Insights and Innovations in Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation – Zingoni (Ed.

)
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-02927-9

Design and analysis of structural steel tower assembly subject to high

axial and transverse stresses using BS EN1993-1-1 and BS EN1993-1-5

Maja Wilson & John Anderson

SMEC South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa

ABSTRACT:  This paper describes the process developed to analyze and design a plated structural steel
tower used to support the stay cables on a curved cable stayed rail bridge. The tower’s internal steel
assembly was relatively complex because of the varying vertical and transverse geometry of each cable
anchorage. These anchorages subject the plated steel sections to both high axial and transverse stresses.
The accurate modelling of the ultimate and serviceability limit state behaviour was therefore critical. For
this reason a detailed three dimensional Finite Element Model (FEM) was used to verify the design. This
paper describes the practical implementation of the methodology provided by BS EN1993-1-1:2005 and
BS EN1993-1-5:2006 for the design of a steel plated section using hand calculations and using a FEM.
When checking a design using a FEM, the loss in stiffness due to a deformed and deflected shape can
be modelled in a non-linear analysis. The deformed shape of the structure (obtained from a previous
analysis) can be used as the initial imperfect shape to give a reduced section resistance (Cl. 5.3.5 of Hendy
& Murphy, 2007). The paper describes how imperfections applied to the model were therefore used to
account for both geometric imperfections and residual stresses.
The paper also describes how the critical buckling analysis was performed on the tower anchorage
using the same three dimensional, finite element shell model used for the ultimate limit state design check.
This buckling analysis was performed in two parts: firstly as a linear eigenvalue buckling analysis; and
then secondly a geometrically nonlinear analysis.
The aim of the paper is to document benefits and challenges of the chosen methodology for the design
of irregular steel plated section subject to both axial and transverse stresses. It hopes to provide some
practical insight into the use of BS EN1993-1-1:2005 and BS EN1993-1-5:2006 for this purpose.

1  InTroduction

The use of structural steel towers on cable stay

bridges offers certain advantages. A more compact
structure is possible and there are often greater
architectural opportunities. The disadvantage can
be the complex design process required for irregu-
lar shaped plated sections that carry both vertical
compressive stresses and transverse tensile stresses.
This paper describes the necessary analysis and
design process developed for a particular struc-
tural steel tower assembly on a cable stayed bridge
in Sydney, Australia.
The cable stayed bridge in question is a rail
bridge with a span configuration of 76.9 m, 131
m and 61.1 m with a constant horizontal radius of
402.75 m.
The towers supporting the stay cables are in
simple terms fabricated steel boxes. The box cross
section tapers from 6.0 m long and 2.3 m wide at
the base to 4.0 m long and 1.8 m wide at the top.
The lower 13.4 m of the tower section is filled with
concrete and it acts as a composite structure.
Figure 1.  Bridge elevation.
Above the composite section is a 15.4 m high
anchorage assembly that is constructed using
plated steel sections.
A steel section was chosen because the tower
width is limited by the fact it sits centrally on the
deck between two rail lines. The lower steel con-
crete composite section provides the necessary
stiffness to limit the tower deflection and any asso-
ciated second order effects.
Because the deck is on a horizontal radius the
tower is subjected to out-of-plane bending moments.
In simple terms the cable stays, which do not sit in a
single plane because of the deck’s horizontal radius,
pull the top of the tower towards the inside of the
curve. The towers are also subject to longitudinal

