planes for one of the adjoined members, n = 4
FM is the tension force of the bolt obtained from expression (5), FM = 11kN
µ is the coefficient of friction of the adjoined surfaces, µ = 0.4
According to expression (7) slip is initiated when the applied force exceeds Fcr =
17.6kN corresponding to a uniform pressure of 15.12MPa on the angle bar cross-
section.
A load interval somewhat below and above this approximate slip value was then
applied to the step “Load - region 2” in the initial test runs of the joint model. Load
intervals was however slightly modified by viewing results from some of these initial
test runs. A model which would reflect the real joint slip behavior would have a dis-
placement curve as illustrated in figure 14(when neglecting plasticity). In the initial
model with the previously stated axial load pressure interval, the transition from the
friction region (region 1) to the slip region(region 2) was more sudden (no rounding
of curve), indicating that the prescribed load in the step “Load - region 2” was not
sufficient to cause slip and slip was therefore initiated in step “Load - region 3” where
the load increases dramatically between each increment. The axial load interval of the
FEM model was shifted in a number of trials until a smooth transition from from “Load
- region 1” to “Load - region 2” step was obtained resembling figure 14.
As a result of this the following final load steps were applied for the model:
• “Load - region 1” - Load interval:0 − 15.8MPa
41
5.7 Meshing
For the model was used a combination of 20-node quadratic hex and hex dominated
elements (Abaqus type: C3D20). According to [4] “reduced integration” elements
may cause convergence problems for contact analysis, and hence full integration was
considered (convergence problems was experienced for reduced integration elements
in some of the initial trials). Special attention was paid to the mesh around the bolt
hole, applying a fine symmetric mesh of hex type. The mesh of bolts and angle bars
may be viewed in figure 15
(b) Angle bar mesh (Only one angle bar shown - mesh is identical for the two angle bars)
• The idealized curve is derived from several sets of experimental data and must
also obscure any “noise” on measurements.
However differences between the two methods, due to different bolt grades, should
not appear in the elastic FEM-analysis, and still this analysis indicates same elastic
stiffness behavior as the two models containing plastic properties. Analysis with bolts
of perfect plastic material and a yield strength of 640MPa (yield strength most likely to
correspond to the bolts applied in the tests) shows no changes in stiffness, and it may
therefore be concluded that in this case yielding of the angle bar holes by far gives the
largest contribution to the reduction in joint stiffness. Plots of the plastic strains in the
bolts confirms this observation, since no plastic strains are observed in the shank of the
bolts (which would lead to substantial axial deformation.), plastic strains only occurs
in bolt head and nut, due to contact pressure with the angle bar surface.
It seems reasonable (as indicated by the FEM-model) that if a perfectly circular bolt
shank, goes into bearing with a perfectly circular hole, the area which initially presses
against the hole, will be of infinite size, an thus produce yield stresses in the hole almost
43
80
60
40
20
0
0,00E+00 5,00E‐01 1,00E+00 1,50E+00 2,00E+00 2,50E+00 3,00E+00
Joint deflection [mm]
Figure 16: Deformation curve for idealized experimental and FEM-model results (Parts of the
“Elastic” and “Plastic w. hardening” work curves are obscured by the work curve for
the “Perfectly plastic”.)
Figure 17: Plastic strains in bolts of perfect plastic material with yield strength 640MPa for joint
under axial load (zero plastic strain colored blue)
instantaneously. Also residual stresses from punching or drilling of bolt holes in the
testspecimens, may produce a difference (This is not captured in the current FEM-
model), since the material around the holes may start to yield earlier than anticipated
by the FEM-model.
All these factors may inflict on the experimental data, yielding a lower stiffness of
the test specimen joint, than what can be obtained by a simple FEM-model as described
here.
80
60
40
20
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
Joint deflection [mm]
(a) Discontinuities in angle bar with probed nodes (the neglected areas, primarily corners, are remove for remaining
discontinuities to be clearly visible).
Figure 19: Stress discontinuities in type joint FEM-model for the material model “plastic w.
hardening”.
47
Table 4: Probed V. Mise stress discontinuities in nodes selected from contour plots compared
with actual stress values.
bolt head and nut was examined. The purpose of this test was to ensure that the contact
formulation between head, nut and angle bars were tight, e.i. contact between the parts
would be established almost instantly. Both test yielded satisfying results.
sponding to the greatest dimension of the area over which the load system is applied.
49
Figure 20: Modified axial load application on type joint for rotational stiffness (axial load only
on bolted leg of angle bar)
likely because the joint bolts are then forced to transfer this shear between the two parts
of the joint. This is however found acceptable for the RY rotation since the stiffness
of this rotation is much lower than for the RX rotation. The method by which moment
is applied for RX rotation may be observed not to produce any shear to be transferred
by the joint bolts. This behavior is considered to be more realistic w.r.t. rotation of the
joint due to buckling deformation.
where
X2
Y2 = X2+X1
Y 1+Y 2
50
(a) Joint rotation stiffness model load application: Prescribed displacement for RY (left) and force couples from
surface traction for RX (right)
Figure 22: Method of retrieving rotation (v) based on joint nodal displacements (X1 and X2)
shown for RX rotation.
and
The joint moment was obtained as described in previous subsection 5.10.3 for each
of the two load types.
From these considerations the work curves illustrated in figure23, was obtained for
rotation about both parallel axis of the joint. It should be mentioned that the RY rotation
has been corrected from a initial rotation caused by the very small eccentricity in axial
load application, by subtracting this initial rotation from all the obtained results.
The influence of the size of the joint axial load has also been investigated, by in-
creasing the initial axial load of 70MPa to 100MPa as illustrated on figure 24. In this
case the increase in axial load increases the RX rotational stiffness, this may however
not always be the case, illustrating that for determining joint stiffness it is important
to consider realistic magnitudes of axial loading. The magnitude of the applied axial
load is considered to have a minor influence on RY rotational stiffness, thus it is not
included in figure 24.
For the rotational model no slip occurs (as it was the case for the axial model),
since bolts are already in bearing once the member attempts to rotate due to transverse
deflection from axial buckling load. In the FEM-model perfect conditions is assumed in
relation to the distance between bolt holes, e.i. spacing of holes in the two members are
exactly the same, resulting in both bolts going into bearing at exactly the same time. In
reality this spacing will not be the same, as one of the bolts will go into bearing before
the other resulting in a loss in rotational stiffness. However if the joint is not highly
over-designed (yielding of the hole initiated before failure of bolts), local yielding of
the hole for the bolt in bearing will result in both bolts going into bearing at an early
stage of axial loading for normal hole sizes.
