M AIN R EPORT:

A NGLE BAR B RACINGS IN L ATTICE

S TRUCTURES
Martin Jespersen s071919
24th January 2011

Report no. 10-052

T ECHNICAL U NIVERSITY OF D ENMARK

U NDERGRADUATE S TUDENT:
Martin Jespersen
Student ID: S071919
Technical University of Denmark (DTU)

P ROJECT S UPERVISORS :
Peter Noe Poulsen
Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering
Technical University of Denmark (DTU)

Mogens G. Nielsen
Senior Cheif Consultant - M.Sc,
Department of Masts and Towers
Ramboll Telecom - Northern Europe

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 document), a DVD with softcopies of all FEM-models and other material (attached to this
report as Appendix F) and a Appendix report(separate document) containing documentation, 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 RambollIMIsoft Pvt. Ltd. India, whom have provided material for the project.

Lyngby, 24th January

Martin Jespersen
s071919

Summary
This bachelor project considers the buckling of angle bar bracings in lattice towers.
The ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005 tower design standard (in the following referred to as
TIA-G) specifies various effective slenderness ratio expressions for angle bar bracing
members dependent on the slenderness, eccentricity and end-restraints of the member.
Especially provisions related to angle bar end-restraints are of a very general and
superficial nature, even though the stiffness of a joint is totally dependent on its
design. The main scope of this project was to make a comparison between the
effective slenderness ratios acquired by above mentioned design code expressions and
results obtained by adding rotational stiffness results from detailed FEM-analysis of a
type joint to a overall non-linear FEM-analysis of angle bar members. As a secondary
objective a comparison between the commercial tower analysis program
RAMTOWER and alternative methods such as hand calculations and the FEM was to
be conducted. Both comparisons were based on a sample telecommunications tower.
By comparing the effective slenderness ratios obtained from the FEM-analysis and
TIA-G expressions, it has been observed that the non-linear FEM-analysis tends to arrive at a effective slenderness which is somewhat lower that what is obtained by the
TIA-G standard in the case of weak-axis buckling. However the very limited amount
of experimental data available on joint stiffness, would tend to suggest that the joint
stiffness FEM-models applied in the current study over-predict the stiffness of joints,
hence a effective slenderness ratio which is larger than what has been found from the
current studies may be expected, yielding ratios which are closer to the expressions
given in TIA-G when considering weak-axis buckling. The need of more specific experimental data on joint rotational stiffness behavior is pointed out and areas in need of
further research are identified. The FEM-models indicate that there is a dependency in
rotational stiffness of angle bar joints by the axis of rotation considered, a phenomena
which is not currently taken into account in the TIA-G effective slenderness ratio expressions, as it is the case for other tower design standards such as EN1993-3-1. The
effective slenderness ratios obtained by FEM-analysis confirms that there is a difference between the ratio, which should be applied for parallel and weak axis buckling,
due to the difference in rotational stiffness about each axis considered (the two parallel
axis of the profile). Hence for parallel buckling the FEM-analysis arrives at effective
slenderness ratios which exceeds the expressions given in TIA-G hence indicating the
standard be on the unsafe side in relation to parallel buckling of angle bar members.
Through extensive discussion it has been found that if FEM-models can be calibrated (through more extensive experimental data) to fully capture the rotational stiffness behavior of angle bar joints, the application of rotational stiffness models to investigate buckling failure of tower bracing members can be utilized commercially. Large
scale infrastructure projects with great numbers of identical towers or marginally over
utilized towers, where prospects of savings are considerable, has been identified as the
main areas of application.
On the overall scale the comparison between RAMTOWER and other methods,
showed that RAMTOWER performed as per previous experience, yielding no more
than 10% deviation in force distribution compared to equivalent FEM-models. By comparing overall tower reactions found from each method, the incorporated wind profile
in RAMTOWER has been found accurate and in accordance with the ANSI/TIA-222G:2005 standard.

Based on these findings RAMTOWER is considered to produce an acceptable distribution of forces, when comparing to the ease at which a tower model can be defined
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 non-triangulated
bracings was also experienced. From a detailed study with tower hip-bracings it was
found that the application non-triangulated bracing should not occur in any tower design, as it is also specified by the TIA-G standard.
Keywords: Buckling, Telecommunication towers, Joint slip, Lattice triangulation,
Non-linear analysis, FEM

Resum
Dette diplomafgangsprojekt omhandler udknkning af vinkeljern i gittertrne. Trndesign standarden ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005 (i det flgende benvnt TIA-G) specificerer flere udtryk til bestemmelse af den effektive slankhed for gitterkonstruktionselementer afhngigt af deres slankhed, ekscentricitet og rand-betingelser. Specielt
bestemmelserne der vedrrer randbetingelserne for vinkeljern er meget generelle og
overfladiske, 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 FEM-analyse og siden hen psat vinkeljern i en mere
overordnet ikke-liner FEM-analyse. Et sekundrt forml var at lave en sammenligning mellem det kommercielle trndesign program RAMTOWER og andre metoder
der indbefattede hndberegninger og FEM-analyse. Frnvnte sammenligninger blev
begge udfrt under anvendelse af et telekommunikationstrn. Ved at sammenligne den
effektive slankhed opnet under anvendelse af FEM-analyse og TIA-G standarden, er
det observeret at den ikke-linere FEM-analyse har en tendens til at komme frem til
effektive slankheder der ligger lidt under det der er specificeret i TIA-G standarden
i tilflde med svag-akse udknkning. Dog viser det meget begrnsede omfang af
eksperimentelt data der er tilgngeligt for stivhed af samlinger at FEM-modellerne,
der er anvendt i dette projekt, overestimerer samlingens stivhed, og derfor kan en effektiv 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 TIA-G standarden for svag-akse
udknkning. Behovet for mere eksperimentelt data ppeges og omrder der krver
forsat forskning er udpeget. FEM-modellerne indikerer at samlingsstivheden ved rotation afhnger af den betragtede rotationsakse, et fnomen der ikke er inkluderet
ved bestemmelsen af effektive slankheder i den nuvrende TIA-G standard, som det
er tilfldet i andre standarder ssom EN1993-3-1. FEM-analysen bekrfter at der er
en forskel i de effektive slankheder, som br anvendes for svag- og parallel-akse udknkning, grundet forskelle i rotationsstivheden omkring de to akser der betragtes for
udknkning af vinkeljern (de to parallelle akser af profilet). FEM-analysen opnr effektive slankheder der er hjere end hvad der er foreskrevet i TIA-G standarden, og
indikerer dermed at udtrykkene givet i standarden er p den usikre side i forbindelse
med parallel-akse udknkning af vinkeljern. Gennem grundig diskussion er det fundet at hvis FEM-modellerne 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 gitterkonstruktionselementer p et kommercielt niveau. Strre infrastruktursprojekter med et stort
antal identiske trne eller marginalt overudnyttede trne, hvor udsigterne til en strre
finansiel besparelse er til stede, er identificeret som det primre anvendelsesomrde
for metoden.
Sammenligningen mellem RAMTOWER og andre metoder viste de forventede resultater, hvorved afvigelsen i fordelingen af krfter i gitteret mellem RAMTOWER og
FEM-analyse ikke var mere end 10 %. Ved at sammenligne de overordnet reaktioner fra
trnet blev det fundet at det indarbejdede vind profil i RAMTOWER er tilstrkkeligt og
iht. ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005. Baseret p sammenligningens resultater betragtes RAMTOWER som et program der giver acceptable resultater, nr simpliciteten hvormed at
trne kan defineres og analyseres tages i betragtning.
Gennem det telekommunikationstrn der blev anvendt til overnvnte sammenligninger, blev konsekvenserne af trne med ikke-trianguleret gitter tydeliggjort. Fra et

detaljeret studie af anvendelsen af ikke-trianguleret hofte-gitter er det fundet at ikketrianguleret gitter ikke br forekomme i trnkonstruktioner, som det ogs er specificeret
i TIA-G standarden.
Emner: Sjle udknkning, Telekommunikations trne, Glidning i samlinger, Triangulering af gitter, Ikke-linere analyser, FEM

Contents
Preface

Summary

Resum

Terms and definition

11

Introduction

13

Column flexural buckling theory

1.1 Effect of boundary conditions on flexural buckling . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Effect of load application on flexural buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15
16
16

Buckling resistance according to ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005

2.1 Effective Yield stress [Section 4.5.4.1] . . . . . . . .
2.2 Design axial compression strength [Section 4.5.4.2] .
2.3 Effective slenderness ratio [Table 4-3 to 4-7] . . . . .
2.4 Lattice web triangulation [figure 4-2] . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

19
19
19
20
23

Sample tower:
40m Medium duty Tower Design
3.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Design loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Hand calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25
25
25
26

RAMTOWER Analysis

29

Abaqus Joint FEM-analysis

5.1 Type joint description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Steps, incrementation and output requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.1 Boundary conditions at step: Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.2 Boundary conditions at step: Establish bolt tension . . . . .
5.5.3 Boundary conditions at steps: Load - region 1,Load - region
2 and Load - region 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6.1 Bolt load for tensioning of bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6.2 Loading from test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7 Meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8 Joint axial stiffness results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9 Result testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9.1 Mesh convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9.2 Stress discontinuities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9.3 Bolt tensioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.10 Joint rotational stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.10.1 Modified material parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31
31
31
32
33
35
35
35

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

36
39
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
45
47
47

10

5.10.2
5.10.3
5.10.4
5.10.5

.
.
.
.

48
48
49
49

FEM-Analysis
6.1 Initial testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 Simple linear-buckling of angle bar members . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2 Linear-buckling load when considering lateral support provided
by incoming members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.3 Buckling load for members with eccentric load application . .
6.1.4 Non-linear analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Model description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Test runs of FEM-Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.1 Effects of secondary bracings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.2 Effects of non-fully triangulated hip bracing . . . . . . . . . .
6.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55
55
55
56
59
59
63
65
66
66
70

Comparison
7.1 RAMTOWER, hand calculation and FEM-results . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Buckling of members with joint stiffness results from FEM-analysis. .

73
73
76

Perspectives

83

Conclusion

85

Modified boundary conditions . .

Modified loads . . . . . . . . . .
Modified steps and incrementation
Joint rotational stiffness results . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

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/TIA222-G:2005 standard and non-linear 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 FEM-models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
F.3 ROBOT FEM-models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

11

Terms and definition

Hip-bracing Secondary bracing fitted 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 cross-over 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 non-staggered where perpendicular bracings are connected
at same level
TIA-G Refers to the structural design standard for antenna supporting structures and
antennas: ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005
Web pattern Pattern formed by the bracing members of a tower

13

Introduction
With the rapid increase in the global population and constant development within
telecommunications, the need of electrical transmission and telecommunication towers
is greater than ever before. Especially in 3rd world countries these areas of infrastructure are in growth. The most common and applicable tower design in these countries is
the angle bar tower, square based self supporting lattice towers with legmembers and
bracings made from hot-rolled angle bar members.
Among the many advantages of the angle bar is its availability at suppliers, and the
ease at which it can be applied to form several types of lattice designs.
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 justified 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/TIA-222G:2005 for telecommunication structures, provide designers with effective slenderness
ratio expressions which depend on the slenderness, eccentricity and end-restraints of
the member under investigation. Especially provisions related to the angle bar endrestraints are of a very general and superficial nature, even though the stiffness of the
joints is totally dependent on their design.
The main objective of this project is to capture the rotational stiffness of a angle
bar joint by application of a detailed FEM model. The joint rotational stiffness model
obtained from this analysis is then to be applied to a more overall non-linear FEManalysis of various angle bar members, and the effective slenderness ratio based on the
buckling load of these members may then be compared with the TIA-G standard.
It should be stressed that it is not the scope of this project to develop new effective
slenderness ratio expressions for the TIA-G standard. As it will be illustrated in the
report the current expressions on effective slenderness are very general and easy to
apply for design calculations providing a fast and reliable result. The objective is rather
to investigate the gains by determining the effective slenderness of members, applied in
generic designs to be produced in large numbers such as transmission tower designs or
backbone telecommunication infrastructure, by application of this alternative method.
A secondary application is for design checks in relation to code revisions or increases in
tower design load. Rather than being forced to strengthen tower members, this method
could provide a alternative which might declare a design safe if only a marginal extra
capacity of the member is required.
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 flexural
buckling of columns.
Next the overall provisions of the TIA-G standard is shortly presented and their
limitations highlighted. From the TIA-G standard RAMTOWER and hand calculations
are performed on the sample telecommunications tower.

14

Following is then the detailed analysis of a type joint by use of the FEM-program
Abaqus, from which a joint rotational stiffness model is acquired.
Finally a overall non-linear FEM-analysis of the sample tower is performed. On the
basis of buckling loads obtained from this analysis, effective slenderness ratios may be
calculated and compared with equivalent TIA-G provisions.

