Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
YP
=
c.YP
_
1+
e
s
sec
_
l
2r
_
c.YP
E
__
(3)
In the Secant formula given by expression (3), e is the eccentricity of the applied
axial compression force, s is the core radius
2
, l is the geometric length, r is the radius
of gyration and E is the modulus of elasticity. By utilizing the Secant formulation,
curves for the critical stress dependent on the slenderness of the beam-column can be
developed for various eccentricities(quantied as a ratio to s) as it is done in gure 2a.
It should be noted that expression (3) only applies for members with same eccentricity
in load application at both ends. Timoshenko also deals with the case of beam-columns
subjected to load application with different eccentricities at the ends, expressing them
by the ratio =
e
a
e
b
, where e
a
and e
b
are the eccentricities at the ends. In the case of
varying eccentricities the critical stress
c.YP
is given by:
c.YP
=
YP
1+
e
a
s
cosec(2u)
(4)
where
2u = kl =
l
r
_
YP
E
and =
_
2
2cos(2u) +1
For tower bracings this expression is mostly relevant in the case where = 0 cor-
responding to a load application which is concentric at one end and eccentric at the
other. This would be the case for buckling of a member which is continuous at one
end and connected to other structural members by the methods previously described
at the other end. Buckling curves for member with = 0 is given in gure 2b. Both
gures are based on and elastic modulus of 210.000MPa and a yield point stress of
YP
= 250MPa. For reference the buckling curve for the corresponding TIA-G case
is included in both gures, 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 dened for = 0, thus only values very close to
= 0 can be applied.
2
Core radius s =
Z
A
, where Z is the section modulus and A is the cross-sectional area.
18
100
150
200
250
300
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Buckling curves for eccentrically loaded column, =1
lre/s=1
lre/s=0,5
lre/s=0,2
lre/s=0,1
Euler
TIAGcurve3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Slenderness L/r [-]
Buckling curves for eccentrically loaded column, =1
lre/s=1
lre/s=0,5
lre/s=0,2
lre/s=0,1
Euler
TIAGcurve3
(a) Buckling curve for = 1
100
150
200
250
300
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Buckling curves for eccentrically loaded column, =0
lre/s=1
lre/s=0,5
lre/s=0,2
lre/s=0,1
Euler
TIAGcurve2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Slenderness L/r [-]
Buckling curves for eccentrically loaded column, =0
lre/s=1
lre/s=0,5
lre/s=0,2
lre/s=0,1
Euler
TIAGcurve2
(b) Buckling curve for = 0
Figure 2: Critical load curves for beam-column with various ratios of
e
s
compared to relevant
TIA-G buckling curve. Material parameters: f
y
= 250MPa and E = 210.000MPa
19
2 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 stan-
dard 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 specically 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 com-
pression yield stress F
y
, dependent on the width to thickness ratio
_
w
t
_
of the member.
The characteristic yield stress F
y
is reduced in order to obtain F
y
by the following
principle:
w
t
0.47
E
F
y
F
y
= F
y
0.47
E
F
y
<
w
t
0.85
E
F
y
F
y
=
_
_
1.6770.677
_
_
w
t
0.47
_
E
F
y
_
_
_
_
F
y
0.85
E
F
y
<
w
t
25 F
y
= 0.0332
2
E
_
w
t
_
2
According to the standard the width to thickness ratio should not exceed 25.
2.2 Design axial compression strength [Section 4.5.4.2]
The design axial strength of a member in compression is given by:
P = P
n
c
where
P
n
= A
g
F
cr
c
= 0.9
and for
c
1.5
F
cr
=
_
0.658
2
c
_
F
y
and for
c
> 1.5
F
cr
=
_
0.877
2
c
_
F
y
20
where
c
=
K L
r
_
F
y
E
A
g
= gross area of member [mm
2
]
K = effective length factor
L = laterally unbraced length of member [mm]
r = governing radius of gyration about the axis of buckling [mm]
It should be noted that KL is equivalent to the effective buckling length l
e
. The
standard furthermore stipulates that exural-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
r
_
expressions for tower com-
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 prole (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 end-
restraint or eccentricity by which the member is loaded. If the bracing is not slender
_
L
r
< 120
_
, eccentricity is considered governing and bracing effective slenderness ra-
tio is given by member eccentricity conditions. If the bracing is slender
_
L
r
120
_
,
bracing 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 gure 2. The
effective slenderness ratio expressions are illustrated graphically in gure 4a.
The standard links these eccentricity and end-restraint parameters with the 6 differ-
ent expressions for the effective slenderness ratio of bracings, by a very basic principle
as given in table 1. On the specic denitions of normal framing eccentricities, partial
restraint against rotation a.s.o. the reader is referred to the standard. Table 1 illus-
trates that the end-restraint parameters are very general and supercial, even though
the actual stiffness provided by the joint at the ends is totally dependent on the design.
It is this very basic set of parameters which are going to be challenged by attempt-
ing to determine the actual rotational stiffness of joints by application of a type joint
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 gure 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 Slenderness Parameter
Effective slenderness
expression
1
_
L
r
< 120
_
Concentric at both ends.
KL
r
=
L
r
2
_
L
r
< 120
_
Concentric at one end and normal
framing eccentricity at the other.
KL
r
= 30+0.75
L
r
3
_
L
r
< 120
_
Eccentric at both ends.
KL
r
= 60+0.50
L
r
4
_
L
r
120
_
Unrestrained against rotation.
KL
r
=
L
r
5
_
L
r
120
_
Partially restrained against rotation
at one end and unrestrained at the
other.
KL
r
= 28.6+0.762
L
r
6
_
L
r
120
_
Partially restrained against rotation
at both ends.