It is seen that from the FEM-analysis results, stiffness data is available for a rotation
interval of 0 − 0.07rad. By simple calculations of joint rotation for a sine shaped
L
deflection field it is indicated that a joint rotation of 0.07rad is reached at some 45 of
transverse deformation, where L is the geometric length of the buckling member. Such
a transverse deformation of the member would normally be assimilated with failure of
52
1,5
0,5
0
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,1
Joint rotation [rad]
Figure 23: FEM-model deformation curve for rotation about the 2 parallel axis of the type joint
(RX and RY )
3,5
2,5
F [kNm]
Figure 24: Type joint rotational stiffness dependent on axial load applied to joint. (Not consid-
ered for rotation RY )
53
the member, and therefore the stiffness data interval is considered to be sufficient.
55
6 FEM-Analysis
For the analysis of the sample tower the commercial FEM program: AUTODESK
ROBOT Structural Analysis Professional 2011(In the following referred to as ROBOT)
was applied.
The FEM-analysis was to serve several purposes:
• Analysis of entire sample tower structure for comparison of forces and reactions
with RAMTOWER analysis and hand calculation
• Monitor the effects of non-triangulated hip bracing
• Monitor effects of including joint stiffness, from detailed FEM-analysis to single
section analysis.
• Compare results from single section analysis with TIA-G provisions, especially
when considering the effective slenderness ratio.
Soft-copies of all ROBOT FEM-models applied in this project are given in Appendix
F.
verify the initial result beyond any doubt. To the original model was added a support at
mid-span, as illustrated on figure 25, restraining the member from buckling by its en-
tire length about one of the parallel axis. This forced buckling modes about the minor
axis to consider only half of the column length for buckling, thus resulting in buckling
about the non-restrained parallel axis to be most critical. Initial buckling mode for this
model, when using major/minor profile type was about the parallel axis, thus yielding
the following results on tests of the ROBOT Linear buckling analysis:
• Only major/minor axis profiles are capable of achieving buckling modes about
the major, minor and parallel axis. Parallel axis profiles only contain the two
parallel axis moment of inertias and can thus only consider modes about these
two axis. In the following the major/minor axis profile may be referred to as a
main axis profile.
This result however posed a problem, since the releases of a angle bar bracing would
normally be defined about the parallel axis, as it has been done through the Abaqus
analysis of the previous section. For a normal truss analysis this would not pose any
problem, since full rotational release would be defined in both directions, but if analysis
was to consider different release stiffness in the two directions the major/minor axis
profile would not be able to accommodate this. To solve the problem a “modified
beam” element was applied. The beam element is a main axis profile with a very short
parallel axis profile attached to each end. The connection between the two profile types
was defined as fully fixed and the short parallel axis profile accommodated correct
definition of member releases in regards to the actual physical conditions of a bracing
joint, previously obtained from the type joint analysis. The modified beam element
may be viewed in figure 26
In order to determine the influence of the short parallel axis profile, at both ends
of the main axis profile, on the overall buckling load, a simple convergence test was
performed. The test was performed on a simply supported axially loaded angle bar,
by initially considering a parallel axis profile of very short length compared to the
overall length of the member. The length of the parallel axis profile was then increased
and each buckling load was viewed with respects to the buckling load of a plain main
axis profile, e.i. without any parallel axis profile at the ends. A curve of the buckling
load convergence with parallel axis profile relative length8 may be viewed in figure 27.
Convergence test shows that a relative length of the parallel profile of 4.0% yields a
completely accurate result.
Finally the modified beam element buckling load was determined, when consider-
ing the two axes at both ends of the member being either released, fixed or one axis
fixed and one released at both ends. By doing so the modified beam element buckling
loads given in table 5 was obtained. This table also raise confidence that the axis defi-
nitions of the small parallel beam segment is working properly, since for one axis fixed
and the other released at both ends of the member a buckling load and mode between
the principal loads and modes is obtained.
of the column.
57
Figure 25: Position and orientation of support at mid-span for provoking parallel axis buckling
for the beam-column element.
Figure 26: ROBOT model of the modified beam element with local axis definitions
22,9
Fcr [kN]
2,0% 22,8
22,7
1,0%
1 0% 22,6
22 6
22,5
0,0% 22,4
0,0% 2,0% 4,0% 6,0% 8,0% 10,0% 12,0% 14,0% 16,0%
Parallel axis profile rel. length [%]
Figure 27: Buckling load convergence with parallel axis profile relative length for the modified
beam element. Test specimen: L50x50x5 L=2000mm.
58
Table 5: Critical Euler load for modified beam element considering various modes and end-restraints.
Test specimen: L50x50x5 L=2000mm. E=200000MPa
Figure 28: ROBOT complex buckling model, “main member” is horizontal with applied nodal
load (brown letters at the center of the member are release definition codes)
releases applied to the buckling and supporting members was studied, for later appli-
cation in the sample tower model.
A “main member” was modeled as a simply supported beam, with incoming mem-
bers providing support for deflection perpendicular to the beam length. Members were
modeled with angle bar sections (of main axis type) and support is provided in such a
way, that deflection at mid-span is not possible whether it be about the major, minor
or parallel axis. Model may be seen to resemble a part of a tower section, whereas
the “main member” would be a legmember in compression, and incoming members
be various tower bracings. The complex buckling model is illustrated in figure 28.The
more complex buckling analysis yielded the following results:
• Critical buckling modes calculated in ROBOT for the more complex restraint
configuration showed correct results concerning buckling length and load factor,
when considering main axis profiles.
(a) Non-linear model with transverse loading (b) Non-linear model with non-linear rotational spring re-
leases
the case (as will be illustrated later). For this non-linear analysis the Newton-Raphson
method was applied, which provides no information about the deformation and bearing
capacity state of the compressed member after buckling (largest bearing capacity) has
occurred. Columns are normally considered to be postbuckling neutral9 , e.i. the com-
pression capacity of the column, does not increase after buckling of the member has
occurred. For both models deflection at midspan in the expected direction of buckling
failure (weak axis failure expected, refer to figure 29) was monitored for each incre-
ment of the non-linear analysis, and plotted against the total applied axial load in the
same increment.
For the model with transverse load in figure 29a, two different transverse loadvalues
were considered.
For the beam-column with non-linear spring releases a joint rotational stiffness
model, defined by a curve with the same properties as the curve “FEM-RX - Plastic
w. hardening 70MPa” shown on figure 23 in section 5, was applied. The non-linear
release was defined at both ends of the specimen for rotation about the weak axis of
the profile (refer to figure 29b). In both models a axial load was applied and a non-
linear analysis was performed. To cross check load values a linear buckling analysis
was exercised for the same models. The transverse deformation of both models for
increasing axial load may be viewed in figure 30. I should be mentioned that for the
curve in figure 30b, deformations from the analysis is very small, and therefore some
decimals are lost in the postprocessing facilities of ROBOT, leaving the result curve
9 According to Lars Damkilde in [6].
61
with a stepwise expression. If all decimals could be extracted from ROBOT the curve
would be more smooth as it is the case in figure 30a.