15

Column flexural buckling theory

Axially compressed angle bar members are mainly subjected to 3 varieties of buckling
failure:
Flexural Buckling failure: Member fails by transverse deflection in a direction
normal to itself.
Local Buckling failure: Member fails by local buckling of angle leg (refer to
figure 1).
Flexural-Torsional Buckling failure: Member fails by simultaneous transverse
deflection normal to itself and twisting around its own axis (shear center of the
section).
Later it will be shown why local buckling failure and flexural-torsional buckling is not
relevant in relation to this project, and only flexural buckling of the bracing members
is to be considered. It should be mentioned that because of this emphasis on flexural
buckling, this type of failure may in the following just be referred to as buckling.
The development of the basic column buckling stability theory applied in todays
standards, can to great extents be credited L.Euler (1707-1783). He originally solved
the case of the axially loaded the build-in column and published his findings in a book
he titled Methodus inveniendi lineas curvas maximi minimive proprietate gaudentes
in 1744. The critical Euler load is determined by solving a differential equation of the
deflection curve for an axially compressed column. The differential equation leads to a
general solution, which contains some integration constants. These constants are then
determined based on the boundary conditions of the column. The general expression
for determining the critical load (Eulers formula) for an ideal column is given by:
Fcr = FE =

2 E I
le2

(1)

In this expression le refers to the effective buckling length of the ideal column,
which is governed by the boundary conditions. Effective column lengths are in general
determined by use of Engineering references, but as it will be shown later this is not
always sufficiently accurate, since the boundary conditions of a column are not ideal in
the real world.
Some also prefer a alternative expression of the Eulers formula
Fcr = FE =

(kl)2 E I
l2

where the value of kl is governed by the boundary conditions of the column.

(2)

16

Figure 1: Principal axis definitions for buckling for angle bar members

1.1

Effect of boundary conditions on flexural 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 buckling capacity of columns is dependent on the effective column length, as it is incorporated 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 defined 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 first 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 end-restraint stiffness is very difficult to include in structural standards,
since design possibilities are unlimited, thus todays standards only deal with simple
criteria when including effects from end-restraints. These are described in section 2 of
this project.

1.2

Effect of load application on flexural buckling

Due to the nature and application of the angle bar member in a lattice structure, concentric 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 connection naturally generates some eccentricity in the load transfer from one member to the
other. When considering slender axially loaded members, the effect of this eccentricity on the critical buckling load varies with slenderness. The effects of eccentric load
application on beam-columns1 has been treated by e.g. Timoshenko in [17]. Results
1 It

is a necessity to consider the member as a beam-column since it is loaded by moment

17

will briefly be presented below, since they are strongly tied to the provisions of todays
structural standards.
Determining the critical buckling stress of an eccentrically loaded beam-column
is based on the Secant formula. Basically we are seeking a critical stress c.Y P , for
which the extreme fibers in the beam-column reaches the yield point stress Y P , by the
expression:
 r


l
c.Y P
e
(3)
Y P = c.Y P 1 + sec
s
2r
E
In the Secant formula given by expression (3), e is the eccentricity of the applied
axial compression force, s is the core radius2 , l is the geometric length, r is the radius
of gyration and E is the modulus of elasticity. By utilizing the Secant formulation,
curves for the critical stress dependent on the slenderness of the beam-column can be
developed for various eccentricities(quantified as a ratio to s) as it is done in figure 2a.
It should be noted that expression (3) only applies for members with same eccentricity
in load application at both ends. Timoshenko also deals with the case of beam-columns
subjected to load application with different eccentricities at the ends, expressing them
by the ratio = eea , where ea and eb are the eccentricities at the ends. In the case of
b
varying eccentricities the critical stress c.Y P is given by:
c.Y P =

Y P
1 + esa cosec(2u)

where
q
2u = kl = rl EY P

and

(4)

p
2 2 cos(2u) + 1

For tower bracings this expression is mostly relevant in the case where = 0 corresponding 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 figure 2b. Both
figures are based on and elastic modulus of 210.000MPa and a yield point stress of
Y P = 250MPa. For reference the buckling curve for the corresponding TIA-G case
is included in both figures, refer to section 2 here on. It should be mentioned that the
curves in TIA-G also includes imperfections and thus a complete comparison can not
be made. Also the expression 4 is not defined for = 0, thus only values very close to
= 0 can be applied.

2 Core

radius s = AZ , where Z is the section modulus and A is the cross-sectional area.

18

Buckling curves for eccentrically loaded column, =1

300

lre/s=1
lre/s=0,5

250

lre/s=0,2
Fcr [Mpa]

200

lre/s=0,1
Euler

150

TIAGcurve3
100
50
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Slenderness L/r [-]

(a) Buckling curve for = 1

Buckling curves for eccentrically loaded column, =0

300

lre/s=1
lre/s=0,5

250

lre/s=0,2
Fcr [Mpa]

200

lre/s=0,1
Euler

150

TIAGcurve2
100
50
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Slenderness L/r [-]

(b) Buckling curve for = 0

Figure 2: Critical load curves for beam-column with various ratios of es compared to relevant
TIA-G buckling curve. Material parameters: fy = 250MPa and E = 210.000MPa

19

Buckling resistance according to ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005

In this section the current practice for determining the design compression strength of
angle bar members in accordance with to the ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005 structural standard is reviewed (In the following referred to as TIA-G).
The initial part of this section introduces some of the key provisions given in the
TIA-G standard, which may be considered to be specifically directed towards design
of lattice towers and thus outside traditional structural engineering.
References to the TIA-G 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, TIA-G considers an

effective compression yield stress Fy0 , dependent on the width to thickness ratio wt of the member.
The characteristic yield stress Fy is reduced in order to obtain Fy0 by the following
principle:
s
E
w
0.47
Fy0 = Fy
t
Fy
s
0.47

s
0.85

E
w
< 0.85
Fy
t
E
w
< 25
Fy
t

E
Fy

Fy0 = 1.677 0.677

Fy0 = 0.0332 2

w
tq

0.47

E
Fy

Fy

E


w 2
t

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 = Pn c
where
Pn = Ag Fcr
c = 0.9
and for c 1.5


2
Fcr = 0.658c Fy0
and for c > 1.5


0.877
Fcr =
Fy0
c2

20

where
K L
c =

Fy0
E

Ag = gross area of member [mm2 ]

K = effective length factor
L = laterally unbraced length of member [mm]
r = governing radius of gyration about the axis of buckling [mm]
It should be noted that KL is equivalent to the effective buckling length le . The
standard furthermore stipulates that flexural-torsional buckling need not be considered
for single or double angle bar members.

2.3

Effective slenderness ratio [Table 4-3 to 4-7]

TIA-G considers various effective slenderness ratio KL
expressions for tower comr
pression members. Expressions for angle bar members are given in table 4-3 and 4-4
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 profile (angle bar or round), dependent on whether or not the bracing pattern is
staggered or symmetrical (non-staggered) . Buckling of legmembers will not be treated
further in this project.
For bracing members the effective slenderness ratio is governed by either the endrestraint or

eccentricity by which the member is loaded. If the bracing is not slender
L
<
120
, eccentricity is considered governing and bracing effective slenderness rar


tio is given by member eccentricity conditions. If the bracing is slender Lr 120 ,
bracing end-restraints 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 figure 2. The
effective slenderness ratio expressions are illustrated graphically in figure 4a.
The standard links these eccentricity and end-restraint parameters with the 6 different expressions for the effective slenderness ratio of bracings, by a very basic principle
as given in table 1. On the specific definitions of normal framing eccentricities, partial
restraint against rotation a.s.o. the reader is referred to the standard. Table 1 illustrates that the end-restraint parameters are very general and superficial, 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 attempting to determine the actual rotational stiffness of joints by application of a type joint
FEM-model.
The effective slenderness ratio is applied in the design expressions given in the
previous subsection 2.2, and a buckling curve as illustrated on figure 4b is obtained.
The buckling curve is seen to resemble the curves given comparative standards such as
EN 1993-1-1 (column curve b for angle bars).

21

Figure 3: Is the buckling resistance of angle bar members with these end-restraints (connections)
the same? Yes according to the TIA-G standard. 2 bolts (left), 3 bolts (center) and
welding (right)

Curve
1
2

Slenderness


L
r < 120


L
r < 120

Parameter
Concentric at both ends.

Effective slenderness
expression
L
KL
r = r

Concentric at one end and normal

framing eccentricity at the other.

KL
r

= 30 + 0.75 Lr

KL
r

= 60 + 0.50 Lr

< 120

Eccentric at both ends.

120

Unrestrained against rotation.

L
r
L
r
L
r

120

Partially restrained against rotation

at one end and unrestrained at the
other.

KL
r

= 28.6 + 0.762 Lr

L
r

120

Partially restrained against rotation

at both ends.

KL
r

= 46.2 + 0.615 Lr

3
4

KL
r

L
r

Table 1: Parameters for selection of relevant effective slenderness ratio expression for bracing
members in TIA-222-G:2005 (Curve 1 to 6 refers to the curves in figure 4a)

22

Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings

according to table 4-4 TIA-222-G:2005
220

Curve1/Curve4
Curve2/Curve5

200

Curve3/Curve6

Effective slenderness KL/r [-]

180
160
140

Eccentricitygoverns
120
100
80
60

Endrestraintgoverns

40
20
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Slenderness L/r [-]

(a) Effective slenderness ratio to be considered for flexural buckling of bracings

as per TIA-222-G:2005. Curves 1 to 6 refers to the expressions in table 1.
Dashed red line indicates the transition from eccentricity to end-restraints being governing.

Critical buckling stress Fcr:

TIA-G buckling curve vs. Euler load

300

TIA222G
Euler
EN199311

250

Fcr [Mpa]

200
150
100
50
0
10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

Effective slenderness KL/r [-]

(b) TIA-G buckling curve compared to Euler and EN1993-1-1. Material parameters: fy = 250MPa and E = 210.000MPa

Figure 4: Graphic representation of provisions in TIA-G in relation to flexural buckling

23

2.4

Lattice web triangulation [figure 4-2]

Several tower design standards such as TIA-G (but also EN 1993-3-1) states that the
lattice web patterns should be fully triangulated in order to avoid bending considerations. 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). Non-triangulated 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 non-triangulated patterns are given in figure 5
for hip bracings, and are basic examples from TIA-G.

(a) Typical locations of lattice hip bracing (Section A-A)

(b) Triangulated hip bracing

(c) Non-triangulated hip bracing

Figure 5: Examples of triangulated and non-triangulated bracings as per TIA-G

25

Sample tower:
40m Medium duty Tower Design

In order for the project to be as specific as possible a Medium duty Tower Design
was considered. This would not only give an impression of the possible gains by the
methods developed through this project, but also keep the project at a level at which the
methods developed are practically realistic to implement for future design calculations.
Finally the sample tower design could contribute with a realistically proportioned tower
in regards to member sizes, joint details and outer geometry.
In the following the sample tower is shortly described and in the last part of the section
a traditional hand calculation of the sample tower is presented. This will not only
illustrate the application of the TIA-G standard described in section 2, but also the
traditional methods which has been applied before more computational methods were
introduced to the design of lattice towers. Finally the hand calculations were also to
serve the comparison of force distribution with results given by RAMTOWER.

3.1

Description

The sample tower is a 40m so-called Medium duty tower, medium referring to its
equipment bearing capacity. It consists of 13 sections, with non-staggered X-bracing
patterns. The 4 top sections are parallel in order to accommodate fixture of telecommunication equipment. The 3 bottom sections are fitted with several secondary bracings,
including internal hip-bracing.
If the hip-bracing is studied more closely it is seen to conflict with the provisions
in TIA-G in regards to complete triangulation of the lattice web pattern. Consequences
of this will be illustrated and discussed at a later stage of the project.
A overall layout drawing of the tower is included as Appendix B

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 Stttrup-Andersen. Exact wind load from appurtenances is
dependent on the type and supplier, and should in any case be determined considering
the actual load-configuration of the tower.
Furthermore it is brought to the attention of the reader that the sample tower is originally 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
1 No. 2.4m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
1 No. 1.8m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
5 Nos. 1.2m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
3 Nos. CDMA Panel Antenna
(2.62mx0.37m)
9 Nos. GSM Panel Antenna
(1.917mx0.262m)
Cable & Access Ladder
(Along tower center line)

Level

Shielding

Effective projected
wind area (EPA)

38.75m

0%

4m2

38.75m

30%

1.6m2

31.25m

50%

4m2

33.75m

0%

3m2

33.75m

30%

3.78m2

0 35m

Complete
shielding
from
35-40m

0.3 mm

Table 2: Sample tower design load

3.3

Hand calculation

In relation to this project a complete design calculation of the sample tower in accordance with TIA-G 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 FEM-Model
and RAMTOWER
Illustrate the differences in assuming a static determinate 3D structure and a
static indeterminate 3D structure (comparing traditional methods with more advanced computational models).
The calculation only considers windload from a 0 degree direction (refer to figure 6),
sometimes also referred to as the normal direction. It should however be noted that towers 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

