Theoretical analysis of the structural performance of

space trusses commonly used in Brazil

A.S.C. Souza R.M. Gonçalves C.H. Maiola M. Malite
Department of Structural Engineering, University of São Paulo at São Carlos campus
Av. Trabalhador São-Carlense, 400 – CEP13.566-590 – São Carlos, SP – Brazil – e.mail: ascsouza@sc.usp.br

ABSTRACT: Space trusses built in Brazil consist predominantly of

tubular section bars, using basically two connection systems. In
system 1, the node is formed by the superimposition of bars with
stamped ends connected by a single bolt. This is an economical
solution, but it presents problems of structural performance and
behavior incompatible with the calculation models usually
employed. System 2 is a node consisting of welded steel plates with
to which bars with stamped ends or bars with end plates are
connected. For over five years the authors have been engaged in
theoretical and experimental studies to characterize the behavior of
these systems, including modifications to improve structural
performance and establishing analytical models consistent with
experimental behavior. The theoretical analyses were based on the
finite element method utilizing the ANSYS and LUSAS software
programs, using three distinct approaches: (i) analyses of isolated
bars with section variations at the ends, (ii) analyses of the global
behavior of the structure considering the influence of the
eccentricities on the connection, section variations in the bars and
nonlinear behavior of the material and the structure, and (iii)
numerical analyses of the local behavior of the connection and its
influence on global response and collapse modes. The local behavior
of the connection was evaluated by means of three-dimensional
models using finite shell elements, which allowed studying the
distribution of stresses and strains in this region. Theoretical results
are always compared with experimental test data.

INTRODUCTION
The past few years have been marked by an increase in the use of space trusses, a fact that may
be attributed to the dissemination of recent research work allied to the development of
computational tools that facilitate and increase the precision of analyses of these structures. On
the other hand, these structures present great stiffness and low weight, allowing their to be total
prefabricated and, thereby, facilitating production and assembly. In architectural terms, the
structural and esthetic characteristics of space trusses permit architects to design large open
areas, meeting the needs for space and taking advantage of the structure’s architectural aspects.
For this reason, space trusses are widely employed in large roofing structures such as sports
gymnasiums, hangars, airports and exhibition pavilions, imparting beauty and functionality on
these edifices.
The connection system between the bars, or simply the nodes, has represented the main difficulty
in the development of space trusses, in terms of constructive, structural and economic factors,
since they may represent over 25% of the total cost of the structure 1.

A variety of connection systems for space trusses have been developed in several countries 2 in
an attempt to combine structural efficiency and easy fabrication and assembly with reduced
costs. Many of these systems have resulted in international patents, such as the German MERO
system.

As patented connection systems usually involve high costs, simpler and less costly alternative
solutions (Fig. 1), also called low technology nodes, have been used and investigated 3,4,5,6.

The use of patented connections in Brazil is very restricted, especially because of their high costs
in comparison to simpler systems. The system normally employed consists of superimposed
tubular section bars with stamped ends connected by a single bolt – system 1 (Fig. 2). Another
connection device used in Brazil is the node made of welded steel plates, with which the bars are
connected by means of bolts – system 2 (Fig. 3). In this case, the bars may have stamped ends or
end plates welded in the direction of the bar axis.

System 1 is an economical and easy-to-execute solution, since no special devices are needed to
make the connection. However, eccentricities and abrupt variations in stiffness at the ends of the
bars cause concentrations stresses in this region, with separation or slipping between bars in the
node, compromising the system’s performance.

System 2 eliminates the problem of eccentricities and bar slipping. Moreover, the node really
presents satisfactory stiffness and structural behavior. However, there is still the problem of
section variation at the ends of the bars, which may reduce the normal compressive load strength
of these elements when they are calculated without considering variation of inertia (a common
practice in Brazilian designing).

Research into the behavior of these space truss systems in Brazil is scarce and only recent
7,8,9,10,11,12,13
, and has been driven by the need to discover the causes of accidents involving partial
14,15,16
and total collapse of several of such structures in the last few years . These studies are
strongly founded on experimental results, which began with compression tests on isolated bars
with stamped ends and end plates 7,8,9. Tests were later carried out on both space truss modules 14
11,12
and models with 7.5m spans . The main objectives of these investigations have been to
characterize the behavior of connection systems for space trusses commonly utilized in Brazil,
evaluating and introducing improvements in the analysis models adopted, as well as in the details
of the connection itself.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF BARS WITH SECTION VARIATIONS AT THE ENDS

Section variation at the ends of bars is used to facilitate the execution of the connections. In bars
with stamped ends, it is quite a complex task to model the geometry of the end sections, and
varies according to the tool used. The three basic types of stamping are called here: traditional
(T), Straight (S) and New (N) (Fig. 4).