In order to have some kind of reference outside ROBOT a secondary check of the
linear buckling value for the non-linear spring released model was performed. Timo-
shenko deals with simply supported, elastic end-restrained beam-columns in [17]. The
buckling parameter kl for a beam-column of this type, which appears in the general
expression of the critical buckling load (Euler load) may be found from the expression:
tan kl2
2·E ·I
kl
=− (9)
2
α ·l
This load value is seen to correspond to the load value obtained by the ROBOT
linear-buckling analysis as illustrated on figure 30b and stated in table 7.
It is seen that the non-linear analysis arrives at a lower buckling value than what
is anticipated by the linear-buckling analysis. This is in good agreement with the dif-
ferences between the two types of analysis. The linear-buckling analysis assumes the
end-restraint stiffness curve to have the same slope as the initial part of the curve (as
it was assumed in the cross-check with above expressions by Timoshenko - therefore
the two methods arrives at the same result). The non-linear analysis updates the stiff-
ness matrix for each load increment updating the stiffness of the end-restraints with the
data provided by the curve. Since the slope of the stiffness curve decreases as rotation
is increased the non-linear analysis will gradually experience a loss in end-restraint
stiffness, and hence arrive at a lower critical load as the overall load is increased.
As previously mentioned the non-linear analysis does not provide a critical buck-
ling load as was the case for the linear buckling analysis. The critical load should be
based on acceptable transverse deflections of the member i compression. In the case
of the transversely loaded beam-column, loadvalues at a out-of-plane displacement of
L/1000 (2mm) and L/100 (20mm) are given in table 6 for the two different values
of transverse loading. These load values should be compared with the Euler load for
linear buckling of Fcr = 22.44kN, indicated by percentage enclosed by () in the table.
From tests performed on the ROBOT non-linear analysis facilities, it is concluded
that ROBOT is capable of providing reasonable results from beam-column members
with transverse loading and non-linear release definitions. Hence ROBOT fulfills the
requirements of the project.
62
20
15
F [kN]
10
ROBOT 0.5kN
5 ROBOT 1kN
Linear buckling
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Deformation [mm]
140
120
100
80
60 ROBOT ‐ Non‐linear end‐restraints
ROBOT Non linear end restraints
40 ROBOT ‐ Ideal full release
20 ROBOT ‐ Non‐linear end‐restraints (Euler)
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
Deformation [mm]
Table 6: Loadvalues for L/1000 and L/100 of out-of-plane displacement for transversely loaded
beam-column models analyzed i ROBOT. Percentage enclosed by () is the non-linear
load value with respects to the Euler load from linear buckling (Fcr = 22.44kN).
63
Table 7: Critical load from linear-buckling and non-linear analysis of beam-column with non-
linear end-restraint definition, compared with linear buckling for unrestrained beam-
column.
• A model of bottom section no. 13 of the sample tower with pin connected brac-
ings - Referred to as Model B
• A model of bottom section no. 13 of the sample tower with semi-rigid connected
bracings, by application of type joint rotational stiffness results - Referred to as
Model C
Model A was used to compare forces and reactions obtained from RAMTOWER anal-
ysis and hand calculation of the sample tower described in section 3 and may be viewed
in figure 32.
The purpose of the models B and C was to study the influence of semi-rigid con-
nected bracings in the tower structure. Previous studies by Kang et al. [18] indicate
large effects of rigid connections on tower horizontal load capacity. However the mod-
els presented in these studies only consider fully pinned, in-plane pinned and fully
rigid connections, neither of them reflecting the actual behavior of the bracing joints.
The models B and C were limited to only consider section 13 of the sample tower,
instead additional features to increase the accuracy of the models were implemented
(compared to Model A).
Geometry of the sample tower was initially gathered as a 3D model in AUTODESK
AutoCAD 2011. Geometry was then imported to ROBOT for analysis. Members were
defined as type “beam”, and angle bar sections were assigned as per drawing in Ap-
pendix B. A lot of attention was paid to ensure that the orientation of the angle bar
principle axis was correctly defined, i order to obtain correct buckling modes during
analysis (for Models B and C).
For loading of the tower methods similar to the ones in the hand calculation was ap-
plied, thus wind load on tower sections was applied as nodal loads equally distributed
to all four legmembers at top and bottom of each section. The same method applied
for vertical loading from tower self-weight and appurtenances. Only the 0 degree wind
load case was considered for all three models (refer to figure 6 and 32). Since Models
B and C only contained one section the loading from the above tower structure was
applied in the following manner: A copy of the Model A was made, and the bottom
section no. 13 removed. Supports were then moved to the new bottom part of the tower,
were it had previously been connected to the top of section no. 13. A linear static anal-
ysis was then performed and the reactions in the supports noted. These reactions were
then added to the top of the legmembers in the Models B and C. All this was done in
64
Figure 31: Layout of tower FEM-model releases and angle bar orientations - releases (pinned or
semi-rigid) indicated by an empty circle - LI and LO indicating leg of angle bar being
in to or out of the plane respectively.
The bottom section legmembers are supported by fixed supports to simulate the
angle bar being cast-in to the concrete foundation as proposed by Kang et al. [18].
For the Model A a simple “linear static analysis” was performed, whereas for model
B and C a “non-linear static analysis” had to be applied, since model C was defined
with non-linear releases.
To the Models B and C some additional features were included, as previously men-
tioned.
At main bracing cross-over point a ROBOT compatible nodes property was in-
cluded. This was done to connect nodes from both diagonal members at the crossover
point, so that translation of these nodes are the same, but no rotation(moment) can be
transferred between them. This is a realistic property compared with actual conditions,
where cross-bracings are usually connected with a single bolt at the cross-over point.
Furthermore the two models where modeled by applying the “modified beam element”
65
Figure 32: Rendering of Model A (left) and common illustration of load application and release
definitions for section no. 13 for Models A, B and C (right)
as described in subsection 6.1.1. The modified beam element was however not applied
to leg, horizontal and secondary members, since these members was considered fully
pin released at all times as previously mentioned, i.e. free rotation about both principle
axes. Main and secondary bracing members were divided into 2 separate members in
each span (excluding the small parallel axis profile at each end.), to improve ROBOT’s
approximation of the sine shaped deflection field by use of 3. order polynomials. Hor-
izontal members were however divided into 3 members in each span.