RAMTOWER Analysis

RAMTOWER is a commercial software developed by Ramboll Telecom for the design and analysis of self-supporting lattice towers. The program features analysis of
towers with triangular or square cross-sections, composed of a wide variety of lattice
and member types.
Other than the force distribution performed by the RAMTOWER analysis, which
was going to be compared with other methods, the analysis was also used to establish
wind areas of the tower body, to be applied in the hand calculation of the sample tower
previously described. Large deviations between the RAMTOWER analysis and hand
calculation is not expected, since both methods assume that the tower is a statically
determinate structure.
The basic assumptions and analysis concept of RAMTOWER is shortly described
in the following:
RAMTOWER is a Visual Basic Application (VBA) based tower analysis and design software. The program considers the tower as a cantilever beam(free at one end
and fixed at the other) with relevant loads(it be horizontal or vertical from tower body,
appurtenances, ice etc.) applied at relevant levels. For this beam model is then calculated moment, shear and normal force at the top and bottom of each tower section,
upon which axial forces in section members (by equilibrium equations at the center of
each section) is determined. RAMTOWER can consider sections containing multiple
diagonal members (of same profile type), determining member forces only for the bottom 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 sometimes contain horizontal or other members yielding it statically indeterminate. During
the development of RAMTOWER thorough comparisons with FEM-models were performed and these yielded no more than 10% deviation in distribution of section forces.
RAMTOWER is programmed with common structural standards within the telecommunication tower industry incorporated, defining wind-profiles, buckling curves, iceloads, default safety factors and material parameters. On several occasions throughout
its more than 12 years of existence3 , RAMTOWER has proved itself as a simple and
fast tool, obtaining results with good accuracy.
The analysis of the sample tower was performed according the TIA-G standard,
when considering buckling curves, safety factors etc. Two different RAMTOWER
analysis were performed: One with a model loaded by the windprofile which is defined
within the program for the TIA-G standard and another model considering point loads,
related to wind on the tower body and appurtenances found in the hand calculation,
defined at the relevant levels in the RAMTOWER model. The differences between
the results obtained from these two models are treated in section 7. For the model
which applied the incorporated wind profile, wind load from secondary bracings had to
be calculated by hand and then included as additional section wind areas, since RAMTOWER 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

Abaqus Joint FEM-analysis

In order to obtain end-restraint stiffness values to be applied in buckling analysis of

angle bar bracing members, a more detailed FEM-analysis of a type joint was performed. The analysis was executed in the FEM-program Abaqus/CAE version 6.10-1.
A soft-copy of each Abaqus FEM-model 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 slip4 in bolted angle
bar connections under axial load. In relation to this study a idealized stiffness curve
for joints with very specifically described parameters had been developed based on the
experimental results. Using this idealized curve for the axial stiffness behavior of the
joint, the FEM-model could be calibrated to confirm this data, thus increasing overall
reliability of the model. This would also indicate any limitations of a simple FEMmodel 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 FEM-model could
be modified to consider the rotational stiffness, which would be of greater interest for
angle bar buckling considerations.
The layout of the Abaqus model which reflects the test setup applied in [12] is
illustrated in figure10. A drawing of the setup with measurements is given in Appendix
E. Note that Abaqus visualizations applies the coordinate system X-Y-Z (axes colored
red, green and blue respectively), however for in- and output in Abaqus this is referred
to as direction 1-2-3. 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 effecting the joint stiffness according to [12], was considered. All these parameters reflected
the assumptions of the experiments performed in [12]. Further parameters are given in
the subsequent sections.
Parameter
Bolt size
Hole clearance
Bolt torque
Angle bar type

Value
M16
1.6mm
114.27kNmm
L100x100x6

Table 3: Joint parameters effecting stiffness applied in FEM-model

5.2

Material properties

For defining material properties, two literature resources were used. In [12] basic material 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 defined as the sudden motion, due to a loss in friction provided by bolt tensioning, made
possible due to bolt in holes with clearance

32

Linear-elastic (In the following referred to as Elastic)

Linear-elastic - perfect plastic (In the following referred to as Perfect plastic)
Linear-elastic - 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 Dick-Nielsen and Dssing [7]. Dick-Nielsen
et. al considered several steel material types with certificates 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 FEM-model of the test setup material models
were continuously modified until displacements for different force levels matched the
work curve retrieved from the material testing. The results of the material testing by
Dick-Nielsen 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 experimental 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 subsection 5.8). For the linear-elastic properties of the material a E-modulus 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 Dick-Nielsen 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 specified). This last property was used for defining 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 coefficient of 0.4 was considered for the angle bar and bolt surfaces.
According to [4] frictional coefficients smaller than 0.2 should not be considered in
Abaqus, since serious convergence problems may occur. The friction coefficient of 0.4
corresponds to the provisions of EN1090-2 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 definitely
not reflect the real life behavior of the joint. The model consist of various surfaces in
contact . These can be categorized as:
Contact between bolt head, nut and shank to the surface of the two angle bar
members and their holes.
Contact between the angle bars
The contact surfaces may be viewed in figure 8. A contact pair in Abaqus consist of
2 surfaces, one referred to as a slave and the other a master. The major difference between 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 recommended5 that the slave surface is the more finely meshed of the two surfaces. In
the case of contact between the bolt and angle bar surfaces, the bolt was defined as the
master surface and the angle bar made slave. In the case of the contact between the two
angle bars, one of the angle bars was of course to be of master type and the other of
slave type.
The master and slave surface is gathered in a interaction6 , to which is assigned a
interaction property. In this case two relevant properties were considered: Tangential
and Normal behavior of the contact surface interaction. For tangential behavior was
defined a frictional coefficient of 0.4 and the allowable elastic slip, refer to [4], was set
to a absolute distance of 0.05mm with zero stiffness. Normal behavior was defined as
hard. This property assumes that constraints related to contact can only occur, when
the surfaces are touching (no sticking between the contact surfaces).

5.4

Steps, incrementation and output requests

Due to the nature of the joint FEM-model, 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 definite motion governed by the clearance of the joint
holes, but labels it as a infinite motion with zero stiffness to achieve equilibrium (rigid
5 In

[4].
this case a total of 5 interactions were defined 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.
6 In

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 analysis, were iterations easily converges, incrementation was more coarse. However modifying 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 infinite
displacements (since slope of work curve in this region is zero, refer to figure 14). If
however a small stiffness is included, the analysis does not continue to divide time
increments until they are infinitely 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
figure 9. The springs provide the work curve with a negligible, slope during the joint
slip. It should however be pointed out that non-converged analysis of the model indicates 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 defined for certain nodes in
the model. These locations may be viewed on figure 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 figure 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 boundary 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 figure 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 therefore 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 previously described boundary conditions may be substituted, by boundary conditions
which reflect 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 figure
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 figure 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 out-of-plane restraint at the supported 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]:
FM =

2MA
1.155G d2 + K Dkm + P

(5)

where for a M16 bolt:

MA is bolt installation torque, MA = 114.27kNmm
G is the coefficient of friction of bolt thread, G = 0.4
K is the coefficient of friction of bolt (head and nut) surface, K = 0.4
d2 is the edge diameter, d2 = 24mm
P is the bolt pitch, P = 2mm
Dkm is the mean bolt diameter which is obtained from (6):
Dkm =

d k + DB
2

(6)

where
dk is the inside diameter of the contact surface (diameter of bolt hole) dk = 17.6mm
DB is the outside diameter of the contact surface (bolt head outside diameter) DB =
27.7mm
From (5) a tension force in the bolt of 11kN or 54.7MPa (for bolt as a solid 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 figure 13. This
bolt load will cause the bolt to obtain internal stresses due to contact pressure between
the bolt-head/nut and angle bars.

Figure 13: Abaqus bolt load applied on bolt shank center-plane

40

Figure 14: Principal force-displacement curve for joint slip (For linear-elastic 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 critical was the load at which the joint starts to slip. In order to determine this load, a
simple approximation was initially used and then refined once results from initial runs
of the model was completed. The critical force was determined from expression
Fcr = nFM

(7)

where
n is the number of friction planes for one of the adjoined members, n = 4
FM is the tension force of the bolt obtained from expression (5), FM = 11kN
is the coefficient of friction of the adjoined surfaces, = 0.4
According to expression (7) slip is initiated when the applied force exceeds Fcr =
17.6kN corresponding to a uniform pressure of 15.12MPa on the angle bar crosssection.
A load interval somewhat below and above this approximate slip value was then
applied to the step Load - region 2 in the initial test runs of the joint model. Load
intervals was however slightly modified by viewing results from some of these initial
test runs. A model which would reflect the real joint slip behavior would have a displacement curve as illustrated in figure 14(when neglecting plasticity). In the initial
model with the previously stated axial load pressure interval, the transition from the
friction region (region 1) to the slip region(region 2) was more sudden (no rounding
of curve), indicating that the prescribed load in the step Load - region 2 was not
sufficient to cause slip and slip was therefore initiated in step Load - region 3 where
the load increases dramatically between each increment. The axial load interval of the
FEM model was shifted in a number of trials until a smooth transition from from Load
- region 1 to Load - region 2 step was obtained resembling figure 14.
As a result of this the following final load steps were applied for the model:
Load - region 1 - Load interval:0 15.8MPa

41

Load - region 2 - Load interval:15.8 16.5MPa

Load - region 3 - Load interval:16.5 100MPa

5.7

Meshing

For the model was used a combination of 20-node quadratic hex and hex dominated
elements (Abaqus type: C3D20). According to [4] reduced integration elements
may cause convergence problems for contact analysis, and hence full integration was
considered (convergence problems was experienced for reduced integration elements
in some of the initial trials). Special attention was paid to the mesh around the bolt
hole, applying a fine symmetric mesh of hex type. The mesh of bolts and angle bars
may be viewed in figure 15

(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 direction 3 w.r.t. the Abaqus analysis relative time, the solid line work curves in figure 16
were obtained, for the 3 different material models. As previously mentioned the history data consisted of measurements in 2 points of the joint (refer to figure 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 FEM-results 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 figure. As it may be
seen from the figure there are some differences between the results obtained by FEM
analysis and the idealized curve based on test results. Region 1 (refer to figure 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 difficult 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 justified 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 FEM-model. 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 deformation 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 FEM-model and the experimental test setup
should be pointed out at this stage:
The FEM-model 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 FEM-model, however deformation 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 FEM-analysis, and still this analysis indicates same elastic
stiffness behavior as the two models containing plastic properties. Analysis with bolts
of perfect plastic material and a yield strength of 640MPa (yield strength most likely to
correspond to the bolts applied in the tests) shows no changes in stiffness, and it may
therefore be concluded that in this case yielding of the angle bar holes by far gives the
largest contribution to the reduction in joint stiffness. Plots of the plastic strains in the
bolts confirms this observation, since no plastic strains are observed in the shank of the
bolts (which would lead to substantial axial deformation.), plastic strains only occurs
in bolt head and nut, due to contact pressure with the angle bar surface.
It seems reasonable (as indicated by the FEM-model) that if a perfectly circular bolt
shank, goes into bearing with a perfectly circular hole, the area which initially presses
against the hole, will be of infinite size, an thus produce yield stresses in the hole almost

43

Force-displacement curve axially loaded joint w.o. bending

160
140

F [Mpa]

120

FEMmodel Elastic
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardening
FEMmodel Perfectlyplastic
Idealizedcurve N.Ungkurapinan

100
80
60
40
20
0
0,00E+00

5,00E01

1,00E+00

1,50E+00

2,00E+00

2,50E+00

3,00E+00

Joint deflection [mm]

Figure 16: Deformation curve for idealized experimental and FEM-model results (Parts of the
Elastic and Plastic w. hardening work curves are obscured by the work curve for
the Perfectly plastic.)

Figure 17: Plastic strains in bolts of perfect plastic material with yield strength 640MPa for joint
under axial load (zero plastic strain colored blue)

instantaneously. Also residual stresses from punching or drilling of bolt holes in the
testspecimens, may produce a difference (This is not captured in the current FEMmodel), since the material around the holes may start to yield earlier than anticipated
by the FEM-model.
All these factors may inflict on the experimental data, yielding a lower stiffness of
the test specimen joint, than what can be obtained by a simple FEM-model as described
here.

5.9

Result testing

Since the joint FEM-model showed some discrepancies with respects to the experimental data (established in figure 16), further testing of the model was performed in order
to validate if other issues, than what has previously been addressed, were inflicting on
the results. Model and result testing was limited to contain: mesh convergence testing,
stress discontinuities and bolt tensioning.

44

Convergence: Force-displacement curve axially loaded joint

w.o. bending
160

FEMmodel Elastic
FEMmodel Elastic conv.
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardening
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardeningconv.