KL
r
= 46.2+0.615
L
r
Table 1: Parameters for selection of relevant effective slenderness ratio expression for bracing
members in TIA-222-G:2005 (Curve 1 to 6 refers to the curves in gure 4a)
22
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
l
e
n
d
e
r
n
e
s
s
K
L
/
r
[
-
]
Slenderness L/r [-]
Effective slenderness ratio for angle bar bracings
according to table 4-4 TIA-222-G:2005
Curve1/Curve4
Curve2/Curve5
Curve3/Curve6
Endrestraintgoverns
Eccentricitygoverns
(a) Effective slenderness ratio to be considered for exural 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 be-
ing governing.
100
150
200
250
300
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Critical buckling stress F
cr
:
TIA-G buckling curve vs. Euler load
TIA222G
Euler
EN199311
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
F
c
r
[
M
p
a
]
Effective slenderness KL/r [-]
Critical buckling stress F
cr
:
TIA-G buckling curve vs. Euler load
TIA222G
Euler
EN199311
(b) TIA-G buckling curve compared to Euler and EN1993-1-1. Material parame-
ters: f
y
= 250MPa and E = 210.000MPa
Figure 4: Graphic representation of provisions in TIA-G in relation to exural buckling
23
2.4 Lattice web triangulation [gure 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 considera-
tions. If e.g. secondary bracings in hip or plane web patterns are not fully triangulated
they can not be considered to prevent buckling in their own plane (without bending
considerations). 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 gure 5
for hip bracings, and are basic examples from TIA-G.
(a) Typical locations of lattice hip bracing (Sec-
tion 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
3 Sample tower:
40m Medium duty Tower Design
In order for the project to be as specic as possible a Medium duty Tower Design
was considered. This would not only give an impression of the possible gains by the
methods developed through this project, but also keep the project at a level at which the
methods developed are practically realistic to implement for future design calculations.
Finally the sample tower design could contribute with a realistically proportioned tower
in regards to member sizes, joint details and outer geometry.
In the following the sample tower is shortly described and in the last part of the section
a traditional hand calculation of the sample tower is presented. This will not only
illustrate the application of the 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 xture of telecommu-
nication equipment. The 3 bottom sections are tted with several secondary bracings,
including internal hip-bracing.
If the hip-bracing is studied more closely it is seen to conict 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-conguration of the tower.
Furthermore it is brought to the attention of the reader that the sample tower is origi-
nally designed according to Indian Standards (IS), and therefore a full utilization of the
design should not be expected, since the considered wind speed in this project is lower
than what was originally considered. The project at hand only deals with the effects of
different approaches to design of towers, hence a full utilization of the tower is not a
requirement, only realistic distribution of loads and tower proportions.
26
Load description Level Shielding
Effective projected
wind area (EPA)
1 No. 2.4m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
38.75m 0% 4m
2
1 No. 1.8m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
38.75m 30% 1.6m
2
5 Nos. 1.2m Dia. MW Dish
Antenna
(Standard Antenna w. Radome)
31.25m 50% 4m
2
3 Nos. CDMA Panel Antenna
(2.62mx0.37m)
33.75m 0% 3m
2
9 Nos. GSM Panel Antenna
(1.917mx0.262m)
33.75m 30% 3.78m
2
Cable & Access Ladder
(Along tower center line)
035m Complete
shielding
from
35-40m
0.3
m
2
m
Table 2: Sample tower design load
3.3 Hand calculation
In relation to this project a complete design calculation of the sample tower in ac-
cordance with 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 ad-
vanced computational models).
The calculation only considers windload from a 0 degree direction (refer to gure 6),
sometimes also referred to as the normal direction. It should however be noted that tow-
ers should be designed for several different wind load directions (and combinations).
In the case of towers with square cross sections a 45 degree wind direction should also
be considered. Usually the 0 degree wind load case will govern the design of bracings,
whereas the 45 degree case will govern the design of legmembers (and foundations),
however all members should be checked for both cases.
A more thorough study of these calculations is left to the reader, but the results of
the calculation will be applied for comparison with RAMTOWER at a later stage.
The complete calculation is attached this project as Appendix AR.D
27
Figure 6: Relevant wind load directions for design of towers with square cross sections.
29
4 RAMTOWER
Analysis
RAMTOWER
(5)
where for a M16 bolt:
M
A
is bolt installation torque, M
A
= 114.27kNmm
G
is the coefcient of friction of bolt thread,
G
= 0.4
K
is the coefcient of friction of bolt (head and nut) surface,
K
= 0.4
d
2
is the edge diameter, d
2
= 24mm
P is the bolt pitch, P = 2mm
D
km
is the mean bolt diameter which is obtained from (6):
D
km
=
d
k
+D
B
2
(6)
where
d
k
is the inside diameter of the contact surface (diameter of bolt hole) d
k
= 17.6mm
D
B
is the outside diameter of the contact surface (bolt head outside diameter) D
B
=
27.7mm
From (5) a tension force in the bolt of 11kN or 54.7MPa (for bolt as a solid 16 rod) is
obtained.
The actual tensioning of the bolt was achieved by means of imposing a Abaqus
bolt load in a plane at the center of the bolt shank as illustrated on gure 13. This
bolt load will cause the bolt to obtain internal stresses due to contact pressure between
the 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 crit-
ical was the load at which the joint starts to slip. In order to determine this load, a
simple approximation was initially used and then rened once results from initial runs
of the model was completed. The critical force was determined from expression
F
cr
= nF
M
(7)
where
n is the number of friction planes for one of the adjoined members, n = 4
F
M
is the tension force of the bolt obtained from expression (5), F
M
= 11kN
is the coefcient of friction of the adjoined surfaces, = 0.4
According to expression (7) slip is initiated when the applied force exceeds F
cr
=
17.6kN corresponding to a uniform pressure of 15.12MPa on the angle bar cross-
section.