The TIA-G effective slenderness ratio expressions given in table 1, is not considered
to include imperfections of any kind. Since the scope would be to compare effective
slenderness ratios, based on critical buckling loads obtained from non-linear analysis
of the models B and C, with the expressions given in the TIA-G standard, imperfec-
tions needed not to be included in the analysis. The models B and C may be viewed in
figure 32.
• FEM-model (nodal)**: Secondary bracings are not considered active in the anal-
ysis (eliminated from stiffness matrix), same assumption as in RAMTOWER and
hand calculation.
The differences in the results from these two models is treated further in section 7
Hip bracing Buckling mode axis Buckling capacity Hip bracing net-weight
None Parallel 34.5 kN 0 kg
Non-triangulated Parallel 52.7 kN 50 kg
Triangulated Minor 62.1 kN 350 kg
Table 8: Buckling capacity and weight of hip bracing for 0 degree wind load case for the 3 section
models
For transparency only horizontal loading from wind on the section itself was applied
during this study (loading from the tower body above the section is not included).
The buckling mode axis and critical buckling load from linear-buckling analysis for
all three models is given in table 8 along with net-weight of steel used for hip bracings.
In order to achieve full triangulation of the internal hip bracing several members
were added to the hip bracing as well as plan-bracing at diagonal cross-over point as
illustrated on figure 34. The slenderness ratio Lr of each new member is enclosed by
() on the figure and should be no larger than 250 as specified by [4.4.2] in TIA-G for
secondary members. From table 8 it is seen that there is actually a reasonable gain in
buckling capacity by providing non-triangulated hip bracing, compared to the weight
of the steel material consumed.
Finally in order to complete this study the effects of providing non-triangulated
hip bracing for wind load cases other than 0 degree must be considered, hence section
was exposed to a 45 degree wind load case (load case usually considered for design of
towers with square cross sections). In order for this study to be as realistic as possible,
loads from the 0 degree case was converted to 45 degree. In TIA-G [table 2-6] is
given a “wind direction factor”, a factor by which the 0 degree wind load should be
multiplied in order to obtain the 45 degree wind load (since wind resistance of the
tower body is larger for 45 than 0 degree wind). The factor is dependent on the solidity
(ε) of the tower section, e.i. the ratio between the wind face area of structural elements
and wind face area of the section gross section(refer to hand calculation in Appendix
AR.D), however the factor should be no larger than 1.2, a factor which will be assumed
in the following study. Factored 0 deg loads are projected in the 2 global horizontal
directions of the model (to form a 45 degree load), and added to section nodes by the
same principle as for the 0 degree case.
The buckling mode and load for the 45 degree load case was of parallel type. No
additional capacity was achieved by providing the non-triangulated hip bracings in the
45 degree case compared to section with no hip-bracings at all. This “loss” in capacity
is caused by the member perpendicular to the wind direction for the 0 degree case, now
in fact being in compression, hence not providing any restraint to the considered mem-
ber. As illustrated in table 9 the difference between the diagonal member compression
force for the 0 and 45 degree load case is limited. Since the buckling capacity for the
45 is less than the 0 degree wind load case, the total gain in capacity by providing non-
triangulated hip bracing may be considered to be the difference between the section
forces for the 2 cases, thus in the order of 15% in this study. This increase in capacity
should be viewed with respects to the design effort which must be invested to include
bending in the perpendicular bracing for the section with non-triangulated hip bracing
in the 0 degree wind load case (and perhaps also other cases).
The above study exemplifies the importance of triangulated primary as well as sec-
ondary bracing. Buckling capacity of non triangulated lattice is almost impossible to
68
Table 9: Results of linear-buckling analysis of non-triangulated section for 0 and 45 deg wind
load case
The focus on bending in tower members from non-triangulated bracings, may raise
the question whether considering the rigidity of bracing member end-restraints (such
as it is intended in this project) also will impose bending. However previous studies
by e.g. Roy et al. [16] indicates that local secondary bending stresses from connection
rigidity and member continuity is limited, conditioned that the tower structure has rea-
sonable geometric proportions. It is however also that secondary stresses will increase
as tower height and width increases. This is however not considered to be the case for
the sample tower and therefore secondary bending stresses from connection rigidity
need not be considered in this project.
69
(a) Top view of tower section no. 13, with indication of detail and direction of
load (red arrow)
Hip bracing
Restraining member
Failing
diagonal
member
(b) Detail of main diagonal member buckling failure with bracing perpendic-
ular to wind restraining the member through non-triangulated hip-bracing.
Figure 33: Buckling failure of section with non-triangulated hip bracing. (brown silhouette is
the deformation of the failure mode)
70
Figure 34: Members added in order to triangulate the non-triangulated hip bracing (dashed
lines). Slenderness of each member is enclosed by ()
6.4 Results
In the following the results of the three ROBOT FEM-models are presented.
For the Model A containing the entire sample tower structure, the most relevant
results were the compression forces in tower legmembers and diagonal bracings. Fur-
thermore overall reactions from tower was also extracted from the analysis. These
results along with the results of the hand calculation and RAMTOWER analysis may
be viewed in Appendix C. A comparison between the results obtained by the different
methods, and further discussion of the results may be found in section 7.
For the analysis of the Models B and C, the results consisted of buckling loads for
diagonal failure in the section. During the non-linear analysis of the Models B and C
it turned out that the forces from the above tower structure combined with the loading
on the section itself was not sufficient to cause buckling failure of the section. Hence
the loads on the sections were equally factored until a failure occurred in the analysis
(ROBOT could not longer form equilibrium in all increments of the non-linear analy-
sis). As expected both sections failed by parallel buckling of the diagonal members in
the bottom span (below cross-over point). The axial compression forces in the diago-
nals at failure may be viewed in table 10, for the Models B and C.
71
Table 10: Results from non-linear ROBOT analysis of Models B and C. Maximum displacement
is measured at midspan of the failing member in the parallel direction (failure mode).
7 Comparison
7.1 RAMTOWER, hand calculation and FEM-results
In this section the distribution of forces in the sample tower calculated by application of
RAMTOWER, hand calculations and the FEM-program ROBOT is compared. Several
different models were considered within each method:
Sec 9
Sec 8
Error on the Error on the
safe side unsafe side
Sec 7
Sec 6
Sec 5
Sec 4
Sec 3
Sec 2
Sec 1
Figure 35: Relative deviation on diagonal member compression force found by alternative meth-
ods compared to a RAMTOWER regular analysis. (Dotted red line indicates a 10%
relative error on the unsafe side, which is normally considered to be the maximum
error between RAMTOWER and FEM)
75
RAMTOWER (nodal)
Sec 11
RAMTOWER (regular)
Sec 10 Hand calc.