140

F [Mpa]

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

0,5

1,5

2,5

Joint deflection [mm]

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 field variables. In general the solution given by this approximation converges 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 acceptable 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 FEM-model, the model was re-meshed by increasing the amount of seeds
along previously seeded edges by 50%.
Since this project was mostly concerned with the deformation of the joint, comparison of results, between the original and the re-meshed model, will be limited hereto.
In figure 18 the work curve of the re-meshed models is given by dots at outputted increments of the analysis and may be compared with the initially accepted results (solid
line).
The figure illustrates that there is no visible difference between the results obtained
by the re-meshed model and the original.
At the same time it should be mentioned that the re-meshed 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 re-meshed model.
The convergence graph also illustrates the critical phases of the joint axial deformation: at transition from friction to slip and at transition from slip to bolts in bearing. At
these locations the dots from the 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 FEM-model meshes, it will be relevant to

view the discontinuities of the model field output results. The discontinuity is the difference 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 insufficient. 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 inflicted at these areas. For a
perfectly meshed sharp corner, such as the corner between the two legs of the angle bar,
stresses would reach infinite 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 figure 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 figure).
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. Results 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 discontinuity 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 discontinuities. 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 considerable effect on the joint stiffness results. However if stress in the model is required
the mesh must be refined 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 figure 13. Reactions in the axial direction on one side of the
bolt was then summed to confirm 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 FEM-model for the material model plastic w.
hardening.

47

Node

V. Mise stress
[MPa]

2941
792
2160
3090
291

397.9
564.0
310.7
330.7
313.8

V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
512.8
370.9
313.7
211.5
215.6

Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
129%
66%
101%
64%
69%

(a) V. Mise stress discontinuities in angle bar

Node

V. Mise stress
[MPa]

1423
73

457.9
556.4

V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
382.2
440.2

Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
79.3
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 confirming that a FEM-model
could generate joint stiffness results with good correspondence to actual joint behavior. From the previous tests and result comparison this is on some level considered to
be confirmed, even though some factors such as residual stresses, imperfections and
tolerances are not captured by the FEM-model leaving some deviations to the actual
stiffness behavior of the joint. On this note the more buckling relevant rotational stiffness behavior of the joint was to be determined. The overall model was the same as
the previous axial stiffness model, leaving only some small modifications in order to
consider rotation of the joint about the two parallel axis of the joint denoted RX and
RY (refer to figure 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 confirmed.
5.10.1

Modified material parameters

Two major changes was implemented on the material parameters of the model:
The E-modulus was lowered to 200GPa corresponding to the modulus considered by TIA-G
Only the material models Elastic and Plastic w. hardening were considered.

48

5.10.2

Modified boundary conditions

The only modification made to the boundary conditions, was the previously considered
out-of-plane 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

Modified 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 figure 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 reflects 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 out-of-plane deformation occurs as indicated on figure 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
figure 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 figure 21a. This type of load application was considered to
be valid due to the Saint-Vernant principle7 , 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 displacing the ends of the rotating part as illustrated in figure 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 defining 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 applying 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 corresponding to the greatest dimension of the area over which the load system is applied.

49

Figure 20: Modified axial load application on type joint for rotational stiffness (axial load only
on bolted leg of angle bar)

likely because the joint bolts are then forced to transfer this shear between the two parts
of the joint. This is however found acceptable for the RY rotation since the stiffness
of this rotation is much lower than for the RX rotation. The method by which moment
is applied for RX rotation may be observed not to produce any shear to be transferred
by the joint bolts. This behavior is considered to be more realistic w.r.t. rotation of the
joint due to buckling deformation.
5.10.4

Modified 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 Load-rotation 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 figure 10, depending on the required rotation. From
this history data, the rotation (v) was calculated by (refer to figure 22):
 
1 X2
v = tan
[rad]
(8)
Y2
where
Y2 =

X2
X2+X1
Y 1+Y 2

50

(a) Joint rotation stiffness model load application: Prescribed displacement for RY (left) and force couples from
surface traction for RX (right)

(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
Y 1 +Y 2 = 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 figure23, was obtained for
rotation about both parallel axis of the joint. It should be mentioned that the RY rotation
has been corrected from a initial rotation caused by the very small eccentricity in axial
load application, by subtracting this initial rotation from all the obtained results.
The influence of the size of the joint axial load has also been investigated, by increasing the initial axial load of 70MPa to 100MPa as illustrated on figure 24. In this
case the increase in axial load increases the RX rotational stiffness, this may however
not always be the case, illustrating that for determining joint stiffness it is important
to consider realistic magnitudes of axial loading. The magnitude of the applied axial
load is considered to have a minor influence on RY rotational stiffness, thus it is not
included in figure 24.
For the rotational model no slip occurs (as it was the case for the axial model),
since bolts are already in bearing once the member attempts to rotate due to transverse
deflection from axial buckling load. In the FEM-model perfect conditions is assumed in
relation to the distance between bolt holes, e.i. spacing of holes in the two members are
exactly the same, resulting in both bolts going into bearing at exactly the same time. In
reality this spacing will not be the same, as one of the bolts will go into bearing before
the other resulting in a loss in rotational stiffness. However if the joint is not highly
over-designed (yielding of the hole initiated before failure of bolts), local yielding of
the hole for the bolt in bearing will result in both bolts going into bearing at an early
stage of axial loading for normal hole sizes.
It is seen that from the FEM-analysis results, stiffness data is available for a rotation
interval of 0 0.07rad. By simple calculations of joint rotation for a sine shaped
L
deflection field it is indicated that a joint rotation of 0.07rad is reached at some 45
of
transverse deformation, where L is the geometric length of the buckling member. Such
a transverse deformation of the member would normally be assimilated with failure of

52

Moment-rotation curve axially loaded joint w. bending

Rotation RX and RY
4

FEMRX Elastic70MPa
FEMRX Plasticw.hardening70MPa
FEMRY Elastic70MPa
FEMRY Plasticw.hardening70MPa

3,5

F [kNm]

3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
0

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,05

0,06

0,07

0,08

0,09

0,1

Joint rotation [rad]

Figure 23: FEM-model deformation curve for rotation about the 2 parallel axis of the type joint
(RX and RY )

Moment-rotation curve axially loaded joint w. bending

Rotation RX
4
3,5

F [kNm]

3
2,5
2
1,5

FEMRX Elastic100MPa
FEM RX Elastic70MPa
FEMRX
El ti 70MP

FEMRX Plasticw.hardening100MPa

0,5

FEMRX Plasticw.hardening70MPa

0
0

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,05

0,06

0,07

0,08

0,09

0,1

Joint rotation [rad]

Figure 24: Type joint rotational stiffness dependent on axial load applied to joint. (Not considered for rotation RY )

53

the member, and therefore the stiffness data interval is considered to be sufficient.

55

FEM-Analysis

For the analysis of the sample tower the commercial FEM program: AUTODESK
ROBOT Structural Analysis Professional 2011(In the following referred to as ROBOT)
was applied.
The FEM-analysis was to serve several purposes:
Analysis of entire sample tower structure for comparison of forces and reactions
with RAMTOWER analysis and hand calculation
Monitor the effects of non-triangulated hip bracing
Monitor effects of including joint stiffness, from detailed FEM-analysis to single
section analysis.
Compare results from single section analysis with TIA-G provisions, especially
when considering the effective slenderness ratio.
Soft-copies of all ROBOT FEM-models applied in this project are given in Appendix
F.

6.1

Initial testing

In order to ensure that ROBOT was suitable for the FEM-analysis of the sample tower,
a series of initial tests were conducted.
These tests included, but was not limited to:
Simple cases of linear-buckling analysis of angle bar members.
Linear-buckling analysis when considering lateral support provided by incoming
members, including influence of various member release conditions.
Simple cases of column buckling for angle bar members with eccentric load
application (offsets).
Analysis of columns with non-linearity.
6.1.1

Simple linear-buckling 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 predefined angle bar members, these are sub-categorized into two types: major/minor axis profiles(nn and v-v axis) and parallel axis profiles (x-x and y-y axis) refer to figure 1. Both types
of profiles 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 (x-x and y-y) or the minor
and major axis (v-v and n-n), based on whether a parallel axis or major/minor axis profile section was defined 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
mid-span, as illustrated on figure 25, restraining the member from buckling by its entire length about one of the parallel axis. This forced buckling modes about the minor
axis to consider only half of the column length for buckling, thus resulting in buckling
about the non-restrained parallel axis to be most critical. Initial buckling mode for this
model, when using major/minor profile type was about the parallel axis, thus yielding
the following results on tests of the ROBOT Linear buckling analysis:
Only major/minor axis profiles are capable of achieving buckling modes about
the major, minor and parallel axis. Parallel axis profiles only contain the two
parallel axis moment of inertias and can thus only consider modes about these
two axis. In the following the major/minor axis profile may be referred to as a
main axis profile.
This result however posed a problem, since the releases of a angle bar bracing would
normally be defined about the parallel axis, as it has been done through the Abaqus
analysis of the previous section. For a normal truss analysis this would not pose any
problem, since full rotational release would be defined in both directions, but if analysis
was to consider different release stiffness in the two directions the major/minor axis
profile would not be able to accommodate this. To solve the problem a modified
beam element was applied. The beam element is a main axis profile with a very short
parallel axis profile attached to each end. The connection between the two profile types
was defined as fully fixed and the short parallel axis profile accommodated correct
definition of member releases in regards to the actual physical conditions of a bracing
joint, previously obtained from the type joint analysis. The modified beam element
may be viewed in figure 26
In order to determine the influence of the short parallel axis profile, at both ends
of the main axis profile, on the overall buckling load, a simple convergence test was
performed. The test was performed on a simply supported axially loaded angle bar,
by initially considering a parallel axis profile of very short length compared to the
overall length of the member. The length of the parallel axis profile was then increased
and each buckling load was viewed with respects to the buckling load of a plain main
axis profile, e.i. without any parallel axis profile at the ends. A curve of the buckling
load convergence with parallel axis profile relative length8 may be viewed in figure 27.
Convergence test shows that a relative length of the parallel profile of 4.0% yields a
completely accurate result.
Finally the modified beam element buckling load was determined, when considering the two axes at both ends of the member being either released, fixed or one axis
fixed and one released at both ends. By doing so the modified beam element buckling
loads given in table 5 was obtained. This table also raise confidence that the axis definitions of the small parallel beam segment is working properly, since for one axis fixed
and the other released at both ends of the member a buckling load and mode between
the principal loads and modes is obtained.
6.1.2

Linear-buckling load when considering lateral support provided by incoming members

The purpose of this test was to verify, that ROBOT includes restraint for buckling provided by other structural members in the model. Furthermore the influence of various
8 Relative length refers to the length of the parallel axis profile, compared to the total unsupported length
of the column.

57

Figure 25: Position and orientation of support at mid-span for provoking parallel axis buckling
for the beam-column element.

Figure 26: ROBOT model of the modified beam element with local axis definitions

Convergence test for modified beam element

23,2

Rel.error
Criticalload

23,1

Rel. error [%]

3,0%

23
22,9

2,0%

22,8
22,7

1,0%
1 0%

Fcr [kN]

4,0%

22,6
22 6
22,5

0,0%
0,0%

22,4
2,0%

4,0%

6,0%

8,0%

10,0% 12,0% 14,0% 16,0%

Parallel axis profile rel. length [%]

Figure 27: Buckling load convergence with parallel axis profile relative length for the modified
beam element. Test specimen: L50x50x5 L=2000mm.

58

Buckling mode
Weak
Weak/Parallel
Parallel
Parallel/Strong
Strong

Axis release definitions at both ends of member

Both axes fixed 1 fixed & 1 released axis Both axes released
91.45kN
22.44kN
47.11kN
214.95kN
53.61kN
144.41kN
341.33kN
85.79kN

Table 5: Critical Euler load for modified beam element considering various modes and end-restraints.
Test specimen: L50x50x5 L=2000mm. E=200000MPa

Figure 28: ROBOT complex buckling model, main member is horizontal with applied nodal
load (brown letters at the center of the member are release definition codes)

releases applied to the buckling and supporting members was studied, for later application in the sample tower model.
A main member was modeled as a simply supported beam, with incoming members providing support for deflection perpendicular to the beam length. Members were
modeled with angle bar sections (of main axis type) and support is provided in such a
way, that deflection at mid-span is not possible whether it be about the major, minor
or parallel axis. Model may be seen to resemble a part of a tower section, whereas
the main member would be a legmember in compression, and incoming members
be various tower bracings. The complex buckling model is illustrated in figure 28.The
more complex buckling analysis yielded the following results:
Critical buckling modes calculated in ROBOT for the more complex restraint
configuration showed correct results concerning buckling length and load factor,
when considering main axis profiles.
Varying end-restraint 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 linear-buckling analysis (as
applied in previous tests) would not be sufficient, since this analysis type only considers
the axial loading of the member.
Hence a non-linear analysis was performed for the same test setup as the simple
linear-buckling 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 non-linear analysis with releases it is recommended to apply a DSCelement algorithm, which basically generates a small element at the end node of all
elements defined by the user. All release definitions on the old element nodes are then
moved to the DSC-element nodes (refer to [5]). In the case of advanced elastic and
non-linear release definitions, application of the DSC-element is mandatory, so the
DSC-element would most definitely 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 DSC-element, and since non-linear releases would have to be defined
for this project a assumption had to be made:
Considering the buckling curves in figure 2 and the provisions of the TIA-G standard 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 negligible for slender members such as bracings with Lr 120 . Hence for the remaining
part of this project eccentricities of members will not be considered.
6.1.4

