MAIN REPORT:
ANGLE BAR BRACINGS IN LATTICE
STRUCTURES
Martin Jespersen s071919
24th January 2011
Report no. 10052
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK
1
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT:
Martin Jespersen
Student ID: S071919
Technical University of Denmark (DTU)
PROJECT SUPERVISORS:
Peter Noe Poulsen Mogens G. Nielsen
Associate Professor, Senior Cheif Consultant  M.Sc,
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Masts and Towers
Technical University of Denmark (DTU) Ramboll Telecom  Northern Europe
3
Preface
This report was written as a bachelor project by which the author is to acquire the title:
Bachelor in Engineering (Civil and Structural Engineering)
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 FEMmodels 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 project was made in a cooperation between The Technical University of
Denmark(DTU) and Ramboll Telecom  Northern Europe.
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.
Lyngby, 24th January
Martin Jespersen
s071919
5
Summary
This bachelor project considers the buckling of angle bar bracings in lattice towers.
The ANSI/TIA222G:2005 tower design standard (in the following referred to as
TIAG) species various effective slenderness ratio expressions for angle bar bracing
members dependent on the slenderness, eccentricity and endrestraints of the member.
Especially provisions related to angle bar endrestraints are of a very general and
supercial 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 FEManalysis of a
type joint to a overall nonlinear FEManalysis 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 FEManalysis and
TIAG expressions, it has been observed that the nonlinear FEManalysis tends to ar
rive at a effective slenderness which is somewhat lower that what is obtained by the
TIAG standard in the case of weakaxis buckling. However the very limited amount
of experimental data available on joint stiffness, would tend to suggest that the joint
stiffness FEMmodels applied in the current study overpredict 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 TIAG when considering weakaxis buckling. The need of more specic ex
perimental data on joint rotational stiffness behavior is pointed out and areas in need of
further research are identied. The FEMmodels 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 TIAG effective slenderness ratio ex
pressions, as it is the case for other tower design standards such as EN199331. The
effective slenderness ratios obtained by FEManalysis conrms 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 prole). Hence for parallel buckling the FEManalysis arrives at effective
slenderness ratios which exceeds the expressions given in TIAG 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 FEMmodels 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 identied 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 FEMmodels. By com
paring overall tower reactions found from each method, the incorporated wind prole
in RAMTOWER has been found accurate and in accordance with the ANSI/TIA222
G:2005 standard.
6
Based on these ndings RAMTOWER is considered to produce an acceptable dis
tribution of forces, when comparing to the ease at which a tower model can be dened
and analyzed in the program.
Through the sample tower models, which was required in order to perform the
above mentioned comparisons, the consequences of providing towers with nontriangulated
bracings was also experienced. From a detailed study with tower hipbracings it was
found that the application nontriangulated bracing should not occur in any tower de
sign, as it is also specied by the TIAG standard.
Keywords: Buckling, Telecommunication towers, Joint slip, Lattice triangulation,
Nonlinear analysis, FEM
7
Resum
Dette diplomafgangsprojekt omhandler udknkning af vinkeljern i gittertrne. Trn
design standarden ANSI/TIA222G:2005 (i det flgende benvnt TIAG) speci
cerer ere udtryk til bestemmelse af den effektive slankhed for gitterkonstruktion
selementer afhngigt af deres slankhed, ekscentricitet og randbetingelser. Specielt
bestemmelserne der vedrrer randbetingelserne for vinkeljern er meget generelle og
overadiske, til trods for at stivheden af samlingerne afhnger af deres udformning.
Det overordnet forml med dette projekt var at lave en sammenligning mellem de
frnvnte udtryk givet i standarden og resultater opnet under anvendelse af rotations
stivheder fundet ved en detaljeret FEManalyse og siden hen psat vinkeljern i en mere
overordnet ikkeliner FEManalyse. Et sekundrt forml var at lave en sammen
ligning mellem det kommercielle trndesign program RAMTOWER og andre metoder
der indbefattede hndberegninger og FEManalyse. Frnvnte sammenligninger blev
begge udfrt under anvendelse af et telekommunikationstrn. Ved at sammenligne den
effektive slankhed opnet under anvendelse af FEManalyse og TIAG standarden, er
det observeret at den ikkelinere FEManalyse har en tendens til at komme frem til
effektive slankheder der ligger lidt under det der er speciceret i TIAG standarden
i tilflde med svagakse udknkning. Dog viser det meget begrnsede omfang af
eksperimentelt data der er tilgngeligt for stivhed af samlinger at FEMmodellerne,
der er anvendt i dette projekt, overestimerer samlingens stivhed, og derfor kan en ef
fektiv slankhed der er strre end hvad der er bestemt i dette projekt forventes, og som
dermed ogs ligger tttere p de vrdier der er givet i TIAG standarden for svagakse
udknkning. Behovet for mere eksperimentelt data ppeges og omrder der krver
forsat forskning er udpeget. FEMmodellerne indikerer at samlingsstivheden ved ro
tation afhnger af den betragtede rotationsakse, et fnomen der ikke er inkluderet
ved bestemmelsen af effektive slankheder i den nuvrende TIAG standard, som det
er tilfldet i andre standarder ssom EN199331. FEManalysen bekrfter at der er
en forskel i de effektive slankheder, som br anvendes for svag og parallelakse ud
knkning, grundet forskelle i rotationsstivheden omkring de to akser der betragtes for
udknkning af vinkeljern (de to parallelle akser af prolet). FEManalysen opnr ef
fektive slankheder der er hjere end hvad der er foreskrevet i TIAG standarden, og
indikerer dermed at udtrykkene givet i standarden er p den usikre side i forbindelse
med parallelakse udknkning af vinkeljern. Gennem grundig diskussion er det fun
det at hvis FEMmodellerne kan kalibreres (gennem mere dybdegende forsg med
stivhed af samlinger) til at kunne skildre rotationsstivheden af vinkeljernssamlinger,
kan rotationsstivhedsmodeller anvendes til at undersge udknkning af gitterkonstruk
tionselementer p et kommercielt niveau. Strre infrastruktursprojekter med et stort
antal identiske trne eller marginalt overudnyttede trne, hvor udsigterne til en strre
nansiel besparelse er til stede, er identiceret som det primre anvendelsesomrde
for metoden.
Sammenligningen mellem RAMTOWER og andre metoder viste de forventede re
sultater, hvorved afvigelsen i fordelingen af krfter i gitteret mellem RAMTOWER og
FEManalyse ikke var mere end 10 %. Ved at sammenligne de overordnet reaktioner fra
trnet blev det fundet at det indarbejdede vind prol i RAMTOWERer tilstrkkeligt og
iht. ANSI/TIA222G:2005. Baseret p sammenligningens resultater betragtes RAM
TOWER som et program der giver acceptable resultater, nr simpliciteten hvormed at
trne kan deneres og analyseres tages i betragtning.
Gennem det telekommunikationstrn der blev anvendt til overnvnte sammen
ligninger, blev konsekvenserne af trne med ikketrianguleret gitter tydeliggjort. Fra et
8
detaljeret studie af anvendelsen af ikketrianguleret hoftegitter er det fundet at ikke
trianguleret gitter ikke br forekomme i trnkonstruktioner, som det ogs er speciceret
i TIAG standarden.
Emner: Sjle udknkning, Telekommunikations trne, Glidning i samlinger, Tri
angulering af gitter, Ikkelinere analyser, FEM
9
Contents
Preface 3
Summary 5
Resum 7
Terms and denition 11
Introduction 13
1 Column exural buckling theory 15
1.1 Effect of boundary conditions on exural buckling . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.2 Effect of load application on exural buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2 Buckling resistance according to ANSI/TIA222G:2005 19
2.1 Effective Yield stress [Section 4.5.4.1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2 Design axial compression strength [Section 4.5.4.2] . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3 Effective slenderness ratio [Table 43 to 47] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4 Lattice web triangulation [gure 42] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
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
5 Abaqus Joint FEManalysis 31
5.1 Type joint description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2 Material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3 Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4 Steps, incrementation and output requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.5 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.5.1 Boundary conditions at step: Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.5.2 Boundary conditions at step: Establish bolt tension . . . . . 35
5.5.3 Boundary conditions at steps: Load  region 1,Load  region
2 and Load  region 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.6 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.6.1 Bolt load for tensioning of bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.6.2 Loading from test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.7 Meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.8 Joint axial stiffness results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.9 Result testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.9.1 Mesh convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.9.2 Stress discontinuities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.9.3 Bolt tensioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.10 Joint rotational stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.10.1 Modied material parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10
5.10.2 Modied boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.10.3 Modied loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.10.4 Modied steps and incrementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.10.5 Joint rotational stiffness results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6 FEMAnalysis 55
6.1 Initial testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.1.1 Simple linearbuckling of angle bar members . . . . . . . . . 55
6.1.2 Linearbuckling 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 Nonlinear analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.2 Model description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.3 Test runs of FEMModels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.3.1 Effects of secondary bracings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.3.2 Effects of nonfully triangulated hip bracing . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
7 Comparison 73
7.1 RAMTOWER, hand calculation and FEMresults . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.2 Buckling of members with joint stiffness results from FEManalysis. . 76
8 Perspectives 83
9 Conclusion 85
A Literature 89
B Layout drawing: 40m Medium duty sample tower design 91
C Sample tower force distribution 95
D Examples on calculation of effective slenderness ratios based on ANSI/TIA
222G:2005 standard and nonlinear FEM results 99
E Abaqus type joint. 105
E.1 Layout drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
E.2 Material hardening curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
E.3 Stress discontinuities in convergence model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
F Digital Documentation 113
F.1 Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
F.2 Abaqus FEMmodels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
F.3 ROBOT FEMmodels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
11
Terms and denition
Hipbracing Secondary bracing tted inside the tower section (connected between two
perpendicular diagonal members) to reduce the effective buckling length of
diagonal members.
Plan bracing Internal horizontal bracing located at e.g. main member crossover point,
platforms or tower portions with large horizontal loading
Redundant member Refer to Secondary bracing
Secondary bracing Bracing member in the latticed structure which is not considered
to carry any load, but only meant to reduce the effective buckling length of
primary members(load carrying members)
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 nonstaggered where perpendicular bracings are connected
at same level
TIAG Refers to the structural design standard for antenna supporting structures and
antennas: ANSI/TIA222G: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 hotrolled 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.
Due to the quantity of identical towers required to provide a infrastructure of e.g.
power or telecommunication even small optimizations on the tower design can be jus
tied as economically sound.
One area of optimization is the effective slenderness ratio considered for buckling
investigation on tower angle bar bracings. The structural standard ANSI/TIA222
G:2005 for telecommunication structures, provide designers with effective slenderness
ratio expressions which depend on the slenderness, eccentricity and endrestraints of
the member under investigation. Especially provisions related to the angle bar end
restraints are of a very general and supercial 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 nonlinear 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 TIAG standard.
It should be stressed that it is not the scope of this project to develop new effective
slenderness ratio expressions for the TIAG 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.
Asecondary 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.
As a secondary objective a comparison of the force distribution obtained by the
commercial toweranalysis program RAMTOWER and alternative methods such as
hand calculations and the FEM is also to be conducted.
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 exural
buckling of columns.
Next the overall provisions of the TIAG standard is shortly presented and their
limitations highlighted. From the TIAG 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 FEMprogram
Abaqus, from which a joint rotational stiffness model is acquired.
Finally a overall nonlinear FEManalysis 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 TIAG provisions.
15
1 Column exural buckling theory
Axially compressed angle bar members are mainly subjected to 3 varieties of buckling
failure:
Flexural Buckling failure: Member fails by transverse deection in a direction
normal to itself.
Local Buckling failure: Member fails by local buckling of angle leg (refer to
gure 1).
FlexuralTorsional Buckling failure: Member fails by simultaneous transverse
deection normal to itself and twisting around its own axis (shear center of the
section).
Later it will be shown why local buckling failure and exuraltorsional buckling is not
relevant in relation to this project, and only exural buckling of the bracing members
is to be considered. It should be mentioned that because of this emphasis on exural
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 todays
standards, can to great extents be credited L.Euler (17071783). He originally solved
the case of the axially loaded the buildin column and published his ndings 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
deection 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 (Eulers formula) for an ideal column is given by:
F
cr
= F
E
=
2
E I
l
2
e
(1)
In this expression l
e
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 sufciently accurate, since the boundary conditions of a column are not ideal in
the real world.
Some also prefer a alternative expression of the Eulers formula
F
cr
= F
E
=
(kl)
2
E I
l
2
(2)
where the value of kl is governed by the boundary conditions of the column.
16
Figure 1: Principal axis denitions for buckling for angle bar members
1.1 Effect of boundary conditions on exural buckling
One area of special interest when considering buckling of bracing members is the end
restraints which are provided. From the traditional buckling stability theory the buck
ling capacity of columns is dependent on the effective column length, as it is incorpo
rated in the expression for the critical load as shown in expression (1). The effective
column length is as mentioned dependent on the type of restraint, which is provided at
the column ends. For a lattice structure such as a angle bar tower, designers are often
forced to deviate from the classical ideal restraint conditions for which the effective
the column length is well dened and resort to effective lengths which are for the most
part developed on the basis of experimental data. Lorin and Cuille (1970) were some
of the rst to deal with these issues, proving that the stiffness of end gusset plates has
a enormous effect on the buckling capacity of the member, whereas the strength of the
gussets is to some extent irrelevant.
Evaluation of endrestraint stiffness is very difcult to include in structural standards,
since design possibilities are unlimited, thus todays standards only deal with simple
criteria when including effects from endrestraints. These are described in section 2 of
this project.