7,8,9
The compression tests carried out by the authors on approximately 65 steel and aluminum
bars with different stamping patterns and end plates aimed at determining the influence of
stamping and the use of end plates on the normal load strength of these elements. The
experimental results demonstrated that there are significant differences in the normal load
strength when compared to those obtained for bars with constant sections.

To determine the normal load strength of bars considering the effect of section variation, the
17
procedure recommended by the EUROCODE 3 was used, adapted to the Brazilian design
standards. By means of this procedure, it is possible to use the same strength curves developed
for bars with constant inertia, correcting the parameter of reduced slenderness to take into
account the variation in stiffness, Eqs. 1 and 2.

kL fy fy
λ = = (1)
r 2
π E fe

* fy
λ = (2)
f e*
*
where λ is the corrected reduced slenderness considering the section variation.
f y* is the elastic buckling stress considering the section variation.

The elastic buckling stresses with section variation were determined according to the FEM (finite
element method) using the LUSAS program. The stamped ends were discretized with finite bar
elements with an average length of 3cm, whose geometrical properties were determined
according to the geometry of the end sections measured on a table of coordinates (Fig. 5).

Table 1 contains a summary of the results of normal experimental load strength compared to the
strengths obtained according to the Brazilian standards, considering pinned ends bars with
constant sections and section variation at the ends.
Table 1 – Theoretical and experimental results of tests on compressed tubular bars
Tubular Slender- End bars Material Nexp Ntheoretical Ntheoretical* Nexp/ Nexp/
Bar ness (kN) (kN) (kN) Ntheoretical Ntheoretical*
φ76x2,26 159 S Steel 20,8 33,4 19,7 0,62 1,06
φ101x3,0 125 P Steel 160 96,7 88,8 1,65 1,80
φ114x4,25 112 P Steel 276,5 168,2 163,5 1,64 1,69
φ110x2,5 86 S Aluminum 87,4 82 72 1,07 1,21
φ110x2,5 86 N Aluminum 90,7 82 73,8 1,11 1,23
φ110x2,5 71 S Aluminum 65 118 111 0,55 0,59
φ110x2,5 71 T Aluminum 92,6 118 113,3 0,78 0,82
φ110x2,5 71 N Aluminum 75,3 118 114 0,64 0,66
φ110x2,5 46 S Aluminum 75,6 177 161 0,43 0,47
φ110x2,5 46 T Aluminum 73,3 177 163,2 0,41 0,45
φ110x2,5 46 N Aluminum 105,7 177 167 0,60 0,63
φ88x2,65 60 S Steel 109,6 134,64 92,37 0,81 1,18
φ88x2,65 60 T Steel 151,7 134,64 117,4 1,13 1,29
φ88x2,65 60 N Steel 146,3 134,64 128,38 1,09 1,14
φ88x2,65 100 S Steel 108 95,5 86,1 1,13 1,25
φ88x2,65 100 T Steel 121 95,5 92,4 1,27 1,31
φ88x2,65 100 N Steel 130,6 95,5 92,4 1,37 1,41
φ88x2,65 140 S Steel 74,33 56,4 54,8 1,32 1,36
φ88x2,65 140 T Steel 74,33 56,4 56,4 1,32 1,32
φ88x2,65 140 N Steel 69,67 56,4 56,4 1,24 1,24
P – Plate end S- Straight stamping T – typical stamping N- new stamping
Ntheoretical* - nominal compression force assuming section variation

The experimental results show great variability. Some experimental results are 37% and 41%
higher than those obtained theoretically, for constant and variable sections, respectively.
However, in several cases the normal test load strength was twofold lower than the theoretical
values, demonstrating the strong influence of section variation on the behavior of compressed
bars of space trusses and serving as a warning of the care needed in the design of these elements.