Non-linear analysis

The previous buckling tests with eccentric load application, resulted in a increasing
doubt whether ROBOT was actually capable of performing even a simple non-linear
analysis. Therefore two basic tests that would require a non-linear analysis were performed:
Simply supported beam-column with transverse loading at the mid-span.
Simply supported beam-column with non-linear spring release at the ends.
Test models may be viewed in figure 29.
The non-linear analysis is different from the linear buckling analysis previously
applied. The analysis does not give a result output of critical loadvalues for the models. The non-linear 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 non-linear 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 infinite transverse deformation corresponds to the Euler load, however this is not always

60

(a) Non-linear model with transverse loading

(b) Non-linear model with non-linear rotational spring releases

Figure 29: ROBOT Non-linear analysis test models

the case (as will be illustrated later). For this non-linear analysis the Newton-Raphson
method was applied, which provides no information about the deformation and bearing
capacity state of the compressed member after buckling (largest bearing capacity) has
occurred. Columns are normally considered to be postbuckling neutral9 , e.i. the compression capacity of the column, does not increase after buckling of the member has
occurred. For both models deflection at midspan in the expected direction of buckling
failure (weak axis failure expected, refer to figure 29) was monitored for each increment of the non-linear analysis, and plotted against the total applied axial load in the
same increment.
For the model with transverse load in figure 29a, two different transverse loadvalues
were considered.
For the beam-column with non-linear spring releases a joint rotational stiffness
model, defined by a curve with the same properties as the curve FEM-RX - Plastic
w. hardening 70MPa shown on figure 23 in section 5, was applied. The non-linear
release was defined at both ends of the specimen for rotation about the weak axis of
the profile (refer to figure 29b). In both models a axial load was applied and a nonlinear analysis was performed. To cross check load values a linear buckling analysis
was exercised for the same models. The transverse deformation of both models for
increasing axial load may be viewed in figure 30. I should be mentioned that for the
curve in figure 30b, deformations from the analysis is very small, and therefore some
decimals are lost in the postprocessing facilities of ROBOT, leaving the result curve
9 According

to Lars Damkilde in [6].

61

with a stepwise expression. If all decimals could be extracted from ROBOT the curve
would be more smooth as it is the case in figure 30a.
In order to have some kind of reference outside ROBOT a secondary check of the
linear buckling value for the non-linear spring released model was performed. Timoshenko deals with simply supported, elastic end-restrained beam-columns in [17]. The
buckling parameter kl for a beam-column of this type, which appears in the general
expression of the critical buckling load (Euler load) may be found from the expression:


tan kl2
2E I
=
(9)
kl
l
2
where is the elastic coefficient of the end-restraints and is found as:
=

where the moment M = 376.000Nmm and corresponding rotation = 0.00284rad

is the first data point used to define the non-linear release curve in ROBOT. From
expression 9 is found a value of kl2 = 2.2616, which is applied to the expression 10
by which the critical buckling load for the beam-column with elastic end-restraints is
obtained.
Fcr =

kl 2 E I
l2

(10)

(2 2.2616)2 200.000MPa 531100mm4

(3000mm)2

= 241.47kN

This load value is seen to correspond to the load value obtained by the ROBOT
linear-buckling analysis as illustrated on figure 30b and stated in table 7.
It is seen that the non-linear analysis arrives at a lower buckling value than what
is anticipated by the linear-buckling analysis. This is in good agreement with the differences between the two types of analysis. The linear-buckling analysis assumes the
end-restraint stiffness curve to have the same slope as the initial part of the curve (as
it was assumed in the cross-check with above expressions by Timoshenko - therefore
the two methods arrives at the same result). The non-linear analysis updates the stiffness matrix for each load increment updating the stiffness of the end-restraints with the
data provided by the curve. Since the slope of the stiffness curve decreases as rotation
is increased the non-linear analysis will gradually experience a loss in end-restraint
stiffness, and hence arrive at a lower critical load as the overall load is increased.
As previously mentioned the non-linear analysis does not provide a critical buckling load as was the case for the linear buckling analysis. The critical load should be
based on acceptable transverse deflections of the member i compression. In the case
of the transversely loaded beam-column, loadvalues at a out-of-plane displacement of
L/1000 (2mm) and L/100 (20mm) are given in table 6 for the two different values
of transverse loading. These load values should be compared with the Euler load for
linear buckling of Fcr = 22.44kN, indicated by percentage enclosed by () in the table.
From tests performed on the ROBOT non-linear analysis facilities, it is concluded
that ROBOT is capable of providing reasonable results from beam-column members
with transverse loading and non-linear release definitions. Hence ROBOT fulfills the
requirements of the project.

62

Out-of-plane deformation (at midspan) for

transverse loaded beam-column

25

F [kN]

20
15
10
ROBOT0.5kN
ROBOT1kN

Linearbuckling
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Deformation [mm]

(a) Force-displacement curve (out-of-plane displacement at mid-span) from

non-linear analysis of transverse loaded beam-column, compared with linear buckling.Test specimen: L50x50x5 L=2000mm E=200000MPa

F [kN]

Out-of-plane deformation (at midspan) for beamcolumn with non-linear end-restraints

240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

ROBOT Nonlinearendrestraints
ROBOT
Non linear end restraints
ROBOT Idealfullrelease
ROBOT Nonlinearendrestraints(Euler)
0

0,5

1,5

2,5

Deformation [mm]

(b) Force-displacement curve (out-of-plane displacement at mid-span) from

non-linear analysis of beam-column with non-linear end-restraints, compared with linear buckling of non-linear restrained and unrestrained beamcolumn. Test specimen: L100x100x7 L=3000mm E=200000MPa

Figure 30: Results of ROBOT non-linear analysis of test models

Out-of-plane displacement
2mm
20mm

ROBOT - 0.5kN
17.5kN (78.0%)
21.8kN (97.1%)

ROBOT - 1.0kN
14.25kN (63.5%)
21.3kN (94.9%)

Table 6: Loadvalues for L/1000 and L/100 of out-of-plane displacement for transversely loaded
beam-column models analyzed i ROBOT. Percentage enclosed by () is the non-linear
load value with respects to the Euler load from linear buckling (Fcr = 22.44kN).

63

Model
Non-linear release RX (NL-analysis)
Non-linear release RX (Linear-buckling)
Full release (Linear-buckling)

Critical load
231.25kN
241.41kN
116.46kN

Table 7: Critical load from linear-buckling and non-linear analysis of beam-column with nonlinear end-restraint definition, compared with linear buckling for unrestrained beamcolumn.

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 bracings - Referred to as Model B
A model of bottom section no. 13 of the sample tower with semi-rigid connected
bracings, by application of type joint rotational stiffness results - Referred to as
Model C
Model A was used to compare forces and reactions obtained from RAMTOWER analysis and hand calculation of the sample tower described in section 3 and may be viewed
in figure 32.
The purpose of the models B and C was to study the influence of semi-rigid connected 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 models presented in these studies only consider fully pinned, in-plane pinned and fully
rigid connections, neither of them reflecting the actual behavior of the bracing joints.
The models B and C were limited to only consider section 13 of the sample tower,
instead additional features to increase the accuracy of the models were implemented
(compared to Model A).
Geometry of the sample tower was initially gathered as a 3D model in AUTODESK
AutoCAD 2011. Geometry was then imported to ROBOT for analysis. Members were
defined as type beam, and angle bar sections were assigned as per drawing in Appendix B. A lot of attention was paid to ensure that the orientation of the angle bar
principle axis was correctly defined, i order to obtain correct buckling modes during
analysis (for Models B and C).
For loading of the tower methods similar to the ones in the hand calculation was applied, thus wind load on tower sections was applied as nodal loads equally distributed
to all four legmembers at top and bottom of each section. The same method applied
for vertical loading from tower self-weight and appurtenances. Only the 0 degree wind
load case was considered for all three models (refer to figure 6 and 32). Since Models
B and C only contained one section the loading from the above tower structure was
applied in the following manner: A copy of the Model A was made, and the bottom
section no. 13 removed. Supports were then moved to the new bottom part of the tower,
were it had previously been connected to the top of section no. 13. A linear static analysis was then performed and the reactions in the supports noted. These reactions were
then added to the top of the legmembers in the Models B and C. All this was done in

64

Figure 31: Layout of tower FEM-model releases and angle bar orientations - releases (pinned or
semi-rigid) indicated by an empty circle - LI and LO indicating leg of angle bar being
in to or out of the plane respectively.

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 semi-rigid
release about both principal axes (by use of a non-linear spring). The semi rigid releases
were defined with joint rotational stiffness retrieved from the Abaqus FEM-analysis as
described in section 5 and was only considered at the end of each primary bracing, e.i.
secondary bracings and horizontals were defined with pinned releases about both principal axes in the all models. The application of the short parallel axis profile developed
through the initial testing of ROBOT, ensured that releases could be properly defined
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 figure 31.
The bottom section legmembers are supported by fixed supports to simulate the
angle bar being cast-in to the concrete foundation as proposed by Kang et al. [18].
For the Model A a simple linear static analysis was performed, whereas for model
B and C a non-linear static analysis had to be applied, since model C was defined
with non-linear releases.
To the Models B and C some additional features were included, as previously mentioned.
At main bracing cross-over point a ROBOT compatible nodes property was included. This was done to connect nodes from both diagonal members at the crossover
point, so that translation of these nodes are the same, but no rotation(moment) can be
transferred between them. This is a realistic property compared with actual conditions,
where cross-bracings are usually connected with a single bolt at the cross-over point.
Furthermore the two models where modeled by applying the modified beam element

65

Figure 32: Rendering of Model A (left) and common illustration of load application and release
definitions for section no. 13 for Models A, B and C (right)

as described in subsection 6.1.1. The modified beam element was however not applied
to leg, horizontal and secondary members, since these members was considered fully
pin released at all times as previously mentioned, i.e. free rotation about both principle
axes. Main and secondary bracing members were divided into 2 separate members in
each span (excluding the small parallel axis profile at each end.), to improve ROBOTs
approximation of the sine shaped deflection field by use of 3. order polynomials. Horizontal members were however divided into 3 members in each span.
The TIA-G effective slenderness ratio expressions given in table 1, is not considered
to include imperfections of any kind. Since the scope would be to compare effective
slenderness ratios, based on critical buckling loads obtained from non-linear analysis
of the models B and C, with the expressions given in the TIA-G standard, imperfections needed not to be included in the analysis. The models B and C may be viewed in
figure 32.

6.3

Test runs of FEM-Models

In the following is described observations and modifications made to the initial FEMmodels 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 FEMmodel 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:
FEM-model (nodal)*: Secondary bracings are considered active in the analysis
(Original Model A)
FEM-model (nodal)**: Secondary bracings are not considered active in the analysis (eliminated from stiffness matrix), same assumption as in RAMTOWER and
hand calculation.
The differences in the results from these two models is treated further in section 7
6.3.2

Effects of non-fully triangulated hip bracing

As previously mentioned the sample tower design is provided with internal hip bracing which is not fully triangulated as per provisions in TIA-G. Consequences of this
failure to comply was experienced during the initial runs of the FEM-models. 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 figure 33. However the buckling load values
were higher than the value corresponding to parallel buckling of the specific members.
The cause of this lies within the restraint provided by the hip bracing. Due to the
non-triangulated 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 calculations. Fully triangulating the hip bracing would result in a increase in steel consumption 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
non-triangulated hip bracing, as provided for the sample tower, this would be very cost
efficient.
Considering the buckling load of the diagonal member in tower section 13, further
studies were made based on three hip bracing configurations:
No hip bracing provided
Non-triangulated hip bracing provided
Fully triangulated hip bracing provided

67

Hip bracing
None
Non-triangulated
Triangulated

Buckling mode axis

Parallel
Parallel
Minor

Buckling capacity
34.5 kN
52.7 kN
62.1 kN

Hip bracing net-weight

0 kg
50 kg
350 kg

Table 8: Buckling capacity and weight of hip bracing for 0 degree wind load case for the 3 section
models