1.2 Effect of load application on exural buckling
Due to the nature and application of the angle bar member in a lattice structure, concen
tric loading of the member is often not possible, especially not for single angle bracing
members. Connecting the bracing members to other structural components is typically
achieved by bolting or welding the angle bar member by one leg. This type of connec
tion naturally generates some eccentricity in the load transfer from one member to the
other. When considering slender axially loaded members, the effect of this eccentric
ity on the critical buckling load varies with slenderness. The effects of eccentric load
application on beamcolumns
1
has been treated by e.g. Timoshenko in [17]. Results
1
It is a necessity to consider the member as a beamcolumn since it is loaded by moment
17
will briey be presented below, since they are strongly tied to the provisions of todays
structural standards.
Determining the critical buckling stress of an eccentrically loaded beamcolumn
is based on the Secant formula. Basically we are seeking a critical stress
c.YP
, for
which the extreme bers in the beamcolumn reaches the yield point stress
YP
, by the
expression:
YP
=
c.YP
_
1+
e
s
sec
_
l
2r
_
c.YP
E
__
(3)
In the Secant formula given by expression (3), e is the eccentricity of the applied
axial compression force, s is the core radius
2
, 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 beamcolumn can be
developed for various eccentricities(quantied as a ratio to s) as it is done in gure 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 beamcolumns
subjected to load application with different eccentricities at the ends, expressing them
by the ratio =
e
a
e
b
, where e
a
and e
b
are the eccentricities at the ends. In the case of
varying eccentricities the critical stress
c.YP
is given by:
c.YP
=
YP
1+
e
a
s
cosec(2u)
(4)
where
2u = kl =
l
r
_
YP
E
and =
_
2
2cos(2u) +1
For tower bracings this expression is mostly relevant in the case where = 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 = 0 is given in gure 2b. Both
gures are based on and elastic modulus of 210.000MPa and a yield point stress of
YP
= 250MPa. For reference the buckling curve for the corresponding TIAG case
is included in both gures, refer to section 2 here on. It should be mentioned that the
curves in TIAG also includes imperfections and thus a complete comparison can not
be made. Also the expression 4 is not dened for = 0, thus only values very close to
= 0 can be applied.
2
Core radius s =
Z
A
, where Z is the section modulus and A is the crosssectional area.
18
100
150
200
250
300
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Buckling curves for eccentrically loaded column, =1
lre/s=1
lre/s=0,5
lre/s=0,2
lre/s=0,1
Euler
TIAGcurve3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Slenderness L/r []
Buckling curves for eccentrically loaded column, =1
lre/s=1
lre/s=0,5
lre/s=0,2
lre/s=0,1
Euler
TIAGcurve3
(a) Buckling curve for = 1
100
150
200
250
300
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Buckling curves for eccentrically loaded column, =0
lre/s=1
lre/s=0,5
lre/s=0,2
lre/s=0,1
Euler
TIAGcurve2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Slenderness L/r []
Buckling curves for eccentrically loaded column, =0
lre/s=1
lre/s=0,5
lre/s=0,2
lre/s=0,1
Euler
TIAGcurve2
(b) Buckling curve for = 0
Figure 2: Critical load curves for beamcolumn with various ratios of
e
s
compared to relevant
TIAG buckling curve. Material parameters: f
y
= 250MPa and E = 210.000MPa
19
2 Buckling resistance according to ANSI/TIA222G:2005
In this section the current practice for determining the design compression strength of
angle bar members in accordance with to the ANSI/TIA222G:2005 structural stan
dard is reviewed (In the following referred to as TIAG).
The initial part of this section introduces some of the key provisions given in the
TIAG standard, which may be considered to be specically directed towards design
of lattice towers and thus outside traditional structural engineering.
References to the TIAG standard is enclosed by [], throughout this section.
2.1 Effective Yield stress [Section 4.5.4.1]
In order to avoid local buckling of the angle bar leg, TIAG considers an effective com
pression yield stress F
y
, dependent on the width to thickness ratio
_
w
t
_
of the member.
The characteristic yield stress F
y
is reduced in order to obtain F
y
by the following
principle:
w
t
0.47
E
F
y
F
y
= F
y
0.47
E
F
y
<
w
t
0.85
E
F
y
F
y
=
_
_
1.6770.677
_
_
w
t
0.47
_
E
F
y
_
_
_
_
F
y
0.85
E
F
y
<
w
t
25 F
y
= 0.0332
2
E
_
w
t
_
2
According to the standard the width to thickness ratio should not exceed 25.
2.2 Design axial compression strength [Section 4.5.4.2]
The design axial strength of a member in compression is given by:
P = P
n
c
where
P
n
= A
g
F
cr
c
= 0.9
and for
c
1.5
F
cr
=
_
0.658
2
c
_
F
y
and for
c
> 1.5
F
cr
=
_
0.877
2
c
_
F
y
20
where
c
=
K L
r
_
F
y
E
A
g
= gross area of member [mm
2
]
K = effective length factor
L = laterally unbraced length of member [mm]
r = governing radius of gyration about the axis of buckling [mm]
It should be noted that KL is equivalent to the effective buckling length l
e
. The
standard furthermore stipulates that exuraltorsional buckling need not be considered
for single or double angle bar members.
2.3 Effective slenderness ratio [Table 43 to 47]
TIAG considers various effective slenderness ratio
_
KL
r
_
expressions for tower com
pression members. Expressions for angle bar members are given in table 43 and 44
of the standard. They are divided into 2 groups: One considering legmembers and
one considering bracings. For legmembers two separate expressions are given for each
type of prole (angle bar or round), dependent on whether or not the bracing pattern is
staggered or symmetrical (nonstaggered) . Buckling of legmembers will not be treated
further in this project.
For bracing members the effective slenderness ratio is governed by either the end
restraint or eccentricity by which the member is loaded. If the bracing is not slender
_
L
r
< 120
_
, eccentricity is considered governing and bracing effective slenderness ra
tio is given by member eccentricity conditions. If the bracing is slender
_
L
r
120
_
,
bracing endrestraints is considered governing and bracing effective slenderness ratio
is given by end conditions of the member, i.e. the degree of rotational restraint. This
concept is in good agreement with the results from the Secant formula in gure 2. The
effective slenderness ratio expressions are illustrated graphically in gure 4a.
The standard links these eccentricity and endrestraint parameters with the 6 differ
ent expressions for the effective slenderness ratio of bracings, by a very basic principle
as given in table 1. On the specic denitions of normal framing eccentricities, partial
restraint against rotation a.s.o. the reader is referred to the standard. Table 1 illus
trates that the endrestraint parameters are very general and supercial, even though
the actual stiffness provided by the joint at the ends is totally dependent on the design.
It is this very basic set of parameters which are going to be challenged by attempt
ing to determine the actual rotational stiffness of joints by application of a type joint
FEMmodel.
The effective slenderness ratio is applied in the design expressions given in the
previous subsection 2.2, and a buckling curve as illustrated on gure 4b is obtained.
The buckling curve is seen to resemble the curves given comparative standards such as
EN 199311 (column curve b for angle bars).
21
Figure 3: Is the buckling resistance of angle bar members with these endrestraints (connections)
the same? Yes according to the TIAG standard. 2 bolts (left), 3 bolts (center) and
welding (right)
Curve Slenderness Parameter
Effective slenderness
expression
1
_
L
r
< 120
_
Concentric at both ends.
KL
r
=
L
r
2
_
L
r
< 120
_
Concentric at one end and normal
framing eccentricity at the other.
KL
r
= 30+0.75
L
r
3
_
L
r
< 120
_
Eccentric at both ends.
KL
r
= 60+0.50
L
r
4
_
L
r
120
_
Unrestrained against rotation.
KL
r
=
L
r
5
_
L
r
120
_
Partially restrained against rotation
at one end and unrestrained at the
other.
KL
r
= 28.6+0.762
L
r
6
_
L
r
120
_
Partially restrained against rotation
at both ends.
KL
r
= 46.2+0.615
L
r
Table 1: Parameters for selection of relevant effective slenderness ratio expression for bracing
members in TIA222G:2005 (Curve 1 to 6 refers to the curves in gure 4a)
22
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
l
e
n
d
e
r
n
e
s
s
K
L
/
r
[

]
Slenderness L/r []
Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings
according to table 44 TIA222G:2005
Curve1/Curve4
Curve2/Curve5
Curve3/Curve6
Endrestraintgoverns
Eccentricitygoverns
(a) Effective slenderness ratio to be considered for exural buckling of bracings
as per TIA222G:2005. Curves 1 to 6 refers to the expressions in table 1.
Dashed red line indicates the transition from eccentricity to endrestraints be
ing governing.
100
150
200
250
300
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Critical buckling stress F
cr
:
TIAG buckling curve vs. Euler load
TIA222G
Euler
EN199311
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Effective slenderness KL/r []
Critical buckling stress F
cr
:
TIAG buckling curve vs. Euler load
TIA222G
Euler
EN199311
(b) TIAG buckling curve compared to Euler and EN199311. Material parame
ters: f
y
= 250MPa and E = 210.000MPa
Figure 4: Graphic representation of provisions in TIAG in relation to exural buckling
23
2.4 Lattice web triangulation [gure 42]
Several tower design standards such as TIAG (but also EN 199331) states that the
lattice web patterns should be fully triangulated in order to avoid bending considera
tions. If e.g. secondary bracings in hip or plane web patterns are not fully triangulated
they can not be considered to prevent buckling in their own plane (without bending
considerations). Nontriangulated web patterns are in general not recommended for
lattice tower design, however they do occur either due to negligence or for practical
reasons. Examples of triangulated and nontriangulated patterns are given in gure 5
for hip bracings, and are basic examples from TIAG.
(a) Typical locations of lattice hip bracing (Sec
tion AA)
(b) Triangulated hip bracing (c) Nontriangulated hip bracing
Figure 5: Examples of triangulated and nontriangulated bracings as per TIAG
25
3 Sample tower:
40m Medium duty Tower Design
In order for the project to be as specic 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 TIAG 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 socalled Medium duty tower, medium referring to its
equipment bearing capacity. It consists of 13 sections, with nonstaggered Xbracing
patterns. The 4 top sections are parallel in order to accommodate xture of telecommu
nication equipment. The 3 bottom sections are tted with several secondary bracings,
including internal hipbracing.
If the hipbracing is studied more closely it is seen to conict with the provisions
in TIAG 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
3.2 Design loading
The design load on a telecommunication tower is typically dominated by loads related
to wind. Other than wind load from the tower body itself, loads from appurtenances
is also considered. Since the wind load on tower body is usually considered to be
mandatory, the appurtenance loads are often referred to as the design load of the tower.
The effective projected windarea of the appurtenances originally considered for the
design of the sample tower is given in table 2.
Effective projected wind areas are found by rough estimates described in Ramboll
internal note by Mr. Ulrik StttrupAndersen. Exact wind load from appurtenances is
dependent on the type and supplier, and should in any case be determined considering
the actual loadconguration of the tower.
Furthermore it is brought to the attention of the reader that the sample tower is origi
nally designed according to Indian Standards (IS), and therefore a full utilization of the
design should not be expected, since the considered wind speed in this project is lower
than what was originally considered. The project at hand only deals with the effects of
different approaches to design of towers, hence a full utilization of the tower is not a
requirement, only realistic distribution of loads and tower proportions.
26
Load description Level Shielding
Effective projected
wind area (EPA)
1 No. 2.4m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
38.75m 0% 4m
2
1 No. 1.8m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
38.75m 30% 1.6m
2
5 Nos. 1.2m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
31.25m 50% 4m
2
3 Nos. CDMA Panel Antenna
(2.62mx0.37m)
33.75m 0% 3m
2
9 Nos. GSM Panel Antenna
(1.917mx0.262m)
33.75m 30% 3.78m
2
Cable & Access Ladder
(Along tower center line)
035m Complete
shielding
from
3540m
0.3
m
2
m
Table 2: Sample tower design load
3.3 Hand calculation
In relation to this project a complete design calculation of the sample tower in ac
cordance with TIAG was made by hand in the computer software MathCad. The
calculation was performed under the assumption that the tower is statically determinate
3D truss. The calculation served two purposes:
Approximate reference values for check of force distribution in the FEMModel
and RAMTOWER
Illustrate the differences in assuming a static determinate 3D structure and a
static indeterminate 3D structure (comparing traditional methods with more ad
vanced computational models).
The calculation only considers windload from a 0 degree direction (refer to gure 6),
sometimes also referred to as the normal direction. It should however be noted that tow
ers should be designed for several different wind load directions (and combinations).
In the case of towers with square cross sections a 45 degree wind direction should also
be considered. Usually the 0 degree wind load case will govern the design of bracings,
whereas the 45 degree case will govern the design of legmembers (and foundations),
however all members should be checked for both cases.
A more thorough study of these calculations is left to the reader, but the results of
the calculation will be applied for comparison with RAMTOWER at a later stage.
The complete calculation is attached this project as Appendix AR.D
27
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 selfsupporting lattice towers. The program features analysis of
towers with triangular or square crosssections, 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 xed 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 prole 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 FEMmodels 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, dening windproles, buckling curves, ice
loads, default safety factors and material parameters. On several occasions throughout
its more than 12 years of existence
3
, 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 TIAG standard,
when considering buckling curves, safety factors etc. Two different RAMTOWER
analysis were performed: One with a model loaded by the windprole which is dened
within the program for the TIAG standard and another model considering point loads,
related to wind on the tower body and appurtenances found in the hand calculation,
dened 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 prole, 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
Figure 7: Illustration of RAMTOWER program concept
31
5 Abaqus Joint FEManalysis
In order to obtain endrestraint stiffness values to be applied in buckling analysis of
angle bar bracing members, a more detailed FEManalysis of a type joint was per
formed. The analysis was executed in the FEMprogram Abaqus/CAE version 6.101.