Sec 9
Sec 8
Error on the Error on the
Sec 7
safe side unsafe side
Sec 6
Sec 5
Sec 4
Sec 3
Sec 2
Sec 1
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Relative error from regular RAMTOWER analysis [%]
Figure 36: Relative deviation on legmember compression force found by alternative methods
compared to a RAMTOWER regular analysis. (Dotted red line indicates a 10% rela-
tive error on the unsafe side, which is normally considered to be the maximum error
between RAMTOWER and FEM)
76
• The psychical distribution of loads on the tower section relies on the local design
of appurtenance struts, hence the RAMTOWER regular analysis may in some
cases be more accurate.
That the deviations are cause by differences in loadapplication assumptions, is also
confirmed by viewing the hand calculation and RAMTOWER nodal analysis. For these
two methods the relative error is of same magnitude, e.i. they are arriving at the same
results.
At the lower sections there are some deviations between the regular RAMTOWER
analysis and the FEM results. This is caused by the presence of secondary bracings in
the FEM stiffness matrix as previously described in subsection 6.3.1. By excluding the
secondary bracings from the FEM-analysis as it is done in “FEM-model (nodal)**”,
results with acceptable deviations to RAMTOWER is obtained.
From the reactions obtained by the different methods and given in Appendix C, it
may also be seen that the wind profile considered by the RAMTOWER regular analysis
and the alternative methods are equivalent, since moment and shear is obtained with a
small relative deviation.
On a overall scale the regular RAMTOWER analysis seems to be sufficiently ac-
curate, compared to the ease at which towers may be defined and analyzed, compared
with e.g. the FEM-model.
be comparative with the results from FEM. It is strongly advised to view this procedure
in Appendix D before continuing to view the results hereof.
As it may be seen from table 11, the results from the non-linear analysis of the tower
section with the joint rotational stiffness model, almost matches the effective slender-
ness ratio stated by the TIA-G standard. However one comparison was not enough to
draw any final conclusions on the adequacy of the TIA-G effective slenderness expres-
sions, since a lot of buckling cases, still needed to be investigated. As a consequence
of this two basic models where made as simple beam-columns with applied axial load
in order to expand the comparison:
• L60x60x6 of length 2000mm (In the following referred to as Model A-sec)
• L100x100x7 of varying length (In the following referred to as Model B-sec)
Model A-sec was included in this comparison in order to study the behavior of the
diagonal member considered for the sample tower analysis in weak axis buckling (since
the diagonal only experienced parallel buckling in the section model).
Model B-sec was included since this member was of approximately same size as the
member from which the joint stiffness models was initially obtained through Abaqus
FEM-analysis (L100x100x6 is not available in the ROBOT section library) and there-
fore stiffness values may be more relevant for buckling of a member of this size.
For both models the buckling members were either considered to have the rotational
stiffness models (RX and RY ) defined at both ends (SS) or just at one end with the other
pinned (SP). The layout of the Models A-sec and B-sec may be viewed in figure 37.
Figure 37: ROBOT Non-linear analysis Models A-sec and B-sec with (SS)-condition (top) and
(SP)-condition (bottom)
The critical buckling loads for weak and parallel axis buckling from ROBOT non-
linear analysis of the Models A-sec and B-sec, may be viewed in tables 12 and 13
respectively. Parallel buckling of the angle bar members was obtained, just as in the
initial testing described in subsection 6.1.1, by restraining the member in the direction
of one of the parallel axis at midspan(refer to figure 25). The restraint was placed
in such a way that transverse deflection from buckling lead to rotation about the axis
which had been assigned with the lowest rotational stiffness (RY ), since this would be
most likely to occur in a tower design (as it was the case for the sample tower section
models). The critical loads retrieved from the Models A-sec and B-sec underwent
the same procedure as the results from the sample tower section analysis in order to
obtain the corresponding effective slenderness ratios given i table 14. Examples on
the procedure and the cross-sectional parameters considered for the two models is also
documented in Appendix D.
78
KL KL
End-restraints r r - TIA-G (curve 5) Deviation
RX and RY 174.4 173.6 0.4%
Pinned 193.5 - -
Table 11: Effective slenderness ratios based on results of non-linear analysis in ROBOT com-
pared with TIA-G basic effective length case. Sample tower section no. 13
Table 12: Critical buckling loads from non-linear analysis in ROBOT. Test specimen: Model A-
sec L60x60x6 L=2000mm. Letters enclosed by () indicates the restraints at the ends
of the buckling member either being: (SS) = Stiffness model - Stiffness model or (SP)
= Stiffness model - Pinned.
Table 13: Critical buckling loads from non-linear analysis in ROBOT. Test specimen: Model
B-sec L100x100x7. Letters enclosed by () indicates the restraints at the ends of the
buckling member either being: (SS) = Stiffness model - Stiffness model or (SP) =
Stiffness model - Pinned.
79
L KL KL
Mode Slenderness ratio r ROBOT r TIA-G r Deviation
As it may be seen from the table 14 there are some rather large deviations in some
of the effective slenderness ratios obtained by expressions in the standard and the NL-
analysis. A clear difference should be present in the effective slenderness ratios ob-
tained from a structural standard and by this specific very FEM-analysis due to several
known factors:
• The standard needs to be on the safe side in regards to all joints contained in
the category “partially restrained”, whether it be by bolts or welding of any type
and design. In this project only one type of joint has been considered, thus other
joints which meets the requirements of the standard, but has a lower rotational
stiffness may very well exist.
• The joint stiffness model has been seen to overestimate the stiffness compared
to the very limited amount of experimental data available (the idealized curve
in figure 16 by N. Ungkurapinan et. al. described in [12]) . Hence if same
model is to undergo real life stiffness testing, lower values could be expected,
which lowers the buckling capacity, which then again yields a higher effective
slenderness ratio.
• From the “Weak axis (SS)”-case to the “Weak axis (SP)”-case the deviation from
the FEM-results is seen to drop by approximately 50% for both Models A-sec
and B-sec. This supports that either the effective slenderness given by the TIA-G
standard has some safety or the stiffness model over-predicts rotational stiffness,
for each end-restraint in the buckling member. If the error was on the method or
of a more general nature same reduction of the deviation might not occur.
• The size of the member for which the joint stiffness has been determined(L100x100x6)
is very large for member testing. Some scaling factors could be present, if the ex-
pressions in the TIA-G standard is based on test of specimens of smaller profile
sizes.
• The type joint model does not resemble a typical bracing joint since the angle
bar to which the rotating member is connected is parallel to the rotating member
itself. Furthermore the rotating member is bolted very close to a completely fixed
support (some 200mm refer to section 5). In typical bracing patterns the bracing
may be connected to a member which is unsupported for several meters. This
might also lower the rotational stiffness of the joints.