For transparency only horizontal loading from wind on the section itself was applied
during this study (loading from the tower body above the section is not included).
The buckling mode axis and critical buckling load from linear-buckling analysis for
all three models is given in table 8 along with net-weight of steel used for hip bracings.
In order to achieve full triangulation of the internal hip bracing several members
were added to the hip bracing as well as plan-bracing at diagonal cross-over point as
illustrated on figure 34. The slenderness ratio Lr of each new member is enclosed by
() on the figure and should be no larger than 250 as specified by [4.4.2] in TIA-G for
secondary members. From table 8 it is seen that there is actually a reasonable gain in
buckling capacity by providing non-triangulated hip bracing, compared to the weight
of the steel material consumed.
Finally in order to complete this study the effects of providing non-triangulated
hip bracing for wind load cases other than 0 degree must be considered, hence section
was exposed to a 45 degree wind load case (load case usually considered for design of
towers with square cross sections). In order for this study to be as realistic as possible,
loads from the 0 degree case was converted to 45 degree. In TIA-G [table 2-6] is
given a wind direction factor, a factor by which the 0 degree wind load should be
multiplied in order to obtain the 45 degree wind load (since wind resistance of the
tower body is larger for 45 than 0 degree wind). The factor is dependent on the solidity
() of the tower section, e.i. the ratio between the wind face area of structural elements
and wind face area of the section gross section(refer to hand calculation in Appendix
AR.D), however the factor should be no larger than 1.2, a factor which will be assumed
in the following study. Factored 0 deg loads are projected in the 2 global horizontal
directions of the model (to form a 45 degree load), and added to section nodes by the
same principle as for the 0 degree case.
The buckling mode and load for the 45 degree load case was of parallel type. No
additional capacity was achieved by providing the non-triangulated hip bracings in the
45 degree case compared to section with no hip-bracings at all. This loss in capacity
is caused by the member perpendicular to the wind direction for the 0 degree case, now
in fact being in compression, hence not providing any restraint to the considered member. 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 nontriangulated hip bracing may be considered to be the difference between the section
forces for the 2 cases, thus in the order of 15% in this study. This increase in capacity
should be viewed with respects to the design effort which must be invested to include
bending in the perpendicular bracing for the section with non-triangulated hip bracing
in the 0 degree wind load case (and perhaps also other cases).
The above study exemplifies the importance of triangulated primary as well as secondary bracing. Buckling capacity of non triangulated lattice is almost impossible to

68

Wind direction
0 deg. case
45 deg. case

Diagonal force
4.64
3.98

Buckling capacity
52.7 kN
34.5 kN

Table 9: Results of linear-buckling analysis of non-triangulated section for 0 and 45 deg wind
load case

determine by non-computational 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 non-triangulated hip-bracings, by use
of FEM-analysis and full-scale tower tests.
Instead of fitting towers with secondary bracings, it may sometimes be more beneficial to just increase the size of the primary member cross-section. In the above study
a total steel net-weight of 350kg was consumed in order to provide the tower with fully
triangulated hip-bracings. Providing the tower with this hip-bracing a diagonal compression capacity of 67.2kN was obtained as per table 8. If the same amount steel was
utilized to increase the diagonal cross-section instead of providing fully triangulated
hip-bracing 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 example underlines the responsibility of the designer to investigate different options to find
the most suitable solution for each tower design. Usually smaller towers will not benefit from large amounts of secondary bracings, better would be to just increase primary
member cross-section.
For the remaining part of this project, tower hip bracings were not considered.

The focus on bending in tower members from non-triangulated bracings, may raise
the question whether considering the rigidity of bracing member end-restraints (such
as it is intended in this project) also will impose bending. However previous studies
by e.g. Roy et al. [16] indicates that local secondary bending stresses from connection
rigidity and member continuity is limited, conditioned that the tower structure has reasonable 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 perpendicular to wind restraining the member through non-triangulated hip-bracing.

Figure 33: Buckling failure of section with non-triangulated hip bracing. (brown silhouette is
the deformation of the failure mode)

70

Figure 34: Members added in order to triangulate the non-triangulated hip bracing (dashed
lines). Slenderness of each member is enclosed by ()

6.4

Results

In the following the results of the three ROBOT FEM-models are presented.
For the Model A containing the entire sample tower structure, the most relevant
results were the compression forces in tower legmembers and diagonal bracings. Furthermore overall reactions from tower was also extracted from the analysis. These
results along with the results of the hand calculation and RAMTOWER analysis may
be viewed in Appendix C. A comparison between the results obtained by the different
methods, and further discussion of the results may be found in section 7.
For the analysis of the Models B and C, the results consisted of buckling loads for
diagonal failure in the section. During the non-linear analysis of the Models B and C
it turned out that the forces from the above tower structure combined with the loading
on the section itself was not sufficient to cause buckling failure of the section. Hence
the loads on the sections were equally factored until a failure occurred in the analysis
(ROBOT could not longer form equilibrium in all increments of the non-linear analysis). As expected both sections failed by parallel buckling of the diagonal members in
the bottom span (below cross-over point). The axial compression forces in the diagonals at failure may be viewed in table 10, for the Models B and C.

71

Model
Model B
Model C

Mode
Parallel
Parallel

Buckling load
36.44kN
44.86kN

Max. displacement
11mm
7mm

Table 10: Results from non-linear ROBOT analysis of Models B and C. Maximum displacement
is measured at midspan of the failing member in the parallel direction (failure mode).

All results are treated further in section7.

73

7
7.1

Comparison
RAMTOWER, hand calculation and FEM-results

In this section the distribution of forces in the sample tower calculated by application of
RAMTOWER, hand calculations and the FEM-program ROBOT is compared. Several
different models were considered within each method:
RAMTOWER regular: Standard RAMTOWER analysis - Wind profile and loading calculated by RAMTOWER and automatically applied at relevant levels.
RAMTOWER nodal: RAMTOWER wind profile 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 section)
FEM-model (nodal)*: ROBOT Model A as described in subsection 6.3.1
FEM-model (nodal)**: The same model as FEM-model(nodal)* only all secondary 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 figures 35 and 36 the compression forces in tower diagonal and leg members
respectively are compared, by considering the relative error from the regular RAMTOWER analysis. Due to this method of comparison the red bar indicating the
RAMTOWER regular relative error is of course zero.
The figures 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 figures 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 figure 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

Comparison of RAMTOWER regular analysis with various

alternative methods:
Diagonal compression force
FEM-model (nodal)**

Sec 13

FEM-model (nodal)*

Sec 12

RAMTOWER (nodal)

Sec 11

RAMTOWER (regular)

Sec 10

Hand calc.

Sec 9

Error on the
safe side

Sec 8

Error on the
unsafe side

Sec 7
Sec 6
Sec 5
Sec 4
Sec 3
Sec 2
Sec 1

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

Relative error from regular RAMTOWER analysis [%]

Figure 35: Relative deviation on diagonal member compression force found by alternative methods 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

Comparison of RAMTOWER regular analysis with various

alternative methods:
Legmember compression force
Sec 13

FEM-model (nodal)**

Sec 12

FEM-model (nodal)*
RAMTOWER (nodal)

Sec 11

RAMTOWER (regular)

Sec 10

Hand calc.

Sec 9
Sec 8

Error on the
safe side

Sec 7

Error on the
unsafe side

Sec 6
Sec 5
Sec 4
Sec 3
Sec 2
Sec 1
-40

-20

20

40

60

80

Relative error from regular RAMTOWER analysis [%]

Figure 36: Relative deviation on legmember compression force found by alternative methods
compared to a RAMTOWER regular analysis. (Dotted red line indicates a 10% relative 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, profiles are poorly utilized to limit the amount of different
profiles in a tower and due to deflection requirements.
For equipment loading on lower sections of a tower the relative deviation between the methods are small, due to the large forces from the above tower structure.
The psychical distribution of loads on the tower section relies on the local design
of appurtenance struts, hence the RAMTOWER regular analysis may in some
cases be more accurate.
That the deviations are cause by differences in loadapplication assumptions, is also
confirmed by viewing the hand calculation and RAMTOWER nodal analysis. For these
two methods the relative error is of same magnitude, e.i. they are arriving at the same
results.
At the lower sections there are some deviations between the regular RAMTOWER
analysis and the FEM results. This is caused by the presence of secondary bracings in
the FEM stiffness matrix as previously described in subsection 6.3.1. By excluding the
secondary bracings from the FEM-analysis as it is done in FEM-model (nodal)**,
results with acceptable deviations to RAMTOWER is obtained.
From the reactions obtained by the different methods and given in Appendix C, it
may also be seen that the wind profile considered by the RAMTOWER regular analysis
and the alternative methods are equivalent, since moment and shear is obtained with a
small relative deviation.
On a overall scale the regular RAMTOWER analysis seems to be sufficiently accurate, compared to the ease at which towers may be defined and analyzed, compared
with e.g. the FEM-model.

7.2

Buckling of members with joint stiffness results from FEManalysis.

By inserting the critical load from the ROBOT non-linear analysis into Eulers formula
given in expression 1 in section 1, the effective buckling length of the member is obtained and hence also the effective slenderness ratio, which may directly be compared
with the ratios provided by the TIA-G standard. Examples on the procedure and crosssectional properties applied in the calculation of the effective slenderness ratios based
on results from the ROBOT analysis and TIA-G 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 cross-over 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
TIA-G 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 from table 11, the results from the non-linear analysis of the tower
section with the joint rotational stiffness model, almost matches the effective slenderness ratio stated by the TIA-G standard. However one comparison was not enough to
draw any final conclusions on the adequacy of the TIA-G effective slenderness expressions, since a lot of buckling cases, still needed to be investigated. As a consequence
of this two basic models where made as simple beam-columns with applied axial load
in order to expand the comparison:
L60x60x6 of length 2000mm (In the following referred to as Model A-sec)
L100x100x7 of varying length (In the following referred to as Model B-sec)
Model A-sec was included in this comparison in order to study the behavior of the
diagonal member considered for the sample tower analysis in weak axis buckling (since
the diagonal only experienced parallel buckling in the section model).
Model B-sec was included since this member was of approximately same size as the
member from which the joint stiffness models was initially obtained through Abaqus
FEM-analysis (L100x100x6 is not available in the ROBOT section library) and therefore stiffness values may be more relevant for buckling of a member of this size.
For both models the buckling members were either considered to have the rotational
stiffness models (RX and RY ) defined at both ends (SS) or just at one end with the other
pinned (SP). The layout of the Models A-sec and B-sec may be viewed in figure 37.

Figure 37: ROBOT Non-linear analysis Models A-sec and B-sec with (SS)-condition (top) and
(SP)-condition (bottom)

The critical buckling loads for weak and parallel axis buckling from ROBOT nonlinear analysis of the Models A-sec and B-sec, may be viewed in tables 12 and 13
respectively. Parallel buckling of the angle bar members was obtained, just as in the
initial testing described in subsection 6.1.1, by restraining the member in the direction
of one of the parallel axis at midspan(refer to figure 25). The restraint was placed
in such a way that transverse deflection from buckling lead to rotation about the axis
which had been assigned with the lowest rotational stiffness (RY ), since this would be
most likely to occur in a tower design (as it was the case for the sample tower section
models). The critical loads retrieved from the Models A-sec and B-sec underwent
the same procedure as the results from the sample tower section analysis in order to
obtain the corresponding effective slenderness ratios given i table 14. Examples on
the procedure and the cross-sectional parameters considered for the two models is also
documented in Appendix D.

78

End-restraints

KL
r

RX and RY
Pinned

174.4
193.5

KL
r

- TIA-G (curve 5)
173.6
-

Deviation
0.4%
-

Table 11: Effective slenderness ratios based on results of non-linear analysis in ROBOT compared with TIA-G basic effective length case. Sample tower section no. 13

Mode
Weak axis
Parallel axis

(SS) - restrained
110.7kN
154.1kN

(SP) - restrained
74.4kN
129.5kN

Table 12: Critical buckling loads from non-linear analysis in ROBOT. Test specimen: Model Asec 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
Weak axis L = 2000
Parallel axis L = 2000
Weak axis L = 3000
Parallel axis L = 3000
Weak axis L = 4000
Parallel axis L = 4000
Weak axis L = 5000
Parallel axis L = 5000

(SS) - restrained
385.0kN
665.0kN
186.3kN
309.0kN
114.4kN
178.9kN
77.3kN
117.7kN

(SP) - restrained
315.0kN
647.5kN
148.1kN
286.8kN
87.5kN
165.0kN
56.25kN
105.0kN

Table 13: Critical buckling loads from non-linear analysis in ROBOT. Test specimen: Model
B-sec L100x100x7. Letters enclosed by () indicates the restraints at the ends of the
buckling member either being: (SS) = Stiffness model - Stiffness model or (SP) =
Stiffness model - Pinned.

79

Mode
Parallel axis (SC)
Weak axis (SS)
Parallel axis (SS)
Weak axis (SP)
Parallel axis (SP)
Weak axis (SS)
Parallel axis (SS)
Weak axis (SP)
Parallel axis (SP)
Weak axis (SS)
Parallel axis (SS)
Weak axis (SP)
Parallel axis (SP)
Weak axis (SS)
Parallel axis (SS)
Weak axis (SP)
Parallel axis (SP)
Weak axis (SS)
Parallel axis (SS)
Weak axis (SP)
Parallel axis (SP)

Slenderness ratio

L
r

ROBOT

KL
r

TIA-G

KL
r

Deviation

Sample tower section no. 13 diagonal member: L60x60x6

190.25
174.4
173.6 (curve 5)
Model A-sec: L60x60x6 L = 2000
171.1
111
151.4 (curve 6)
110.3
94.1
110.3 (curve 1)
171.98
135.4
159 (curve 5)
110.3
102.6
110.3 (curve 1)
Model B-sec:L100x100x7 L = 2000
101.4
83.7
101.4 (curve 1)
65.4
63.7
65.4 (curve 1)
101.4
92.5
101.4 (curve 1)
65.4
64.6
65.4 (curve 1)
Model B-sec: L100x100x7 L = 3000
152
120.32
139.8 (curve 6)
97.9
93.4
97.9 (curve 1)
152
134.9
144.5 (curve 5)
97.9
97.1
97.9 (curve 1)
Model B-sec: L100x100x7 L = 4000
202.9
153.5
171.0 (curve 6)
130.7
122.9
126.6 (curve 6)
202.9
175.5
183.2 (curve 5)
130.7
128.0
128.2 (curve 5)
Model B-sec: L100x100x7 L = 5000
253.6
163.4
151.6
146.7 (curve 6)
253.6
163.4
160.4
153.1 (curve 5)

Table 14: Effective slenderness ratios KL
calculated on the basis of critical buckling loads
r
from non-linear analysis in ROBOT and TIA-G standard. Letters enclosed by () indicates 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.