A load interval somewhat below and above this approximate slip value was then
applied to the step Load - region 2 in the initial test runs of the joint model. Load
intervals was however slightly modied by viewing results from some of these initial
test runs. A model which would reect the real joint slip behavior would have a dis-
placement curve as illustrated in gure 14(when neglecting plasticity). In the initial
model with the previously stated axial load pressure interval, the transition from the
friction region (region 1) to the slip region(region 2) was more sudden (no rounding
of curve), indicating that the prescribed load in the step Load - region 2 was not
sufcient to cause slip and slip was therefore initiated in step Load - region 3 where
the load increases dramatically between each increment. The axial load interval of the
FEM model was shifted in a number of trials until a smooth transition from from Load
- region 1 to Load - region 2 step was obtained resembling gure 14.
As a result of this the following nal load steps were applied for the model:
Load - region 1 - Load interval:015.8MPa
41
Load - region 2 - Load interval:15.816.5MPa
Load - region 3 - Load interval:16.5100MPa
5.7 Meshing
For the model was used a combination of 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 ne symmetric mesh of hex type. The mesh of bolts and angle bars
may be viewed in gure 15
(a) Bolt mesh
(b) Angle bar mesh (Only one angle bar shown - mesh is identical for the two angle bars)
Figure 15: Angle bar joint mesh
42
5.8 Joint axial stiffness results
By combining the history output, e.i. the translation and axial load stresses in direc-
tion 3 w.r.t. the Abaqus analysis relative time, the solid line work curves in gure 16
were obtained, for the 3 different material models. As previously mentioned the his-
tory data consisted of measurements in 2 points of the joint (refer to gure 10). The
total difference in axial joint displacement in these points was in the order 1/10 of a
millimeter, and the displacement of the joint was therefore based on a mean value of
the history displacement data. For comparison and evaluation of the 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 gure. As it may be
seen from the gure there are some differences between the results obtained by FEM
analysis and the idealized curve based on test results. Region 1 (refer to gure 14)
shows good agreement, and also the value at which the joint starts to slip is within
7.5% accuracy of the experimental data, which may be considered to be pretty good,
since the factors which govern the slip load of the joint are difcult to determine with
high accuracy (bolt tensioning, friction etc.). However larger discrepancy occurs as the
joint deformation approaches the elastic area. It is obvious that the total slip of the joint
(region 2) is not of same magnitude (idealized curve starts to build elastic deformation
after just 0.85mm of slip). This is justied by N. Ungkurapinan et. al., since little or
no attention was paid to place the bolts completely centered in the joint holes of the
specimens, as it has been done in the 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 de-
formation with low elastic stiffness, whereas FEM indicates small elastic deformation
with a larger stiffness quickly achieving plastic behavior (for the models containing
plasticity). Some differences between the 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 defor-
mation of the bolts is generally considered to be small.)
The idealized curve is derived from several sets of experimental data and must
also obscure any noise on measurements.
However differences between the two methods, due to different bolt grades, should
not appear in the elastic 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 conrms this observation, since no plastic strains are observed in the shank of the
bolts (which would lead to substantial axial deformation.), plastic strains only occurs
in bolt head and nut, due to contact pressure with the angle bar surface.
It seems reasonable (as indicated by the 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 innite size, an thus produce yield stresses in the hole almost
43
60
80
100
120
140
160
F
[
M
p
a
]
Force-displacement curve axially loaded joint w.o. bending
FEMmodel Elastic
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardening
FEMmodel Perfectlyplastic
Idealizedcurve N.Ungkurapinan
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0,00E+00 5,00E01 1,00E+00 1,50E+00 2,00E+00 2,50E+00 3,00E+00
F
[
M
p
a
]
Joint deflection [mm]
Force-displacement curve axially loaded joint w.o. bending
FEMmodel Elastic
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardening
FEMmodel Perfectlyplastic
Idealizedcurve N.Ungkurapinan
Figure 16: Deformation curve for idealized experimental and FEM-model results (Parts of the
Elastic and Plastic w. hardening work curves are obscured by the work curve for
the Perfectly plastic.)
Figure 17: Plastic strains in bolts of perfect plastic material with yield strength 640MPa for joint
under axial load (zero plastic strain colored blue)
instantaneously. Also residual stresses from punching or drilling of bolt holes in the
testspecimens, may produce a difference (This is not captured in the current FEM-
model), since the material around the holes may start to yield earlier than anticipated
by the FEM-model.
All these factors may inict 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 experimen-
tal data (established in gure 16), further testing of the model was performed in order
to validate if other issues, than what has previously been addressed, were inicting on
the results. Model and result testing was limited to contain: mesh convergence testing,
stress discontinuities and bolt tensioning.
44
60
80
100
120
140
160
F
[
M
p
a
]
Convergence: Force-displacement curve axially loaded joint
w.o. bending
FEMmodel Elastic
FEMmodel Elastic conv.
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardening
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardeningconv.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
F
[
M
p
a
]
Joint deflection [mm]
Convergence: Force-displacement curve axially loaded joint
w.o. bending
FEMmodel Elastic
FEMmodel Elastic conv.
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardening
FEMmodel Plasticw.hardeningconv.
Figure 18: Result comparison from type joint convergence testing.
5.9.1 Mesh convergence
The FEM is a mathematical approximation to a psychical problem, by application of
approximated eld variables. In general the solution given by this approximation con-
verges towards the actual solution by the number of elements which are applied (several
factors such as geometric order of elements etc. governs the convergence rate). When
performing a FEM analysis it is not desirable to apply a large amount of elements in
order to obtain a completely accurate result, since this would require a long time of
computation. The usual aim is have model with a (relative) fast computation and ac-
ceptable deviations from the exact solution. The usual convergence rate in the FEM
is not linear, thus the solution quickly converges towards the exact solution with just a
reasonable amount of elements. In order to determine the state of convergence for the
type joint 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, compar-
ison of results, between the original and the re-meshed model, will be limited hereto.
In gure 18 the work curve of the re-meshed models is given by dots at outputted in-
crements of the analysis and may be compared with the initially accepted results (solid
line).