Another important factor is the reduction in normal load strength when one considers the section
variation at the bar ends, which may exceed 50% and that is more critical for bars with low
slenderness values. For bars with slenderness of over 70, this reduction does not exceed 10%.
The graph in Fig. 6 presents the mean experimental results of normal load strength in bars with
different stamping patterns in comparison to the theoretical strength curves determined with and
without considering section variation.

The traditional and new stamping patterns show a better performance than the one of straight
stamping, precisely because they cause lesser reductions in the transversal sections of the bar
ends. By increasing the slenderness index the difference in the normal load strength of bars with
different stamping patterns and bars with constant sections tends to decrease.

The studies of isolated bars have proved to be important, because they demonstrate that
dimensioning these elements to compression must take into account the influence of stamping or
end plates, particularly for elements with small slenderness. However, it has been found that the
behavior of compressed bars inserted in space trusses is quite different from the behavior of
isolated bars.

In compression tests on isolated bars, the conditions of node linking and stiffness that occur in
this elements when inserted into the structure are rarely reproducible. The normal load strength
of compressed bars of space trusses is affected by the relation between the stiffness of the bars
that compete for a given node, the intensity of the forces in these bars, the angles of inclination
of the diagonals, and principally the node’s stiffness.

Depending on the connection stiffness, the buckling length of the bars of space trusses may
present significantly different values from those determined assuming ideal connections. Node
instability may lead to buckling coefficients greater than 1 and, thus, reduce the bars’ resistance
to normal loads. Recent studies 18,19,20,21 have investigated the problem of node instability and its
influence on the normal load strength of the compressed elements of space trusses.
Several researchers have demonstrated practical procedures to determine the effective buckling
length of space truss bars. Cuoco22 recommends the following buckling coefficients for
compressed bars of space trusses, independently of the connection system employed:
Fixed ends K=0.76 (in plane chord buckling)
Fixed ends K=0.67 (out-of-plane chord buckling)
Fixed – pinned ends K=0.81 (in plane chord buckling)
Fixed – pinned ends K=0.72 (out-of-plane chord buckling)
Madi & Al-tayem23 recommend buckling coefficient values for compressed bars of space trusses
according to the detail at the ends of these elements:
Full section ends K=0,70
Reduction section ends K=0,90
Stamping section ends K=0,95

These recommendations should be followed carefully since they may be unsafe, particularly in
20,21
connection systems susceptible to instability. Hanaor’s studies have shown that node
instability may lead to bar buckling coefficients of over 1.3.

The experimental tests performed on space trusses with system 2 demonstrated that the node is
little susceptible to instability and, thus, its stiffness has little influence on the bar’s effective
buckling length, which may be adopted with a value of K=1 or very close to 1.

On the other hand, in the case of system 1, whose connection does not form a node as such, the
experimental tests showed strong concentrations of stresses and very significant strains in the
nodal region, generating slipping and separation between the bars and a complete degeneration
of the node for load levels below those that would cause buckling of the compressed elements. In
other words, for system 1, it is useless to seek values for the effective buckling length since the
structure’s collapse is characterized by the connection failure.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF SPACE TRUSSES

Design offices traditionally use an ideal truss model or space frame in a linear elastic regime to
evaluate displacements and internal forces in space trusses.

11,12
Tests carried out on space trusses with system 1 have shown that these structures present a
strongly nonlinear applied force versus displacement behavior, as a function of the low stiffness
of the connection, eccentricities and section variations in the bars, and collapse mode associated
to connection failure, with the ultimate load on average 40% lower than the one foreseen by the
traditional calculation models.

For space trusses such as system 2, collapse was characterized by the exhaustion of the bearing
capacity of the most heavily loaded bars. The node provided satisfactory stiffness and both the
ultimate experimental load and the displacements were compatible with those obtained through
traditional models of analysis.

The methodology used for the theoretical analysis of the tested space trusses consisted of
beginning the analysis with the simpler and more traditional models (truss and frame) and
gradually including the characteristics of the structure observed experimentally, which
influenced its behavior, such as eccentricities in the connections, section variation at the bar ends
and nonlinear physical and geometrical effects.