A softcopy of each Abaqus FEMmodel is given in Appendix F.
5.1 Type joint description
When selecting the layout of the joint, which was to be applied in order to capture
the stiffness behavior of typical angle bar tower bracing connections, there was one
deciding factor. During the literature study a article by N. Ungkurapinan et. al. [12] in
a very thorough manner described the experimental study of joint slip
4
in bolted angle
bar connections under axial load. In relation to this study a idealized stiffness curve
for joints with very specically described parameters had been developed based on the
experimental results. Using this idealized curve for the axial stiffness behavior of the
joint, the FEMmodel could be calibrated to conrm this data, thus increasing overall
reliability of the model. This would also indicate any limitations of a simple FEM
model w.r.t. the actual psychical behavior of a angle bar connection. When the axial
stiffness of the type joint corresponded to the experimental data, the FEMmodel could
be modied to consider the rotational stiffness, which would be of greater interest for
angle bar buckling considerations.
The layout of the Abaqus model which reects the test setup applied in [12] is
illustrated in gure10. A drawing of the setup with measurements is given in Appendix
E. Note that Abaqus visualizations applies the coordinate system XYZ (axes colored
red, green and blue respectively), however for in and output in Abaqus this is referred
to as direction 123. This number coordinate system is applied in the following.
The joint consists of two angle bar members overlapping leg to leg, with 2 bolts
transferring angle bar axial loads through shear. Parameters given in table 3, all effect
ing the joint stiffness according to [12], was considered. All these parameters reected
the assumptions of the experiments performed in [12]. Further parameters are given in
the subsequent sections.
Parameter Value
Bolt size M16
Hole clearance 1.6mm
Bolt torque 114.27kNmm
Angle bar type L100x100x6
Table 3: Joint parameters effecting stiffness applied in FEMmodel
5.2 Material properties
For dening material properties, two literature resources were used. In [12] basic ma
terial property data from material testing is provided for both angle bars and bolts. It
was considered to be necessary to use this data in order to obtain results which may be
compared with [12]. Several different material models were considered:
4
Joint slip is dened as the sudden motion, due to a loss in friction provided by bolt tensioning, made
possible due to bolt in holes with clearance
32
Linearelastic (In the following referred to as Elastic)
Linearelastic  perfect plastic (In the following referred to as Perfect plastic)
Linearelastic  plastic w. hardening (In the following referred to as Plastic w.
hardening)
Hardening and other plastic behavior of the material was not described in [12] and was
therefore based on experimental data by DickNielsen and Dssing [7]. DickNielsen
et. al considered several steel material types with certicates retrieving material models
from them by application of reverse engineering:
The test specimens (in [7]) were applied in normal tension testing, and the results
from this consisted of displacements at different force levels exerted on the specimens 
A test specimen work curve. By use of a FEMmodel of the test setup material models
were continuously modied until displacements for different force levels matched the
work curve retrieved from the material testing. The results of the material testing by
DickNielsen et. al. is referenced in Appendix E.2. For the angle bar members material
data on hardening of S355 was applied, which was in good agreement with the overall
material properties of the angle bars described in [12]. For the bolt material experimen
tal data on hardening of grade 10.9 bolts was used. It should be noted that this grade
has a tensile strength which is somewhat higher than the bolts used in [12], however
this is considered to be of minor importance, since most deformation (from yielding)
is expected from local yielding in angle bar holes (Refer to later discussion in sub
section 5.8). For the linearelastic properties of the material a Emodulus of 215GPa
(corresponding to test results in [12]) and a Poisons ratio of 0.3 was considered.
The material model, from the data collected by DickNielsen et. al, was omitted
in tabular data, from which Abaqus can interpolate (linearly) for any given yield stress
state. If plastic strains exceed the tabulated data, Abaqus assumes the yield stress to be
of same magnitude as the last tabulated yield stress for any plastic strain (larger than
the last specied). This last property was used for dening the perfect plastic model,
were reaching yield stress of the material results in unlimited plastic strains.
Residual stresses (from rolling of angle bar member, punching of holes etc.) was
not included in the model.
A frictional coefcient of 0.4 was considered for the angle bar and bolt surfaces.
According to [4] frictional coefcients smaller than 0.2 should not be considered in
Abaqus, since serious convergence problems may occur. The friction coefcient of 0.4
corresponds to the provisions of EN10902 for metalized surfaces (Class B surface).
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 denitely
not reect 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 gure 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
(a) Bolt head, nut and shank contact surface
(b) Angle bar contact surface for bolt head, nut
and shank
(c) Angle bar to angle bar contact surface
Figure 8: Model contact surfaces (colored red)
can penetrate the slave surface (between the nodes of the slave surface), thus it is rec
ommended
5
that the slave surface is the more nely meshed of the two surfaces. In
the case of contact between the bolt and angle bar surfaces, the bolt was dened 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 interaction
6
, 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
dened a frictional coefcient 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 dened as
hard. This property assumes that constraints related to contact can only occur, when
the surfaces are touching (no sticking between the contact surfaces).
5.4 Steps, incrementation and output requests
Due to the nature of the joint FEMmodel, serious care had to be taken when organizing
steps and increments in order for the model solution to converge. Especially during the
joint slip serious convergence problems may occur. Due to the hole clearance and bolt
tensioning, the joint will experience a slip as it goes from a friction to a bearing type
joint. At this critical stage the analysis tends to abort with errors, since it does not
recognize that the slip has a denite motion governed by the clearance of the joint
holes, but labels it as a innite motion with zero stiffness to achieve equilibrium (rigid
5
In [4].
6
In this case a total of 5 interactions were dened in the model: 4 containing the bolt contact between the
area in and around each angle bar hole and 1 containing the contact between the angle bars.
34
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.
Load  region 3  Continue loading with bolts in bearing.
This stepwise analysis of the joint ensured that for the critical part of the analysis (at
joint slip), step incrementation was very detailed and for remaining parts of the analy
sis, were iterations easily converges, incrementation was more coarse. However mod
ifying the incrementation of the the analysis, was not completely adequate to meet a
converged solution. Convergence problems are almost inevitable at the joint slip, since
Abaqus in this critical phase considers a very small change in stress to cause innite
displacements (since slope of work curve in this region is zero, refer to gure 14). If
however a small stiffness is included, the analysis does not continue to divide time
increments until they are innitely small, but obtains a solution. To introduce some
stiffness to the joint slip region, 12 small springs with a stiffness of 30N/mm were
provided between each of the bolt shanks and the surface of the holes as illustrated on
gure 9. The springs provide the work curve with a negligible, slope during the joint
slip. It should however be pointed out that nonconverged analysis of the model indi
cates that the slope of the work curve goes towards zero before analysis is interrupted.
The loading in each step was determined by methods described later in this section.
In order to retrieve joint slip curves to compare with the experimental data available
(idealized curve from [12]), history output requests were dened for certain nodes in
the model. These locations may be viewed on gure 10.
For the nodes was requested translations in the direction 3 during all increments of
the analysis (Axial direction of the joint  Abaqus variable: U3).
35
Figure 10: Nodes for displacement history output requests (marked by red dots)
5.5 Boundary conditions
In this subsection the boundary conditions, that is the displacement degree of freedom
(dof) on the boundary of the model, is described. In the following a restrained dof
refers to the dof having a prescribed displacement of 0, corresponding to a support
in that dof direction. The boundary conditions of the model varies with each of the
previously described analysis steps, and are described for each step in the following:
5.5.1 Boundary conditions at step: Initial
In the initial step all parts in the model, had to be restrained in order for the analysis to
run. This meant:
Bolt center restrained in direction 1
Bolt head and nut restrained in direction 2 and 3
Angle bars restrained at edges in direction 1, 2 and 3.
In gure 11 the boundary conditions for the step may be viewed.
5.5.2 Boundary conditions at step: Establish bolt tension
In this step the tensioning of the bolts was applied and to avoid disturbances the bound
ary conditions were eased to:
Bolt head and nut restrained in direction 2 and 3
Angle bars restrained at edges in direction 1, 2 and 3.
Hence the boundary conditions for this step is the same as in gure 11, except the
restraint at bolt center is removed.
36
5.5.3 Boundary conditions at steps: Load  region 1,Load  region 2 and
Load  region 3
In this step the tensioning of the bolts can be considered to restrain the bolts and there
fore further restraints are not required. Furthermore the angle bars are connected to
each other by friction from normal stresses provided by the bolt tension. All the pre
viously described boundary conditions may be substituted, by boundary conditions
which reect the actual test setup given in [12].
For the test setup, both ends of the type joint may be considered to be restrained
against displacements out of the joint plane (due to the plates from the compression test
machine). In order for the model to be of type plane stress, restraints out of the joint
plane was only provided in the direction of the angle bar leg, as illustrated on gure
12a. In the axial direction of the joint, restraint was applied to the unloaded joint end.
Boundary conditions for the model in steps: Load  region 1,Load  region 2 and
Load  region 3, may be viewed in gure 12b.
37
(a) BCs for bolt in step Initial
(b) BCs for angle bar in step Initial (Only one angle bar shown)
Figure 11: Boundary conditions(marked orange) for step: Initial
38
(a) Directional concept of outofplane restraint at the sup
ported ends of the type joint (unloaded end shown).
Arrows mark the supported direction.
(b) BCs 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]:
F
M
=
2M
A
1.155
G
d
2
+
K
D
km
+
P
(5)
where for a M16 bolt:
M
A
is bolt installation torque, M
A
= 114.27kNmm
G
is the coefcient of friction of bolt thread,
G
= 0.4
K
is the coefcient of friction of bolt (head and nut) surface,
K
= 0.4
d
2
is the edge diameter, d
2
= 24mm
P is the bolt pitch, P = 2mm
D
km
is the mean bolt diameter which is obtained from (6):
D
km
=
d
k
+D
B
2
(6)
where
d
k
is the inside diameter of the contact surface (diameter of bolt hole) d
k
= 17.6mm
D
B
is the outside diameter of the contact surface (bolt head outside diameter) D
B
=
27.7mm
From (5) a tension force in the bolt of 11kN or 54.7MPa (for bolt as a solid 16 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 gure 13. This
bolt load will cause the bolt to obtain internal stresses due to contact pressure between
the bolthead/nut and angle bars.
Figure 13: Abaqus bolt load applied on bolt shank centerplane
40
Figure 14: Principal forcedisplacement curve for joint slip (For linearelastic material, with no
plasticity)
5.6.2 Loading from test setup
In order to simulate loading from the test machine, a uniform pressure was applied to
the axially unsupported end of the type joint.
As previously mentioned load application was accomplished in steps and most crit
ical was the load at which the joint starts to slip. In order to determine this load, a
simple approximation was initially used and then rened once results from initial runs
of the model was completed. The critical force was determined from expression
F
cr
= nF
M
(7)
where
n is the number of friction planes for one of the adjoined members, n = 4
F
M
is the tension force of the bolt obtained from expression (5), F
M
= 11kN
is the coefcient of friction of the adjoined surfaces, = 0.4
According to expression (7) slip is initiated when the applied force exceeds F
cr
=
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 modied by viewing results from some of these initial
test runs. A model which would reect the real joint slip behavior would have a dis
placement curve as illustrated in gure 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
sufcient 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 gure 14.
As a result of this the following nal load steps were applied for the model:
Load  region 1  Load interval:015.8MPa
41
Load  region 2  Load interval:15.816.5MPa
Load  region 3  Load interval:16.5100MPa
5.7 Meshing
For the model was used a combination of 20node 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 ne symmetric mesh of hex type. The mesh of bolts and angle bars
may be viewed in gure 15
(a) Bolt mesh
(b) Angle bar mesh (Only one angle bar shown  mesh is identical for the two angle bars)
Figure 15: Angle bar joint mesh
42
5.8 Joint axial stiffness results
By combining the history output, e.i. the translation and axial load stresses in direc
tion 3 w.r.t. the Abaqus analysis relative time, the solid line work curves in gure 16
were obtained, for the 3 different material models. As previously mentioned the his
tory data consisted of measurements in 2 points of the joint (refer to gure 10). The
total difference in axial joint displacement in these points was in the order 1/10 of a
millimeter, and the displacement of the joint was therefore based on a mean value of
the history displacement data. For comparison and evaluation of the FEMresults a
idealized curve developed in [12], based on experimental results of several identical
testspecimens of the type joint, is added by the dashed line on the gure. As it may be
seen from the gure there are some differences between the results obtained by FEM
analysis and the idealized curve based on test results. Region 1 (refer to gure 14)
shows good agreement, and also the value at which the joint starts to slip is within
7.5% accuracy of the experimental data, which may be considered to be pretty good,
since the factors which govern the slip load of the joint are difcult to determine with
high accuracy (bolt tensioning, friction etc.). However larger discrepancy occurs as the
joint deformation approaches the elastic area. It is obvious that the total slip of the joint
(region 2) is not of same magnitude (idealized curve starts to build elastic deformation
after just 0.85mm of slip). This is justied by N. Ungkurapinan et. al., since little or
no attention was paid to place the bolts completely centered in the joint holes of the
specimens, as it has been done in the FEMmodel. This will also never be psychically
possible, since joint holes will be made with some tolerance. This last psychical factor
is considered to be most likely to cause the deviation. The most concerning discrepancy
is the elastic stiffness of the joint. The idealized curve indicates a relatively large de
formation with low elastic stiffness, whereas FEM indicates small elastic deformation
with a larger stiffness quickly achieving plastic behavior (for the models containing
plasticity). Some differences between the FEMmodel and the experimental test setup
should be pointed out at this stage:
The FEMmodel considers grade 10.9 bolts whereas the experiment applies bolts
with a ultimate strength of some 800MPa. (Hence experimental bolts starts to
yield at a earlier stage than the ones applied for the FEMmodel, however defor
mation of the bolts is generally considered to be small.)