1178

Figure  2.  Isometric view of upper structural steel
assembly.
bending moments when the main span of the bridge
is fully loaded. Significant biaxial bending moments
are therefore generated in the tower section.
There are 16 stay cables per tower and the maxi-
mum serviceability forces within each ranges from
5.0 MN to 8.3 MN.
2  Design approach
The towers are designed in accordance BS EN1993-
1-1:2006, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures—
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, and
BS  EN1993-2:2006, Eurocode 3: Design of steel
structures—Part 2: Steel bridges. In the first stage of
the design process the member’s cross section resist-
ance is checked making provision for local buck-
ling effects over a finite length. The necessary plate
buckling checks make reference to BS  EN1993-1-
5:2006, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures—Part
1-5: General rules—Plated structural elements. In
the second design stage the overall member stability
is checked using BS EN1993-2:2006, clause 6.3.
To complement the above mentioned design
process it was decided to verify the design using a
detailed three dimensional Finite Element Model
(FEM). The methodology followed for using the
FEM for the design check as in accordance with
BS EN1993-1-5:2006 and BS EN1993-1-1:2005.
1179
Figure  3.  Isometric view of upper structural steel
assembly.
The FEM was used to check both the Ultimate
Limit State (ULS) capacity and the critical buck-
ling capacity of the steel tower assembly.
In reviewing this approach this paper aims to
document the benefits and challenges of using
each of the two outlined methodologies for the
design of irregular steel plated sections subject to
complex design stress profiles.
3  Design to BS EN1993-1-5: 2006
The structural steel tower assembly is a non-com-
pact Class 4, non-standard plated section subject
to significant transverse and longitudinal bend-
ing stresses. The section it is therefore unable to
attain its full yield stress under loading because of
the onset of local buckling. BS EN1993-1-5:2006
provides two design methods to account for this
fact. The first method uses effective section derived
from clause 4. The second method uses reduced
stress limits as defined by clause 10.
Although it’s not specifically stated in the code,
the first method cannot be used where there is a
uniform transverse direct stress accompanying the
longitudinal stress. This effectively rules out this
method, given the cable anchorages induces both
longitudinal and transverse stresses in the tower.
The reduced stress method is therefore used. It
should be noted that the required application of
the method is not clearly outlined in the code and
the authors had to make use of additional guides1
and commentaries2 to glean the correct approach.
The reduced stress method determines the over-
all slenderness of each plate element under the
applied stresses. From the slenderness value final
reduction factors are calculated to check the allow-
able stresses in the plates. Generally both plate-like
and column-like buckling must be checked.
The reduction factors for direct stresses and
shear stresses are applied to the cross section check
using the design values of the material properties
as shown in the below formula.
1
Hendy and Murphy (2007) Designers’ Guide to
EN1993-2.
2
Johansson, Maquoi, Sedlacek, Müller, and Beg (2007)
Commentary and Worked examples to EN 1993-1-5
“Plated Structural Elements”.

Figure  4.  Anchor detail with fleshing: front plate
removed for clarity.
2 2
 σ x , Ed   σ z , Ed   σ x , Ed 
  +  −
 ρcx f y / γ M1   ρcz f y / γ M1   ρcx f y / γ M1 
2
 σ z , Ed   τ Ed  their associated bearing and anchor plates was
  + 3   ≤ 1.
 ρcz f y / γ M1   Xv fy / γ M1 
where:
• ρcx is the plate buckling factor for λ taking
account of the interaction between plate like
behavior and column like behavior in the direc-
tion of σx;
• ρcz is the plate buckling factor for λ taking
account of the interaction between plate like
behavior and column like behavior in the direc-
tion of σz;
• Xv is the plate buckling factor for λ for shear
stresses.
The longitudinal face of the tower is stiffened
with two vertical T-shaped stiffeners. These stiff-
eners are intersected by simple transverse plate
stiffeners at regular intervals. Because of this
arrangement it was necessary to use a staged
approach in checking the sections.
Firstly the unstiffened sub-panels of various
thickness were checked for the applied stress at
each level. Thereafter various permutations of
stiffened panels were checked using the gross sec-
tion properties of those panels. These permuta-
tions included the three stiffened panels between
the two adjacent transverse stiffeners. It also con-
sidered buckling modes that extended across mul-
tiple transverse stiffeners.
As the reduced stress method is used no specific
check for web breathing is required. This is a phe-
nomenon where geometric imperfections in plated
section grow under load and then reduce again
when the load is removed. It can lead to fatigue
damage at plate boundaries.
In review, the above mentioned procedure was
automated as far as possible but it was judged a
relatively time consuming process to consider the
buckling permutations in conjunction with the
various stress state permutations. The method was
judged relatively conservative in that it could not
take account of the fact that the cable anchorages
effectively braced certain panel sections.
4  Finite Element Analysis
4.1  LUSAS model
The finite element analysis of the tower was under-
taken using LUSAS engineering analysis software.
A local shell model of the top section of the tower
was developed that included all of the transverse
and longitudinal stiffeners and cable stay anchor
 plates assemblies.
The setting out geometry of the stay cables and
important in order to accurately model the load
effects on the tower. To achieve the required accu-
racy the setting out geometry was first calculated
numerically using 3D vectors. This proved useful
when it came to the verification of the model.
As with any FEM model the defined bound-
ary conditions play an important role in ensuring
the analysis was representative. In this instance
the supports defined at the base of the model had
to simulate the tower’s transition to a composite
section. Using spring supports, moment continu-
ity and translational fixity was therefore provided
along all sides of the tower’s bottom perimeter.
A key finding during the design iterations was
that the provision of rigid transverse supports cre-
ated peak von Mises stresses in the bottom corners
of the tower box section. By reducing the spring
stiffness of the transverse supports, the base of
the tower was not forced to transition from a dis-
torted box section to a perfectly aligned section. A
limit for the transverse displacement of 2 mm was
set after interrogation of the global tower model.
Although somewhat conservative, rigid vertical
supports were provided.
The applied design loads were the maximum
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) cable forces extracted
from the global model (which was modelled in
Bentley’s RM).
LUSAS provides the option of using plate or
shell elements that are either thin or thick. Plates
are 2-dimensional whereas shells are 3-dimentional
elements. Thick elements include transverse shear
effects whereas thin elements exclude transverse
shear deformations. Thick shell elements are
required for geometric nonlinear analyses and were
hence used in this instance.
1180