The gure illustrates that there is no visible difference between the results obtained
by the 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 deforma-
tion: at transition from friction to slip and at transition from slip to bolts in bearing. At
these locations the dots fromthe convergence results are very closely spaced, indicating
that Abaqus is applying a large number of increments at these locations.
45
5.9.2 Stress discontinuities
In order to determine the adequacy of most FEM-model meshes, it will be relevant to
view the discontinuities of the model eld output results. The discontinuity is the dif-
ference between the lowest and highest nodal value common to two or more elements,
and is a good indicator as to where in the model the mesh density is insufcient. In this
project only discontinuities in Von Mise stress was considered. At several locations
discontinuities was however not considered, these were:
Corners between the two legs of the angle bar
Locations at which corners of bolt head and nut is pressing against the angle bar
surface
Bolt shank at locations which is pressing against corners of angle bar holes (Just
under head and nut and at the center of the shank).
These locations are ignored since high values of stress are inicted at these areas. For a
perfectly meshed sharp corner, such as the corner between the two legs of the angle bar,
stresses would reach innite levels. Same applies for the contact areas where corners
are pressing against surfaces. If large discontinuity was to be avoided, all corners would
have to be smoothed, which is very demanding, even for a simple detail as considered
in this case. Furthermore effects from discontinuity in these areas is considered to have
little effect on the joint deformation which is required in this project.
Contour plots of the stress discontinuities are given in gure 19 for the type joint
model with the plastic w. hardening material model. For the angle bar member the
largest discontinuities are observed in the area around the bolthole (hence only this area
is considered on the gure).
From the contour plots several nodes of interest were selected and their V. Mise
stress discontinuities were probed and compared with the actual averaged stress. Re-
sults may be viewed in table 4. From the table stress discontinuities are observed to
be high compared to the actual V. Mise stress at the probed node. The discontinuity
should be viewed with respects to the required parameter of the joint. This project
is mainly concerned with the deformation of the joint at a certain load. Further dis-
continuity tests performed in Appendix E.3, with the convergence model described in
the previous subsection, indicates that the discontinuities are reduced by increasing the
mesh of the model, however not even the convergence model provides satisfying dis-
continuities. Considering that there was no effect on joint deformation by increasing
the mesh by 50% along all edges, and this is seen to reduce the discontinuities of the
joint model, it is assumed that the discontinuities given in table 4, does not have a con-
siderable effect on the joint stiffness results. However if stress in the model is required
the mesh must be rened and discontinuities rechecked.
5.9.3 Bolt tensioning
Tests of the bolt tensioning was made up of two parts: Initially was modeled a solid
rod resembling the bolt shank and the bolt load was applied to the center plane by same
concept as illustrated on gure 13. Reactions in the axial direction on one side of the
bolt was then summed to conrm that they were in equilibrium with a internal force of
the prescribed bolt tensioning.
Next the entire joint model was considered. A bolt load of 0.11kN ( 1% of the
entire bolt load) was applied to the bolt and stresses in the angle bar at the location of
46
(a) Discontinuities in angle bar with probed nodes (the neglected areas, primarily corners, are remove for remaining
discontinuities to be clearly visible).
(b) Discontinuities in bolt with probed nodes
Figure 19: Stress discontinuities in type joint FEM-model for the material model plastic w.
hardening.
47
Node V. Mise stress
[MPa]
V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
2941 397.9 512.8 129%
792 564.0 370.9 66%
2160 310.7 313.7 101%
3090 330.7 211.5 64%
291 313.8 215.6 69%
(a) V. Mise stress discontinuities in angle bar
Node V. Mise stress
[MPa]
V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
1423 457.9 382.2 79.3
73 556.4 440.2 70.6
(b) V. Mise stress discontinuities in bolt
Table 4: Probed V. Mise stress discontinuities in nodes selected from contour plots compared
with actual stress values.
bolt head and nut was examined. The purpose of this test was to ensure that the contact
formulation between head, nut and angle bars were tight, e.i. contact between the parts
would be established almost instantly. Both test yielded satisfying results.
5.10 Joint rotational stiffness
For the purpose of buckling analysis the previously determined axial joint stiffness
was to some extent, irrelevant and merely a method of conrming that a FEM-model
could generate joint stiffness results with good correspondence to actual joint behav-
ior. From the previous tests and result comparison this is on some level considered to
be conrmed, even though some factors such as residual stresses, imperfections and
tolerances are not captured by the FEM-model leaving some deviations to the actual
stiffness behavior of the joint. On this note the more buckling relevant rotational stiff-
ness behavior of the joint was to be determined. The overall model was the same as
the previous axial stiffness model, leaving only some small modications in order to
consider rotation of the joint about the two parallel axis of the joint denoted RX and
RY (refer to gure 21a). During the study of the rotational stiffness of the joint, it has
been assumed that there is no difference in stiffness for clock- and counterclockwise
rotation about the same axis, this is however not conrmed.
5.10.1 Modied material parameters
Two major changes was implemented on the material parameters of the model:
The E-modulus was lowered to 200GPa corresponding to the modulus consid-
ered by TIA-G
Only the material models Elastic and Plastic w. hardening were considered.
48
5.10.2 Modied boundary conditions
The only modication made to the boundary conditions, was the previously considered
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 Modied loads
The axial loading of the joint was moved to the other end of the angle bar member
(closer to the bolt holes) as illustrated on gure 20 and only the angle bar leg containing
bolts was loaded. This was all done to prevent unintended rotation, enabled by the
removal of the previously described BC, due to eccentricities in the load application.
The axial load of the joint was important since it would increase the rotational stiffness
of the entire joint, due to the bolts contact with the hole surfaces by bearing. Also
the axial load reects the actual conditions before buckling of the member, since loads
close to buckling will be present in the member, before considerable rotation of the
joint due to out-of-plane deformation occurs as indicated on gure 30.
The axial pressure load on the joint edge was kept constant, following the rotation
of the joint, ensuring that the axial load does not contribute to any moment, refer to
gure 20. Two different axial loads of 70 and 100MPa were considered , refer to
subsection 5.10.5 hereon.