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 FEManalysis, 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 conrms 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 FEMmodel) 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 innite size, an thus produce yield stresses in the hole almost
43
60
80
100
120
140
160
F
[
M
p
a
]
Forcedisplacement curve axially loaded joint w.o. bending
FEMmodel Elastic
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardening
FEMmodel Perfectlyplastic
Idealizedcurve N.Ungkurapinan
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0,00E+00 5,00E01 1,00E+00 1,50E+00 2,00E+00 2,50E+00 3,00E+00
F
[
M
p
a
]
Joint deflection [mm]
Forcedisplacement curve axially loaded joint w.o. bending
FEMmodel Elastic
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardening
FEMmodel Perfectlyplastic
Idealizedcurve N.Ungkurapinan
Figure 16: Deformation curve for idealized experimental and FEMmodel 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 FEMmodel.
All these factors may inict on the experimental data, yielding a lower stiffness of
the test specimen joint, than what can be obtained by a simple FEMmodel as described
here.
5.9 Result testing
Since the joint FEMmodel showed some discrepancies with respects to the experimen
tal data (established in gure 16), further testing of the model was performed in order
to validate if other issues, than what has previously been addressed, were inicting on
the results. Model and result testing was limited to contain: mesh convergence testing,
stress discontinuities and bolt tensioning.
44
60
80
100
120
140
160
F
[
M
p
a
]
Convergence: Forcedisplacement curve axially loaded joint
w.o. bending
FEMmodel Elastic
FEMmodel Elastic conv.
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardening
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardeningconv.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
F
[
M
p
a
]
Joint deflection [mm]
Convergence: Forcedisplacement curve axially loaded joint
w.o. bending
FEMmodel Elastic
FEMmodel Elastic conv.
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardening
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardeningconv.
Figure 18: Result comparison from type joint convergence testing.
5.9.1 Mesh convergence
The FEM is a mathematical approximation to a psychical problem, by application of
approximated eld variables. In general the solution given by this approximation con
verges towards the actual solution by the number of elements which are applied (several
factors such as geometric order of elements etc. governs the convergence rate). When
performing a FEM analysis it is not desirable to apply a large amount of elements in
order to obtain a completely accurate result, since this would require a long time of
computation. The usual aim is have model with a (relative) fast computation and ac
ceptable deviations from the exact solution. The usual convergence rate in the FEM
is not linear, thus the solution quickly converges towards the exact solution with just a
reasonable amount of elements. In order to determine the state of convergence for the
type joint FEMmodel, the model was remeshed by increasing the amount of seeds
along previously seeded edges by 50%.
Since this project was mostly concerned with the deformation of the joint, compar
ison of results, between the original and the remeshed model, will be limited hereto.
In gure 18 the work curve of the remeshed models is given by dots at outputted in
crements of the analysis and may be compared with the initially accepted results (solid
line).
The gure illustrates that there is no visible difference between the results obtained
by the remeshed model and the original.
At the same time it should be mentioned that the remeshed model has a CPU time
of 10.5 hours and the original only 1.2 hours (for the elastic material model). This
clearly illustrates the importance of doing convergence testing, analysis run time can
be drastically reduced by mesh optimization based on result convergence. If a 3%
difference in results was obtained, the original model may still be accepted in order to
reduce computation time by 90% from the remeshed model.
The convergence graph also illustrates the critical phases of the joint axial deforma
tion: at transition from friction to slip and at transition from slip to bolts in bearing. At
these locations the dots fromthe convergence results are very closely spaced, indicating
that Abaqus is applying a large number of increments at these locations.
45
5.9.2 Stress discontinuities
In order to determine the adequacy of most FEMmodel meshes, it will be relevant to
view the discontinuities of the model eld output results. The discontinuity is the dif
ference between the lowest and highest nodal value common to two or more elements,
and is a good indicator as to where in the model the mesh density is insufcient. In this
project only discontinuities in Von Mise stress was considered. At several locations
discontinuities was however not considered, these were:
Corners between the two legs of the angle bar
Locations at which corners of bolt head and nut is pressing against the angle bar
surface
Bolt shank at locations which is pressing against corners of angle bar holes (Just
under head and nut and at the center of the shank).
These locations are ignored since high values of stress are inicted at these areas. For a
perfectly meshed sharp corner, such as the corner between the two legs of the angle bar,
stresses would reach innite levels. Same applies for the contact areas where corners
are pressing against surfaces. If large discontinuity was to be avoided, all corners would
have to be smoothed, which is very demanding, even for a simple detail as considered
in this case. Furthermore effects from discontinuity in these areas is considered to have
little effect on the joint deformation which is required in this project.
Contour plots of the stress discontinuities are given in gure 19 for the type joint
model with the plastic w. hardening material model. For the angle bar member the
largest discontinuities are observed in the area around the bolthole (hence only this area
is considered on the gure).
From the contour plots several nodes of interest were selected and their V. Mise
stress discontinuities were probed and compared with the actual averaged stress. Re
sults may be viewed in table 4. From the table stress discontinuities are observed to
be high compared to the actual V. Mise stress at the probed node. The discontinuity
should be viewed with respects to the required parameter of the joint. This project
is mainly concerned with the deformation of the joint at a certain load. Further dis
continuity tests performed in Appendix E.3, with the convergence model described in
the previous subsection, indicates that the discontinuities are reduced by increasing the
mesh of the model, however not even the convergence model provides satisfying dis
continuities. Considering that there was no effect on joint deformation by increasing
the mesh by 50% along all edges, and this is seen to reduce the discontinuities of the
joint model, it is assumed that the discontinuities given in table 4, does not have a con
siderable effect on the joint stiffness results. However if stress in the model is required
the mesh must be rened and discontinuities rechecked.
5.9.3 Bolt tensioning
Tests of the bolt tensioning was made up of two parts: Initially was modeled a solid
rod resembling the bolt shank and the bolt load was applied to the center plane by same
concept as illustrated on gure 13. Reactions in the axial direction on one side of the
bolt was then summed to conrm that they were in equilibrium with a internal force of
the prescribed bolt tensioning.
Next the entire joint model was considered. A bolt load of 0.11kN ( 1% of the
entire bolt load) was applied to the bolt and stresses in the angle bar at the location of
46
(a) Discontinuities in angle bar with probed nodes (the neglected areas, primarily corners, are remove for remaining
discontinuities to be clearly visible).
(b) Discontinuities in bolt with probed nodes
Figure 19: Stress discontinuities in type joint FEMmodel for the material model plastic w.
hardening.
47
Node V. Mise stress
[MPa]
V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
2941 397.9 512.8 129%
792 564.0 370.9 66%
2160 310.7 313.7 101%
3090 330.7 211.5 64%
291 313.8 215.6 69%
(a) V. Mise stress discontinuities in angle bar
Node V. Mise stress
[MPa]
V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
1423 457.9 382.2 79.3
73 556.4 440.2 70.6
(b) V. Mise stress discontinuities in bolt
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.
5.10 Joint rotational stiffness
For the purpose of buckling analysis the previously determined axial joint stiffness
was to some extent, irrelevant and merely a method of conrming that a FEMmodel
could generate joint stiffness results with good correspondence to actual joint behav
ior. From the previous tests and result comparison this is on some level considered to
be conrmed, even though some factors such as residual stresses, imperfections and
tolerances are not captured by the FEMmodel leaving some deviations to the actual
stiffness behavior of the joint. On this note the more buckling relevant rotational stiff
ness behavior of the joint was to be determined. The overall model was the same as
the previous axial stiffness model, leaving only some small modications in order to
consider rotation of the joint about the two parallel axis of the joint denoted RX and
RY (refer to gure 21a). During the study of the rotational stiffness of the joint, it has
been assumed that there is no difference in stiffness for clock and counterclockwise
rotation about the same axis, this is however not conrmed.
5.10.1 Modied material parameters
Two major changes was implemented on the material parameters of the model:
The Emodulus was lowered to 200GPa corresponding to the modulus consid
ered by TIAG
Only the material models Elastic and Plastic w. hardening were considered.
48
5.10.2 Modied boundary conditions
The only modication made to the boundary conditions, was the previously considered
outofplane restraint at the loaded end of the type joint. This boundary condition
was removed since restraint from the test machine was no longer considered (refer to
subsection 5.5.3) and the joint rotational stiffness was now alone to be provided by the
connection to the other angle bar.
5.10.3 Modied loads
The axial loading of the joint was moved to the other end of the angle bar member
(closer to the bolt holes) as illustrated on gure 20 and only the angle bar leg containing
bolts was loaded. This was all done to prevent unintended rotation, enabled by the
removal of the previously described BC, due to eccentricities in the load application.
The axial load of the joint was important since it would increase the rotational stiffness
of the entire joint, due to the bolts contact with the hole surfaces by bearing. Also
the axial load reects the actual conditions before buckling of the member, since loads
close to buckling will be present in the member, before considerable rotation of the
joint due to outofplane deformation occurs as indicated on gure 30.
The axial pressure load on the joint edge was kept constant, following the rotation
of the joint, ensuring that the axial load does not contribute to any moment, refer to
gure 20. Two different axial loads of 70 and 100MPa were considered , refer to
subsection 5.10.5 hereon.
In order to impose moment to the joint, two different approaches were applied, one
in each rotational direction. In order to obtain the stiffness for RX rotation a set of
a surface tractions (surface shear stresses) was applied at the end of the rotating part
of the joint. The surface tractions were applied in two directions in order to obtain
the relevant pure bending moment for the RX rotation. The surface traction was only
applied to the angle bar leg which was perpendicular to the rotation axis (on both sides
of the surface), refer to gure 21a. This type of load application was considered to
be valid due to the SaintVernant principle
7
, however the mesh density also has an
impact on this assumption. The moment was calculated by the size of one of the force
components multiplied with the distance between the components.
For determining RY rotation stiffness a different approach of applying moment had
to be followed, since attempts to use the same principle as for the RX rotation on the
perpendicular leg, led to a complicated rotation of the joint (containing twisting). This
very complex rotation was not desirable. Instead moment was to be applied by dis
placing the ends of the rotating part as illustrated in gure 21a(Only at top and bottom
of angle bar were displaced). Applying displacements to the joint was achieved by a
prescribed dof, same as when dening a support, except now the dof had a prescribed
value which was different from 0 and increasing linearly. However just as a support,
the prescribed dof would contain the reaction forces needed to maintain the prescribed
displacement. The moment which was applied to the joint for a given displacement
of the rotating part end, was then calculated as these reaction forces multiplied with
the distance to the closest bolt in the joint. It would be obvious to question why this
method of apply moment to the joint was not applied for the RX rotation. But by apply
ing moment to the joint by displacement of the joint ends, shear is also applied to the
joint, which has been observed to decrease the amount joint rotational stiffness, most
7
Differences in stresses caused by a statically equivalent load system is negligible at a distance corre
sponding to the greatest dimension of the area over which the load system is applied.
49
Figure 20: Modied 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.
5.10.4 Modied steps and incrementation
Several changes were made to steps and incrementation for the new rotational stiffness
model. Since there was now no interest in obtaining joint displacement results as the
axial load was increased the steps Load  region 1 and Load  region 2 were deleted
to increase computation speed. All axial load was now applied in the step Load 
region 3. Furthermore a new step named Loadrotation was added to imposed the
rotation loads once the axial load was applied. Also the initial position of the joint bolts
was changed from their perfectly centered position to being in bearing, since analysis
was no longer concerned with joint slip. The stiffness of springs between bolt holes
and shank was kept at 30N/mm. The springs were not removed as a precaution to
avoid convergence problems due to unforeseen displacements, however they have no
considerable effect.
Finally the number of increments was also attempted to be reduced, by allowing
Abaqus to take the steps Establish bolt tension and Load  region 3 in each one
increment. This was also done in an attempt to reduce computation time.
5.10.5 Joint rotational stiffness results
Based on the new rotational model a work curve for joint rotation RX and RY, for
varying values of moment was obtained. The rotations were obtained by considering
translations of the points shown in gure 10, depending on the required rotation. From
this history data, the rotation (v) was calculated by (refer to gure 22):
v =tan
1
_
X2
Y2
_
[rad] (8)
where
Y2 =
X2
X2+X1
Y1+Y2
50
(a) Joint rotation stiffness model load application: Prescribed displacement for RY (left) and force couples from
surface traction for RX (right)
(b) Force components from surface traction
forming moment for rotation RX
Figure 21: Rotational stiffness model loadapplication for rotation RX and RY
51
Figure 22: Method of retrieving rotation (v) based on joint nodal displacements (X1 and X2)
shown for RX rotation.
and
Y1+Y2 = 91mm , corresponding to the distance between the history output nodes.