-0.5%
36.4%
17%
17%
8%
21%
3%
10%
1%
16.2%
4.8%
7.1%
0.8%
11%
3%
4%
0.1%
-3%
-5%

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 NLanalysis. A clear difference should be present in the effective slenderness ratios obtained from a structural standard and by this specific very FEM-analysis due to several
known factors:
The standard needs to be on the safe side in regards to all joints contained in
the category partially restrained, whether it be by bolts or welding of any type
and design. In this project only one type of joint has been considered, thus other
joints which meets the requirements of the standard, but has a lower rotational
stiffness may very well exist.
The joint stiffness model has been seen to overestimate the stiffness compared
to the very limited amount of experimental data available (the idealized curve
in figure 16 by N. Ungkurapinan et. al. described in [12]) . Hence if same
model is to undergo real life stiffness testing, lower values could be expected,
which lowers the buckling capacity, which then again yields a higher effective
slenderness ratio.
From the Weak axis (SS)-case to the Weak axis (SP)-case the deviation from
the FEM-results is seen to drop by approximately 50% for both Models A-sec
and B-sec. This supports that either the effective slenderness given by the TIA-G
standard has some safety or the stiffness model over-predicts rotational stiffness,
for each end-restraint in the buckling member. If the error was on the method or
of a more general nature same reduction of the deviation might not occur.
The size of the member for which the joint stiffness has been determined(L100x100x6)
is very large for member testing. Some scaling factors could be present, if the expressions in the TIA-G standard is based on test of specimens of smaller profile
sizes.
The type joint model does not resemble a typical bracing joint since the angle
bar to which the rotating member is connected is parallel to the rotating member
itself. Furthermore the rotating member is bolted very close to a completely fixed
support (some 200mm refer to section 5). In typical bracing patterns the bracing
may be connected to a member which is unsupported for several meters. This
might also lower the rotational stiffness of the joints.
By viewing these known factors all together they all seem to be pointing in the same
direction: The rotational stiffness found from the Abaqus type joint in this project
might be higher, than what can be expected in a real life bracing joint, and hence
the effective slenderness ratios may be larger for a real life bracing. In light of this
recognition the effective slenderness ratios will move closer to the actual codal values
as a more accurate stiffness model is adapted. This may produce a situation were
the effective slenderness ratios for parallel buckling modes may actually exceed the
codal ratios, resulting in the effective slenderness specified by the standard being on the
unsafe side, as they are already exceeding these values for high values of slenderness
(refer to table 14).
In any case it is some what odd that the effective slenderness expressions in TIAG, in view of the rotational joint stiffness results previously illustrated in figure 23,
which clearly shows that the rotational stiffness about the axis RX is much larger than
about RY , does not consider separate effective slenderness ratio expressions for weak

81

and parallel axis buckling. Weak axis buckling will have a rotational stiffness which
is a combination of RX and RY , whereas the parallel buckling will have (at worse) a
rotational stiffness of RY , due to the method by which the bracing is connected to the
other structural components of the tower.
In other structural standards for towers such as EN1993-3-1 [2] this fact is accounted for by applying a smaller effective slenderness ratio to the weak-axis buckling
than the parallel axis buckling mode (especially for single bolted angles). Whether the
expressions in TIA-G is on the safe or unsafe side, fact remains that there is a substantial difference in the rotational stiffness of angle bar bracing joints by the rotational
axis considered, which must be accounted for in determining the effective slenderness
ratio.
The effective slenderness ratio in accordance with the TIA-G and EN1993-3-1 is
compared in figure 38. The figure consists of two sub-figures illustrating the effective
slenderness ratios for members with or without end-restraints. As mentioned there are
some differences between the TIA-G and EN1993-3-1 standard in regards to determining the effective slenderness ratio of angle bar bracings. The EN-standard does not
consider any difference in effective slenderness for members with partial restraint at
one or both ends (as it is the case in TIA-G), however it considers different effective
slenderness for weak and parallel axis buckling mode. Also the EN-standard does not
take the eccentricity conditions of the member into account, even though the expressions seem to generally account for some eccentricity (Effective slenderness is not 0 for
a member with 0 slenderness as in the TIA-G concentric member case). In figure 38a
the TIA-G curves 1, 5 and 6 are illustrated (concentric loaded member, partial restraint
at one and both ends respectively) corresponding to the relevant conditions considered
for Model B-sec. Furthermore the EN1993-3-1 effective slenderness is represented by
dashed lines for weak and parallel axis buckling (both curves are valid for members
with one or both ends partially restrained, since EN as previously mentioned does not
account for any difference between the two cases). Finally the results obtained from
the NL-analysis of the L100x100x7 member (Model B-sec) and sample tower section
is also included for reference.
In figure 38b the effective slenderness ratios for members without any restraint at
ends are illustrated. From TIA-G curve 1 and 4 is included and from EN1993-3-1 effective slenderness is represented by dashed lines for weak and parallel axis buckling.
Since FEM results has only been obtained for buckling of members with end-restraints,
no FEM-results are available. The figure 38a clearly illustrates the deviations in effective slenderness obtained by FEM and from the standards TIA-G and EN1993-3-1.
From viewing the out-of-plane displacements of the Models A-sec and B-sec at
buckling failure, it has been seen that the rotations at the member joints when assuming
a sine shaped deflection field, does not exceed 0.01 rad, which is well within the region
where stiffness models obtained by assuming a elastic or plastic material model are
the same. Therefore based on the studies of this project assuming material as linear
elastic without taking any plasticity into account has proved to be fully sufficient for
development of the type joint rotational stiffness model.

82

Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings with endrestraints according TIA-G, EN1993-3-1 and FEM results

220

Endrestraintgoverns

200

Effective slenderness KL/r [-]

180
160
140

Eccentricitygoverns
120
100
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

80
60
40
20
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Slenderness L/r [-]

(a) Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings with end-restraints according to TIA-222-G:2005, EN1993-3-1 and ROBOT non-linear FEM results for
testspecimen L100x100x7 and sample tower.

Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings without

end-restraints according TIA-G and EN1993-3-1

220

TIAG:Curve1/Curve4

200

EN:K1L/r(weak)
EN:K1L/r(parallel)

Effective slenderness KL/r [-]

180
160
140

Eccentricitygoverns
120
100

Endrestraintgoverns

80
60
40
20
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Slenderness L/r [-]

(b) Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings without end-restraints according to TIA-222-G:2005 and EN1993-3-1.

Figure 38: Overall comparison of effective slenderness in accordance with TIA-G, EN1993-31 and FEM-results. For determining the EN effective slenderness fy = 355MPa and
E = 200000MPa has be used (same properties as type joint). The specified governing
factors on the figures only refer to provisions of the TIA-G standard.

83

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 slenderness ratios are given.
In this project methods of determining the effective slenderness ratio of angle bar
bracing members have been examined. Methods were based on both codal practices
and a more scientific approach by application of joint rotational stiffness models in
non-linear FEM analysis.
The main difference between the codal and scientific method, is (other than they
produce different results) the time of computation. Methods given by the standard,
will produce effective slenderness ratios in a matter of seconds, whereas the scientific
approach requires a FEM-model and hours of computation. With this project, the time
consumption of this method can be significantly reduced, and further studies will probably 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 configurations 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 optimization is achieved.
In case of overutilized towers. Based on the results of this project the joint stiffness model could assist to increase capacity of members by a few percent potentially saving the client the cost of having to strengthen tower members.
In both cases custom programmed FEM-software, which not only features automatic
generation of tower geometry, but also enables application of elements with joint stiffness 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 overcome before the rotational stiffness models can be used for tower designs: confirmation
by experiments. It must be confirmed that the joint rotational stiffness experienced in
real life can be simulated by the FEM. The method is never going to be commercially
feasible, if joint stiffness can not be extracted from a FEM-model with reasonable deviations to as-build behavior.
However it is not only the adequacy with respects to real life behavior which will
have to be investigated in order to utilize the method commercially. Below is given
some areas of investigation which will have to be studied further:
Confirm the rotational stiffness of angle bar bracing members, based on experimental data.
Based on the rotational stiffness obtained from experiments, FEM-models which
adequately captures this stiffness must be developed.

84

Investigate factors which could have a influence 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. determining joint types which should be considered based on governing factors.
Finally it should be pointed out that the above method will potentially only yield some
4 to 7 percent in additional member capacity (for weak-axis buckling), dependent on
the type of joint and slenderness of the bracing. Designers should always be very
much aware of generally following the provisions of the standards, since yielding a
few percent in capacity from a advanced joint rotational stiffness model is nothing
compared to the loss in capacity caused by e.g. non-triangulated bracing, as was the
case for the sample tower of this project.

85

Conclusion

The main objective of this project was to develop a detailed FEM-model from which
rotational stiffness of a angle bar joint could be obtained and used in a overall nonlinear FEM-analysis of angle bar bracing members.
It has been shown that joint stiffness can be captured with somewhat good agreement with experimental results, by application of simple FEM-models, however further
experimental data is required in order to calibrate the FEM-model to a level at which
it fully captures real life stiffness behavior of angle bar joints. Compared with the
small amount of experimental data available on joint stiffness, the FEM-models seem
to overestimate the joint stiffness. Several parameters which may reduce stiffness has
been pointed out, for further study. It is a necessity to investigate each parameter individually in order to uncover their effects on joint stiffness.
From the magnitude of rotation that the buckling member joint undergoes before
failure, it has been observed that a rotational stiffness model obtained by considering a
linear-elastic material model is adequate for this type of analysis, hence no plasticity is
required.
It has been found that the ability to produce FEM-models, which can adequately
capture stiffness behavior of angle bar joints, grants the opportunity to model and analyze towers with detailed joint behavior, obtained by parametric FEM-models on a
commercial level.
The effective slenderness expressions stated in ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005 have be
seen to be of a very general and superficial nature, even though the stiffness of angle bar
bracing joints is totally dependent on their design. Furthermore joint stiffness has been
observed to vary by the considered axis of rotation. It may be relevant to develop separate effective slenderness expressions, dependent on the considered axis of buckling
as it is done in the EN1993-3-1 standard. The results of the FEM-analysis would tend
to suggest that effective slenderness ratio given in the ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005 standard
may be some what on the unsafe side for parallel buckling, however the expressions on
effective slenderness defined in the standard are very simple and have been producing
safe designs for many years. Through this project it has been illustrated that there is a
need for a method of determining more specific effective slenderness ratios for members with partial end-restraints, especially for large numbers of identical towers such
as transmission towers, where the very demanding process can be justified by savings
in money spend on materials.
As a secondary objective a comparison of the commercial tower design program
RAMTOWER was performed. RAMTOWER was compared with hand calculation
and FEM analysis. Several models were considered within each method and their distribution of forces were compared. On the overall scale RAMTOWER performed as
per previous experience, yielding no more than 10% deviation from equivalent FEMmodels. Through comparison of overall tower reaction, the incorporated wind profile
in RAMTOWER has been found accurate and in accordance with the ANSI/TIA-222G: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 loadapplication assumptions in RAMTOWER and the other methods. By considering the
characteristics of telecommunications towers, the deviation is found of no practical
importance.
During the project the consequences of non-triangulated hip bracing has been studied. 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 perpendicular 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 diagonal member with bending stiffness in the 0 degree case, is also in compression for the
45 degree case, and will therefore not contribute to restrain the member. Due to the
ratio between diagonal bracing forces for 0 and 45 degree wind load cases it may be
concluded that only a very limited additional capacity (15% in the specific study) is
obtained by providing non-triangulated hip bracings. In order to be able to utilize this
capacity, bending in tower bracings must be included in the analysis by relevant interaction formulas. It is concluded that non-triangulated bracing should not be present in
tower structures due to both design and safety reasons. Furthermore the option of increasing the cross-sectional area of main members, instead of providing large amounts
of secondary bracing members, has been discussed and is especially recommended for
smaller towers.
During this project the FEM-program AUTODESK ROBOT Structural Analysis
Professional 2011 was applied. A series of tests were performed in order to check
that the program is suitable for the overall non-linear analysis of angle bar members
exposed to various conditions. Through the experience gathered during the program
testing phase the author has the following comments to the application of ROBOT:
ROBOT is a basic and simple FEM-program which has some advantages. However
ROBOT is not recommendable as a research tool. Non-linear analysis features of the
program is very limited, as is documentation and examples hereon.