In order to impose moment to the joint, two different approaches were applied, one
in each rotational direction. In order to obtain the stiffness for RX rotation a set of
a surface tractions (surface shear stresses) was applied at the end of the rotating part
of the joint. The surface tractions were applied in two directions in order to obtain
the relevant pure bending moment for the RX rotation. The surface traction was only
applied to the angle bar leg which was perpendicular to the rotation axis (on both sides
of the surface), refer to gure 21a. This type of load application was considered to
be valid due to the Saint-Vernant principle
7
, however the mesh density also has an
impact on this assumption. The moment was calculated by the size of one of the force
components multiplied with the distance between the components.
For determining RY rotation stiffness a different approach of applying moment had
to be followed, since attempts to use the same principle as for the RX rotation on the
perpendicular leg, led to a complicated rotation of the joint (containing twisting). This
very complex rotation was not desirable. Instead moment was to be applied by dis-
placing the ends of the rotating part as illustrated in gure 21a(Only at top and bottom
of angle bar were displaced). Applying displacements to the joint was achieved by a
prescribed dof, same as when dening a support, except now the dof had a prescribed
value which was different from 0 and increasing linearly. However just as a support,
the prescribed dof would contain the reaction forces needed to maintain the prescribed
displacement. The moment which was applied to the joint for a given displacement
of the rotating part end, was then calculated as these reaction forces multiplied with
the distance to the closest bolt in the joint. It would be obvious to question why this
method of apply moment to the joint was not applied for the RX rotation. But by apply-
ing moment to the joint by displacement of the joint ends, shear is also applied to the
joint, which has been observed to decrease the amount joint rotational stiffness, most
7
Differences in stresses caused by a statically equivalent load system is negligible at a distance corre-
sponding to the greatest dimension of the area over which the load system is applied.
49
Figure 20: Modied axial load application on type joint for rotational stiffness (axial load only
on bolted leg of angle bar)
likely because the joint bolts are then forced to transfer this shear between the two parts
of the joint. This is however found acceptable for the RY rotation since the stiffness
of this rotation is much lower than for the RX rotation. The method by which moment
is applied for RX rotation may be observed not to produce any shear to be transferred
by the joint bolts. This behavior is considered to be more realistic w.r.t. rotation of the
joint due to buckling deformation.
5.10.4 Modied steps and incrementation
Several changes were made to steps and incrementation for the new rotational stiffness
model. Since there was now no interest in obtaining joint displacement results as the
axial load was increased the steps Load - region 1 and Load - region 2 were deleted
to increase computation speed. All axial load was now applied in the step Load -
region 3. Furthermore a new step named 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 gure 10, depending on the required rotation. From
this history data, the rotation (v) was calculated by (refer to gure 22):
v =tan
1
_
X2
Y2
_
[rad] (8)
where
Y2 =
X2
X2+X1
Y1+Y2
50
(a) Joint rotation stiffness model load application: Prescribed displacement for RY (left) and force couples from
surface traction for RX (right)
(b) Force components from surface traction
forming moment for rotation RX
Figure 21: Rotational stiffness model loadapplication for rotation RX and RY
51
Figure 22: Method of retrieving rotation (v) based on joint nodal displacements (X1 and X2)
shown for RX rotation.
and
Y1+Y2 = 91mm , corresponding to the distance between the history output nodes.
The joint moment was obtained as described in previous subsection 5.10.3 for each
of the two load types.
From these considerations the work curves illustrated in gure23, was obtained for
rotation about both parallel axis of the joint. It should be mentioned that the RY rotation
has been corrected from a initial rotation caused by the very small eccentricity in axial
load application, by subtracting this initial rotation from all the obtained results.
The inuence of the size of the joint axial load has also been investigated, by in-
creasing the initial axial load of 70MPa to 100MPa as illustrated on gure 24. In this
case the increase in axial load increases the RX rotational stiffness, this may however
not always be the case, illustrating that for determining joint stiffness it is important
to consider realistic magnitudes of axial loading. The magnitude of the applied axial
load is considered to have a minor inuence on RY rotational stiffness, thus it is not
included in gure 24.
For the rotational model no slip occurs (as it was the case for the axial model),
since bolts are already in bearing once the member attempts to rotate due to transverse
deection fromaxial buckling load. In the 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
deection eld it is indicated that a joint rotation of 0.07rad is reached at some
L
45
of
transverse deformation, where L is the geometric length of the buckling member. Such
a transverse deformation of the member would normally be assimilated with failure of
52
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
F
[
k
N
m
]
Moment-rotation curve axially loaded joint w. bending
Rotation RX and RY
FEMRX Elastic70MPa
FEMRX Plasticw.hardening70MPa
FEMRY Elastic70MPa
FEMRY Plasticw.hardening70MPa
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,1
F
[
k
N
m
]
Joint rotation [rad]
Moment-rotation curve axially loaded joint w. bending
Rotation RX and RY
FEMRX Elastic70MPa
FEMRX Plasticw.hardening70MPa
FEMRY Elastic70MPa
FEMRY Plasticw.hardening70MPa
Figure 23: FEM-model deformation curve for rotation about the 2 parallel axis of the type joint
(RX and RY)
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
F
[
k
N
m
]
Moment-rotation curve axially loaded joint w. bending
Rotation RX
FEMRX Elastic100MPa
FEM RX El ti 70MP
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,1
F
[
k
N
m
]
Joint rotation [rad]
Moment-rotation curve axially loaded joint w. bending
Rotation RX
FEMRX Elastic100MPa
FEMRX Elastic70MPa
FEMRX Plasticw.hardening100MPa
FEMRX Plasticw.hardening70MPa
Figure 24: Type joint rotational stiffness dependent on axial load applied to joint. (Not consid-
ered for rotation RY)
53
the member, and therefore the stiffness data interval is considered to be sufcient.