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 gure23, 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 inuence 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 gure 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 inuence on RY rotational stiffness, thus it is not
included in gure 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
deection fromaxial buckling load. In the FEMmodel 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
overdesigned (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 FEManalysis results, stiffness data is available for a rotation
interval of 0 0.07rad. By simple calculations of joint rotation for a sine shaped
deection eld it is indicated that a joint rotation of 0.07rad is reached at some
L
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
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
F
[
k
N
m
]
Momentrotation curve axially loaded joint w. bending
Rotation RX and RY
FEMRX Elastic70MPa
FEMRX Plasticw.hardening70MPa
FEMRY Elastic70MPa
FEMRY Plasticw.hardening70MPa
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,1
F
[
k
N
m
]
Joint rotation [rad]
Momentrotation curve axially loaded joint w. bending
Rotation RX and RY
FEMRX Elastic70MPa
FEMRX Plasticw.hardening70MPa
FEMRY Elastic70MPa
FEMRY Plasticw.hardening70MPa
Figure 23: FEMmodel deformation curve for rotation about the 2 parallel axis of the type joint
(RX and RY)
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
F
[
k
N
m
]
Momentrotation curve axially loaded joint w. bending
Rotation RX
FEMRX Elastic100MPa
FEM RX El ti 70MP
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,1
F
[
k
N
m
]
Joint rotation [rad]
Momentrotation curve axially loaded joint w. bending
Rotation RX
FEMRX Elastic100MPa
FEMRX Elastic70MPa
FEMRX Plasticw.hardening100MPa
FEMRX Plasticw.hardening70MPa
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 sufcient.
55
6 FEMAnalysis
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 FEManalysis 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 nontriangulated hip bracing
Monitor effects of including joint stiffness, from detailed FEManalysis to single
section analysis.
Compare results from single section analysis with TIAG provisions, especially
when considering the effective slenderness ratio.
Softcopies of all ROBOT FEMmodels applied in this project are given in Appendix
F.
6.1 Initial testing
In order to ensure that ROBOT was suitable for the FEManalysis of the sample tower,
a series of initial tests were conducted.
These tests included, but was not limited to:
Simple cases of linearbuckling analysis of angle bar members.
Linearbuckling analysis when considering lateral support provided by incoming
members, including inuence of various member release conditions.
Simple cases of column buckling for angle bar members with eccentric load
application (offsets).
Analysis of columns with nonlinearity.
6.1.1 Simple linearbuckling of angle bar members
The purpose of this test was to ensure that critical buckling loads (and modes) given
by the ROBOT linear buckling analysis was in accordance with simple column theory
(Euler loads).
A simply supported column was modeled with one end pinned supported and the
other with a pinned support on rollers. ROBOT comes with a library of predened an
gle bar members, these are subcategorized into two types: major/minor axis proles(n
n and vv axis) and parallel axis proles (xx and yy axis) refer to gure 1. Both types
of proles were tested in two different models. Axial compression load was introduced
to the member, and buckling modes were studied.
Initial tests indicated that the program was only capable of considering buckling
about two axes, either the two parallel axis of the angle bar (xx and yy) or the minor
and major axis (vv and nn), based on whether a parallel axis or major/minor axis pro
le section was dened for the model. This was illustrated by all buckling modes being
of either parallel or major/minor type. This called for a more sophisticated model, to
56
verify the initial result beyond any doubt. To the original model was added a support at
midspan, as illustrated on gure 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 nonrestrained parallel axis to be most critical. Initial buckling mode for this
model, when using major/minor prole type was about the parallel axis, thus yielding
the following results on tests of the ROBOT Linear buckling analysis:
Only major/minor axis proles are capable of achieving buckling modes about
the major, minor and parallel axis. Parallel axis proles 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 prole may be referred to as a
main axis prole.
This result however posed a problem, since the releases of a angle bar bracing would
normally be dened 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 dened in both directions, but if analysis
was to consider different release stiffness in the two directions the major/minor axis
prole would not be able to accommodate this. To solve the problem a modied
beam element was applied. The beam element is a main axis prole with a very short
parallel axis prole attached to each end. The connection between the two prole types
was dened as fully xed and the short parallel axis prole accommodated correct
denition of member releases in regards to the actual physical conditions of a bracing
joint, previously obtained from the type joint analysis. The modied beam element
may be viewed in gure 26
In order to determine the inuence of the short parallel axis prole, at both ends
of the main axis prole, 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 prole of very short length compared to the
overall length of the member. The length of the parallel axis prole was then increased
and each buckling load was viewed with respects to the buckling load of a plain main
axis prole, e.i. without any parallel axis prole at the ends. A curve of the buckling
load convergence with parallel axis prole relative length
8
may be viewed in gure 27.
Convergence test shows that a relative length of the parallel prole of 4.0% yields a
completely accurate result.
Finally the modied beam element buckling load was determined, when consider
ing the two axes at both ends of the member being either released, xed or one axis
xed and one released at both ends. By doing so the modied beam element buckling
loads given in table 5 was obtained. This table also raise condence that the axis de
nitions of the small parallel beam segment is working properly, since for one axis xed
and the other released at both ends of the member a buckling load and mode between
the principal loads and modes is obtained.
6.1.2 Linearbuckling load when considering lateral support provided by incom
ing members
The purpose of this test was to verify, that ROBOT includes restraint for buckling pro
vided by other structural members in the model. Furthermore the inuence of various
8
Relative length refers to the length of the parallel axis prole, compared to the total unsupported length
of the column.
57
Figure 25: Position and orientation of support at midspan for provoking parallel axis buckling
for the beamcolumn element.
Figure 26: ROBOT model of the modied beam element with local axis denitions
22 6
22,7
22,8
22,9
23
23,1
23,2
1 0%
2,0%
3,0%
4,0%
F
c
r
[
k
N
]
R
e
l
.
e
r
r
o
r
[
%
]
Convergence test for modified beam element
Rel.error
Criticalload
22,4
22,5
22,6
22,7
22,8
22,9
23
23,1
23,2
0,0%
1,0%
2,0%
3,0%
4,0%
0,0% 2,0% 4,0% 6,0% 8,0% 10,0% 12,0% 14,0% 16,0%
F
c
r
[
k
N
]
R
e
l
.
e
r
r
o
r
[
%
]
Parallel axis profile rel. length [%]
Convergence test for modified beam element
Rel.error
Criticalload
Figure 27: Buckling load convergence with parallel axis prole relative length for the modied
beam element. Test specimen: L50x50x5 L=2000mm.
58
Axis release denitions at both ends of member
Buckling mode Both axes xed 1 xed & 1 released axis Both axes released
Weak 91.45kN  22.44kN
Weak/Parallel  47.11kN 
Parallel 214.95kN  53.61kN
Parallel/Strong  144.41kN 
Strong 341.33kN  85.79kN
Table 5: Critical Euler load for modied beamelement considering various modes and endrestraints.
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 denition 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 deection 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 deection at midspan 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 gure 28.The
more complex buckling analysis yielded the following results:
Critical buckling modes calculated in ROBOT for the more complex restraint
conguration showed correct results concerning buckling length and load factor,
when considering main axis proles.
Varying endrestraint release conditions of restraining members as well as main
member yielded the expected results.
59
6.1.3 Buckling load for members with eccentric load application
It has previously been established that due to the methods by which the angle bar
bracings of a tower are connected, eccentricities in loading of the members will occur.
It was therefore important to establish whether or not ROBOT includes the effects
of eccentricities in buckling analysis. It was clear that a linearbuckling analysis (as
applied in previous tests) would not be sufcient, since this analysis type only considers
the axial loading of the member.
Hence a nonlinear analysis was performed for the same test setup as the simple
linearbuckling test described in subsection 6.1.1, only now with eccentricities applied
by means of offsets.
Different approaches to member offset was attempted: ROBOT offset function and
manual offset by adding small perpendicular beam at each end of the column for load
application.
For a ROBOT nonlinear analysis with releases it is recommended to apply a DSC
element algorithm, which basically generates a small element at the end node of all
elements dened by the user. All release denitions on the old element nodes are then
moved to the DSCelement nodes (refer to [5]). In the case of advanced elastic and
nonlinear release denitions, application of the DSCelement is mandatory, so the
DSCelement would most denitely have to be applied in order to utilize the rotational
stiffness models previously found in Abaqus. ROBOT can however not include offsets
when using the DSCelement, and since nonlinear releases would have to be dened
for this project a assumption had to be made:
Considering the buckling curves in gure 2 and the provisions of the TIAG stan
dard described in section 2, it is reasonable to assume that for eccentricities which may
be considered to be within normal framing eccentricity, e.i. angle bars are connected
leg to leg, near the center line of the member, the reduction of the buckling load is neg
ligible for slender members such as bracings with
_
L
r
120
_
. Hence for the remaining
part of this project eccentricities of members will not be considered.
6.1.4 Nonlinear analysis
The previous buckling tests with eccentric load application, resulted in a increasing
doubt whether ROBOT was actually capable of performing even a simple nonlinear
analysis. Therefore two basic tests that would require a nonlinear analysis were per
formed:
Simply supported beamcolumn with transverse loading at the midspan.
Simply supported beamcolumn with nonlinear spring release at the ends.
Test models may be viewed in gure 29.
The nonlinear analysis is different from the linear buckling analysis previously
applied. The analysis does not give a result output of critical loadvalues for the mod
els. The nonlinear analysis applies all loads on the models in increments, gradually
increasing until full load is applied (for each increment the stiffness matrix is updated
and equilibrium iterations are performed). Results from the nonlinear analysis consists
of transverse deformation of the member as the load increases, hence determining the
critical load of the member, now relies on the value of transverse deformation which
may be considered to be acceptable. In some cases the axial load of the member at in
nite transverse deformation corresponds to the Euler load, however this is not always
60
(a) Nonlinear model with transverse loading (b) Nonlinear model with nonlinear rotational spring re
leases
Figure 29: ROBOT Nonlinear analysis test models
the case (as will be illustrated later). For this nonlinear analysis the NewtonRaphson
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 neutral
9
, e.i. the com
pression capacity of the column, does not increase after buckling of the member has
occurred. For both models deection at midspan in the expected direction of buckling
failure (weak axis failure expected, refer to gure 29) was monitored for each incre
ment of the nonlinear analysis, and plotted against the total applied axial load in the
same increment.
For the model with transverse load in gure 29a, two different transverse loadvalues
were considered.
For the beamcolumn with nonlinear spring releases a joint rotational stiffness
model, dened by a curve with the same properties as the curve FEMRX  Plastic
w. hardening 70MPa shown on gure 23 in section 5, was applied. The nonlinear
release was dened at both ends of the specimen for rotation about the weak axis of
the prole (refer to gure 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 gure 30. I should be mentioned that for the
curve in gure 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 gure 30a.
In order to have some kind of reference outside ROBOT a secondary check of the
linear buckling value for the nonlinear spring released model was performed. Timo
shenko deals with simply supported, elastic endrestrained beamcolumns in [17]. The
buckling parameter kl for a beamcolumn of this type, which appears in the general
expression of the critical buckling load (Euler load) may be found from the expression:
tan
_
kl
2
_
kl
2
=
2 E I
l
(9)
where is the elastic coefcient of the endrestraints and is found as:
=
M
where the moment M = 376.000Nmm and corresponding rotation = 0.00284rad
is the rst data point used to dene the nonlinear release curve in ROBOT. From
expression 9 is found a value of
kl
2
= 2.2616, which is applied to the expression 10
by which the critical buckling load for the beamcolumn with elastic endrestraints is
obtained.
F
cr
=
kl
2
E I
l
2
(10)
(2 2.2616)
2
200.000MPa 531100mm
4
(3000mm)
2
= 241.47kN
This load value is seen to correspond to the load value obtained by the ROBOT
linearbuckling analysis as illustrated on gure 30b and stated in table 7.
It is seen that the nonlinear analysis arrives at a lower buckling value than what
is anticipated by the linearbuckling analysis. This is in good agreement with the dif
ferences between the two types of analysis. The linearbuckling analysis assumes the
endrestraint stiffness curve to have the same slope as the initial part of the curve (as
it was assumed in the crosscheck with above expressions by Timoshenko  therefore
the two methods arrives at the same result). The nonlinear analysis updates the stiff
ness matrix for each load increment updating the stiffness of the endrestraints with the
data provided by the curve. Since the slope of the stiffness curve decreases as rotation
is increased the nonlinear analysis will gradually experience a loss in endrestraint
stiffness, and hence arrive at a lower critical load as the overall load is increased.
As previously mentioned the nonlinear 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 deections of the member i compression. In the case
of the transversely loaded beamcolumn, loadvalues at a outofplane 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 F
cr
= 22.44kN, indicated by percentage enclosed by () in the table.
From tests performed on the ROBOT nonlinear analysis facilities, it is concluded
that ROBOT is capable of providing reasonable results from beamcolumn members
with transverse loading and nonlinear release denitions. Hence ROBOT fullls the
requirements of the project.
62
10
15
20
25
F
[
k
N
]
Outofplane deformation (at midspan) for
transverse loaded beamcolumn
ROBOT0.5kN
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
F
[
k
N
]
Deformation [mm]
Outofplane deformation (at midspan) for
transverse loaded beamcolumn
ROBOT0.5kN
ROBOT1kN
Linearbuckling
(a) Forcedisplacement curve (outofplane displacement at midspan) from
nonlinear analysis of transverse loaded beamcolumn, compared with lin
ear buckling.Test specimen: L50x50x5 L=2000mm E=200000MPa
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
F
[
k
N
]
Outofplane deformation (at midspan) for beam
column with nonlinear endrestraints
ROBOT Non linear end restraints
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
F
[
k
N
]
Deformation [mm]
Outofplane deformation (at midspan) for beam
column with nonlinear endrestraints
ROBOT Nonlinearendrestraints
ROBOT Idealfullrelease
ROBOT Nonlinearendrestraints(Euler)
(b) Forcedisplacement curve (outofplane displacement at midspan) from
nonlinear analysis of beamcolumn with nonlinear endrestraints, com
pared with linear buckling of nonlinear restrained and unrestrained beam
column. Test specimen: L100x100x7 L=3000mm E=200000MPa
Figure 30: Results of ROBOT nonlinear analysis of test models
Outofplane displacement ROBOT  0.5kN ROBOT  1.0kN
2mm 17.5kN (78.0%) 14.25kN (63.5%)
20mm 21.8kN (97.1%) 21.3kN (94.9%)
Table 6: Loadvalues for L/1000 and L/100 of outofplane displacement for transversely loaded
beamcolumn models analyzed i ROBOT. Percentage enclosed by () is the nonlinear
load value with respects to the Euler load from linear buckling (F
cr
= 22.44kN).