To illustrate the methodology of analysis, a presentation of the numerical analysis of three space
truss models tested by the authors (Fig. 7), via FEM – ANSYS program. Two of the trusses use
system 1, called PROT1 and PROT2, and one use system 2, called PROT3. Table 2 summarizes
the essential information about the materials and elements used in these models.
Table 2 – Characteristics of the tested space trusses
Treliça Seções dos elementos Ligações Dimensões (m)
banzo Diagoal Diag. Apoio Planta Altura
PROT1 φ 76x2,0 φ 60x2,0 φ 88x2,65 Sistema 1 7,5x7,5 1,5
PROT2 φ 76x2,0 φ 60x2,0 φ 76x2,0 Sistema 1 7,5x7,5 1,5
PROT3 φ 76x2,0 φ 60x2,0 φ 88x2,65 Sistema 2 7,5x7,5 1,5
Materiais
Aço fy (MPa) fu(MPa) E (Ma)
USI-SAC300 300 402 205000

The five theoretical models described below will be used in the numerical analysis of the space
truss models tested experimentally.
Model 1: ideal truss;
Model 2: space frame;
Model 3: space frame including section variation at the bar ends;
Model 4: space frame including eccentricities in the connections;
Model 5: space frame including section variation at the bar ends and eccentricities in the
connections.

The eccentricities in the connections were introduced in to the analysis by means of modeling of
the folded part at the ends of the diagonals of system 1 (Fig. 8).

To simulate the section variations, the bars were divided into three segments (Fig. 8): part 1
corresponds to the circular section, part 3 corresponds to the section with straight stamping and
part 2 corresponds to a linear interpolation between the first two sections.
In each of the five models described above, the effects of the material nonlinearity were
included, forming a bilinear constitutive model with positive hardening in tension and perfect
elastic-plastic hardening in compression.

The graphs in Figs. 9 and 10 present the experimental and theoretical results for the maximum
vertical displacements in prototypes PROT1 and PROT2.

As it can be observed in Fig. 9, the structure’s behavior is strongly nonlinear, even for applied
loads of slight intensity, and the linear models used are very deficient in monitoring this
behavior. However, model 5 offers a better reproduction of the experimental results in the initial
portion of the curve, which corresponds to 40% of the service load. This fact demonstrates the
importance of the eccentricities and section variations in modeling the behavior of space trusses
with system 1.

In nonlinear analyses, as shown in the graph of Fig. 10, model 5 leads to the best results,
although it is unable to accompany the applied load versus displacement curve until the critical
load has been reached, resulting in a theoretical ultimate load 50% lower than the experimental
one. This fact is attributed to the low stiffness of the bars in the nodal region, which are unable to
absorb the bending moments originated from the eccentric forces in the nodes.

Souza11 had already observed that, in trusses with system 1, the stiffness of the bars in the nodal
portion takes on a difficult value to assess, which is situated between the stiffness of an isolated
bar with stamped ands and the sum of the stiffness of all the bars that compete in the node. The
graph in Fig. 11 illustrates the results of applied load-displacement, using model 5 and assuming
a bar stiffness in the nodal portion equal to the sum of the stiffness of the eight bars that are
superimposed to form the node.

In this case, the ultimate theoretical load was greater than the experimental one and the
displacements practically coincided for applied loads corresponding to 50% of the ultimate load.
Above these load levels, the experimental displacements are markedly greater than the
theoretical ones, confirming the hypothesis about the influence of bar stiffness on the nodal
region, which is reflected in the interaction between the elements that comprise the node,
including bars, joint covering plates and bolt.
Figs. 12 and 13 present a comparison between the results of maximum experimental vertical
displacements of model PROT3 and those obtained by numerical simulation in linear and
nonlinear elastic analyses, respectively.

Regardless of the theoretical model, the graph in Fig. 12 shows a good correlation between
experimental and theoretical results, especoally for loads up to 60% of the structure’s ultimate
load. The experimental results show accommodations in the structure that may derive from both
plastification and tube ends. However, this phenomenon is only manifested when loads exceed
the service conditions.

In physical nonlinear analyses, models 2 and 3 yield satisfactory results compared to the
experimental ones (Fig. 13). For model 2 (frame and bars with constant sections), the ultimate
theoretical load was 2.7% lower than the experimental one and the maximum vertical
displacement was 20% higher. With model 3, the difference between the ultimate theoretical and
experimental loads was 11%, while for the vertical displacements, this difference was close to
30%.

In terms of bar strains and stresses, all the models provided a good representation of the
structure’s behavior, with slight differences between the theoretical and experimental results.

Table 3 presents a summary of the results for maximum displacements obtained theoretically
with the models studied, in the linear elastic regime and service load, in comparison to the
experimental results.