55
6 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 inuence 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 predened an-
gle bar members, these are sub-categorized into two types: major/minor axis proles(n-
n and v-v axis) and parallel axis proles (x-x and y-y axis) refer to gure 1. Both types
of proles were tested in two different models. Axial compression load was introduced
to the member, and buckling modes were studied.
Initial tests indicated that the program was only capable of considering buckling
about two axes, either the two parallel axis of the angle bar (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 pro-
le section was dened for the model. This was illustrated by all buckling modes being
of either parallel or major/minor type. This called for a more sophisticated model, to
56
verify the initial result beyond any doubt. To the original model was added a support at
mid-span, as illustrated on gure 25, restraining the member from buckling by its en-
tire length about one of the parallel axis. This forced buckling modes about the minor
axis to consider only half of the column length for buckling, thus resulting in buckling
about the non-restrained parallel axis to be most critical. Initial buckling mode for this
model, when using major/minor prole type was about the parallel axis, thus yielding
the following results on tests of the ROBOT Linear buckling analysis:
Only major/minor axis proles are capable of achieving buckling modes about
the major, minor and parallel axis. Parallel axis proles only contain the two
parallel axis moment of inertias and can thus only consider modes about these
two axis. In the following the major/minor axis prole may be referred to as a
main axis prole.
This result however posed a problem, since the releases of a angle bar bracing would
normally be dened about the parallel axis, as it has been done through the Abaqus
analysis of the previous section. For a normal truss analysis this would not pose any
problem, since full rotational release would be dened in both directions, but if analysis
was to consider different release stiffness in the two directions the major/minor axis
prole would not be able to accommodate this. To solve the problem a modied
beam element was applied. The beam element is a main axis prole with a very short
parallel axis prole attached to each end. The connection between the two prole types
was dened as fully xed and the short parallel axis prole accommodated correct
denition of member releases in regards to the actual physical conditions of a bracing
joint, previously obtained from the type joint analysis. The modied beam element
may be viewed in gure 26
In order to determine the inuence of the short parallel axis prole, at both ends
of the main axis prole, on the overall buckling load, a simple convergence test was
performed. The test was performed on a simply supported axially loaded angle bar,
by initially considering a parallel axis prole of very short length compared to the
overall length of the member. The length of the parallel axis prole was then increased
and each buckling load was viewed with respects to the buckling load of a plain main
axis prole, e.i. without any parallel axis prole at the ends. A curve of the buckling
load convergence with parallel axis prole relative length
8
may be viewed in gure 27.
Convergence test shows that a relative length of the parallel prole of 4.0% yields a
completely accurate result.
Finally the modied beam element buckling load was determined, when consider-
ing the two axes at both ends of the member being either released, xed or one axis
xed and one released at both ends. By doing so the modied beam element buckling
loads given in table 5 was obtained. This table also raise condence that the axis de-
nitions of the small parallel beam segment is working properly, since for one axis xed
and the other released at both ends of the member a buckling load and mode between
the principal loads and modes is obtained.
6.1.2 Linear-buckling load when considering lateral support provided by incom-
ing members
The purpose of this test was to verify, that ROBOT includes restraint for buckling pro-
vided by other structural members in the model. Furthermore the inuence of various
8
Relative length refers to the length of the parallel axis prole, compared to the total unsupported length
of the column.
57
Figure 25: Position and orientation of support at mid-span for provoking parallel axis buckling
for the beam-column element.
Figure 26: ROBOT model of the modied beam element with local axis denitions
22 6
22,7
22,8
22,9
23
23,1
23,2
1 0%
2,0%
3,0%
4,0%
F
c
r
[
k
N
]
R
e
l
.
e
r
r
o
r
[
%
]
Convergence test for modified beam element
Rel.error
Criticalload
22,4
22,5
22,6
22,7
22,8
22,9
23
23,1
23,2
0,0%
1,0%
2,0%
3,0%
4,0%
0,0% 2,0% 4,0% 6,0% 8,0% 10,0% 12,0% 14,0% 16,0%
F
c
r
[
k
N
]
R
e
l
.
e
r
r
o
r
[
%
]
Parallel axis profile rel. length [%]
Convergence test for modified beam element
Rel.error
Criticalload
Figure 27: Buckling load convergence with parallel axis prole relative length for the modied
beam element. Test specimen: L50x50x5 L=2000mm.
58
Axis release denitions at both ends of member
Buckling mode Both axes xed 1 xed & 1 released axis Both axes released
Weak 91.45kN - 22.44kN
Weak/Parallel - 47.11kN -
Parallel 214.95kN - 53.61kN
Parallel/Strong - 144.41kN -
Strong 341.33kN - 85.79kN
Table 5: Critical Euler load for modied beamelement considering various modes and 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 denition codes)
releases applied to the buckling and supporting members was studied, for later appli-
cation in the sample tower model.
A main member was modeled as a simply supported beam, with incoming mem-
bers providing support for deection perpendicular to the beam length. Members were
modeled with angle bar sections (of main axis type) and support is provided in such a
way, that deection at 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 gure 28.The
more complex buckling analysis yielded the following results:
Critical buckling modes calculated in ROBOT for the more complex restraint
conguration showed correct results concerning buckling length and load factor,
when considering main axis proles.
Varying 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 sufcient, 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 DSC-
element algorithm, which basically generates a small element at the end node of all
elements dened by the user. All release denitions on the old element nodes are then
moved to the DSC-element nodes (refer to [5]). In the case of advanced elastic and
non-linear release denitions, application of the DSC-element is mandatory, so the
DSC-element would most denitely have to be applied in order to utilize the rotational
stiffness models previously found in Abaqus. ROBOT can however not include offsets
when using the DSC-element, and since non-linear releases would have to be dened
for this project a assumption had to be made:
Considering the buckling curves in gure 2 and the provisions of the TIA-G stan-
dard described in section 2, it is reasonable to assume that for eccentricities which may
be considered to be within normal framing eccentricity, e.i. angle bars are connected
leg to leg, near the center line of the member, the reduction of the buckling load is neg-
ligible for slender members such as bracings with
_
L
r
120
_
. Hence for the remaining
part of this project eccentricities of members will not be considered.