63
Model Critical load
Nonlinear release RX (NLanalysis) 231.25kN
Nonlinear release RX (Linearbuckling) 241.41kN
Full release (Linearbuckling) 116.46kN
Table 7: Critical load from linearbuckling and nonlinear analysis of beamcolumn with non
linear endrestraint denition, compared with linear buckling for unrestrained beam
column.
6.2 Model description
Three tower models were considered in this project:
Complete sample tower model with pin connected bracings  Referred to as
Model A
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 semirigid 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 gure 32.
The purpose of the models B and C was to study the inuence of semirigid 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, inplane pinned and fully
rigid connections, neither of them reecting 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
dened 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 dened, 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 selfweight and appurtenances. Only the 0 degree wind
load case was considered for all three models (refer to gure 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 FEMmodel releases and angle bar orientations  releases (pinned or
semirigid) indicated by an empty circle  LI and LO indicating leg of angle bar being
in to or out of the plane respectively.
order to ensure a realistic force distribution.
Tower bracing members were assigned with some releases (different for each model),
whereas legmembers was considered to be continuous. For Model A all bracings were
modeled with pinned releases, e.i. free rotation about both principal axes (but not free
to twist) as was also Model B. For Model C bracings were modeled with a semirigid
release about both principal axes (by use of a nonlinear spring). The semi rigid releases
were dened with joint rotational stiffness retrieved from the Abaqus FEManalysis as
described in section 5 and was only considered at the end of each primary bracing, e.i.
secondary bracings and horizontals were dened with pinned releases about both prin
cipal axes in the all models. The application of the short parallel axis prole developed
through the initial testing of ROBOT, ensured that releases could be properly dened
with respects to their axis of rotation.
The layout of releases and orientation of bracings was common for all 3 models
and is illustrated in gure 31.
The bottom section legmembers are supported by xed supports to simulate the
angle bar being castin to the concrete foundation as proposed by Kang et al. [18].
For the Model Aa simple linear static analysis was performed, whereas for model
B and C a nonlinear static analysis had to be applied, since model C was dened
with nonlinear releases.
To the Models B and C some additional features were included, as previously men
tioned.
At main bracing crossover 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 crossbracings are usually connected with a single bolt at the crossover point.
Furthermore the two models where modeled by applying the modied beam element
65
Figure 32: Rendering of Model A (left) and common illustration of load application and release
denitions for section no. 13 for Models A, B and C (right)
as described in subsection 6.1.1. The modied 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 prole at each end.), to improve ROBOTs
approximation of the sine shaped deection eld by use of 3. order polynomials. Hor
izontal members were however divided into 3 members in each span.
The TIAG 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 nonlinear analysis
of the models B and C, with the expressions given in the TIAG standard, imperfec
tions needed not to be included in the analysis. The models B and C may be viewed in
gure 32.
6.3 Test runs of FEMModels
In the following is described observations and modications made to the initial FEM
models in connection to a series of test runs. The objective of these test runs was just
66
as the initial tests to ensure reliable results.
6.3.1 Effects of secondary bracings
From initial runs of the overall model of the sample tower (Model A) some substantial
discrepancies were observed between the diagonal compression forces in the FEM
model and the forces determined by RAMTOWER and the hand calculation. In most
of the sections, diagonal compression forces were obtained with acceptable accuracy,
but for the sections 12, 11 and 10 the forces were considerably higher. The overall
reactions from the tower were however close to identical, which indicated no errors in
the loading of the tower. Further study of forces in the secondary bracing of the bottom
3 sections showed that these were also loaded with substantial axial forces. In light of
this large discrepancy the Model A was subcategoriesed into two models:
FEMmodel (nodal)*: Secondary bracings are considered active in the analysis
(Original Model A)
FEMmodel (nodal)**: Secondary bracings are not considered active in the anal
ysis (eliminated fromstiffness matrix), same assumption as in RAMTOWERand
hand calculation.
The differences in the results from these two models is treated further in section 7
6.3.2 Effects of nonfully triangulated hip bracing
As previously mentioned the sample tower design is provided with internal hip brac
ing which is not fully triangulated as per provisions in TIAG. Consequences of this
failure to comply was experienced during the initial runs of the FEMmodels. Critical
buckling modes for 0 degree wind load case, were not of main axis type (as expected)
but of parallel axis type as illustrated on gure 33. However the buckling load values
were higher than the value corresponding to parallel buckling of the specic members.
The cause of this lies within the restraint provided by the hip bracing. Due to the
nontriangulated nature of the hip bracing, the main bracing perpendicular to the wind
direction participates in the buckling mode of the member parallel to the wind. This
results in the hip bracing acting as a spring with properties dependent on the bending
stiffness of the perpendicular bracing to which it is connected, providing the member
parallel to the wind with some restraint for parallel buckling.
It would however be interesting to utilize this extra capacity for tower design cal
culations. Fully triangulating the hip bracing would result in a increase in steel con
sumption and increase the tower assembly complexity. If a reasonable increase in
capacity (compared to not providing any hip bracing) could be achieved by means of
nontriangulated hip bracing, as provided for the sample tower, this would be very cost
efcient.
Considering the buckling load of the diagonal member in tower section 13, further
studies were made based on three hip bracing congurations:
No hip bracing provided
Nontriangulated hip bracing provided
Fully triangulated hip bracing provided
67
Hip bracing Buckling mode axis Buckling capacity Hip bracing netweight
None Parallel 34.5 kN 0 kg
Nontriangulated 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 linearbuckling analysis for
all three models is given in table 8 along with netweight 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 planbracing at diagonal crossover point as
illustrated on gure 34. The slenderness ratio
L
r
of each new member is enclosed by
() on the gure and should be no larger than 250 as specied by [4.4.2] in TIAG for
secondary members. From table 8 it is seen that there is actually a reasonable gain in
buckling capacity by providing nontriangulated hip bracing, compared to the weight
of the steel material consumed.
Finally in order to complete this study the effects of providing nontriangulated
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 TIAG [table 26] 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
() 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 nontriangulated hip bracings in the
45 degree case compared to section with no hipbracings 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 nontriangulated hip bracing
in the 0 degree wind load case (and perhaps also other cases).
The above study exemplies the importance of triangulated primary as well as sec
ondary bracing. Buckling capacity of non triangulated lattice is almost impossible to
68
Wind direction Diagonal force Buckling capacity
0 deg. case 4.64 52.7 kN
45 deg. case 3.98 34.5 kN
Table 9: Results of linearbuckling analysis of nontriangulated section for 0 and 45 deg wind
load case
determine by noncomputational methods, since it relies on stiffness considerations.
Furthermore it imposes bending of members which is not desirable in tower design and
requires a increased attention and effort during design. Same conclusions are seen in
previous publications such as [11] by N. Prasad Rao et. al. documenting premature
failure in several transmission line towers due to nontriangulated hipbracings, by use
of FEManalysis and fullscale tower tests.
Instead of tting towers with secondary bracings, it may sometimes be more bene
cial to just increase the size of the primary member crosssection. In the above study
a total steel netweight of 350kg was consumed in order to provide the tower with fully
triangulated hipbracings. Providing the tower with this hipbracing a diagonal com
pression capacity of 67.2kN was obtained as per table 8. If the same amount steel was
utilized to increase the diagonal crosssection instead of providing fully triangulated
hipbracing a diagonal of Lx90x90x9 could be applied. ROBOT analysis of such a
tower shows a compression capacity of 183.9kN for the diagonal member. This exam
ple underlines the responsibility of the designer to investigate different options to nd
the most suitable solution for each tower design. Usually smaller towers will not bene
t from large amounts of secondary bracings, better would be to just increase primary
member crosssection.
For the remaining part of this project, tower hip bracings were not considered.
The focus on bending in tower members from nontriangulated bracings, may raise
the question whether considering the rigidity of bracing member endrestraints (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 nontriangulated hipbracing.
Figure 33: Buckling failure of section with nontriangulated hip bracing. (brown silhouette is
the deformation of the failure mode)
70
Figure 34: Members added in order to triangulate the nontriangulated hip bracing (dashed
lines). Slenderness of each member is enclosed by ()
6.4 Results
In the following the results of the three ROBOT FEMmodels 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 nonlinear 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 sufcient 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 nonlinear analy
sis). As expected both sections failed by parallel buckling of the diagonal members in
the bottom span (below crossover point). The axial compression forces in the diago
nals at failure may be viewed in table 10, for the Models B and C.
71
Model Mode Buckling load Max. displacement
Model B Parallel 36.44kN 11mm
Model C Parallel 44.86kN 7mm
Table 10: Results from nonlinear ROBOT analysis of Models B and C. Maximum displacement
is measured at midspan of the failing member in the parallel direction (failure mode).
All results are treated further in section7.
73
7 Comparison
7.1 RAMTOWER, hand calculation and FEMresults
In this section the distribution of forces in the sample tower calculated by application of
RAMTOWER, hand calculations and the FEMprogram ROBOT is compared. Several
different models were considered within each method:
RAMTOWER regular: Standard RAMTOWER analysis  Wind prole and load
ing calculated by RAMTOWER and automatically applied at relevant levels.
RAMTOWER nodal: RAMTOWER wind prole is disabled and load found in
the hand calculation is applied as point loads between each section
Hand calculation: Hand calculation attached in Appendix AR.D (loads found
within the hand calculation is applied in all four legmembers between each sec
tion)
FEMmodel (nodal)*: ROBOT Model A as described in subsection 6.3.1
FEMmodel (nodal)**: The same model as FEMmodel(nodal)* only all sec
ondary bracings were inactive during the analysis, e.i. they were eliminated
from the stiffness matrix.
Only forces from a 0 degree wind load case are compared in this project.
On the gures 35 and 36 the compression forces in tower diagonal and leg members
respectively are compared, by considering the relative error from the regular RAM
TOWER analysis. Due to this method of comparison the red bar indicating the
RAMTOWER regular relative error is of course zero.
The gures consider the deviations to be either on the safe or unsafe side, e.i. if
forces found by the alternative methods are lower or higher than the forces found from
the regular RAMTOWER analysis.
As it may be seen from gures there are some rather large deviations between
RAMTOWER (regular) and all other methods in tower section 1. This deviation may
be explained by the fact that RAMTOWER calculates sections forces by the principle
previously illustrated in gure 7. The deviation in diagonal compression force may
be explained by considering the rather large horizontal point load from appurtenances
located in the middle of the section (level 38.75m). The regular RAMTOWER analysis
considers this entire load to be taken by the bracings in section 1, since it assumes that
all horizontal loads above the middle of each section (including the middle) must be
taken by the bracings of that section, whereas a nodal approach assumes that the section
bracing is only to carry half of the load (distributing one half of the load to the top and
the other half to the bottom of the section in question). For the legmember compression
forces RAMTOWER regular is seen to arrive at a force which is lower than what is
expected by the other methods. This is related to the same basic assumption previously
described. For the RAMTOWER regular analysis the rather large point load at the
middle of the section is not considered to contribute with any moment (at the section
where the regular analysis distributes forces by equilibrium considerations) and hence
it does also not yield any legmember compression. For the alternative methods moment
is present, since half of the horizontal point load is moved to the top of the tower.
The same type of deviation occurs in sections 3 and 4, which also contains point
loads from appurtenances.
74
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30
Sec 1
Sec 2
Sec 3
Sec 4
Sec 5
Sec 6
Sec 7
Sec 8
Sec 9
Sec 10
Sec 11
Sec 12
Sec 13
Relative error from regular RAMTOWER analysis [%]
Comparison of RAMTOWER regular analysis with various
alternative methods:
Diagonal compression force
FEMmodel (nodal)**
FEMmodel (nodal)*
RAMTOWER (nodal)
RAMTOWER (regular)
Hand calc.
Erroron the
safe side
Erroron the
unsafe side
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
40 20 0 20 40 60 80
Sec 1
Sec 2
Sec 3
Sec 4
Sec 5
Sec 6
Sec 7
Sec 8
Sec 9
Sec 10
Sec 11
Sec 12
Sec 13
Relative error from regular RAMTOWER analysis [%]
Comparison of RAMTOWER regular analysis with various
alternative methods:
Legmember compression force
FEMmodel (nodal)**
FEMmodel (nodal)*
RAMTOWER (nodal)
RAMTOWER (regular)
Hand calc.
Erroron the
safe side
Erroron the
unsafe side
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 assumptions made by the regular RAMTOWER analysis on distribution of
point loads, means that if loads are placed below the top half of a section it is not
included in the loading of that section diagonal although it is contributing some what
to the loading of that particular member. Same applies for legmember forces.
The overall limitations on local distribution of point loads in RAMTOWER, are
considered to be acceptable based on several arguments:
In the top of a telecommunications tower, were point loads from appurtenances
typically are located, proles are poorly utilized to limit the amount of different
proles in a tower and due to deection requirements.