87

APPENDIX

89

Literature

[1] EN 1993-1-1:2007 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General

rules and rules for buildings.
[2] EN 1993-3-1:2007 Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures - Part 3-1: Towers,
masts and chimneys - Towers and masts.
[3] EIA/TIA-222-G: Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas, 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 Bjlkekonstruktioner) (In Danish). The Technical University of Denmark (DTU), 2. edition,
1999. Lecturenote F-118.
[7] Lars Dick-Nielsen and Henrik Dssing. Influence of Packingplates in Bolted
Connections (Mellemlgspladers betydning i Boltesamlinger) (In Danish). Masters 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 Cross-Bracing in Latticed Towers.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 124:360367, 1998.
[10] R.K.N.D Rajapakse K.I.E Ahmed and M.S. Gadala. Influence of Bolted-Joint
Slippage on the Response of Transmission Towers Subjected to Frost-Heave. Advances in Structural Engineering, 12(1):117, 2009.
[11] L. Lakshmanan Nagesh R. Iyer N. Prasad Rao, G.M. Samuel Knight. Investigation 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. McGRAW-HILL 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

Layout drawing: 40m Medium duty sample tower

design

93

95

Sample tower force distribution

97

Compression forces in diagonal bracings considering various methods

(0 deg. wind load case)
Hand
RAMTOWER
RAMTOWER
FEM-model
FEM-model
calc.
(regular)
(nodal)
(nodal)*
(nodal)**
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

-3,10
-7,13
-11,74
-18,08
-14,02
-13,36
-13,17
-13,28
-13,63
-14,14
-21,04
-21,76
-22,68

-5,16
-7,12
-14,26
-19,70
-14,16
-13,48
-13,26
-13,39
-13,69
-14,19
-21,01
-21,76
-22,66

-3,10
-7,13
-11,74
-18,08
-14,00
-13,35
-13,16
-13,30
-13,61
-14,13
-21,01
-21,76
-22,66

-3,14
-7,49
-12,31
-19,08
-14,77
-13,81
-13,92
-13,85
-14,67
-15,82
-24,92
-25,18
-24,28

-3,14
-7,49
-12,31
-19,08
-14,78
-13,8
-13,93
-13,84
-14,67
-14,95
-22,19
-22,44
-23,42

Reactions from tower considering various methods (0 deg. wind load case)
Hand
RAMTOWER
RAMTOWER
FEM-model
FEM-model
calc.
(regular)
(nodal)
(nodal)*
(nodal)**
2806
2822
2802
2802
2802
Moment
126,4
127
126,4
126,4
126,4
Shear
82,7
82,5
82,6
82,5
82,5
Normal
*) Secondary bracings included in FEM-model
g excluded from FEM-model
**)) Secondaryy bracings

98

Compression forces in legmembers considering various methods

(0 deg. wind load case)
Hand
RAMTOWER
RAMTOWER
FEM-model
calc.
(regular)
(nodal)
(nodal)*
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

-2,54
-12,42
-28,53
-54,50
-82,27
-104,55
-125,11
-144,78
-163,80
-182,55
-209,58
-245,88
-281,93

-1,55
-12,36
-27,11
-54,15
-82,83
-105,45
-126,34
-146,25
-165,50
-184,42
-211,26
-248,04
-284,51

-2,54
-12,42
-28,53
-54,50
-82,27
-104,54
-125,09
-144,78
-163,81
-182,56
-209,57
-245,87
-281,94

*) Secondary bracings included in FEM-model

**) Secondary bracings excluded from FEM-model

-2,18
-10,22
-23,01
-42,62
-78,18
-105,58
-122,51
-145,12
-161,03
-183,39
-198,07
-243,26
-273,5

FEM-model
(nodal)**
-2,18
-10,22
-23,01
-42,63
-77,98
-105,75
-122,36
-145,28
-160,83
-183,96
-202,55
-248,23
-276,78

99

Examples on calculation of effective slenderness ratios based on ANSI/TIA-222-G:2005 standard and

non-linear FEM results

Introduction
In the following examples on the calculation of effective slenderness ratios obtained by
the TIA-G standard and ROBOT non-linear FEM-analysis are documented. Other than
illustrating the principle of the calculations, the cross-sectional properties which have
be assumed is also documented.
The displacement enclosed by () next to the critical buckling load from non-linear
analysis, is the transverse displacement of the compression member at this load. All
critical loads from non-linear analysis were found at the state at which a convergent
solution could no longer be obtained. A E-modulus of 200000MPa has been considered
for all calculations (and FEM-analysis).

Buckling of sample tower diagonal members

Member properties (Based on values from ROBOT):
L60x60x6
A = 691mm2
Iv = 94400mm4
r
94400
= 11.69mm
rv =
691
Ix = 227900mm4
r
227900
rx =
= 18.16mm
691
Buckling span: L2 = 3641mm
Other subspan (above diagonal crossover point): L1 = 3246.6mm
Effective slenderness ratio as per TIA-G:
Since spans (above (L1 ) and below (L2 ) diagonal cross-overpoint) 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:
L
(u )
 1  = 2
L2
L1
L1 u1
where
3
(u) =
2u

1
1

2u tan(2u)

100

and
L2 L1
inserting the spans L2 and L1 into the equations yields:
(u1 )
3641

=
2u = kl = 2.95212
3641
3246.6
3246.6 u1
since
kl 2 EI
2 EI
= 2
2
L
L
for pin connected buckling member, reduced member buckling length (L) due to
different spans may be found as:
2

L2
2.95212
EI
L1
2 EI
= 2 L = 3455mm
2
L
L2
parallel axis buckling:
5)

L
rx

= 190.25

KL
r

= 28.6 + 0.762 190.25 = 173.573 (curve

Results from ROBOT non-linear analysis

Model with pinned diagonal connections:
Fcr = 36.44kN (11mm displacement - Parallel axis buckling mode)
36440 =

2 200000 227900
(KL)2

KL = 3513.6mm
KL
(11.5% deviation)
r = 193.5
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models in diagonal connections:
Fcr = 44.86kN (7mm displacement)
44860 =

2 200000 227900
(KL)2

KL = 3166.7mm
(0.4% deviation)
KL
r = 174.4

Buckling of L60x60x6 angle bar member

Member properties:
L60x60x6

L = 2000mm

For further cross-sectional 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 TIA-G:
weak axis: rLv = 171.08 KL
r = 46.2 + 0.615 171.08 = 151.4 (curve 6)
L
parallel axis: rx = 110.3 KL
r = 110.3 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
Fcr = 110.7kN (7mm displacement)
110700 =

2 200000 94400
(KL)2

KL = 1297.4mm
KL
(37.6% deviation)
r = 111.0
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
Fcr = 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 TIA-G:
weak axis: rLv = 171.08 KL
r = 28.6 + 0.762 171.08 = 159 (curve 5)
L
parallel axis: rx = 110.3 KL
r = 110.3 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
Fcr = 74.39kN (7mm displacement)
74390 =

2 200000 94400
(KL)2

KL = 1582.7mm
KL
(17% deviation)
r = 135.4
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
Fcr = 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 = 1366mm2
Iv = 531100mm4
r
531100
rv =
= 19.718mm
1366
Ix = 1282000mm4
r
1282000
= 30.6mm
rx =
1366
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models in both ends:
Effective slenderness ratio as per TIA-G:
weak axis: rLv = 152 KL
r = 46.2 + 0.615 152 = 139.8 (curve 6)
parallel axis: rLx = 97.9 KL
r = 97.9 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
Fcr = 186.25kN (5mm displacement)
186250 =

2 200000 531100
(KL)2

KL = 2372.5mm
KL
(16.2% deviation)
r = 120.32
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
Fcr = 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 TIA-G:
weak axis: rLv = 152 KL
r = 28.6 + 0.762 152 = 144.5 (curve 5)
L
parallel axis: rx = 97.9 KL
r = 97.9 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
Fcr = 148.13kN (5mm displacement)
148130 =

2 200000 531100
(KL)2

103

KL = 2660.3mm
(7% deviation)
KL
r = 134.9
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
Fcr = 286.75kN (3mm displacement)
286750 =

2 200000 1282000
(KL)2

KL = 2970.7mm
KL
r = 97.1 (0.8% deviation)

105

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 Dick-Nielsen 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 FEM-model of the test setup material, models were continiously modified until displacements for different force levels matched the
workcurve obtained from the material testing.
Modifications such as layout and language (from Danish to English) has been implementet by the author.

Structural steel S355

Structural steel in accordance with EN10025
Hardening data:
Data point
V. Mise stress () [MPa]
Plastic strain ( pl) [-]

1
356,00
0

2
360,00
0,014

3
460,00
0,039

4
560,00
0,106

5
620,00
0,2

6
740,00
0,8

7
946,00
3

Ultimate material strength

Calculation
(7 - 6)/(7 - 6)

Value
93,64

Unit
Parameter Description
MPa/(mm/mm)
a
Curve slope between last data point (6 - before failure) and extrapolated point (7)

7 - (7 * a)

665,09

MPa

(ult * a) + b

1,11

(mm/mm)

769,03

MPa

ult
ult

Meassured strain at failure

Ultimate strength

Hardening curve, incl. ultimate strength

Plastic hardening curve: S355 structural steel
1000
900

V. Mise stress [Mpa]

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100

Structural steel S355

0
0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

Plastic strain [-]

Notes:
1) Curve is extrapolated beyond the ultimate strength in order be able to interpolate a solution at ultimate strength.
2) Ultimate strength is marked red om hardening curve

110

Bolts Grade 10.9

Hardening data:
Data point
V. Mise stress () [MPa]
Plastic strain ( pl) [-]

1
1071,00
0

2
1215,90
0,061

3
1243,00
0,087

4
1350,00
0,5

5
0,00
4

Ultimate material strength

Calculation
(7 - 6)/(7 - 6)

Value
-385,71

Unit
Parameter Description
MPa/(mm/mm)
a
Curve slope between last data point (6 - before failure) and extrapolated point (7)

7 - (7 * a)

1542,86

MPa

(ult * a) + b

0,8257

(mm/mm)

1224,37

MPa

ult
ult

Meassured strain at failure

Ultimate strength

Hardening curve, incl. ultimate strength

Plastic hardening curve: Grade 10.9 bolts
1400
Bolts Grade 10.9

V. Mise stress [Mpa]

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

Plastic strain [-]

Notes:
1) Curve is extrapolated beyond the ultimate strength in order be able to interpolate a solution at ultimate strength.
2) Ultimate strength is marked red om hardening curve

111

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 investigated.

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 FEM-model

112

Node

V. Mise stress
[MPa]

8329
6895
1124
11092
350

439.6
450.3
315.1
545.0
300.2

V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
619.6
578.1
332.5
180.5
171.0

Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
141%
128%
106%
33%
57%

(a) V. Mise stress discontinuities in angle bar

Node

V. Mise stress
[MPa]

5710
764
106

370.6
463.8
682.4

V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
246.9
197.7
274.0

Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
67%
43%
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

Digital Documentation

The DVD in this Appendix contains soft-copies of relevant documents and FEMmodels used throughout this project as well as some of the results hereof. Not all
the mentioned FEM-models are included, since some models with great similarities
(e.g. simple release or material modifications etc.) was reused to limit the amount
of models. Each of the below subsections provide a complete list of files and short
descriptions.

F.1

Documents

The following documents are contained in the attached DVD:

Report No.10-052.pdf - The Main report (this document)
AppendixReport No.10-052.pdf - The Appendix Report containing further documentation on the project work
Joint stiffness results.xlsx - Results from the joint stiffness analysis by application
of FEM
Material hardening.xlsx - Material hardening data for S355 structural steel and
grade 10.9 bolts, by Dick-Nielsen et.al. [7]

F.2

Abaqus FEM-models

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 modified to consider either: Elastic,
Perfect-Plastic or Plastic with hardening. The current files all contain result files
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
Axial-RX load - Axially loaded type joint with applied moment for RX rotation
Axial-RY load - Axially loaded type joint with applied moment for RY rotation

F.3

ROBOT FEM-models

Following ROBOT FEM-models are contained in the DVD (ROBOT RTD-files given
in bold):
TESTS:
Buckling L (parallel axis)
Simple buckling parallel axis profile
Buckling L (main axis) and
Buckling L (main axis) mid-support
Simple buckling main axis profile
Buckling L modifiedbeam and
Buckling L modifiedbeam mid-support
Simpel buckling of modified beam element model
Buckling L modifiedbeam convergence
Convergence in buckling of modified 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
Non-linear offset analysis ROBOT definition
Buckling_LP_manuel offset
Non-linear offset analysis manual definition
Nonlinear transverse load
Non-linear transverse loaded beam
Nonlinear RX in weak
Non-linear spring released beam
Analysis:
Basic model-releases-final and
Basic model-releases-final inactive bracing
Models: FEM-model(nodal)* and FEM-model(nodal)** described in subsection
6.3.1.
SEC13 0&45 deg wind no hip bracing,
SEC13 0&45 deg wind non-triangulated,
SEC13 0&45 deg wind triangulated and
SEC13 0&45 deg wind no hip bracing L90x90x9
Files contained in the study of non-triangulated 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