6.1.4 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 per-
formed:
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 gure 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 mod-
els. 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 in-
nite 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 re-
leases
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 neutral
9
, e.i. the com-
pression capacity of the column, does not increase after buckling of the member has
occurred. For both models deection at midspan in the expected direction of buckling
failure (weak axis failure expected, refer to gure 29) was monitored for each incre-
ment of the non-linear analysis, and plotted against the total applied axial load in the
same increment.
For the model with transverse load in gure 29a, two different transverse loadvalues
were considered.
For the beam-column with non-linear spring releases a joint rotational stiffness
model, dened by a curve with the same properties as the curve FEM-RX - Plastic
w. hardening 70MPa shown on gure 23 in section 5, was applied. The non-linear
release was dened at both ends of the specimen for rotation about the weak axis of
the prole (refer to gure 29b). In both models a axial load was applied and a non-
linear analysis was performed. To cross check load values a linear buckling analysis
was exercised for the same models. The transverse deformation of both models for
increasing axial load may be viewed in gure 30. I should be mentioned that for the
curve in gure 30b, deformations from the analysis is very small, and therefore some
decimals are lost in the postprocessing facilities of ROBOT, leaving the result curve
9
According to Lars Damkilde in [6].
61
with a stepwise expression. If all decimals could be extracted from ROBOT the curve
would be more smooth as it is the case in gure 30a.
In order to have some kind of reference outside ROBOT a secondary check of the
linear buckling value for the non-linear spring released model was performed. Timo-
shenko deals with simply supported, elastic end-restrained beam-columns in [17]. The
buckling parameter kl for a beam-column of this type, which appears in the general
expression of the critical buckling load (Euler load) may be found from the expression:
tan
_
kl
2
_
kl
2
=
2 E I
l
(9)
where is the elastic coefcient of the end-restraints and is found as:
=
M
_
L
2
L
1
u
1
_ =
L
2
L
1
where
(u) =
3
2u
_
1
2u
1
tan(2u)
_
100
and
L
2
L
1
inserting the spans L
2
and L
1
into the equations yields:
(u
1
)
_
3641
3246.6
u
1
_ =
3641
3246.6
2u = kl = 2.95212
since
kl
2
EI
L
2
=
2
EI
L
2
for pin connected buckling member, reduced member buckling length (L) due to
different spans may be found as:
_
L
2
L
1
2.95212
_
2
EI
L
2
2
=
2
EI
L
2
L = 3455mm
parallel axis buckling:
L
r
x
=190.25
KL
r
=28.6+0.762 190.25 =173.573 (curve
5)
Results from ROBOT non-linear analysis
Model with pinned diagonal connections:
F
cr
= 36.44kN (11mm displacement - Parallel axis buckling mode)
36440 =
2
200000 227900
(KL)
2
KL = 3513.6mm
KL
r
= 193.5 (11.5% deviation)
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models in diagonal connections:
F
cr
= 44.86kN (7mm displacement)
44860 =
2
200000 227900
(KL)
2
KL = 3166.7mm
KL
r
= 174.4 (0.4% deviation)
Buckling of L60x60x6 angle bar member
Member properties:
L60x60x6 L = 2000mm
For further 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:
L
r
v
= 171.08
KL
r
= 46.2+0.615 171.08 = 151.4 (curve 6)
parallel axis:
L
r
x
= 110.3
KL
r
= 110.3 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
F
cr
= 110.7kN (7mm displacement)
110700 =
2
200000 94400
(KL)
2
KL = 1297.4mm
KL
r
= 111.0 (37.6% deviation)
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
F
cr
= 154.1kN (5mm displacement)
154100 =
2
200000 227900
(KL)
2
KL = 1708.6mm
KL
r
= 94.08 (17% deviation)
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models at one end:
Effective slenderness ratio as per TIA-G:
weak axis:
L
r
v
= 171.08
KL
r
= 28.6+0.762 171.08 = 159 (curve 5)
parallel axis:
L
r
x
= 110.3
KL
r
= 110.3 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
F
cr
= 74.39kN (7mm displacement)
74390 =
2
200000 94400
(KL)
2
KL = 1582.7mm
KL
r
= 135.4 (17% deviation)
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
F
cr
= 129.52kN (11mm displacement)
129520 =
2
200000 227900
(KL)
2
KL = 1863.7mm
KL
r
= 102.6 (7% deviation)
102
Buckling of L100x100x7 angle bar member
Member properties (Based on values from ROBOT):
L100x100x7 L = 3000mm
A = 1366mm
2
I
v
= 531100mm
4
r
v
=
_
531100
1366
= 19.718mm
I
x
= 1282000mm
4
r
x
=
_
1282000
1366
= 30.6mm
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models in both ends:
Effective slenderness ratio as per TIA-G:
weak axis:
L
r
v
= 152
KL
r
= 46.2+0.615 152 = 139.8 (curve 6)
parallel axis:
L
r
x
= 97.9
KL
r
= 97.9 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
F
cr
= 186.25kN (5mm displacement)
186250 =
2
200000 531100
(KL)
2
KL = 2372.5mm
KL
r
= 120.32 (16.2% deviation)
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
F
cr
= 309kN (7mm displacement)
309000 =
2
200000 1282000
(KL)
2
KL = 2861.7mm
KL
r
= 93.4 (5% deviation)
Model with RX and RY rotational stiffness models at one end:
Effective slenderness ratio as per TIA-G:
weak axis:
L
r
v
= 152
KL
r
= 28.6+0.762 152 = 144.5 (curve 5)
parallel axis:
L
r
x
= 97.9
KL
r
= 97.9 (curve 1)
Weak axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
F
cr
= 148.13kN (5mm displacement)
148130 =
2
200000 531100
(KL)
2
103
KL = 2660.3mm
KL
r
= 134.9 (7% deviation)
Parallel axis buckling in ROBOT non-linear analysis:
F
cr
= 286.75kN (3mm displacement)
286750 =
2
200000 1282000
(KL)
2
KL = 2970.7mm
KL
r
= 97.1 (0.8% deviation)
105
E Abaqus type joint.