Figure 5.  Elevation of steel tower modelled in LUSAS.
A useful feature of LUSAS is that it allows the size
of the mesh generated on the thick shell elements to
be varied. The size of the mesh can have an adverse
effect on the accuracy of the results, especially in a
buckling analysis. For this reason the sensitivity of
the analysis results was checked for successive refine-
ments in the mesh size. The stresses at key nodes
were plotted against the model mesh size in order to
determine at what point the results became consist-
ent. The mesh size at which the results sufficiently
converged was deemed to be accurate enough whilst
still allowing the model to run relatively quickly.
As mentioned the design process included a
nonlinear analysis. An important decision becomes
the choice of control options to define the type of
geometric nonlinearity and solution control to
be used in the analysis. Geometric nonlinearity is
accounted for using four basic formulations. These
formulations are the:
• Total Lagrangian—A strain formulation that
has its reference as the initial configuration at
the start of the analysis.
• Updated Lagrangian—A strain formulation that
has its reference as the end of the last converged
increment.
• Eulerian—A strain formulation that has its ref-
erence as the current configuration.
• Co-rotational—Form of geometric nonlinearity
in which large displacement effects are related
to a set of axes that follow and rotate with the
element.
In this FEM Total Lagrangian solution con-
trol was selected because it is the only formulation
that is compatible with thick shell elements. Typi-
1181
cally, the Total Lagrangian is considered to be a
more robust formulation, which is used to cope
with substantial load increments. This formulation
importantly applies the load in the same direction
as it was initially prescribed.
4.2  Design process
General advice on the use of finite element meth-
ods of analysis can be found in Annex C of
BS  EN1993-1-5:2006 whilst more specific advice
on imperfections and how to model them can be
found in BS EN1993-1-1:2005 clause 5.3.
As described previously, the design code allows
for the local buckling effects in a section by consid-
ering reduced section properties or reduced stress
limitations. However, when checking a design using
a FEM, the loss in stiffness due to a deformed and
deflected shape can be modelled in a non-linear
analysis. The deformed shape of the structure
(obtained from a previous analysis) can be used as
the initial imperfect shape to give a reduced section
resistance (Cl. 5.3.5 of Hendy & Murphy, 2007.)
Imperfections comprise of geometric imperfec-
tions and residual stresses. Geometric imperfections
are used to describe any deviation of the constructed
structure to what is shown on fabrication drawings.
Hence, these are dimensions that have arisen dur-
ing fabrication and erection. These imperfections
can include a lack of verticality, lack of straight-
ness, lack of fitup and joint eccentricities. Residual
stresses are mainly caused by welding and can lead
to yielding at lower applied loads than predicted
from stress analysis ignoring these effects. The effects
of residual stresses can be modelled by additional
equivalent geometric imperfections. The geometric
imperfections discussed below therefore cover both
geometric imperfections and residual stresses.
To take into consideration the geometric and
structural imperfections, the model was run with
an initial deflected shape in a non-linear analysis.
This initial imperfection magnifies the load effects
associated with the geometric non-linearity of
the system. The shape of the imperfection should
be derived from the shape of the elastic buckling
mode of failure. Given the tower is a cantilever the
required initial lateral deflection was created by
applying a lateral force at the tip of the cantilever.
The global initial sway imperfection of the tower
was calculated from BS EN1993-1-1:2005, clause
5.3.2, equation 5.5, which correlates to a transverse
displacement of 42.2 mm at the top of the tower.
4.3  Model results
The analysis model was run twice; first in a linear
analysis and second in a non-linear analysis with
an initial imperfection of 42.2  mm as shown in
Figure  6.  Deflected shape which is used as the initial
imperfection for the nonlinear analysis.
Figure 7.  Von Mises Stress plot for the linear analysis.
Figure 6. In both analyses the applied load was the
ULS cable forces and gravity.
When comparing the results it could be seen
that running the tower steel plated assembly model
in a non-linear analysis with an initial imperfection
resulted in an increase of stress of 5 MPa (approxi-
mately 2%).
5  BUCKLING Analysis
5.1  Design process
A critical buckling analysis was also performed
on the steel plated tower assembly using the same
local analysis model. The applied loads were the
ULS maximum cable forces and gravity.
The buckling analysis was performed in two
parts: firstly by means of a linear eigenvalue (EV)
buckling analysis; and secondly using a geometri-
cally nonlinear analysis.
1182
Figure 8.  Eigen mode for EV 5 = 6.75.
In the linear eigenvalue buckling analysis, the
first relevant eigen mode has an eigenvalue of 6.75.
This means that should the applied load be fac-
tored by 6.75 then the structure will buckle with
the specific deformed shape as shown in Figure 8.
However, the linear eigenvalue buckling proce-
dure computes the stress state according to a linear
elastic procedure and the effects of deformations
are ignored. Futhermore, it does not take into con-
sideration any initial imperfection within the struc-
ture. It is therefore important to perform a second
buckling analysis using a Geometrically Nonlinear
(GNL) analysis.
The GNL analysis takes of account of pre-buck-
ling displacements of the structure and provides a
complete response of the structure at all stages of
the analysis, providing a complete deformation his-
tory. Furthermore, a relevant initial imperfection
can be applied to the structure to encourage the
buckling behaviour.
In this instance, the deformed shape from the
critical eigen mode from the eigenvalue analysis
(shown in Figure 8) was applied to the GNL analy-
sis as the initial imperfection. The magnitude of
the maximum imperfection at mid-panel was cal-
culated as being 6.7 mm. This magnitude takes into
consideration both geometric and structural imper-
fections (residual stresses) in accordance with BS
EN1993-1-1:2005. For sub-panel buckling, such as
this one, the recommended maximum imperfection
in the panel is ℓ/200, in accordance with Table C.2
and Figure C.1 of BS EN1993-1-5: 2006, whereby ℓ
is the smaller of the two dimensions of the panel.
A force-displacement graph can then be used to
determine the point at which structural stiffness is