For equipment loading on lower sections of a tower the relative deviation be
tween the methods are small, due to the large forces from the above tower struc
ture.
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
conrmed 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 FEManalysis as it is done in FEMmodel (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 prole 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 sufciently ac
curate, compared to the ease at which towers may be dened and analyzed, compared
with e.g. the FEMmodel.
7.2 Buckling of members with joint stiffness results from FEM
analysis.
By inserting the critical load from the ROBOT nonlinear analysis into Eulers formula
given in expression 1 in section 1, the effective buckling length of the member is ob
tained and hence also the effective slenderness ratio, which may directly be compared
with the ratios provided by the TIAG standard. Examples on the procedure and cross
sectional properties applied in the calculation of the effective slenderness ratios based
on results from the ROBOT analysis and TIAG standard may be viewed in Appendix
D. From the critical buckling loads of the two sample tower section models (Models B
and C), described in subsection 6.4, the effective slenderness ratios given in table 11 is
obtained. It should be mentioned that due to the different lengths of the spans (above
and below crossover point) in the sample tower diagonal member, special corrections
had to be made to the basic length of the buckling member before the expressions from
TIAG could be applied. This was done in order for the effective slenderness ratio to
77
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 fromtable 11, the results fromthe nonlinear analysis of the tower
section with the joint rotational stiffness model, almost matches the effective slender
ness ratio stated by the TIAG standard. However one comparison was not enough to
draw any nal conclusions on the adequacy of the TIAG 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 beamcolumns with applied axial load
in order to expand the comparison:
L60x60x6 of length 2000mm (In the following referred to as Model Asec)
L100x100x7 of varying length (In the following referred to as Model Bsec)
Model Asec 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 Bsec was included since this member was of approximately same size as the
member from which the joint stiffness models was initially obtained through Abaqus
FEManalysis (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) dened at both ends (SS) or just at one end with the other
pinned (SP). The layout of the Models Asec and Bsec may be viewed in gure 37.
Figure 37: ROBOT Nonlinear analysis Models Asec and Bsec 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 Asec and Bsec, 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 gure 25). The restraint was placed
in such a way that transverse deection 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 Asec and Bsec 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 crosssectional parameters considered for the two models is also
documented in Appendix D.
78
Endrestraints
_
KL
r
_ _
KL
r
_
 TIAG (curve 5) Deviation
RX and RY 174.4 173.6 0.4%
Pinned 193.5  
Table 11: Effective slenderness ratios based on results of nonlinear analysis in ROBOT com
pared with TIAG basic effective length case. Sample tower section no. 13
Mode (SS)  restrained (SP)  restrained
Weak axis 110.7kN 74.4kN
Parallel axis 154.1kN 129.5kN
Table 12: Critical buckling loads from nonlinear 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.
Mode (SS)  restrained (SP)  restrained
Weak axis L = 2000 385.0kN 315.0kN
Parallel axis L = 2000 665.0kN 647.5kN
Weak axis L = 3000 186.3kN 148.1kN
Parallel axis L = 3000 309.0kN 286.8kN
Weak axis L = 4000 114.4kN 87.5kN
Parallel axis L = 4000 178.9kN 165.0kN
Weak axis L = 5000 77.3kN 56.25kN
Parallel axis L = 5000 117.7kN 105.0kN
Table 13: Critical buckling loads from nonlinear analysis in ROBOT. Test specimen: Model
Bsec 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
Mode Slenderness ratio
_
L
r
_
ROBOT
_
KL
r
_
TIAG
_
KL
r
_
Deviation
Sample tower section no. 13 diagonal member: L60x60x6
Parallel axis (SC) 190.25 174.4 173.6 (curve 5) 0.5%
Model Asec: L60x60x6 L = 2000
Weak axis (SS) 171.1 111 151.4 (curve 6) 36.4%
Parallel axis (SS) 110.3 94.1 110.3 (curve 1) 17%
Weak axis (SP) 171.98 135.4 159 (curve 5) 17%
Parallel axis (SP) 110.3 102.6 110.3 (curve 1) 8%
Model Bsec:L100x100x7 L = 2000
Weak axis (SS) 101.4 83.7 101.4 (curve 1) 21%
Parallel axis (SS) 65.4 63.7 65.4 (curve 1) 3%
Weak axis (SP) 101.4 92.5 101.4 (curve 1) 10%
Parallel axis (SP) 65.4 64.6 65.4 (curve 1) 1%
Model Bsec: L100x100x7 L = 3000
Weak axis (SS) 152 120.32 139.8 (curve 6) 16.2%
Parallel axis (SS) 97.9 93.4 97.9 (curve 1) 4.8%
Weak axis (SP) 152 134.9 144.5 (curve 5) 7.1%
Parallel axis (SP) 97.9 97.1 97.9 (curve 1) 0.8%
Model Bsec: L100x100x7 L = 4000
Weak axis (SS) 202.9 153.5 171.0 (curve 6) 11%
Parallel axis (SS) 130.7 122.9 126.6 (curve 6) 3%
Weak axis (SP) 202.9 175.5 183.2 (curve 5) 4%
Parallel axis (SP) 130.7 128.0 128.2 (curve 5) 0.1%
Model Bsec: L100x100x7 L = 5000
Weak axis (SS) 253.6   
Parallel axis (SS) 163.4 151.6 146.7 (curve 6) 3%
Weak axis (SP) 253.6   
Parallel axis (SP) 163.4 160.4 153.1 (curve 5) 5%
Table 14: Effective slenderness ratios
_
KL
r
_
calculated on the basis of critical buckling loads
from nonlinear analysis in ROBOT and TIAG standard. Letters enclosed by () indi
cates the restraints at the ends of the buckling member either being: (SC) = Stiffness
model  Continuous, (SS) = Stiffness model  Stiffness model or (SP) = Stiffness model
 Pinned.
80
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 specic very FEManalysis 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 gure 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 FEMresults is seen to drop by approximately 50% for both Models Asec
and Bsec. This supports that either the effective slenderness given by the TIAG
standard has some safety or the stiffness model overpredicts rotational stiffness,
for each endrestraint 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 TIAG standard is based on test of specimens of smaller prole
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 xed
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 specied 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 gure 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 EN199331 [2] this fact is ac
counted for by applying a smaller effective slenderness ratio to the weakaxis buckling
than the parallel axis buckling mode (especially for single bolted angles). Whether the
expressions in TIAG 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 TIAG and EN199331 is
compared in gure 38. The gure consists of two subgures illustrating the effective
slenderness ratios for members with or without endrestraints. As mentioned there are
some differences between the TIAG and EN199331 standard in regards to determin
ing the effective slenderness ratio of angle bar bracings. The ENstandard does not
consider any difference in effective slenderness for members with partial restraint at
one or both ends (as it is the case in TIAG), however it considers different effective
slenderness for weak and parallel axis buckling mode. Also the ENstandard 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 TIAG concentric member case). In gure 38a
the TIAG 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 Bsec. Furthermore the EN199331 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 NLanalysis of the L100x100x7 member (Model Bsec) and sample tower section
is also included for reference.
In gure 38b the effective slenderness ratios for members without any restraint at
ends are illustrated. From TIAG curve 1 and 4 is included and from EN199331 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 endrestraints,
no FEMresults are available. The gure 38a clearly illustrates the deviations in effec
tive slenderness obtained by FEM and from the standards TIAG and EN199331.
From viewing the outofplane displacements of the Models Asec and Bsec at
buckling failure, it has been seen that the rotations at the member joints when assuming
a sine shaped deection eld, 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 sufcient for
development of the type joint rotational stiffness model.
82
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
l
e
n
d
e
r
n
e
s
s
K
L
/
r
[

]
Slenderness L/r []
Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings with end
restraints according TIAG, EN199331 and FEM results
TIAG:Curve1
TIAG:Curve5
TIAG:Curve6
EN:K2L/r(weak)
EN:K2L/r(parallel)
FEM:Weak(SP)
FEM:Weak(SS)
FEM:Parallel(SP)
FEM:Parallel(SS)
FEM:Sampletower
Endrestraintgoverns
Eccentricitygoverns
(a) Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings with endrestraints accord
ing to TIA222G:2005, EN199331 and ROBOT nonlinear FEM results for
testspecimen L100x100x7 and sample tower.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
l
e
n
d
e
r
n
e
s
s
K
L
/
r
[

]
Slenderness L/r []
Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings without
endrestraints according TIAG and EN199331
TIAG:Curve1/Curve4
EN:K1L/r(weak)
EN:K1L/r(parallel)
Eccentricitygoverns
Endrestraintgoverns
(b) Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings without endrestraints accord
ing to TIA222G:2005 and EN199331.
Figure 38: Overall comparison of effective slenderness in accordance with TIAG, EN19933
1 and FEMresults. For determining the EN effective slenderness f
y
= 355MPa and
E =200000MPa has be used (same properties as type joint). The specied governing
factors on the gures only refer to provisions of the TIAG 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 scientic approach by application of joint rotational stiffness models in
nonlinear FEM analysis.
The main difference between the codal and scientic 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 scientic
approach requires a FEMmodel and hours of computation. With this project, the time
consumption of this method can be signicantly 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
gurations 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 FEMsoftware, 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: conrmation
by experiments. It must be conrmed 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 FEMmodel with reasonable de
viations to asbuild 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:
Conrm the rotational stiffness of angle bar bracing members, based on experi
mental data.
Based on the rotational stiffness obtained from experiments, FEMmodels which
adequately captures this stiffness must be developed.
84
Investigate factors which could have a inuence on rotational stiffness such as
loss of bolt tensioning, loss in friction, production tolerances etc.
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 weakaxis 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. nontriangulated 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 FEMmodel from which
rotational stiffness of a angle bar joint could be obtained and used in a overall non
linear FEManalysis 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 FEMmodels, however further
experimental data is required in order to calibrate the FEMmodel 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 FEMmodels 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
linearelastic material model is adequate for this type of analysis, hence no plasticity is
required.
It has been found that the ability to produce FEMmodels, 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 FEMmodels on a
commercial level.
The effective slenderness expressions stated in ANSI/TIA222G:2005 have be
seen to be of a very general and supercial 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 EN199331 standard. The results of the FEManalysis would tend
to suggest that effective slenderness ratio given in the ANSI/TIA222G:2005 standard
may be some what on the unsafe side for parallel buckling, however the expressions on
effective slenderness dened 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 specic effective slenderness ratios for mem
bers with partial endrestraints, especially for large numbers of identical towers such
as transmission towers, where the very demanding process can be justied 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 prole
in RAMTOWER has been found accurate and in accordance with the ANSI/TIA222
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 nontriangulated 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 specic study) is
obtained by providing nontriangulated 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 nontriangulated bracing should not be present in
tower structures due to both design and safety reasons. Furthermore the option of in
creasing the crosssectional 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 FEMprogram 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 nonlinear 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 FEMprogram which has some advantages. However
ROBOT is not recommendable as a research tool. Nonlinear analysis features of the
program is very limited, as is documentation and examples hereon.
87
APPENDIX
89
A Literature
[1] EN 199311:2007 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures  Part 11: General
rules and rules for buildings.
[2] EN 199331:2007 Eurocode 3  Design of steel structures  Part 31: Towers,
masts and chimneys  Towers and masts.
[3] EIA/TIA222G: Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and An
tennas, August 2005.
[4] Dassault Systmes. 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 Bjlkekon
struktioner) (In Danish). The Technical University of Denmark (DTU), 2. edition,
1999. Lecturenote F118.
[7] Lars DickNielsen and Henrik Dssing. Inuence of Packingplates in Bolted
Connections (Mellemlgspladers betydning i Boltesamlinger) (In Danish). Mas
ters 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, 31:895911, 2007.
[9] A. R. Kemp and R.H. Behncke. Behavior of CrossBracing in Latticed Towers.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 124:360367, 1998.
[10] R.K.N.D Rajapakse K.I.E Ahmed and M.S. Gadala. Inuence of BoltedJoint
Slippage on the Response of Transmission Towers Subjected to FrostHeave. Ad
vances in Structural Engineering, 12(1):117, 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.
[13] R. Narayanan, editor. Axially Compressed Structures  Stability and Strength.
Applied Science Publishers Ltd., 1982.
[14] Ramboll Denmark A/S, Telecom Division. RAMTOWER 3E  Usersguide, 3E
edition, 2010.
[15] Elena Rueda Romero. Finite Element Simulation of Bolted Steel Joint in Fire
using Abaqus Program. Masters 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, 110:157172, 1984.
90
[17] Stephen P. Timoshenko. Theory of Elastic Stability. McGRAWHILL BOOK
COMPANY, INC., 2. edition, 1961.
[18] S. Kitipornchai W. Kang, F. Albermani and H. Lam. Modeling and Analysis of
Lattice Towers with more accurate models. Advanced Steel Construction, 3:565
582, 2007.
91
B Layout drawing: 40m Medium duty sample tower
design
93
95
C Sample tower force distribution
97
Hand
calc.
RAMTOWER
(regular)
RAMTOWER
(nodal)
FEMmodel
(nodal)*
FEMmodel
(nodal)**
Sec 1 3,10 5,16 3,10 3,14 3,14
Sec 2 7,13 7,12 7,13 7,49 7,49
Sec 3 11,74 14,26 11,74 12,31 12,31
Sec 4 18,08 19,70 18,08 19,08 19,08
Sec 5 14,02 14,16 14,00 14,77 14,78
Sec 6 13,36 13,48 13,35 13,81 13,8
Sec 7 13,17 13,26 13,16 13,92 13,93
Sec 8 13,28 13,39 13,30 13,85 13,84
Sec 9 13,63 13,69 13,61 14,67 14,67
Sec 10 14,14 14,19 14,13 15,82 14,95
Sec 11 21,04 21,01 21,01 24,92 22,19
Sec 12 21,76 21,76 21,76 25,18 22,44
Sec 13 22,68 22,66 22,66 24,28 23,42
Reactions from tower considering various methods (0 deg. wind load case)
Hand
calc.