Table 3 – Theoretical and experimental comparison of displacements under service

conditions
Treliça Carregamento Deslocamento vertical máximo (cm)
analisada serviço (kN) Modelos
1 2 3 4 5 Experimental
PROT1 110 0,69 0,71 0,75 0,79 1,1 2,4
PROT2 85 0,53 0,55 0,58 0,61 0,85 2,0
PROT3 110 0,69 0,71 0,75 - - 0,8

The behavior of space trusses with system 1 is difficult to model owing to the peculiar behavior
of the connection. Model 5 is the one that shows the most similar theoretical and experimental
results; however, vertical displacements measured experimentally are twice the theoretical ones.
This fact draws attention to the inefficacy of the models of analysis commonly adopted, but on
the other hand, also demonstrates that the node’s performance is unsatisfactory and the influence
of bar/bolt slipping is significant.

All the models proved satisfactory for space trusses using the system 2 connection, with
differences between theoretical and experimental results consistently lower than 14%,
corroborating the validity of the simplified models usually adopted. For model 3, which
incorporates section variation at the bar ends, the difference between theoretical and
experimental displacements dropped to 6,25%, bringing the results even closer to those obtained
experimentally.

ANALYSIS OF THE CONNECTIONS (SYSTEM 1) – FEM: SHELL ELEMENTS

An understanding of the local behavior of the connection and its influence on the structural
overall response is crucial for the development of solutions that improve the node performance
and the implementation of calculation models in keeping with the physical model.

System 1, which has a provenly complex local behavior and unsatisfactory performance, was
analyzed with a three-dimensional model by the finite element method, using the ANSYS
program in a nonlinear analysis.

The analyzed nodes were classified according to their location in the structure, as follows:
• Central node – located in the internal region, with eight bars forming the connection.
• Lateral node – located at the angles of the structure, with seven superimposed bars forming
the connection.
• Corner node – located at the vertices of the structure, with six superimposed bars forming
the connection.

These analyzed nodes correspond to the connections used in PROT1, which is a space truss with
system 1 tested by the authors. The bars of the chords are φ76x2,0 circular sections, while the
diagonals are φ60x2,0 in the central and lateral nodes and φ88x2,65 in the corner nodes. The
material used is USI-SAC 300 steel, whose mean yield strength, determined by tension tests on
tests specimens, is fy=350 Ma, the value used for the numerical analysis.

Each bar that forms the node was modeled with the finite shell element SHELL 43, following the
geometry of the stamped end previously determined on a table of coordinates. These bars were
then superimposed and connected to the nodal points on the edge of the holes (Fig. 14). For the
analysis, the node was introduced (a single node) into a space truss with the remaining bar
elements.

The material’s nonlinearity was included in the theoretical analysis, assuming a kinematic
bilinear constitutive model with positive hardening, with mechanical properties compatible with
those determined by tension tests. (fy=350MPa, E=205000MPa and Et=20500 MPa).

Fig 15 illustrates the distribution of stresses in a central node for the ultimate loading stage.
There are concentrations of stresses in the region of the stamping whose values are higher than
the yield strength, characterizing localized plastification. The node in question is located at a
point of double symmetry that is little loaded and without shear stress influence; hence, it
presents neither strains nor rotations that compromise the structural overall performance.

Fig 16 illustrates the distribution of stresses in a lateral node for the ultimate loading stage. In
this location, the node already shows greater strains and noticeable plastification in the stamped
region of the bars. However, there is a redistribution of loads among chords and diagonals,
which allows for added loading in the structure. In other words, the structure’s collapse does not
begin at the lateral nodes, but excessive strains at other points of the structure increase the
stresses and strains in this node.

The corner node is asymmetrical and located in the most loaded region with the greatest
influence of shear forces. In the space trusses with system 1 connections tested in the laboratory,
the structure’s collapse began by both the therotation of the corner nodes and the formation of
plastic hinges in the stamped ends of the bars of these nodes (particularly in the support
diagonal). This phenomenon led to great localized strains and very significant displacements in
the structure, characterizing its collapse. The ultimate experimental load was much lower than
the load foreseen, assuming collapse by breakdown of the bars’ bearing capacity.