Figure  9. Graph showing the deformation history
(pre- and post-buckling) of a node at mid-panel during
increasing loads.
lost and the panel buckles. In the graph below, it
can be seen that the panel buckles at a load factor
of approximately 6.5. As would be expected, this is
less than in the linear eigenvalue analysis.
The EV analysis was run to 30 EVs with a maxi-
mum load factor of 15.45 and no global tower
buckle eigen modes resulted within the analysis.
5.2  Full tower buckling analysis
The LUSAS model of the tower anchorage was
then extended so as to include the full tower. A
linear eigenvalue analysis was performed on this
model so as to confirm that global tower buckling
is less critical than local panel buckling.
The lower half of the tower is composite and
was therefore modelled as a steel outer shell com-
prising of shell elements, which also form the con-
crete volume infill.
The eigen modes produced were similar to those
from the first buckling analysis, which indicates that
global tower buckling occurs at a higher load factor
and is hence less critical than local panel buckling.
6  CONCLUSION
The BS EN codes referenced in this paper undoubt-
edly provide an effective means of designing rec-
tangular steel plated structures. However, when
both the geometry and loading is irregular, con-
servative assumptions must be made. This can lead
to a design that is safe but uneconomical. In this
instance the stiffening effects of the diagonal cable
1183
stay anchor had to be ignored in the hand calcu-
lations. The impact of the stay tube penetrations
through the tower walls could also not be discerned
using hand methods.
The hand ccalculations required to ensure code
compliance are relatively labour intensive given
that different buckling modes must be tested to
ensure that the most critical element is being evalu-
ated and designed appropriately.
Conversely, a FEM offers the opportunity to
model the exact structure even when the geometry
is complex and the applied loading unique. The
guidance provided in Annex C of BS  EN1993-1-
5:2006 on how to design the steel plates sections
using a FEM is therefore valuable. Although the
modelling process can be time consuming and
fraught with pit falls, once the model is complete,
design changes and modifications are quickly and
easily implemented. This makes iterating the design
relative simple.
The greatest drawback to the FEM analysis is
the lack of transparency in the computing and it
is very easy to make fundamental errors. Calcula-
tions of some nature are therefore always required
to check and test the results of a FEM. In critical
elements such as the tower of a large cable stayed
bridge, it is recommended that both methodologies
outlined above are adopted. This enables the veri-
fication of one method against the other. It also
gives the designer a high degree of confidence that
the results obtained in the FEM are correct and
possible economies valid.
In the design of this steel tower assembly,
there was good correlation between the critical
local buckling modes identified between the two
adopted methodologies. The FEM analysis process
highlighted the conservatism of using the reduced
stress method in this instance for the reasons men-
tioned above.
References
[1] Hendy, C.R. and Murphy, C.J. (2007) Designers’
Guide to EN1993-2, London: Thomas Telford.
[2] Johansson, B., Maquoi, R., Sedlacek, G., Müller, C.
and Beg, D. (2007) Commentary and Worked exam-
ples to EN 1993-1-5 “Plated Structural Elements”, 1st
edition, Luxembourg: European Communities.
[3] Modeller Reference Manual (2011) London:
LUSAS.