RAMTOWER
(regular)
RAMTOWER
(nodal)
FEMmodel
(nodal)*
FEMmodel
(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
*) Secondary bracings included in FEMmodel
**) Secondary bracings excluded from FEMmodel
Compression forces in diagonal bracings considering various methods
(0 deg. wind load case)
) y g
Hand
calc.
RAMTOWER
(regular)
RAMTOWER
(nodal)
FEMmodel
(nodal)*
FEMmodel
(nodal)**
Sec 1 2,54 1,55 2,54 2,18 2,18
Sec 2 12,42 12,36 12,42 10,22 10,22
Sec 3 28,53 27,11 28,53 23,01 23,01
Sec 4 54,50 54,15 54,50 42,62 42,63
Sec 5 82,27 82,83 82,27 78,18 77,98
Sec 6 104,55 105,45 104,54 105,58 105,75
Sec 7 125,11 126,34 125,09 122,51 122,36
Sec 8 144,78 146,25 144,78 145,12 145,28
Sec 9 163,80 165,50 163,81 161,03 160,83
Sec 10 182,55 184,42 182,56 183,39 183,96
Sec 11 209,58 211,26 209,57 198,07 202,55
Sec 12 245,88 248,04 245,87 243,26 248,23
Sec 13 281,93 284,51 281,94 273,5 276,78
*) Secondary bracings included in FEMmodel
**) Secondary bracings excluded from FEMmodel
Compression forces in legmembers considering various methods
(0 deg. wind load case)
98
99
D Examples on calculation of effective slenderness ra
tios based on ANSI/TIA222G:2005 standard and
nonlinear FEM results
Introduction
In the following examples on the calculation of effective slenderness ratios obtained by
the TIAG standard and ROBOT nonlinear FEManalysis are documented. Other than
illustrating the principle of the calculations, the crosssectional properties which have
be assumed is also documented.
The displacement enclosed by () next to the critical buckling load from nonlinear
analysis, is the transverse displacement of the compression member at this load. All
critical loads from nonlinear analysis were found at the state at which a convergent
solution could no longer be obtained. AEmodulus of 200000MPa has been considered
for all calculations (and FEManalysis).
Buckling of sample tower diagonal members
Member properties (Based on values from ROBOT):
L60x60x6
A = 691mm
2
I
v
= 94400mm
4
r
v
=
_
94400
691
= 11.69mm
I
x
= 227900mm
4
r
x
=
_
227900
691
= 18.16mm
Buckling span: L
2
= 3641mm
Other subspan (above diagonal crossover point): L
1
= 3246.6mm
Effective slenderness ratio as per TIAG:
Since spans (above (L
1
) and below (L
2
) diagonal crossoverpoint) are not of same
length, the initial buckling length must be reduced in order to compensate for this. In
this relation is applied expression given by Timoshenko in [17]. Further study of the
expressions is left to the reader:
(u
1
)
_
L
2
L
1
u
1
_ =
L
2
L
1
where
(u) =
3
2u
_
1
2u
1
tan(2u)
_
100
and
L
2
L
1
inserting the spans L
2
and L
1
into the equations yields:
(u
1
)
_
3641
3246.6
u
1
_ =
3641
3246.6
2u = kl = 2.95212
since
kl
2
EI
L
2
=
2
EI
L
2
for pin connected buckling member, reduced member buckling length (L) due to
different spans may be found as:
_
L
2
L
1
2.95212
_
2
EI
L
2
2
=
2
EI
L
2
L = 3455mm
parallel axis buckling:
L
r
x
=190.25
KL
r
=28.6+0.762 190.25 =173.573 (curve
5)
Results from ROBOT nonlinear analysis
Model with pinned diagonal connections:
F
cr
= 36.44kN (11mm displacement  Parallel axis buckling mode)
36440 =
2
200000 227900
(KL)
2
KL = 3513.6mm
KL
r
= 193.5 (11.5% deviation)
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models in diagonal connections:
F
cr
= 44.86kN (7mm displacement)
44860 =
2
200000 227900
(KL)
2
KL = 3166.7mm
KL
r
= 174.4 (0.4% deviation)
Buckling of L60x60x6 angle bar member
Member properties:
L60x60x6 L = 2000mm
For further crosssectional parameters refer to section Buckling of sample tower
diagonal members
101
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models in both ends:
Effective slenderness ratio as per TIAG:
weak axis:
L
r
v
= 171.08
KL
r
= 46.2+0.615 171.08 = 151.4 (curve 6)
parallel axis:
L
r
x
= 110.3
KL
r
= 110.3 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT nonlinear analysis:
F
cr
= 110.7kN (7mm displacement)
110700 =
2
200000 94400
(KL)
2
KL = 1297.4mm
KL
r
= 111.0 (37.6% deviation)
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT nonlinear analysis:
F
cr
= 154.1kN (5mm displacement)
154100 =
2
200000 227900
(KL)
2
KL = 1708.6mm
KL
r
= 94.08 (17% deviation)
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models at one end:
Effective slenderness ratio as per TIAG:
weak axis:
L
r
v
= 171.08
KL
r
= 28.6+0.762 171.08 = 159 (curve 5)
parallel axis:
L
r
x
= 110.3
KL
r
= 110.3 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT nonlinear analysis:
F
cr
= 74.39kN (7mm displacement)
74390 =
2
200000 94400
(KL)
2
KL = 1582.7mm
KL
r
= 135.4 (17% deviation)
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT nonlinear analysis:
F
cr
= 129.52kN (11mm displacement)
129520 =
2
200000 227900
(KL)
2
KL = 1863.7mm
KL
r
= 102.6 (7% deviation)
102
Buckling of L100x100x7 angle bar member
Member properties (Based on values from ROBOT):
L100x100x7 L = 3000mm
A = 1366mm
2
I
v
= 531100mm
4
r
v
=
_
531100
1366
= 19.718mm
I
x
= 1282000mm
4
r
x
=
_
1282000
1366
= 30.6mm
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models in both ends:
Effective slenderness ratio as per TIAG:
weak axis:
L
r
v
= 152
KL
r
= 46.2+0.615 152 = 139.8 (curve 6)
parallel axis:
L
r
x
= 97.9
KL
r
= 97.9 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT nonlinear analysis:
F
cr
= 186.25kN (5mm displacement)
186250 =
2
200000 531100
(KL)
2
KL = 2372.5mm
KL
r
= 120.32 (16.2% deviation)
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT nonlinear analysis:
F
cr
= 309kN (7mm displacement)
309000 =
2
200000 1282000
(KL)
2
KL = 2861.7mm
KL
r
= 93.4 (5% deviation)
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models at one end:
Effective slenderness ratio as per TIAG:
weak axis:
L
r
v
= 152
KL
r
= 28.6+0.762 152 = 144.5 (curve 5)
parallel axis:
L
r
x
= 97.9
KL
r
= 97.9 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT nonlinear analysis:
F
cr
= 148.13kN (5mm displacement)
148130 =
2
200000 531100
(KL)
2
103
KL = 2660.3mm
KL
r
= 134.9 (7% deviation)
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT nonlinear analysis:
F
cr
= 286.75kN (3mm displacement)
286750 =
2
200000 1282000
(KL)
2
KL = 2970.7mm
KL
r
= 97.1 (0.8% deviation)
105
E Abaqus type joint.
107
E.1 Layout drawing
109
E.2 Material hardening curves
Hardening curves
Introduction:
The following hardening curves are based on the work by DickNielsen and Dssing [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 FEMmodel 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.
Structural steel S355
Structural steel in accordance with EN10025
Hardening data:
Data point 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
V. Mise stress () [MPa] 356,00 360,00 460,00 560,00 620,00 740,00 946,00
Plastic strain (
pl
) [] 0 0,014 0,039 0,106 0,2 0,8 3
Ultimate material strength
Calculation Value Unit Parameter
(
7

6
)/(
7

6
) 93,64 MPa/(mm/mm) a
7
 (
7
* a) 665,09 MPa b
 1,11 (mm/mm)
ult
(
ult
* a) + b 769,03 MPa
ult
Hardening curve, incl. ultimate strength
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
Description
Curve slope between last data point (6  before failure) and extrapolated point (7)
Meassured strain at failure
Ultimate strength
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
V
.
M
i
s
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
[
M
p
a
]
Plastic strain []
Plastic hardening curve: S355 structural steel
Structural steel S355
Bolts Grade 10.9
Hardening data:
Data point 1 2 3 4 5
V. Mise stress () [MPa] 1071,00 1215,90 1243,00 1350,00 0,00
Plastic strain (
pl
) [] 0 0,061 0,087 0,5 4
Ultimate material strength
Calculation Value Unit Parameter
(
7

6
)/(
7

6
) 385,71 MPa/(mm/mm) a
7
 (
7
* a) 1542,86 MPa b
 0,8257 (mm/mm)
ult
(
ult
* a) + b 1224,37 MPa
ult
Hardening curve, incl. ultimate strength
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
Curve slope between last data point (6  before failure) and extrapolated point (7)
Meassured strain at failure
Ultimate strength
Description
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 1 2 3 4 5
V
.
M
i
s
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
[
M
p
a
]
Plastic strain []
Plastic hardening curve: Grade 10.9 bolts
Bolts Grade 10.9
110
111
E.3 Stress discontinuities in convergence model
Introduction
In the following the discontinuities in the axially loaded type joint convergence model
is investigated. Only the discontinuities of the V. Mise stress in the model is investi
gated.
Discontinuities:
(a) Discontinuities in angle bar with probed nodes (the neglected areas, primarily corners, are remove for remaining
discontinuities to be clearly visible)
(b) Discontinuities in bolt with probed nodes
Figure 39: Stress discontinuities in convergence FEMmodel
112
Node V. Mise stress
[MPa]
V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
8329 439.6 619.6 141%
6895 450.3 578.1 128%
1124 315.1 332.5 106%
11092 545.0 180.5 33%
350 300.2 171.0 57%
(a) V. Mise stress discontinuities in angle bar
Node V. Mise stress
[MPa]
V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
5710 370.6 246.9 67%
764 463.8 197.7 43%
106 682.4 274.0 40%
(b) V. Mise stress discontinuities in bolt
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 softcopies of relevant documents and FEM
models used throughout this project as well as some of the results hereof. Not all
the mentioned FEMmodels are included, since some models with great similarities
(e.g. simple release or material modications etc.) was reused to limit the amount
of models. Each of the below subsections provide a complete list of les and short
descriptions.
F.1 Documents
The following documents are contained in the attached DVD:
Report No.10052.pdf  The Main report (this document)
AppendixReport No.10052.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 DickNielsen et.al. [7]
F.2 Abaqus FEMmodels
In all the Abaqus models applied in this project only one copy of each model was made.
In each model the material properties were then modied to consider either: Elastic,
PerfectPlastic or Plastic with hardening. The current les all contain result les
on a run with one of the materialproperties. If result are required for a different material
property the model must be recomputed.
Folder directories are given in bold below:
Axial load (215GPa)  Axially loaded type joint
Axial load (215GPa) conv.  Axially loaded type joint for convergence testing
AxialRX load  Axially loaded type joint with applied moment for RX rotation
AxialRY load  Axially loaded type joint with applied moment for RY rotation
F.3 ROBOT FEMmodels
Following ROBOT FEMmodels are contained in the DVD (ROBOT RTDles given
in bold):
TESTS:
Buckling L (parallel axis)
Simple buckling parallel axis prole
Buckling L (main axis) and
Buckling L (main axis) midsupport
Simple buckling main axis prole
Buckling L modiedbeam and
Buckling L modiedbeam midsupport
Simpel buckling of modied beam element model
Buckling L modiedbeam convergence
Convergence in buckling of modied beam element model
114
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
Nonlinear offset analysis ROBOT denition
Buckling_LP_manuel offset
Nonlinear offset analysis manual denition
Nonlinear transverse load
Nonlinear transverse loaded beam
Nonlinear RX in weak
Nonlinear spring released beam
Analysis:
Basic modelreleasesnal and
Basic modelreleasesnal inactive bracing
Models: FEMmodel(nodal)* and FEMmodel(nodal)** described in subsection
6.3.1.
SEC13 0&45 deg wind no hip bracing,
SEC13 0&45 deg wind nontriangulated,
SEC13 0&45 deg wind triangulated and
SEC13 0&45 deg wind no hip bracing L90x90x9
Files contained in the study of nontriangulated hipbracings given in subsection
6.3.2.
SEC13 0&45 deg pinned  Model B.
SEC13 0&45 deg semirigid  Model C.
Loading from above sections
Model for determining loading on Models B and C from above tower structure.
Nonlinear RX and RY par L100x100x7 L=2000,
Nonlinear RX and RY par L100x100x7 L=3000,
Nonlinear RX and RY par L100x100x7 L=4000,
Nonlinear RX and RY par L100x100x7 L=5000,
Nonlinear RX and RY weak L100x100x7 L=2000,
Nonlinear RX and RY weak L100x100x7 L=3000,
Nonlinear RX and RY weak L100x100x7 L=4000,
Nonlinear RX and RY weak L100x100x7 L=5000,
Nonlinear RX and RY par model L60x60x6 and
Nonlinear RX and RY weak model L60x60x6
Models contained in the comparison in section 7