The three-dimensional theoretical model of the corner node satisfactorily reproduced the local
physical behavior of the connection viewed in tests and allows for important observations on the
influence of these local effects on the overall behavior of space trusses. Fig. 17 portrays the
similarity between the final strained configuration of the corner node of the tested truss and the
one obtained through the theoretical model.
In Fig. 17 one can clearly see the formation of plastic hinges in the bars, with great strains and
stresses in the order of 1000MPa causing numerical instability in the theoretical model already in
the early stages of loading. However, the graph of Fig. 18 demonstrates that, for the corner node,
the tendency of the theoretical model is to satisfactorily resemble the physical model tested.

Solutions to improve the theoretical three-dimensional model of space truss nodes using the
system 1 connection are being investigated. Among the alternatives analyzed is the inclusion of a
descendant branch in the constitutive model of the material, inclusion of the bolt, and interaction
among the bars by means of contact elements. The behavior of system 1 will thus be described
with greater precision, allowing for the analysis of reinforcements that delay the process of
plastic hinge formation and increase node stiffness, thereby improving the structural overall
performance.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Section variations at the bar ends exert a strong influence in determining the normal
compression load strength of these elements, especially in bars with slenderness of less than 70,
in which there is a significant reduction of normal load strength.

(2) For space trusses using system 1, the failure of the node characterizes the structure’s collapse
without breakdown of the bearing capacity of the bars, precluding conventional analyses based
on the bearing capacity of the compressed bars used in this system.

(3) The stiffness of the nodes used in system 2 render the connection stable and, in this case, the
effective buckling length of the compressed bars can be assumed to be K=1, although it is
necessary to verify possible reductions in the normal bearing strength as a function of the section
variation at the ends.

(4) Space trusses with system 1 connections are sensitive to section variations in the bars and
eccentricities in the connection, with experimental results that are highly discrepant from those
obtained theoretically with the models traditionally used in designing. Even theoretical models
that consider section variations in the eccentricities and not linearities still prove incapable of
predicting the behavior of these structures, which are highly influenced by slipping and
separation between bars, as well as great strains in the nodal region.
(5) A comparison of the theoretical and experimental results for system 1 indicates that, besides
the need for more sophisticated analysis models, solutions are also needed to improve the
structural behavior of this system, especially due to the large number of existing structures.

(6) Trusses with system 2 connections show a satisfactory structural performance consistent with
the analysis models normally utilized. Theoretical and experimental results can be brought even
closer with the inclusion of bar inertia variations in the numerical model.

(7) The local behavior of system 1 was studied by means of three-dimensional models in finite
elements. For the prototypes tested here, modeling via FEM has allowed for the satisfactory
representation of the connection’s local behavior in terms of strains and stresses.

(8) The analyses of the nodes confirmed the observations during tests, i.e., although they show
concentrations of stresses at the bar ends, the central and lateral nodes do not lead to the
structure’s collapse.

(9) From the standpoint of strained configurations and distribution of stresses, the theoretical
analysis of the corner node showed a good correlation with the experimental behavior,
demonstrating that this node is responsible for the structure’s collapse.

24
Ongoing theoretical and experimental research work focuses on solutions to improve the
performance of system 1 while still keeping its costs feasible. The principal objective of this
improvement in system 1 performance is the rehabilitation of existing structures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Brazilian research funding institutions FAPESP and CNPq
for their financial support for this research work.

REFERENCES

1 Iffiland, J., Preliminary planning of steel roof space trusses. Journal of the Structural Division,
v.108, n.11, p.2578-2589, Nov, 1982

2 Makowski, Z.S., Review of development of various types of double-layer grids, In:

MAKOWSKI, Z.S., ed. Analysis, design and construction of Double-layer grids, Applied
Science., p.1-55,1981.
3 De Martino, A., Relazione generale: progettaziopne, lavorazione e montaggio. Costruzioni
Metalliche, n.1, p.14-54, 1992

4 Gerrits, J.M. (1984). Space structures in the Netherlands since 1975. In: INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON SPACE STRUCTURES, 3., Guildford, UK, Sept. 1984, Proceedings.
London/New York, Elsevier Applied Science. p.28-32, 1984.

5 Cood, E.T., Low technology space frames. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SPACE
STRUCTURES, 3., Guildford, UK, Sept. 1984, Proceedings. London/New York, Elsevier
Applied Science. p.955-960,1984.