By viewing these known factors all together they all seem to be pointing in the same
direction: The rotational stiffness found from the Abaqus type joint in this project
might be higher, than what can be expected in a real life bracing joint, and hence
the effective slenderness ratios may be larger for a real life bracing. In light of this
recognition the effective slenderness ratios will move closer to the actual codal values
as a more accurate stiffness model is adapted. This may produce a situation were
the effective slenderness ratios for parallel buckling modes may actually exceed the
codal ratios, resulting in the effective slenderness specified by the standard being on the
unsafe side, as they are already exceeding these values for high values of slenderness
(refer to table 14).
In any case it is some what odd that the effective slenderness expressions in TIA-
G, in view of the rotational joint stiffness results previously illustrated in figure 23,
which clearly shows that the rotational stiffness about the axis RX is much larger than
about RY , does not consider separate effective slenderness ratio expressions for weak
81
and parallel axis buckling. Weak axis buckling will have a rotational stiffness which
is a combination of RX and RY , whereas the parallel buckling will have (at worse) a
rotational stiffness of RY , due to the method by which the bracing is connected to the
other structural components of the tower.
In other structural standards for towers such as EN1993-3-1 [2] this fact is ac-
counted for by applying a smaller effective slenderness ratio to the weak-axis buckling
than the parallel axis buckling mode (especially for single bolted angles). Whether the
expressions in TIA-G is on the safe or unsafe side, fact remains that there is a substan-
tial difference in the rotational stiffness of angle bar bracing joints by the rotational
axis considered, which must be accounted for in determining the effective slenderness
ratio.
The effective slenderness ratio in accordance with the TIA-G and EN1993-3-1 is
compared in figure 38. The figure consists of two sub-figures illustrating the effective
slenderness ratios for members with or without end-restraints. As mentioned there are
some differences between the TIA-G and EN1993-3-1 standard in regards to determin-
ing the effective slenderness ratio of angle bar bracings. The EN-standard does not
consider any difference in effective slenderness for members with partial restraint at
one or both ends (as it is the case in TIA-G), however it considers different effective
slenderness for weak and parallel axis buckling mode. Also the EN-standard does not
take the eccentricity conditions of the member into account, even though the expres-
sions seem to generally account for some eccentricity (Effective slenderness is not 0 for
a member with 0 slenderness as in the TIA-G concentric member case). In figure 38a
the TIA-G curves 1, 5 and 6 are illustrated (concentric loaded member, partial restraint
at one and both ends respectively) corresponding to the relevant conditions considered
for Model B-sec. Furthermore the EN1993-3-1 effective slenderness is represented by
dashed lines for weak and parallel axis buckling (both curves are valid for members
with one or both ends partially restrained, since EN as previously mentioned does not
account for any difference between the two cases). Finally the results obtained from
the NL-analysis of the L100x100x7 member (Model B-sec) and sample tower section
is also included for reference.
In figure 38b the effective slenderness ratios for members without any restraint at
ends are illustrated. From TIA-G curve 1 and 4 is included and from EN1993-3-1 ef-
fective slenderness is represented by dashed lines for weak and parallel axis buckling.
Since FEM results has only been obtained for buckling of members with end-restraints,
no FEM-results are available. The figure 38a clearly illustrates the deviations in effec-
tive slenderness obtained by FEM and from the standards TIA-G and EN1993-3-1.
From viewing the out-of-plane displacements of the Models A-sec and B-sec at
buckling failure, it has been seen that the rotations at the member joints when assuming
a sine shaped deflection field, does not exceed 0.01 rad, which is well within the region
where stiffness models obtained by assuming a elastic or plastic material model are
the same. Therefore based on the studies of this project assuming material as linear
elastic without taking any plasticity into account has proved to be fully sufficient for
development of the type joint rotational stiffness model.
82
220
200 End‐restraint governs
160
140
Eccentricity governs
120
100
TIA‐G: Curve 1
80
TIA‐G: Curve 5
TIA‐G: Curve 6
60 EN: K2L/r (weak)
EN: K2L/r (parallel)
40 FEM: Weak (SP)
FEM: Weak (SS)
20 FEM: Parallel (SP)
FEM: Parallel (SS)
FEM: Sample tower
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Slenderness L/r [-]
(a) Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings with end-restraints accord-
ing to TIA-222-G:2005, EN1993-3-1 and ROBOT non-linear FEM results for
testspecimen L100x100x7 and sample tower.
220
TIA‐G: Curve 1/Curve 4
200 EN: K1L/r (weak)
EN: K1L/r (parallel)
180
Effective slenderness KL/r [-]
160
140
Eccentricity governs
120
100
80 End‐restraint governs
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Slenderness L/r [-]
(b) Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings without end-restraints accord-
ing to TIA-222-G:2005 and EN1993-3-1.
Figure 38: Overall comparison of effective slenderness in accordance with TIA-G, EN1993-3-
1 and FEM-results. For determining the EN effective slenderness fy = 355MPa and
E = 200000MPa has be used (same properties as type joint). The specified governing
factors on the figures only refer to provisions of the TIA-G standard.
83
8 Perspectives
In this section the studies of this project is put into perspective, and application of the
obtained results is discussed. Finally suggestions to further research and development
on the application of joint rotational stiffness models in determining effective slender-
ness ratios are given.
In this project methods of determining the effective slenderness ratio of angle bar
bracing members have been examined. Methods were based on both codal practices
and a more scientific approach by application of joint rotational stiffness models in
non-linear FEM analysis.
The main difference between the codal and scientific method, is (other than they
produce different results) the time of computation. Methods given by the standard,
will produce effective slenderness ratios in a matter of seconds, whereas the scientific
approach requires a FEM-model and hours of computation. With this project, the time
consumption of this method can be significantly reduced, and further studies will prob-
ably also contribute to reduce time consumption even more. Fact still remains that
applying joint rotational stiffness models in determining the effective slenderness ratio
of bracing members, can never be reduced to the computation of one equation such as
it is done in the standards. Several options may however improve the computation and
application of joint stiffness models. Writing scripts which could automatically model,
run, extract and store joint stiffness data from 100 maybe even 500 generic joint con-
figurations could improve the application of the method, since the stiffness data would
be available at hand for immediate application.
The method has in previous parts of this report been considered suitable for two
types of application:
• In large scale transmissionline (or telecommunication infrastructure) projects
with a large quantity of identical towers, where greater savings from optimiza-
tion is achieved.
• In case of overutilized towers. Based on the results of this project the joint stiff-
ness model could assist to increase capacity of members by a few percent poten-
tially saving the client the cost of having to strengthen tower members.