107
E.1 Layout drawing
109
E.2 Material hardening curves
Hardening curves
Introduction:
The following hardening curves are based on the work by 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
V. Mise stress () [MPa] 356,00 360,00 460,00 560,00 620,00 740,00 946,00
Plastic strain (
pl
) [-] 0 0,014 0,039 0,106 0,2 0,8 3
Ultimate material strength
Calculation Value Unit Parameter
(
7
-
6
)/(
7
-
6
) 93,64 MPa/(mm/mm) a
7
- (
7
* a) 665,09 MPa b
- 1,11 (mm/mm)
ult
(
ult
* a) + b 769,03 MPa
ult
Hardening curve, incl. ultimate strength
Notes:
1) Curve is extrapolated beyond the ultimate strength in order be able to interpolate a solution at ultimate strength.
2) Ultimate strength is marked red om hardening curve
Description
Curve slope between last data point (6 - before failure) and extrapolated point (7)
Meassured strain at failure
Ultimate strength
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
V
.
M
i
s
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
[
M
p
a
]
Plastic strain [-]
Plastic hardening curve: S355 structural steel
Structural steel S355
Bolts Grade 10.9
Hardening data:
Data point 1 2 3 4 5
V. Mise stress () [MPa] 1071,00 1215,90 1243,00 1350,00 0,00
Plastic strain (
pl
) [-] 0 0,061 0,087 0,5 4
Ultimate material strength
Calculation Value Unit Parameter
(
7
-
6
)/(
7
-
6
) -385,71 MPa/(mm/mm) a
7
- (
7
* a) 1542,86 MPa b
- 0,8257 (mm/mm)
ult
(
ult
* a) + b 1224,37 MPa
ult
Hardening curve, incl. ultimate strength
Notes:
1) Curve is extrapolated beyond the ultimate strength in order be able to interpolate a solution at ultimate strength.
2) Ultimate strength is marked red om hardening curve
Curve slope between last data point (6 - before failure) and extrapolated point (7)
Meassured strain at failure
Ultimate strength
Description
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 1 2 3 4 5
V
.
M
i
s
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
[
M
p
a
]
Plastic strain [-]
Plastic hardening curve: Grade 10.9 bolts
Bolts Grade 10.9
110
111
E.3 Stress discontinuities in convergence model
Introduction
In the following the discontinuities in the axially loaded type joint convergence model
is investigated. Only the discontinuities of the V. Mise stress in the model is investi-
gated.
Discontinuities:
(a) Discontinuities in angle bar with probed nodes (the neglected areas, primarily corners, are remove for remaining
discontinuities to be clearly visible)
(b) Discontinuities in bolt with probed nodes
Figure 39: Stress discontinuities in convergence FEM-model
112
Node V. Mise stress
[MPa]
V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
8329 439.6 619.6 141%
6895 450.3 578.1 128%
1124 315.1 332.5 106%
11092 545.0 180.5 33%
350 300.2 171.0 57%
(a) V. Mise stress discontinuities in angle bar
Node V. Mise stress
[MPa]
V. Mise stress
(Discontinuity)
[MPa]
Discontinuity
percentage of total
stress [%]
5710 370.6 246.9 67%
764 463.8 197.7 43%
106 682.4 274.0 40%
(b) V. Mise stress discontinuities in bolt
Table 15: Probed V. Mise stress discontinuities in nodes selected from contour plots compared
with actual stress values.
113
F Digital Documentation
The DVD in this Appendix contains soft-copies of relevant documents and FEM-
models used throughout this project as well as some of the results hereof. Not all
the mentioned FEM-models are included, since some models with great similarities
(e.g. simple release or material modications etc.) was reused to limit the amount
of models. Each of the below subsections provide a complete list of les and short
descriptions.
F.1 Documents
The following documents are contained in the attached DVD:
Report No.10-052.pdf - The Main report (this document)
AppendixReport No.10-052.pdf - The Appendix Report containing further docu-
mentation on the project work
Joint stiffness results.xlsx - Results from the joint stiffness analysis by application
of FEM
Material hardening.xlsx - Material hardening data for S355 structural steel and
grade 10.9 bolts, by Dick-Nielsen et.al. [7]
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 modied to consider either: Elastic,
Perfect-Plastic or Plastic with hardening. The current les all contain result les
on a run with one of the materialproperties. If result are required for a different material
property the model must be recomputed.
Folder directories are given in bold below:
Axial load (215GPa) - Axially loaded type joint
Axial load (215GPa) conv. - Axially loaded type joint for convergence testing
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-les given
in bold):
TESTS:
Buckling L (parallel axis)
Simple buckling parallel axis prole
Buckling L (main axis) and
Buckling L (main axis) mid-support
Simple buckling main axis prole
Buckling L modiedbeam and
Buckling L modiedbeam mid-support
Simpel buckling of modied beam element model
Buckling L modiedbeam convergence
Convergence in buckling of modied beam element model
114
Complex_Buck_total release,
Complex_Buck_w.1 release and
Complex_Buck_w.o release
Complex buckling models with various releases
Buckling_LP_offset Lr 102 and
Buckling_LP_offset Lr 204
Non-linear offset analysis ROBOT denition
Buckling_LP_manuel offset
Non-linear offset analysis manual denition
Nonlinear transverse load
Non-linear transverse loaded beam
Nonlinear RX in weak
Non-linear spring released beam
Analysis:
Basic model-releases-nal and
Basic model-releases-nal 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