6 El-sheikh, A.I., Experimental study of behaviour of new space truss system. Journal of
Structural Engineering, v.122, n.8, p.845-853, Aug, 1996.

7 Gonçalves, R.M. ; Fakury, R.H. ; Magalhães, J.R.M., Peformance of tubular steel sections
subjected to compression: theorical and experimental analysis. In: INTERNATIONAL
COLOQUIUM ON STRUCTURAL STABILITY, 5,. Stability problems in designing,
construction and rehabilitation of metal structures: Proceedings. p.439-449, Rio de Janeiro,
August 5-7, 1996.

8. Malite, M; Sáles, J.J.; Gonçalves, R.M. and Takeya, T. Experimental analysis of the steel
compression tubular members with stamped ends (in Portuguese), Technical Report,
University of São Paulo at São Carlos campus – Brazil, 1996.

9. Malite, M.; Gonçalves, R.M. and Sáles, J.J. Tubular section bars with flattened (stamped)
ends subjected to compression – a theoretical and experimental analysis. Proceedings of the
SSRC Annual Technical Session and Meeting, Toronto – Canada, 1997.

10. Malite, M. et al. Space Structures in Brazil. Proceedings of the 2th World Conference on Steel
in Construction, San Sebastian - Spain. Oxford, Elsevier Science, 1998.

11. Souza, A.C. Contribution to the study of steel space structures (in Portuguese). MsC Thesis,
University of São Paulo at São Carlos campus – Brazil, 1998.

12. Maiola, C.H. Theoretical and experimental analysis of steel space structures composed of
members with stamping ends (in Portuguese). MsC Thesis, University of São Paulo at São
Carlos campus – Brazil, 1999.

13. Vendrame, A.M. Contribution to the study of braced domes with steel tubular members. (in
Portuguese). MsC Thesis, University of São Paulo at São Carlos campus – Brazil, 1999.

14 Fakury, R.H. ; et al., Investigation of the causes of the collapse of a large span structure. In:
FOUTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STEEL AND ALUMINIUM STRUCTURES, ,
Proceedings. Elsevier Applied Science. p.617-624, Finland, jun, 1999.
15 Batista, R.C.; Batista, E.M., Experimental determination of the mechanisms of collapse of a
typical joint of metallic space structures. In: JOURNEYS SUDAMERICANAS OF
ESTRUCTURAL INGENIERIA, 28., São Carlos, Brazil, 01-05 September 1997.
Proceedings v.3, p.665-674.

16 Batista, R.C.; PFEIL, M.S.; Carvalho, E.M.L., Qualification through reinforcement of the
metallic structure of a great spherical dome. In: JOURNEYS SUDAMERICANAS OF
ESTRUCTURAL INGENIERIA, 28., São Carlos, Brazil, 01-05 September 1997.
Proceedings. v.3, p.1127-1137.

17. European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1.1:
General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels, 1992.

18 Marsh, C., Some observations on designing double layer grids. International Journal fo Space
Structures, v.13, n. 3/4. P.225 –231. UK, 2000.

19 Schmidt, L.C., Some design aspects peculiar to space trusses. International Journal of Space
Structures, v.15, n.3/4. P.215 –223, UK, 2000.

20 Hanaor, A., Joint instability in lattice structures – Lesson from a recent collapse. International
Journal of Space Structures, v.14, n.4. P.205–213, UK, 1999.

21 Hanaor, A. et. al., Member buckling with joint instability – Design application. International
Journal of Space Structures, v.15, n.3/4. P.257 –267, UK, 2000.

22 ASCE., Guidlines for the design of double-Layer grids, Task Committee on Double-Layer
Grids, Cuoco D.A., ed., ASCE, New York, NY,1997.

23 Madi, U.R., El-Tayem, A.A. , On the effective lenght of compression members in double-
layer grids. International Journal of Space Structures, v.6, n.1. UK, 1991.

24 Souza. A.S.C., Experimetal and theoretical analysis of the structural perfomance os space
trusses used in Brazil.(in Portuguese). Phd Thesis, University of São Paulo at São Carlos
campus – Brazil, (in development).

25. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM A370 – Standard test methods and
definitions for mechanical testing of steel products. Philadelphia, 1992.