In both cases custom programmed FEM-software, which not only features automatic
generation of tower geometry, but also enables application of elements with joint stiff-
ness properties would have to be developed, if tower designs are to be delivered within
a time frame which can be accepted by the client. However one obstacle has to be over-
come before the rotational stiffness models can be used for tower designs: confirmation
by experiments. It must be confirmed that the joint rotational stiffness experienced in
real life can be simulated by the FEM. The method is never going to be commercially
feasible, if joint stiffness can not be extracted from a FEM-model with reasonable de-
viations to “as-build” behavior.
However it is not only the adequacy with respects to real life behavior which will
have to be investigated in order to utilize the method commercially. Below is given
some areas of investigation which will have to be studied further:
• Confirm the rotational stiffness of angle bar bracing members, based on experi-
mental data.
• Based on the rotational stiffness obtained from experiments, FEM-models which
adequately captures this stiffness must be developed.
84
• Setup guidelines for the development of a “joint stiffness archive”, e.i. determin-
ing joint types which should be considered based on governing factors.
Finally it should be pointed out that the above method will potentially only yield some
4 to 7 percent in additional member capacity (for weak-axis buckling), dependent on
the type of joint and slenderness of the bracing. Designers should always be very
much aware of generally following the provisions of the standards, since yielding a
few percent in capacity from a advanced joint rotational stiffness model is nothing
compared to the loss in capacity caused by e.g. non-triangulated bracing, as was the
case for the sample tower of this project.
85
9 Conclusion
The main objective of this project was to develop a detailed FEM-model from which
rotational stiffness of a angle bar joint could be obtained and used in a overall non-
linear FEM-analysis of angle bar bracing members.
It has been shown that joint stiffness can be captured with somewhat good agree-
ment with experimental results, by application of simple FEM-models, however further
experimental data is required in order to calibrate the FEM-model to a level at which
it fully captures real life stiffness behavior of angle bar joints. Compared with the
small amount of experimental data available on joint stiffness, the FEM-models seem
to overestimate the joint stiffness. Several parameters which may reduce stiffness has
been pointed out, for further study. It is a necessity to investigate each parameter indi-
vidually in order to uncover their effects on joint stiffness.
From the magnitude of rotation that the buckling member joint undergoes before
failure, it has been observed that a rotational stiffness model obtained by considering a
linear-elastic material model is adequate for this type of analysis, hence no plasticity is
required.
It has been found that the ability to produce FEM-models, which can adequately
capture stiffness behavior of angle bar joints, grants the opportunity to model and an-
alyze towers with detailed joint behavior, obtained by parametric FEM-models on a
commercial level.
The effective slenderness expressions stated in ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005 have be
seen to be of a very general and superficial nature, even though the stiffness of angle bar
bracing joints is totally dependent on their design. Furthermore joint stiffness has been
observed to vary by the considered axis of rotation. It may be relevant to develop sep-
arate effective slenderness expressions, dependent on the considered axis of buckling
as it is done in the EN1993-3-1 standard. The results of the FEM-analysis would tend
to suggest that effective slenderness ratio given in the ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005 standard
may be some what on the unsafe side for parallel buckling, however the expressions on
effective slenderness defined in the standard are very simple and have been producing
safe designs for many years. Through this project it has been illustrated that there is a
need for a method of determining more specific effective slenderness ratios for mem-
bers with partial end-restraints, especially for large numbers of identical towers such
as transmission towers, where the very demanding process can be justified by savings
in money spend on materials.
As a secondary objective a comparison of the commercial tower design program
RAMTOWER was performed. RAMTOWER was compared with hand calculation
and FEM analysis. Several models were considered within each method and their dis-
tribution of forces were compared. On the overall scale RAMTOWER performed as
per previous experience, yielding no more than 10% deviation from equivalent FEM-
models. Through comparison of overall tower reaction, the incorporated wind profile
in RAMTOWER has been found accurate and in accordance with the ANSI/TIA-222-
G:2005 standard. It should be mentioned that when considering large point loads on
the tower body, deviations in tower member forces have been observed locally at the
section onto which the load is applied. This deviation is cause by a difference in load-
application assumptions in RAMTOWER and the other methods. By considering the
characteristics of telecommunications towers, the deviation is found of no practical
importance.
During the project the consequences of non-triangulated hip bracing has been stud-
ied. It has been illustrated that for a 0 degree wind load case increases in buckling
86
capacity of angle bar bracings can be obtained, since bending stiffness from perpen-
dicular bracing can be included. Studies however also show that for 45 degree wind
load cases no increase is obtained since bracing members, which provided the diago-
nal member with bending stiffness in the 0 degree case, is also in compression for the
45 degree case, and will therefore not contribute to restrain the member. Due to the
ratio between diagonal bracing forces for 0 and 45 degree wind load cases it may be
concluded that only a very limited additional capacity (15% in the specific study) is
obtained by providing non-triangulated hip bracings. In order to be able to utilize this
capacity, bending in tower bracings must be included in the analysis by relevant inter-
action formulas. It is concluded that non-triangulated bracing should not be present in
tower structures due to both design and safety reasons. Furthermore the option of in-
creasing the cross-sectional area of main members, instead of providing large amounts
of secondary bracing members, has been discussed and is especially recommended for
smaller towers.
During this project the FEM-program AUTODESK ROBOT Structural Analysis
Professional 2011 was applied. A series of tests were performed in order to check
that the program is suitable for the overall non-linear analysis of angle bar members
exposed to various conditions. Through the experience gathered during the program
testing phase the author has the following comments to the application of ROBOT:
ROBOT is a basic and simple FEM-program which has some advantages. However
ROBOT is not recommendable as a research tool. Non-linear analysis features of the
program is very limited, as is documentation and examples hereon.
87
APPENDIX
89
A Literature
[3] EIA/TIA-222-G: Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and An-
tennas, August 2005.
[4] © Dassault Systèmes. Abaqus Online Documentation: Version 6.10, 2010.
[5] Autodesk. Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2011 - Usersguide, 2010.
[6] Lars Damkilde. The FEM for beam structures (Elementmetode for Bjælkekon-
struktioner) (In Danish). The Technical University of Denmark (DTU), 2. edition,
1999. Lecturenote F-118.
[7] Lars Dick-Nielsen and Henrik Døssing. Influence of Packingplates in Bolted
Connections (Mellemlægspladers betydning i Boltesamlinger) (In Danish). Mas-
ter’s thesis, The Technical University of Denmark (DTU), 2004.
[8] J. Yoon & B. Kang J. Kim. Finite Element Analysis and Modeling of Structure
with Bolted Joints. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31:895–911, 2007.
[9] A. R. Kemp and R.H. Behncke. Behavior of Cross-Bracing in Latticed Towers.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 124:360–367, 1998.
[10] R.K.N.D Rajapakse K.I.E Ahmed and M.S. Gadala. Influence of Bolted-Joint
Slippage on the Response of Transmission Towers Subjected to Frost-Heave. Ad-
vances in Structural Engineering, 12(1):1–17, 2009.