26 ANSYS. Structural nonlinearities: user’s guide for revision 5.1. Houston, v.1., 1995.
 Captions for illustrations

Figure 1 – Connection systems with stamped bars

Figure 2 – System 1
Figure 3 – System 2
Figure 4 – Stamping patterns
Figure 5 – Variation of inertia in stamped bars with end plate
Figure 6 – Variation of normal compressive load strength as a function of stamping (φ 88 x 2,65)
Figure 7 – Geometry of the models tested
Figure 8 – Eccentricity and section variation in bars
Figure 9 – Maximum theoretical vs. experimental vertical displacements – PROT1 and 2 – linear
analysis
Figure 10 – Maximum theoretical vs. experimental vertical displacements – PROT1 and 2 –
nonlinear analysis
Figure 11 – Maximum theoretical vs. experimental vertical displacements – PROT1 – nonlinear
analysis, influence of node rigidity
Figure 12 – Maximum theoretical vs. experimental vertical displacements – PROT3 – linear
analysis
Figure 13 – Maximum theoretical vs. experimental vertical displacements – PROT3 – nonlinear
analysis
Figure 14 – Mesh model of system 1
Figure 15 – Distribution of stresses in a central node
Figure 16 – Distribution of stresses in a lateral node
Figure 17 – Deformed configurations – physical vs. theoretical model – kN/mm2 stresses
Figure 18 – Maximum vertical displacements in three-dimensional node models
 ILLUSTRATIONS

Waco3 Octatube4 Cood5

Figure 1 – Connection systems with stamped bars

Figure 2 – System 1

stamped bars end plates

Figure 3 – System 2

straight traditional new

Figure 4 – Stamping patterns
 φ 76x2,0 φ 88x2,65 φ 101x3,0
Figure 5 – Variation of inertia in stamped bars with end plate

1,0
constant section
0,9
new stam ped
coeficiente de flambagem r

0,8
Test results
0,7
straight
0,6
straight stamped traditional
0,5 new
tradidional
0,4 stam ped
0,3

0,2

0,1
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

slenderness l

Figure 6 – Variation of normal compressive load strength as a function of stamping

(φ 88 x 2,65)
 Figure 7 – Geometry of the tested models

excentricidade
60mm
e
Diagonal
p/ nó excêntrico

seção
tre trecho 1
1500mm

ch
Diagonal o
p/ nó centrado 1

seção
trecho 2
tre
Nó (PT) ch
o
2
trecho 3 seção
e trecho 3

Figure 8 – Eccentricity and section variation in bars

 160

140
Test results
120 Prot1
Prot2
100

Force (kN)
Theoretical
80 model 1

60 model 2
model 3
40
model 4
20 model 5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Vertical displacem ents (cm )

Figure 9 – Maximum theoretical vs. experimental vertical displacements – PROT1 and 2 –
linear analysis

250 Test results

Prot 1
200 Prot 2
Force (kN)

150

Theoretical
100 model 2
model 3
50 model 4
model 5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Vertical displacem ents (cm )

Figure 10 – Maximum theoretical vs. experimental vertical displacements – PROT1 and 2 –
nonlinear analysis
 200

150

Force (kN)
100

Prot1 – test results

Model 5
50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Vertical displacements (cm)
Figure 11 – Maximum theoretical vs. experimental vertical displacements – PROT1 –
nonlinear analysis, influence of node rigidity

300

250

200
Force (kN)

150
Prot3 - test results
100 model 1
model 2
50 model 3

0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5
Vertical displacements (cm)

Figure 12 - Maximum theoretical vs. experimental vertical displacements – PROT3 – linear

analysis
 300

250

200

Force(kN)
150

Prot3 - teste results

100
model 2
50 model 3

0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0

Vertical displacements (cm)

Figure 13 - Maximum theoretical vs. experimental vertical displacements – PROT3 –

nonlinear analysis

Figure 14 – mesh model of system 1

 Total applied load = 240 kN (Stresses in kN/mm2)
Figure 15 – Distribution of stresses in a central node

Total applied load = 200 kN (Stresses in kN/mm2)

Figure 16 – Distribution of stresses in a lateral node

Figure 17 – Deformed configurations – physical vs. theoretical model – kN/mm2 stresses

 300

250

200

Force(kN)
150

100 Prot - Test Results

Theoretical (central node)
50 Theoretical (lateral node)
Theoretical (corner node)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vertical displacements(cm )
Figure 18 – Maximum vertical displacement with three-dimensional node models