[11] L. Lakshmanan Nagesh R. Iyer N. Prasad Rao, G.M. Samuel Knight. Investiga-
tion of transmission line tower faliures. Engineering Failure Analysis, 17:1127–
1141, 2010.
[12] R.K.N.D Rajapakse N. Ungkurapinan, S.R.De. S.Chandrakeerthy and S. B. Yue.
Joint slip in steel electric transmission towers. Engineering Structures, 25:779–
788, 2003.
[15] Elena Rueda Romero. Finite Element Simulation of Bolted Steel Joint in Fire
using Abaqus Program. Master’s thesis, Tampere University of Technology, 2010.
[16] S. Fang S. Roy and E.C. Rossow. Secondary Stresses on Transmission Tower
Structures. Journal of Energy Engineering, 110:157–172, 1984.
90
Reactions from tower considering various methods (0 deg. wind load case)
Hand RAMTOWER RAMTOWER FEM-model FEM-model
calc. (regular) (nodal) (nodal)* (nodal)**
Moment 2806 2822 2802 2802 2802
Shear 126,4 127 126,4 126,4 126,4
Normal 82,7 82,5 82,6 82,5 82,5
A = 691mm2
Iv = 94400mm4
r
94400
rv = = 11.69mm
691
Ix = 227900mm4
r
227900
rx = = 18.16mm
691
Buckling span: L2 = 3641mm
Other subspan (above diagonal crossover point): L1 = 3246.6mm
ψ(u ) L
1 =− 2
L2
ψ L1 · u1 L1
where
3 1 1
ψ(u) = −
2u 2u tan(2u)
100
and
L2 ≥ L1
inserting the spans L2 and L1 into the equations yields:
ψ(u1 ) 3641
3641
=− ⇒ 2u = kl = 2.95212
ψ 3246.6 · u1 3246.6
since
kl 2 EI π 2 EI
2
= 2
L L
for pin connected buckling member, reduced member buckling length (L) due to
different spans may be found as:
2
L2
L1 2.95212 EI π 2 EI
2
= 2 ⇒ L = 3455mm
L2 L
L KL
parallel axis buckling: rx = 190.25⇒ r = 28.6 + 0.762 · 190.25 = 173.573 (curve
5)
π 2 · 200000 · 227900
36440 =
(KL)2
⇒ KL = 3513.6mm
⇒ KL
r = 193.5 (11.5% deviation)
π 2 · 200000 · 227900
44860 =
(KL)2
⇒ KL = 3166.7mm
⇒ KL
r = 174.4 (0.4% deviation)
L60x60x6 L = 2000mm
For further cross-sectional parameters refer to section “Buckling of sample tower
diagonal members”
101
π 2 · 200000 · 94400
110700 =
(KL)2
⇒ KL = 1297.4mm
⇒ KL
r = 111.0 (37.6% deviation)
π 2 · 200000 · 227900
154100 =
(KL)2
⇒ KL = 1708.6mm
⇒ KL
r = 94.08 (17% deviation)
π 2 · 200000 · 94400
74390 =
(KL)2
⇒ KL = 1582.7mm
⇒ KL
r = 135.4 (17% deviation)
π 2 · 200000 · 227900
129520 =
(KL)2
⇒ KL = 1863.7mm
⇒ KL
r = 102.6 (7% deviation)
102
A = 1366mm2
Iv = 531100mm4
r
531100
rv = = 19.718mm
1366
Ix = 1282000mm4
r
1282000
rx = = 30.6mm
1366
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models in both ends:
π 2 · 200000 · 531100
186250 =
(KL)2
⇒ KL = 2372.5mm
⇒ KL
r = 120.32 (16.2% deviation)
π 2 · 200000 · 1282000
309000 =
(KL)2
⇒ KL = 2861.7mm
⇒ KL
r = 93.4 (5% deviation)
π 2 · 200000 · 531100
148130 =
(KL)2
103
⇒ KL = 2660.3mm
⇒ KL
r = 134.9 (7% deviation)
π 2 · 200000 · 1282000
286750 =
(KL)2
⇒ KL = 2970.7mm
⇒ KL
r = 97.1 (0.8% deviation)
105
Hardening curves
Introduction:
The following hardening curves are based on the work by Dick-Nielsen and Døssing [7].
The curves were acheived by means of reverse engineering. The test specimens were applied in normal tension testing,
and the results from this consisted of displacements at different force levels excerted on the specimens - A test specimen workcurve.
By use of a FEM-model of the test setup material, models were continiously modified until displacements for different force levels matched the
workcurve obtained from the material testing.
Modifications such as layout and language (from Danish to English) has been implementet by the author.
900
800
V. Mise stress [Mpa]
700
600
500
400
300
200
100 Structural steel S355
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Notes:
1) Curve is extrapolated beyond the ultimate strength in order be able to interpolate a solution at ultimate strength.
2) Ultimate strength is marked red om hardening curve
110
1000
V. Mise stress [Mpa]
800
600
400
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Notes:
1) Curve is extrapolated beyond the ultimate strength in order be able to interpolate a solution at ultimate strength.
2) Ultimate strength is marked red om hardening curve
111
Discontinuities:
(a) Discontinuities in angle bar with probed nodes (the neglected areas, primarily corners, are remove for remaining
discontinuities to be clearly visible)
Table 15: Probed V. Mise stress discontinuities in nodes selected from contour plots compared
with actual stress values.
113
F Digital Documentation
The DVD in this Appendix contains soft-copies of relevant documents and FEM-
models used throughout this project as well as some of the results hereof. Not all
the mentioned FEM-models are included, since some models with great similarities
(e.g. simple release or material modifications etc.) was reused to limit the amount
of models. Each of the below subsections provide a complete list of files and short
descriptions.
F.1 Documents
The following documents are contained in the attached DVD:
Report No.10-052.pdf - The Main report (this document)
AppendixReport No.10-052.pdf - The Appendix Report containing further docu-
mentation on the project work
Joint stiffness results.xlsx - Results from the joint stiffness analysis by application
of FEM
Material hardening.xlsx - Material hardening data for S355 structural steel and
grade 10.9 bolts, by Dick-Nielsen et.al. [7]
TESTS:
Complex_Buck_total release,
Complex_Buck_w.1 release and
Complex_Buck_w.o release
Complex buckling models with various releases
Buckling_LP_offset Lr 102 and
Buckling_LP_offset Lr 204
Non-linear offset analysis ROBOT definition
Buckling_LP_manuel offset
Non-linear offset analysis manual definition
Nonlinear transverse load
Non-linear transverse loaded beam
Nonlinear RX in weak
Non-linear spring released beam
Analysis: