2014 In-Plane Buckling and Semi-Rigid Joints of Tubular High Strength Steel Trusses PDF

i
LI HAAKANA
IN-PLANE BUCKLING AND SEMI-RIGID JOINTS OF TUBULAR
HIGH STRENGTH STEEL TRUSSES
Master of Science Thesis
Examiner: Professor Markku

Heinisuo
Examiner and topic approved by the
Council of the Faculty of Business
and Built Environment on 07 May
2014
ABSTRACT
TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Masters Degree Programme in Civil Engineering
HAAKANA, LI: In-Plane Buckling and Semi-Rigid Joints of Tubular High
Strength Steel Trusses
Master of Science Thesis, 94 pages, 67 Appendix pages
August 2014
Major: Structural Design
Examiner: Professor Markku Heinisuo
Keywords: Buckling, tubular, truss, girder, hollow section, semi-rigid
This Master of Science thesis investigates buckling of hollow section members in
tubular trusses. The existing codes and instructions do not take into account several
factors that have been indicated to affect buckling lengths in tubular trusses.
Furthermore, the existing formulae give -in many cases- buckling length factors that are
excessively conservative or even underestimated results. Thus, buckling length of the
bracing and chord members is investigated. The emphasis is on the in-plane buckling of
K-joints. The influence of dimensional properties of truss members to the joint stiffness
is examined.
In general, obtaining buckling length is simple in the cases of fully rigid or hinged
connections. Since braces are usually welded to the chords in steel girders, the
connections can be semi-rigid. This makes the calculation of buckling challenging,
because the stiffness of the connection needs to be determined. In this thesis, the the
joint stiffness is determined by FE-modeling.
Recently a research has been conducted for development of new formulae for
calculation of buckling length factors. The aim of this thesis is to confirm a wider
applicability range for the new formulae by comparison of factors obtained with the
new formulae and FE modeling. The models are validated and verified, after which joint
stiffnesses of new joints are derived. The validation is done with high strength steel,
grade S500, joints. In some cases, the weld sizes are also determined using high strength
steels. Buckling length factors are analytically calculated with the obtained joint
stiffnesses.
ii
TIIVISTELM
TAMPEREEN TEKNILLINEN YLIOPISTO
Rakennustekniikan koulutusohjelma
HAAKANA, LI: Korkealujuusterksisten putkiristikoiden puolijykt liitokset ja
tasossa nurjahtaminen
Diplomity, 94 sivua, 67 liitesivua
Elokuu 2014
Paine: Rakennesuunnittelu
Tarkastaja: professori Markku Heinisuo
Avainsanat: Nurjahtaminen, ristikko, putki, puolijykk
Tm diplomity tutkii nurjahdusilmit terksisiss putkiristikoissa. Putkiristikon
uumasauvojen ja paarteiden nurjahdusta tutkitaan, sill nykyisin kytss olevat
suunnitteluohjeet ja -koodit eivt ota huomioon monia tekijit, joilla on osoitettu
olevan vaikutusta nurjahdukseen. Useissa tapauksissa ne mys antavat joko
huomattavan ylimitoitettuja tai jopa epvarmalla puolella olevia nurjahduspituuksia.
Tyss keskitytn erityisesti K-liitosten uumasauvojen nurjahtamiseen tasossa, ja
ksitelln rakenneosien dimensioiden vaikutusta liitosten jykkyyteen.
Jotta sauvan nurjahduspituus voitaisiin laskea, tulee sen piden liitosjykkyydet
tuntea. Nurjahduspituuden laskeminen on yksinkertaista tapauksissa, joissa liitokset
ovat joko tysin jykki tai nivelellisi. Tersrakenteisten putkipalkkien liitokset ovat
yleens hitsiliitoksia, jotka voivat olla puolijykki. Puolijykkien liitosten sauvojen
nurjahduspituuksien laskenta on haasteellista, koska liitoksen jykkyyden
mrittminen on monimutkaista. Tss tyss liitosten jykkyyksi tutkitaan FEM mallinnusta hydynten.
Hiljattain on tehty tutkimus, jossa on kehitetty uusia kaavoja putkiristikoiden
rakenneosien nurjahduspituuden kertoimien laskemiseen. Tyss selvitetn niden
uusien kaavojen pitvyys ja mahdollinen ptevyysalue vertailemalla FEM-mallinnuksen
avulla saatuja kertoimia uusilla kaavoilla laskettuihin kertoimiin. Mallit validoidaan ja
verifioidaan, mink jlkeen voidaan mallintaa vapaasti valittujen liitoskombinaatioiden
liitosjykkyyksi. Validoinnissa kytetn korkealujuuksisia S500- luokan liitoksia.
Mys hitsien mitat mritetn kyttmll korkealujuuksisia poikkileikkauksia.
Saatujen liitosjykkyyksien avulla lasketaan analyyttisesti nurjahduspituuden kertoimia.
iii
PREFACE
I would like to thank the supervisor of this Master of Science Thesis Professor Markku
Heinisuo from Tampere University of Technology for great guidance. For practical help
in the progress of the research, I would like to thank also Teemu Tiainen and Timo
Jokinen from Tampere University of Technology. I thank Niko Tuominen from
Lappeenranta University of Technology for cooperation in validation process. Finally I
would like to thank Ilkka Lehtinen and Ilkka Sorsa from Ruukki Construction for
providing me the opportunity to make a contribution to this interesting subject.
25.08.2014, Tampere
li Haakana
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Phenomenon of buckling ............................................................................... 2
1.2 Buckling behavior in lattice girders................................................................ 3
1.3 Investigation of buckling ............................................................................... 4
Literature review ................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Factors influencing buckling length ............................................................... 5
2.1.1 Influence of factors and ............................................................... 5
2.1.2 Influence of lateral supports .............................................................. 6
2.2 Studies on the influence of sectional dimensions ............................................ 9
2.3 Comparing FE results of Fekete to the Eurocode and CIDECT ...................... 9
Numerical investigation of Boel .......................................................................... 13
3.1 Defining connection stiffness ....................................................................... 14
3.1.1 In-plane rotational stiffness of the connection ................................. 15
3.1.2 Out-of-plane rotational stiffness of the connection .......................... 17
3.1.3 Torsional stiffness of the connection ............................................... 20
3.1.4 Axial stiffness of the connection ..................................................... 21
3.2 Beam-element model ................................................................................... 23
3.2.1 Deflection and stability ................................................................... 23
3.2.2 Connection stiffness ........................................................................ 25
3.2.3 Geometrical verification ................................................................. 27
3.3 Parameter study ........................................................................................... 29
3.3.1 Section combinations and length of the girder ................................. 29
3.3.2 Supports and section types .............................................................. 30
3.3.3 Interpretation of buckling shapes .................................................... 31
3.3.4 Influence of changes in and ....................................................... 32
3.3.5 Final comparison and testing ........................................................... 33
New formulae of Boel ......................................................................................... 35
4.1 Buckling of braces ....................................................................................... 35
4.1.1 In-plane buckling of bracing members ............................................ 35
4.1.2 Out-of-plane buckling of bracing members ..................................... 37
4.1.3 Summary of bracing members ........................................................ 38
4.2 Buckling of chord ........................................................................................ 39
4.2.1 In-plane buckling of chord .............................................................. 39
4.2.2 Out-of-plane buckling of chord ....................................................... 41
4.2.3 Summary of chord members ........................................................... 42
4.3 Range of applicability .................................................................................. 43
Research methods................................................................................................ 45
Results ................................................................................................................ 48
6.1 Validation of the Abaqus model................................................................... 48
6.1.1 Analysis method in Abaqus............................................................. 49
7.
8.
6.1.2 Modeling of hollow section members ............................................. 49

6.1.3 Modeling of welds .......................................................................... 54
6.1.4 Joint no. 1 ....................................................................................... 55
6.1.5 Joint no. 2 ....................................................................................... 60
6.1.6 Selection of the material model ....................................................... 62
6.2 Verification with the results of Boel and deriving of analytical beam-models
62
6.3 Abaqus analyses varying ........................................................................... 67
6.3.1 Joint 1A .......................................................................................... 69
6.3.2 Joint 1B .......................................................................................... 72
6.3.3 Joint 1C .......................................................................................... 74
6.3.4 Joint 2A .......................................................................................... 75
6.3.5 Joint 2B .......................................................................................... 77
6.3.6 Joint 2C .......................................................................................... 78
6.3.7 Joint 3............................................................................................. 81
6.3.8 Summary of rotational stiffnesses of joints 1A-3 ............................. 82
6.4 Analytical deriving of buckling length factor ............................................... 83
6.4.1 Buckling length factor comparison of joints 1A, 1B and 1C ............ 85
6.4.2 Buckling length factor comparison of joints 2A, 2B and 2C ............ 86
6.4.3 Buckling length factor comparison of joint 3 .................................. 87
6.4.4 Summary of buckling length factor for braces of trusses with identical
chords 87
6.4.5 Buckling length factor comparison of braces of a joint with unidentical chords ........................................................................................... 88
6.4.6 Buckling length factors of chords.................................................... 89
Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................ 90
Recommendations ............................................................................................... 92
vi
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
HSS
FE
FEM
Abaqus
SHS
RHS
CHS
CFSHS
CFRHS
CFCHS
CIDECT
LC
K
L
Lcr
Pcr
EI
b0
d0
h0
t0
b1
d1
h1
t1
k
Ctor
Cin
Cout
Hollow structural section

Finite element
Finite Element Method
Software suite for finite element analysis by SIMULIA Abaqus FEA
Square hollow section
Rectangular hollow section
Circular hollow section
Cold formed square hollow section
Cold formed rectangular hollow section
Cold formed circular hollow section
Comit International pour le Dveloppement et lEtude de la
Construction Tubulaire
Load case
Buckling length factor
System length
Buckling length
Buckling load or critical load
Flexural stiffness
External width of a square chord member
Diameter of a circular chord member
External height of a rectangular chord member
Wall thickness of a chord member
External width of a square bracing member
Diameter of a circular bracing member
External height of a rectangular bracing member
Wall thickness of a bracing member
The ratio of the width or diameter of the bracing member to that of the
chord
The ratio of the outer width or diameter of the chord to two times its wall
thickness
Axial stiffness
Torsional stiffness
In-plane rotational stiffness
Out-of-plane rotational stiffness
1. INTRODUCTION
Currently buckling length factors and formulae of Eurocode (EN 1993-1-8) and
CIDECT (Comit International pour le Dveloppement et lEtude de la Construction
Tubulaire) are utilized to design lattice girders in Europe as well as in other parts of the
world. However, these codes and instructions do not take into account several factors
that have been indicated to affect buckling of the hollow section members in lattice
girders. Thus, excessively conservative or even unsafe buckling length factors are
provided in many cases.
The literature review of this thesis summarizes Master of Science Thesis Buckling
Length Factors of Hollow Section Members in Lattice Girders of Harm Boel (2010)
and introduces other relevant references. Important factors that are not taken into
account in current codes are highlighted and the numerical investigation of Boel (2010)
for developing better formulae for calculation of buckling length factors is introduced.
Due to the fact that the results of Boel (2010) are based only on FE-study and no
corresponding experimental study (of K-joints), a study with results obtained from
actual experiments is necessary. In this thesis, a recently conducted experimental study
(Tuominen & Bjrk, 2014) is utilized for validation of new FE-models. The fact that the
formulae developed by Boel are applicable for only a restricted range of symmetrical Kjoints (with identical brace sections and parallel identical chords) suggests that
applicability should be attempted to extend. Thus, in this thesis models are developed
for calculating buckling lengths for a wider range of K-joints (see Figure 1.1) of tubular
trusses. Verification of analytical models is conducted utilizing FE-models that are
validated with the results of experimental study.
Figure 1.1 On the left K-joint and on the right T-joint (EN 1993-1-8 p.102).
The aim is to optimize the design of hollow section truss members towards better
approximation of buckling length factors. The thesis of Boel (2010) resulted in new
2
formulae, applicable for a wider range of values of factor 1. The formulae take both
and 2 factors into account and they give more accurate buckling length factors than
CIDECT or Eurocode. Ideally, the buckling length factors will be obtained for yet a
wider range of joint combinations and geometries: trusses with un-identical chords, unidentical braces as well as un-identical angles between braces and chords. Buckling
length factors are desired for regular steel and high strength steel. The buckling length
factors shall be less conservative, but still safe. More accurate buckling length factors
will lead to more efficient utilization of tubular trusses.
In this thesis, the phenomenon of buckling is introduced first. The factors are also
introduced that are of interest in order to study buckling of lattice girders. General
literature review is presented in Chapter 2, followed by numerical investigation of Boel
in Chapter 3, review of the results of Boel is presented in Chapter 4, the research
methods of this study are presented in Chapter 5, in Chapter 6 the reports as well as the
results are presented. Finally Chapter 7 concludes the thesis and recommendations are
given in Chapter 8.
1.1 Phenomenon of buckling

Buckling is a phenomenon that occurs when the compressive axial force in a member is
so high that the member cannot resist the axial force in combination with lateral
deflection. Therefore, the member loses its stable equilibrium. The axial load that needs
to be applied to a member -in order for it to buckle- is called the buckling load. When a
load equal to the buckling load is applied to a member it can either start buckling or stay
in un-deformed shape.
Effective length or buckling length describes a members ability to resist loading
before it starts to buckle. Buckling length Lcr is generally calculated by multiplying the
buckling length factor K by the system length L of the buckling member, as follows:
Lcr
K L.
(1.1)
The smaller the buckling length is the more the member can resist loading. In general,
the buckling load or the critical load Pcr of a member is calculated as follows:
2
Pcr
EI
2
cr
(1.2)
where EI is the flexural stiffness of the member (Boel 2010, p.14).

In lattice girders the system length of a brace is determined as the distance between
joints. However, it is not unambiguous. It can be defined as the distance between the
intersections of the center lines of the chords and the extensions of the center line of the
brace. It can also be the distance between the physical points where the brace is welded
to the chord or anything between these two (Figure 1.2).
is the ratio of the width or diameter of the bracing member to that of the chord, introduced in Ch. 2.
is the ratio of the outer width or diameter of the chord to two times its wall thickness, introduced in
Ch. 2.
Figure 1.2 System length of a brace (Boel, 2010 p.8).

For members with hinged or fully rigid ends, buckling length factor and thus
buckling length as well as buckling load are relatively easy to calculate with such
formulae as Eulers formula. For the most common of these cases, the buckling shapes
are shown in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3 Buckling shapes, respective loads and effective lengths (Lovett, 2008).
There are multiple sources available providing buckling length factors or formulae
to calculate the factors in defined end conditions. In this study, buckling length factors
and formulae of Eurocode and CIDECT are quoted.
1.2 Buckling behavior in lattice girders

This thesis investigates buckling of lattice girders. Boel (2010, p.30) has named the
factors that affect the buckling behavior of the members in lattice girders: axial, flexural
and rotational stiffness of the members; geometry of the girder; lateral supports and
their flexural as well as axial stiffness; load cases and stiffness of the connections. In
steel girders, the connections are usually welded, and welded connections can be rigid
or semi-rigid. The stiffnesses of semi-rigid connections are not known accurately.
Buckling can occur in girders in both chords and braces and as in-plane or out-of-plane
buckling.
Lattice girders have substantial in-plane buckling resistance. This resistance of a
truss originates primarily from the stiffness of the chords, but also the stiffness and the
4
number of braces, and the connection stiffness between these. It is not dependent on
lateral supports, unless the supports (purlins) are fixed to the chord rotationally.
Out-of-plane buckling of a chord is influenced by lateral support. Out-of-plane
buckling of braces is determined by the rotational stiffness of the chord and the possible
lateral support that is provided to the chord. (Boel 2010, p. 29-33.) The factors of inplane and out-of-plane buckling are examined further in Chapter 2.
1.3 Investigation of buckling

The effects of many factors on buckling length are still not known and not taken into
account in the existing codes and regulations. However, previous studies have shown
that some of these unexplored factors have significant effect on buckling length factors.
This thesis focuses on practical problems of welded tubular trusses with semi-rigid
gap joints. Boel (2010) has kept the dimensions of structures realistic, the structures
simple and symmetric. Girders have been modelled with beam-elements and stiffness of
semi-rigid joints has been modelled by elastic rotational springs as presented in Figure
1.4. Boel (2010) concludes that translational springs are not needed in welded tubular
joints (see Chapter 3.1).
Figure 1.4 Outline of a joint in beam-element model (Boel, 2010 p.127).

In order to calculate buckling lengths of the members of a lattice girder, certain
simplifications need to be made. In linear buckling analysis the loading is typically
assumed to be centrical, material to be homogeneous, isotropic and elastic, and
deflections to be small. Maximum compressive strength is not taken into account.
In reality the loads are not absolutely centric and material is not perfectly isotropic
nor elastic. The geometrical imperfections, eccentricity and increasing deflection can
cause the axial loading resistance to decrease. To take the above-mentioned
imperfections as well as yielding into account, non-linear calculations need to be
performed.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The starting point for this research is Master of Science thesis of Harm Boel (2010).
Thus, the factors that were found to be relevant by Boel (2010) are introduced first.
2.1 Factors influencing buckling length

2.1.1
Influence of factors
and
Parameter
is interesting to investigate because the design guides give different
buckling length factors independent of the factor . The factor is the ratio of the width
or diameter of the bracing member to that of the chord. For T, Y and X-joints the
Eurocode (1993-1-8) provides equation
b
d 1 d1
;
(2.1)
or 1 ,
b0
d 0 b0
and for K and N-joints
d 1 d 2 d1 d 2
b
;
or 1
2d 0
2b0
b2 h1
4b0
h2
(2.2)
where b0 is the external width of a square chord member, b1 and b2 are those of square
bracing members, d0 is the outer diameter of a circular chord member, d1 and d2 are
those of circular bracing members and h1 and h2 are the external heights of rectangular
bracing members. For symmetric K-joints (with identical braces), can be calculated
with equation (2.1). Dimensional symbols of rectangular (RHS), square (SHS) and
circular (CHS) hollow sections are presented in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Dimension symbols of hollow sections (from left: RHS, SHS, CHS).
6
For bracing members whose is smaller than 0.6 CIDECT Design Guide no. 2
(Rondal et al., 1992 p.41) gives a table for determining the buckling length factor (Table
2.1). The table can be used for CHS or SHS bracing members welded to the chords
along the full perimeter length (without cropping or flattening of the ends of the
member) only. In Table 2.1 buckling length Lcr is presented as lb and system length L is
presented as l.
Table 2.1 Buckling length of bracing members in a lattice girder (Rondal et al., 1992
p.41).
Boel (2010) proposes that for RHS chord members b0 should be replaced by h0 (the
external height of a rectangular chord member) in case h0 < b0, for RHS bracing
members b1 should be replaced by h1 in case h1 > b1. If lower and upper chords are not
identical, Boel (2010) recommends calculating buckling length, based on the rotational
stiffness, at both ends of the brace and to utilize the higher value obtained.
Because the chord wall thickness t0 has been found to have substantial effect on the
joint stiffness and flexural stiffness, parameter is also of interest. It is the ratio of the
outer width or diameter of the chord to two times its wall thickness:
b0
d
or 0 .
(2.3)
2t0
2t 0
2.1.2
Influence of lateral supports
In most familiar case the roof of a building is supported by purlins that transfer the
loading to lattice girders. The purlins provide also lateral support to the upper chord of a
girder. In this case, the upper chord is under compression and the lower chord is under
tension (it does not require lateral support). The Eurocode (1993-1-1, Annex BB.1.3)
recommends the following buckling lengths for laterally supported lattice girders:
- The buckling length Lcr of a hollow section chord member may be taken as 0.9
L for both in-plane and out-of-plane buckling, where L is the system length for
7
the relevant plane. The in-plane system length is the distance between the joints.
The out-of-plane system length is the distance between the lateral supports,
unless a smaller value is justified by analysis.
- For latticed girders with parallel chords and braces, for which the brace to
chord diameter or width ratio
is less than 0.6 the buckling length Lcr of a
hollow section brace member without cropping or flattening, welded around
its perimeter to hollow section chords, may generally be taken as 0.75 L for both
in-plane and out-of-plane buckling, unless smaller values may be justified by
tests or by calculations.
Furthermore, the Finnish national annex (1993-1-1-AC) 3 releases the boundaries of the
range of and the shape of the truss:
- The buckling length Lcr of a hollow section brace member without cropping or
flattening, welded around its perimeter to hollow section chords, may be
generally taken as 0.75 L for both in-plane and out-of-plane buckling.
Lower buckling lengths may be used based on testing or calculations.
However, the exact definition of the system length of braces is not given in the
Eurocode.
In contrast, in case of a lightweight roof wind can create an uplift loading which
makes the bottom chord the compression chord, and the upper chord the tensile chord. If
in this case the bottom chord is not supported laterally, the girder must be taken as
laterally unsupported. For laterally unsupported compression chords the buckling length
factor depends on the loading of the chord, the torsional stiffness of the girder, the
bending stiffness of the purlins and the purlin to girder joints. It is pointed out that
calculation of buckling length factor in such case is complicated. For commonly
encountered cases design charts have been presented in CIDECT Monograph no. 4 by
Mouty (1980). In reference to Mouty (1980) and CIDECT (1984), buckling length
factor of 0.32 times the chord length is given by Rondal et al. (1992) for the example
represented in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 Lateral buckling of laterally unsupported chord (Rondal et al., 1992).
Upper and lower chord of a girder can be laterally supported at the same time (two
examples are illustrated in Figure 2.3). Galambos and Xykis (1990) have studied the
3
Available: http://eurocodes.fi/1993/1993-1-1/SFS-EN1993-1-1-AC.pdf
8
effect of lateral support to the buckling length of chord members. Boel has summarized
the observations of Galambos and Xykis:
- The support conditions at the ends of the bridging do not affect the buckling
capacity appreciably;
- The flexural stiffness of the bridging members has a significant effect on the
buckling load;
- The buckling load is only slightly reduced if only the top chord is braced;
- The analysis slightly underestimated the experimental buckling load, which was
conducted with a fully rigid brace permitting only vertical movement of the joist
at that location;
- The Euler buckling load for the top chord alone is somewhat above that
computed by FE analysis, but somewhat below the test load;
- The two finite element analyses give comparably close results in overlapping
cases;
- Based on analytical approach, there is little difference between the two- and the
three-joist systems if horizontal bridging is used, but the difference becomes
significant if the bridging is diagonal and;
- Diagonal bridging is more effective in increasing the buckling load than
horizontal bridging. (Boel 2010, p. 43-44)
Figure 2.3 Laterally supported girders Galambos and Xykis (1990).

Later on Galambos has assembled a guide to stability design criteria for metal
structures (Galambos, T.V., 1998 (pp 579-586, 787-801)). In the guide Galambos gives
buckling length factors for in-plane buckling of chords and a formula for calculating
out-of-plane buckling length factor (Boel, 2010 p. 44):
P
(2.4)
K 0.75 0.25 1 ,
P2
where P1 is the highest compression force in the chord between the lateral supports and
P2 is the lowest compression force in the chord between the lateral supports.
For laterally unsupported compressive chord Galambos (1998) has provided several
methods and formulae to calculate the out-of-plane buckling length. Boel (2010, p. 45-
9
47) has described three methods given by Galambos (1998) to obtain a certain buckling
load of the chord.
In general, for braces of K-joints Galambos gives the same formula (2.4) to
calculate buckling length factor of a brace that is given to a chord (where only P2 needs
to be adjusted as negative). For out-of-plane buckling of a bracing member under dead
loading Galambos proposes the buckling length factor of 1, unless detailed knowledge
is available to support greater stiffness.
2.2 Studies on the influence of sectional dimensions

Chen et al. (1993, ch.7) have compiled results of previous studies on Vierendeel
moment joints of RHS chord to RHS brace. In the book, it is recapitulated that the
strength and the flexural stiffness of unstiffened joint decrease as the chord slenderness
ratio (b0 / t0) increases and as decreases. Chen et al. (1993) quote that Korol et al.
(1977) have found that the type of weld has little effect on any aspect of the joint
behavior.
Korol, M. and Mirza, A. (1982) have written a paper on FE-analysis of RHS Tjoints. Boel focused on the issues of the elastic behavior of the unreinforced joints. In
the paper, Korol and Mirza have elected and t0 as the most important geometrical
parameters that affect buckling length.
Hornung, U. and Saal, H. (1998/2001) have written a report on method of
calculating the out-of-plane buckling lengths of diagonals of truss girders with hollow
sections and K- or N-joints. Boel concludes that the results of Hornung and Saal
(1998/2001) suggest that the Eurocode is limited for a certain ratio between the
dimensions of brace and chord members. The report also suggests limit for the angle
between the chord and bracing members. Moreover, even little variation of chord and
brace member dimensions or the angle induces uncertainty. In other words, the exact
influences are not clear due to small variations. (see Boel, 2010)
2.3 Comparing FE results of Fekete to the Eurocode and

CIDECT
Fekete, F. (2009) has written Master of Science Thesis on buckling lengths of members
in hollow section steel trusses. The thesis is unpublished 4. Thus, following information
is based on the interpretation of Boel. It must be mentioned, that Boel has utilized this
particular reference extensively.
Fekete has performed a numerical study utilizing shell elements for the numerical
model- to determine buckling lengths of hollow section steel trusses5. The core of the
study has been to determine buckling mode and load for each combination given and to
obtain buckling length factors for the members.
4
5
According to Boel (2010, p. 185).

Details of constructing of the shell-element model are available in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 60-61.
10
The basic geometry of the girder that Fekete has utilized is presented in Figure 2.4.
Boel has adopted many of properties utilized by Fekete, including:
- lower chord is unsupported
- upper chord is vertically supported at its ends
- joints are always with a gap and
- the number of lateral supports of the upper chord has been varied, but the
supports are placed in the middle of the upper face of the upper chord, above the
intersection between two adjacent braces.
Figure 2.4 Geometry of the lattice girder in thesis of Fekete (2009) (Boel, 2010 p. 59).
Boel points out that Fekete found that the number of lateral supports had significant
influence on only the out-of-plane buckling of the chord member. Furthermore, Fekete
found that the smaller the dimensions of the brace are the more the brace is supported
by the chord.
Boel has compared the buckling length factors of the chords obtained by Fekete to
those given by Eurocode (see beginning of Chapter 2). Obtained buckling length factors
of Fekete indicate that in most cases the buckling length factor provided by the
Eurocode is safe. In the case6 of = 0.5 Eurocode gives unsafe factors. (Figure 2.5)
Figure 2.5 Buckling length factor for chord (R stands for RHS and C for CHS) (Boel,
2010 p. 62).
In the study of Fekete (2009) = 0.5 when the width/diameter of the brace is of 100 mm, since the
width/diameter of the chord is constantly 200 mm.
11
For in- and out-of-plane buckling of the braces Eurocode gives buckling length
factor of 0.75 multiplied by system length between the joints. CIDECT gives formulas
to calculate the in- and out-of-plane buckling length factors for brace members (when
< 0.6). Buckling length factor comparison of the results of Fekete, Eurocode and
CIDECT for RHS braces to RHS chord is presented in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6 Buckling length factor for brace (RHS-RHS joint) (Boel, 2010 p. 63).
Buckling length factor comparison of the results of Fekete, Eurocode and CIDECT for
CHS braces to RHS chord is presented in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.7 Buckling length factor for brace (CHS-RHS joint) (Boel, 2010 p. 64).
Buckling length factor comparison of the results of Fekete, Eurocode and CIDECT for
CHS braces to CHS chord is presented in Figure 2.8.
12
Figure 2.8 Buckling length factor for brace (CHS-CHS joint) (Boel, 2010 p. 65).
It is concluded that CIDECT gives almost only unsafe results for the in- and out-ofplane buckling length factors of the braces.
13
3. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF BOEL
The aim of Boel has been to investigate buckling behavior with the use of beam-element
model. In order to generate beam-element model7, the connection properties were
determined by shell-element model of the joint (Figure 3.1). In order to verify obtained
buckling modes and eigenvalues, Boel has utilized a full shell-element developed by
Fekete (2009).
In Chapter 3.1, it is described how Boel has determined the connection stiffness of
the K-joint that will be applied to the beam-element lattice girder, which is investigated
in the parametric study8. In Chapter 3.2, construction of an initial beam-element model
with the obtained connection stiffnesses is described. Boel questioned and studied
further the influence of all of the obtained connection properties. Furthermore, the inand out-of-plane behavior of the beam-element model was compared to the behavior of
a corresponding shell-element model. Boel verified the choice of obtained connection
properties by setting boundaries and testing the behavior on different joint
combinations.
In order to keep the structure simple the trusses were symmetric 9 and realistic
dimensions were chosen to the models following recommendations given by the
Eurocode.
Figure 3.1 A beam-element and shell-element model of a K-joint (Boel, 2010).

There was inconsistency in the use of abbreviation RHS and SHS in Boels numerical
investigation. Therefore, it is presumed that further all mentioned rectangular hollow
Boel refers to ANSYS in multiple occasions (including p. 9 of his thesis), thus it is presumed that the
analyses is conducted with the use of ANSYS.
8
In the thesis of Boel (2010) parametric study is in chapter 7.
9
That is, the adjacent braces are in same position (angle) and of same length and size.
14
sections (RHS) that had given only one side dimension - apart from wall thickness stated in abbreviation stand for square hollow sections (SHS).
3.1 Defining connection stiffness

Boel determined connection stiffness with a (partial) shell-element model for several
section combinations10. Elastic rotational and translational springs were utilized to
represent the connections in the beam-element model.
According to Figure 3.2, four elastic springs11 were used to represent the connection
stiffness properties of four degrees of freedom: translation in local y-direction (symbol
k), torsion (rotation about y-axis, symbol Ctor), in-plane rotation (about z-axis, symbol
Cin), out-of-plane rotation (about x-axis, symbol Cout). The two remaining degrees of
freedom -translation in x- and z-direction- were eliminated.
Figure 3.2 The springs representing the four degrees of freedom (Boel, 2010 p. 74).
The springs were placed to the connection node C presented in the outline of beamelement model in Figure 3.1. The location was chosen from a comparison conducted by
comparing in-plane connection stiffness with three optional system lengths of a brace of
an example case (Boel, 2010 p. 78-79). As a result, the precise location of the
connection was chosen to be at the intersection of the surface of the chord and the
system line of the brace. This location gives boundaries to the system length of the
brace members and the chord members (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3 System lengths of brace and chord members (Boel, 2010 p. 129).
10
11
Section combinations are chosen according to the combinations utilized by Fekete (2009).
Nodes i and j (in Figure 3.2) have same coordinates, thus the springs are dimensionless.
15
Boel has utilized FE- Modeling program ANSYS.12 Departing from reality, the
corners of SHS members were modeled without rounding. Furthermore, the joints were
modeled without welds. A force (or moment) load was applied to a node at the end of
the brace (in the middle of the cross-section as illustrated in Figure 3.4), in order to
apply axial stress to the shell-element. The node is connected to the shell-element by
rigid beams.
Figure 3.4 FE-Model of Boel (2010, p. 74).

The load applied to a brace causes deformation on the surface of the chord, thus in
K-joint, the other brace is also affected and vice versa. Therefore, analyzing K-joint
Boel has considered following load cases of Figure 3.5. It can be noted that Boel
presents the deformation of the vertical displacements of the brace with continuous
supports.
Figure 3.5 Load cases in K-joint (Boel, 2010 p. 76).

Hereafter the load cases of in-plane buckling are referred to as LCin1, LCin2 and
LCin3.
3.1.1
In-plane rotational stiffness of the connection
In order to calculate the in-plane rotational stiffness Cin, deflection needs to be obtained
from a FE-model. Therefore, the above-mentioned load cases of Figure 3.5 were
12
Boel has not stated this clearly, but element names such as SHELL181 are known in ANSYS.
16
modeled13 for various combinations of section sizes and brace lengths (chosen
according to Fekete). The chord is prohibited from rotation and translation. The chord
was employed with the section of SHS200/6.3 and the length Lchord was 1000 mm. The
angle between the chord and each of the braces (Figure 3.6) remained 56 degrees in
all combinations, it is presumed to be 56 degrees until other value for angle is given.
The length of a brace Lbrace and the gap length g (Figure 3.6) between two adjacent
braces varied due to the changing of the dimensions of the sections. The stiffnesses
obtained by Boel are rewritten in Table 3.1. The load case of one brace in Table 3.1 was
presumed to be same as LCin1 (Figure 3.5) without the unloaded brace.
Figure 3.6 Dimension symbols of the K-joint (Boel, 2010 p. 76).

Table 3.1 Average in-plane rotational stiffness (Cin) obtained by FE analysis14.
In order to verify the reliability of obtained deflections and utilized calculations,

Boel has explored previous research about Vierendeel joints (T-joints, see Figure 1.1).
In order to compare the obtained results with previous studies, Boel has generated new
results for the given Vierendeel joint combinations. First comparison was executed
reflecting with the FE-analysis of Korol and Mirza (1982), presented in Table 3.2. Boel
quotes that Korol and Mirza assumed the influence of the wall thickness of the brace to
be nil.
13
14
See details from the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 75-76.

Original table available in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 77.
17
Table 3.2 Comparison of in-plane rotational stiffness obtained by FE analysis of Boel
(Author) and Korol and Mirza (1982) (Boel, 2010 p. 86).
The second comparison was executed reflecting with the experimental results of
Kanatani et al. (1986) 15 and it is presented in Table 3.3. The in-plane rotational stiffness
of Kanatani et al. (1986) and Boel differ so significantly that Boel has attempted
graphical iteration of the results. No notable resemblance was achieved.16
Table 3.3 Comparison of in-plane rotational stiffness obtained by FE analysis of Boel
(Author) and experimental results (Chen) Kanatani et al. (1986)(Boel, 2010 p.
87).
Moreover, Boel has reflected the results to in-plane rotational stiffness generated with a
formula by Wardenier (1982) and moment-curvature curves by Vegte (1995), not
achieving notable resemblance (Boel, 2010 p. 87-88).
3.1.2
Out-of-plane rotational stiffness of the connection
In order to obtain the out-of-plane connection stiffness Cout Boel (2010) has obtained
deflections from the end of the brace from shell-element models of the load cases
below. Furthermore, Boel has compared the obtained deflections to the results obtained
utilizing the respective formulae. Simplified load case of the situation is presented in
Figure 3.7.
15
16
See the book by Chen et al. (1993), p. 182-183.

Details can be found in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 87-88.
18
Figure 3.7 Simple brace to chord connection (Boel, 2010 p. 80)17.

Formulae for calculating deflection in z-direction of point A can be found in Master
thesis of Harm Boel (2010, equation no. 6.6.). Analyzing out-of-plane buckling in Kjoint Boel has considered following load cases:
- load case LCout1 (Figure 3.8), respective formulae can be found in Master thesis
of Boel (2010, equations no. 6.7., 6.8., and 6.9.),
- load case LCout2 (Figure 3.9), respective formulae can be found in Master thesis
of Boel (2010, equations no. 6.10., and 6.11.) and
- load case LCout3 (Figure 3.10), respective formulae can be found in Master
thesis of Boel (2010, equations no. 6.12., and 6.13.).
Figure 3.8 Out-of-plane load case no. 1 (LCout1) (Boel, 2010 p. 81)18.
17
18
The ux on the left-hand side is presumed to be uy.

19
The results obtained by Boel are rewritten in Table 3.4. It is presumed that the
results are averages of five different bracing lengths as for in-plane rotational stiffness.
Table 3.4 Rewritten average out-of-plane rotational stiffness (Cout)21.
In order to verify the reliability of obtained results, Boel has explored previous
studies (that have investigated Vierendeel joints, not K-joints). Vegte (1995) gives
moment-curvature curves for out-of-plane stiffnesses for joints (with a CHS406.4 chord
19

21
Original table is available in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 83.
20
20
and the braces in Table 3.5). Boel has obtained the elastic/initial stiffnesses from the
graphs by drawing a line with the same gradient.
For 0.33
0.8 and 20 d0 / t0 60 Wardenier (1982) gives following formula
for calculating the out-of-plane stiffness (Boel, 2010 p. 89):
C out
d
0.0016 E 0
2
215 135
2t 0
d0
2.45 1. 6
0.02
(3.1)
The stiffnesses have been calculated also with above-mentioned formula and obtained
by FE-analysis to the joint combinations of Vegte. Boel has reflected the FE-results to
out-of-plane rotational stiffness generated with a formula by Wardenier (1982) and
moment-curvature curves by Vegte (1995) in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Comparison of out-of-plane rotational stiffnesses obtained by FE analysis of
Boel (Author), calculations with the theory of Wardenier and experiments of Vegte
(Boel, 2010 p.88).
It can be concluded, that for < 1 the experimental results of Vegete (1995) correspond
well to those of Boel (2010).
3.1.3
Torsional stiffness of the connection
In order to obtain torsional connection stiffness Ctor for each load case Boel has utilized
the same models for determining the rotation of the end of the brace as for the out-ofplane deflection in the previous chapter. Likewise, the respective equations below were
utilized. Moment loading was changed to torsional moment load and the equations were
remodeled. Outline of the FE-model is presented in Figure 3.11.
21
Figure 3.11 Outline of FE-model, torsional moment applied to connection (Boel, 2010
p. 84).
Formulae to calculate the rotation x;A in the end of brace (point A, see Figure 3.7)
for load case LC1 was given (Boel, 2010 p. 84):
x; A
MLbr
GJ br
M ( Lch g )
2GJ ch
M (3 g 2 L2ch )
12 EI ch Lch
M
,
C tor
(3.2)
where subscription ch indicates the chord and br bracing member, M is the applied
moment, G is the shear modulus and J is the St. Venants torsion constant of the section
of the indicated member. Formulae for load case LC2 was given (Boel, 2010 p. 84)
MLbr M ( Lch g )
Mg
M
.
(3.3)
x; A
GJ br
GJ ch
2 EI ch C
Formulae for load case LC3 was given (Corrected replacing u by ; Boel, 2010 p. 85):
x; A
MLbr
GJ br
M (3 g 2 3 gLch
6 EI ch Lch
L2ch )
M
.
C
(3.4)
In determination of torsional stiffness the chord was employed with the section of
SHS200/6.3. The angle between chord and brace was 56 degrees. The system length
of the brace Lbrace was taken to be varied (500/700/900/1100/1300), since Boel did not
provide the information. The obtained torsional stiffness is presented in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Average torsional stiffnesses (Ctor) obtained by Boel (2010, p. 85).
Concerning verifying the reliability, Boel has not found any points of comparison
from literature of previous studies. Thus, it is uncertain whether the method is reliable
or not.
3.1.4
Axial stiffness of the connection
In order to obtain the axial connection stiffness k an axial force was applied to a node at
the end of the brace in the shell-model. The displacement of the end of the brace -
22
resulting from deflection- was obtained from the shell-element model. It is provided that
the chord is prohibited from translation in x- and y-direction and rotation about the zaxis along the length of the chord, in the middle of the section as shown in Figure 3.12.
Figure 3.12 Outline of FE-model, axial load applying to connection (Boel, 2010 p. 85).
Boel has utilized following equations to calculate the axial stiffness of the
connection (2010, p. 86):
FLbr
(3.5)
u con u FEM
EAbr
k
F
,
u con
(3.6)
where ucon is the displacement due to deformation of the connection, uFEM is the
displacement of the end of the brace, from FE-analysis, F is the applied force, E is
Youngs modulus and A is the section area of the indicated member. Utilizing the
equations Boel has obtained axial stiffness k equal to 82 248 N/mm for a connection of
a SHS200/6.3 chord and a SHS100/6.3 brace (with of 56 degrees).
The method was utilized to obtain results for the Vierendeel joint combinations that
Korol and Mirza (1982) have utilized in their FE-analysis study of axial stiffness. The
comparison executed reflecting to the FE-analysis of Korol and Mirza (1982) is
presented in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7 Comparison of axial stiffness (k) obtained by Boel (FEM) and Korol and
Mirza (1982) (Boel, 2010 p. 90).
The table shows that for most cases Boel (2010) has obtained considerably smaller
results than those of Korol and Mirza (1982).
23
3.2 Beam-element model

In order to assemble initial beam-element model Boel has chosen the sections of
SHS200/6.3 for the chords and SHS100/6.3 for the braces. The chosen stiffnesses and
employed parameters are presented in Table 3.8. In addition to the listed parameters,
Boel gave symbol grb (= 256 mm) for the distance between rigid beams of the
connection. Boel did not mention the angle he applied in the models between the chord
and the braces. Therefore, presumption is made that the angle between brace and chord
is constantly 56 degrees as in Chapter 3.1.1. The geometry of the lattice girder is shown
in Figure 3.13.
Table 3.8 Parameters for initial beam-element22.
Figure 3.13 Geometry of lattice girder used in comparison of beam- and shell-element
(Boel, 2010 p. 92).
Boel utilized the initial beam-element FE-model to compare obtained effects to the
respective effects obtained from a shell-element FE-model. For contrasting a full shellelement developed in a previous study (Fekete, 2009) was used. First effect
investigated, was force distribution. Boel obtained that the axial force distribution in the
two FE-models differed less than 0.5% (Boel, 2010 p. 92), thus this was not examined
any further. Other comparisons are presented in following sub-chapters of 3.2.
3.2.1
Deflection and stability
Boel has obtained in-plane deflection of both beam-element and shell-element model.
The in-plane deflection of the beam-element was up to 13.17% greater than the
deflection obtained from shell-element (at u1). Several explanations for the difference
were proposed (Boel, 2010 p. 93-94). For example, changing in-plane rotational
stiffness from 239 kNm/rad to 290 kNm/rad essentially nullified the difference. In shellelement, the end conditions of the girder define connection stiffness, and it can be seen
22
The original data are available in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 91.
24
from Figure 3.13 that the end conditions of u1 are different from u2, u3 and u4. However,
in beam-model the stiffness of the connection at u1 is presumed to be identical to the
stiffness of u2 to u4. Boel presented many other simplifications that might have led to
the obtained difference.
In order to compare results of out-of-plane deflection, the FE-models were loaded
with force loads that are perpendicular to the plane on the lower chord. A total of 1 N
per joint was distributed to every node of the upper and lower face of the section of the
lower chord. The distribution of force is shown in Figure 3.14. Results were obtained
from both FE-models in locations u5 to u12 (Figure 3.15). The results obtained from
beam-element analysis were less than 2% smaller than the respective deflections
obtained from shell-element, thus it was not examined any further.
Figure 3.14 Out-of-plane loading, whole chord on left and forces in detail on the right
(Boel, 2010 p. 94).
Figure 3.15 Deflection locations (Modified; Boel, 2010 p. 93).

For comparison of in-plane stability of the beam-element and the shell-element
model, Boel has conducted eight reference analyses of eigenvalues and buckling shapes
(p. 95-97). The greatest difference in eigenvalues obtained was 3.37%. Furthermore,
Boel has conducted comparison of eigenvalues with seven optional connection variants
of beam-element (Figure 3.16).
25
Figure 3.16 Connection variants (thicker lines indicate rigid parts) (Boel, 2010 p. 98).
In some cases, variant 5 gave significantly deviating results, thus it was eliminated
from the comparison. Variants 3b and 4 were considered useless since the rotation of the
connection occurred mainly due to deformation of the face of the chord. Variants 2 and
3a -where the chord between rigid beams was also taken as rigid- were eliminated since
Boel expected too stiff behaving for these connections in case of a large gap between
braces. The formulas to determine torsional and out-of-plane stiffness are not applicable
for variant 3c, thus it was eliminated from the comparison. Boel ended up with only one
valid variant, variant 1 which gave also the best results (that is, the smallest differences
compared to shell-element).
For comparison of out-of-plane stability of the beam-element and the shell-element
model, Boel has conducted ten reference analyses of eigenvalues and buckling shapes23.
The greatest difference in eigenvalues obtained was 3.46%, for some of the cases
buckling shape did not occur. However, this was not investigated any further.
3.2.2
Connection stiffness
Boel has tested the influence of each connection stiffness parameter (k, Ctor, Cin, Cout) to
the buckling shape and eigenvalue of the whole girder. The axial stiffness was
demonstrated to have so minor effect on the in-plane buckling loads (Table 3.9.) that if
counted as fully rigid the changes in eigenvalues were next to nothing. Similarly, the
torsional stiffness had so minor effect on the out-of-plane buckling loads that it could be
counted as fully rigid. As a result, in further analysis Boel decided to assume that the
axial and torsional stiffness are fully rigid.
23
The analyses can be found in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 100-102.
26
Table 3.9 Influence of axial and torsional stiffness (Boel, 2010 p. 103).
Boel claims that the in-plane and out-of-plane rotational stiffnesses affect the
eigenvalue significantly. The alteration of eigenvalue for brace B2 only was
investigated, within the same girder as described in the beginning of Chapter 3.2. Even
though in-plane and out-of-plane rotational stiffness did not affect the buckling behavior
of one another, only one parameter is changed at a time. In other words, when the effect
of Cin was investigated Cout was set at 1000 kNm/rad and vice versa. Results obtained
are presented in Table 3.10.
Table 3.10 Influence of in-plane and out-of-plane stiffness (Boel, 2010 p. 104).
27
It can be concluded that both in-plane and out-of-plane rotational stiffness do have
considerable influence on the buckling load.
3.2.3
Geometrical verification
As only one combination of cross-sections was used to compare results of the beamelement and shell-element model, the theory needs to be tested also on different
combinations. In verification Boel changes the brace sections and the gap between the
braces. Boel did not comment the angle between brace and chord, so it is presumed that
the angle remains 56 degrees.
In order to investigate in-plane buckling, first the lowest obtained in-plane rotational
stiffness (LCin3) was chosen from Table 3.1. The obtained buckling shapes of beamelement and shell-element model were similar in every case and the difference in
eigenvalues obtained was at the maximum 3.77%. In contrast, when calculated with inplane rotational stiffness of LCin1, the differences were up to 9.09%. This indicates that
the lowest stiffness shall be used always.
Influence of the gap size between two braces was investigated with a connection of
a SHS200/6.3 chord and a SHS100/6.3 brace. The chord length was 2000 mm and brace
length was varied 500-1300 mm. For LCin1 varying of the gap did not affect the inplane rotational stiffness considerably, for LCin2 the stiffness decreased as the gap
grew, whereas for LCin3 the stiffness increased as the gap grew. Boel has studied the
buckling shapes and eigenvalues of both shell-element and beam-element models for
the case of a minor gap of 15 mm, taking into account the adjustment in the in-plane
rotational stiffness. 24 The comparison showed that the stiffness obtained by LCin1 gave
the best results. This lead to a contradiction, because in the latter paragraph the
respective lowest value of LCin was utilized. Nevertheless, Boel decided to use LCin1
for obtaining in-plane rotational stiffness, because the connections with small gaps are
used more commonly.
In order to obtain eigenvalues and out-of-plane buckling shapes from the beamelement model, combinations of SHS200/6.3 chords and SHS50/6.3, SHS150/6.3 as
well as SHS200/6.3 braces were used. The results were compared to the results of
Fekete (2009), and LCout1 was discovered to be the most neutral. The obtained
eigenvalues of the beam-element model differed mostly on the safe side (max.0.53% on
the unsafe side).
To confirm that the generated beam-element could be used for buckling analyses,
rotational stiffness needed to be determined. Due to practice Boel decided to take
boundary conditions (3.7) for the gap between braces (two identical braces) of Kconnection:
g
(3.7)
2
8,
t1
24
See details in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 106-107.
28
where t1 is the wall thickness of the brace. In addition, the geometry of the lattice girder
was presented (Figure 3.17). Rotational stiffness for given cases of different connection
combinations are shown in Table 3.11.
Figure 3.17 Geometry of lattice girder (Boel, 2010 p. 108).

Table 3.11 Rewritten rotational stiffness of given connections25.
Boel has studied the in-plane stability of the connection combinations presented in
Table 3.11 with a beam-element model and a shell-element model. In both of the models
the dimensions of the girder in Figure 3.17 were used. In order to study in-plane
stability Boel has obtained in-plane eigenvalues of certain members of the girder with
shell-element model and with beam-element model to each connection combination.
Furthermore, the eigenvalues of beam-element model were calculated for all loading
cases of rotational stiffness (presented in Table 3.11). The results showed that the best
resemblance was achieved with the average in-plane stiffness of all of the LCs, but the
25
Original tables available in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 108-109.
29
results of LCin1 were hardly any different, and due to simplicity Boel chose the latter
variant.
For out-of-plain stability study same comparison was conducted as for in-plane
stability. The results showed that the only acceptable resemblance was achieved with the
average out-of-plane stiffness of all of the LCs.
3.3 Parameter study

The basis of parametrical study of Boel is explained in Chapters 3.1 and 3.2. The actual
buckling analysis was conducted with three alternative geometries of lattice girders
introduced in Figure 3.18.
Figure 3.18 Geometries of lattice girders (Boel, 2010 p.142).

The angle between the chord and a brace was kept approximately constant, 44 to 46
degrees. As in previous chapters, the wall thickness of the chord and dimensions of the
braces were varied. The combination of sections was specified in each case, but the joint
types were SHS chords to SHS braces, SHS chords to CHS braces and CHS chords to
CHS braces.
3.3.1
Section combinations and length of the girder
Connection stiffness input for beam-element model was determined with partial shellelement model, similarly as in Chapter 3.1.
The length of the chord in the partial model has been taken as 2000 mm. 26 The
moment applied to the end(s) of the brace(s) has been 109 Nmm. Due to shell-element
26
This is contrary to the 1000 mm mentioned in Chapter 3.1.
30
modeling problems the gap between braces was enlarged -in the connections where the
minimum gap according to the Eurocode is 8 mm or 10 mm to 12.6 mm. Also due to
modeling problems the combination of SHS200/16 chord and SHS200/12.5 braces was
not investigated27.
Influence of the length of the lattice girder was studied according to the alternative
geometries of Figure 3.18. Since in most cases Boel observed no consistent difference,
he has presumed that the length of the lattice girder did not influence the buckling
length factors. (Boel, 2010 p. 142-143)
3.3.2
Supports and section types
The left end of the girder was restrained from translation in x-, y- and z-direction and
from rotation about x-axis. The right end was restrained from translation in y- and zdirection and from rotation about x-axis. There were lateral supports at every joint of
the upper chord that restrain the upper chord from translation in z-direction. A point
load of 1N was applied to each of the above-mentioned joints.
Axial and torsional stiffness of joints between braces and ch1ords were assumed
fully rigid as explained in Chapter 3.2.2. Thus, only two connection stiffnesses (in- and
out-of-plane rotational stiffness) remain to be modeled with rotational springs in the
beam-element model. As explained in Chapter 3.2.3 the load case LCin1 was utilized
for obtaining in-plane rotational stiffness. For out-of-plane rotational stiffness, the three
load cases presented in Figures 3.8 to 3.10 were calculated and the average of the three
loading cases (LCout1, LCout2 and LCout3) was used as described in Chapter 3.2.4.
The section type combination (SHS-SHS/SHS-CHS/CHS-CHS) appeared to have
influence on the rotational stiffness of the joint (see Tables 3.12 and 3.13).
Table 3.12 An example of in-plane rotational stiffness of different connections,
t0=10mm (Boel, 2010 p. 125).
27
All section combinations used in the parameter study of Boel are presented tables 7-1 and 7-2 in the
thesis of Boel (2010, p. 119-120). The connections of SHS-SHS combinations are illustrated in Figure 710 in the thesis of Boel (2010, p. 122).
31
Table 3.13 An example of out-of-plane rotational stiffness of different connections, t0 =
10mm (Correction Cin=>Cout; Boel, 2010 p. 126).
3.3.3
Interpretation of buckling shapes
In the interpretation of buckling shapes, Boel has had situations where there were two
different options for attributing an eigenvalue to a buckling shape. In other words, for
example, in some situations where a chord of a lattice girder buckled out-of-plane, brace
members might also have buckled or the deformed shapes might have resembled
buckling due to bending only.
An example was given, presented in Figure 3.19, where it was not clear whether
brace B2 buckled or bended due to the buckling of the chord. Nevertheless, Boel stated
that from a higher value buckling shape of the situation (Figure 3.20), it was clear that
buckling of the brace had occurred.
Figure 3.19 Left: end view, right: top view (Boel, 2010 p.129).
Figure 3.20 Left: end view, right: top view (Boel, 2010 p. 130).
32
In similar cases of doubt, Boel had chosen consistently the lower buckling shape which
gave safer buckling factor. In general the out-of-plane buckling did occur before the inplane buckling, which resulted in higher buckling length factors for out-of-plane
buckling (Boel, 2010 p.139).
Influence of the number of lateral supports was investigated by conducting the FEanalyses without lateral supports. Only the results of out-of-plane buckling were
compared 28. In out-of-plane buckling of the brace members, large differences occurred
incidentally, but no consistency was found. In out-of-plane buckling of the chord it
appeared that for small values of (< 0.25) the buckling of braces had initiated the
buckling of chords thus making a girder less effective than a single beam (Boel, 2010
p.145-146).
3.3.4
Influence of changes in
and
According to Boel (2010) increase in the value of means for the brace members
increasing and for the chord member decreasing of buckling length factor. For larger
values (>0.6) of (in both in- and out-of-plane buckling of the chords) the buckling
length factor of the chord decreases linearly. The relationship is briefly demonstrated in
Table 3.14.
Table 3.14 Effects of increase in the value of . 29
Increasing beta from 1 to 2
Flexural stiffness of the chord
Flexural stiffness of the brace
Flexural stiffness
Joint stiffness
In- and Out-of-plane buckling length factor of the braces
In- and Out-of-plane buckling length factor of the chord
EIc1
EIb1
EIc1
C1
Kb1
Kc1
<
=
<
<
<<
<
>
EIc2
EIb2
EIb2
C2
Kb2
Kc2
Effects of changes in are investigated further with new joints modelled for this thesis.
Decrease in the wall thickness of the chord means for the brace members increasing
and for the chord member decreasing of buckling length factor. Boel explained that
conversely increasing wall thickness of the chord increases flexural stiffness of the
chord and connection stiffness. Making the connection more rigid, the buckling length
factor of the braces decreases. In both in- and out-of-plane buckling of the chords
increase of the chord wall thickness initiates only a slight increase in the buckling length
factor of the chord. The effects are shown in Table 3.15.
28
29
Since out-of-plane stiffness is found not to affect the in-plane buckling behavior.
More specific demonstration in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 136-139.
33
Table 3.15 Effects of increase in the chord wall thickness.
Increasing the chord wall thickness from t01 to t02
Gamma
Flexural stiffness of the chord
Joint stiffness
In- and Out-of-plane buckling length factor of the braces
In- and Out-of-plane buckling length factor of the chord
3.3.5
t01
1
EIc1
C1
Kb1
Kc1
<
>
<
<
>
(<)
t02
2
EIc2
C2
Kb2
Kc2
Final comparison and testing
In order to verify obtained results of buckling length analyses, Boel has performed
Geometric Non-linear Imperfect Analysis (GNIA) 30 and Geometric and Material Nonlinear Imperfect Analysis (GMNIA) 31. The result32 showed that the eigenvalue found by
Boel was correct and that the calculation of the ultimate load of members according to
the Eurocode is consistent with the ultimate load found by FE-analysis.
In order to confirm that the influence of to the buckling length factor has been
rendered correctly Boel has conducted comparison between scaling section
combinations (by factor of 2). In the comparison the geometry was same as described
previously, slenderness and flexural stiffness of the members changed while the value
of (and ) was stable. The results indicated that clearly and are not enough to
determine the connection stiffness (see Tables 3.16 and 3.17).
Table 3.16 Connection stiffness comparison (Boel, 2010 p. 157).
Table 3.17 Buckling length factors comparison (Boel, 2010 p. 157).
Boel proposed that the length of the member or flexural stiffness to length ratio
might be effective to take into account. Also varying the wall thickness of the brace
members has an influence on the connection stiffness and buckling length factor.
However, the difference was not as significant as the effect of scaling of sections.
30
Performed in order to verify the eigenvalues found in beam-element analyses, and conducted with the
same model as linear buckling analyses.
31
Performed in order to test whether the limit load of a member in a lattice girder can be calculated by
using the found buckling length factor and the calculation method of the .
32
Details of performing these analyses can be found in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 147-156.
34
According to Boel, the Eurocode gives safe approximation for the in-plane buckling
length factor of the chord and the approximation is only slightly unsafe in out-of-plane
buckling for small values of (< 0.6). For both in- and out-of-plane buckling of a brace
member the Eurocode gave good approximation for other but large values 33 of (> 0.6).
However, CIDECT gives notably unsafe buckling length factors for both in- and out-ofplane buckling34 (even smaller factor is given than for rigid connections).
Boel has compared obtained results of buckling length factors to Dutch code
(NEN6771) in which a distinction is made in the combination of section types (2010, p.
140-141). The distinction appears to be incorrect in the case of the FE-results obtained
by Boel.
33
34
Especially when combined with larger the buckling length factors are unsafe.
The results are presented in appendix III of the thesis of Boel (2010).
35
4. NEW FORMULAE OF BOEL
The aim of Boel (2010) was to develop better formulae for approximation of the
buckling length factors, for the cases that the existing codes and guidelines do not
provide it. In previous chapters, it is described how Boel has indicated unreliability of
the Eurocode, the old Dutch code and CIDECT. The conclusion is that CIDECT
formulae give good approximation even outside the range of their given applicability,
but for low values of and large values of they give often unsafe factors. Boel has
utilized the parts of CIDECT formulae that provide good approximation and the results
of his FE-analysis.
4.1 Buckling of braces

CIDECT design guide no. 2 (Rondal et al., 1992 p. 41) gives formulae35 to calculate the
buckling length factor of brace members for SHS-SHS connections:
K
Lcr
L
b12
2. 3
Lbr b0
0.25
b b
2. 3 1 1
b0 Lbr
0.25
2.3
b1
Lbr
0.25
(4.1)
This formulae is utilized by Boel in the process of developing new formulas.

4.1.1
In-plane buckling of bracing members
For SHS-SHS connections Boel has altered the formula (4.1) by changing the power of
0.25 to 0.14 and taking the deduction of into account. Boel has also included the
absolute minimum of buckling length factor in the new formula 36 (4.2):
K
Lcr
L
1.05 0.025
b1
Lbr
0. 14
0.5 .
(4.2)
The results are compared to the FE results in Table 4.1.
35
36
The derivation is presented in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 159.

Boel gives the formula without boundary condition ( 0.5), but it is stated in the description.
36
Table 4.1 In-plane buckling length factors of brace (SHS-SHS) (Boel, 2010 p.162)37.
For CHS-SHS connections Boel has adjusted the formula (4.2) into equation (4.3):
K
Lcr
L
d1
Lbr
0.95 0.03
0. 14
0. 5 .
(4.3)

Table 4.2 In-plane buckling length factors of brace (CHS-SHS) (Boel, 2010 p.163)38.
For CHS-CHS connections Boel stated that the buckling length factor seems to
increase exponentially when increases linearly. Therefore, the formula has been
adjusted into equation (4.4):
Lcr
L
2.5
d1
Lbr
0.5 1.00 .
37
38
Author (8.3) stands for new formula (4.2) by Boel.

(4.4)
37
Table 4.3 In-plane buckling length factors of brace (CHS-CHS) (Boel, 2010 p. 164)39.
Out-of-plane buckling of bracing members
4.1.2
For all of the out-of-plane buckling of the brace members Boel stated that the buckling
length factor seems to increase exponentially. For SHS-SHS connections Boel has
adjusted the formula into equation (4.5):
Lcr
L
b1
Lbr
3 1.2
0.55 1.00 .
(4.5)

Table 4.4 Out-of-plane buckling length factors of brace (SHS-SHS)(Boel, 2010 p.
165)40.
For CHS-SHS connections Boel has adjusted the formula (4.5) into equation (4.6) 41:
Lcr
L
1.2
d1
Lbr
0.55 1.00 .
(4.6)
The results are compared to the FE results in Table 4.5. They seem not to be very good
for larger values of but it is mentioned by Boel that in this study the intrest is the
effects of smaller values of , thus the formula is not adjusted further.
39

NF (8.9) stands for new formula (4.5).
41
Boel gives this formula also with a factor of (3+1.2 ) instead of the factor of (1.2 ), but it is verified by
calculating that the results of respective table (Boel, 2010 p. 166) are obtained with the factor of (1.2 ).
40
38
Table 4.5 Out-of-plane buckling length factors of brace (CHS-SHS)(Boel, 2010 p.
166)42.
For CHS-CHS connections the formula has been adjusted into equation (4.7):
Lcr
L
d1
Lbr
0.55 1.00 .
(4.7)

Table 4.6 Out-of-plane buckling length factor of brace (CHS-CHS)(Boel, 2010 p.
167)43.
4.1.3
Summary of bracing members
Boel has combined the developed formulae into a single formula for bracing members:
K
Lcr
L
A B
d1
Lbr
D ,
where the buckling length factor is given the range of 0.5

B, C and D are given in Table 4.7.
42
43

(4.8)
K
1.0 and the values for A,
39
Table 4.7 Constants to determine buckling length factors of braces (Boel, 2010 p.175).
Comparison of buckling length factors of the brace members by the Eurocode, CIDECT
and FE-analyses of Boel are presented in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 Comparison of brace buckling length factors)(Boel, 2010 p.177).

It can be deduced that the formulae developed by Boel gave much more accurate results
than the Eurocode or CIDECT.
4.2 Buckling of chord

The new formulae developed by Boel are introduced in the following sub-chapters.
4.2.1
In-plane buckling of chord
The Eurocode gives safe approximation for the buckling length factor of the chord (0.9),
but it could be reduced for larger values of (> 0.6). For both SHS-SHS and CHS-CHS
connections Boel gives a formula (4.9) for the buckling length factor. The results are
compared to the FE results in Table 4.8 and 4.9. The new formula is:
40
Lcr
L
1.25 0.6
0.90 .
(4.9)
Table 4.8 In-plane buckling length factors of chord (SHS-SHS) (Boel, 2010 p.168)44.
Table 4.9 In-plane buckling length factors of chord (CHS-CHS) (Boel, 2010 p.169)45.
For connections of CHS braces connected to a SHS chord Boel has adjusted the
formula into equation (4.10). The results are compared to the FE results in Table 4.10.
The new formula is:
Lcr
K
(4.10)
1.17 0.45
0. 9 .
L
Table 4.10 In-plane buckling length factors of chord (CHS-SHS, Author is Boel)
(Boel, 2010 p.170)46.
44

46
45
41
4.2.2
Out-of-plane buckling of chord
For all of the formulae for out-of-plane buckling of the chord Boel has adjusted the
previous formulae given for in-plane buckling. For SHS-SHS and CHS-CHS
connections Boel has utilized the equation (4.10). The results are compared to the FE
results in Table 4.11 and 4.12.
Table 4.11 Out-of-plane buckling length factors of chord (SHS-SHS) (Boel, 2010
p.171)47.
Table 4.12 Out-of-plane buckling length factors of chord (CHS-CHS) (Boel, 2010
p.172)48.
For connections of CHS braces connected to a SHS chord Boel has adjusted the
formula into equation (4.11). The results are compared to the FE results in Table 4.13.
The new formula49 is:
Lcr
K
(4.11)
1.05 0.25
0.9 .
L
47

49
Boel gives this formula also with a factor of 1.105 (on p. 175: equation (8.30) and p.176:factor of Table
8-17) instead of the factor of 1.05, but it is verified by calculating that the results of respective table
(Boel, 2010 p. 173) are obtained with the factor of 1.05.
48
42
Table 4.13 Out-of-plane buckling length factors of chord (CHS-SHS) (Boel, 2010
p.173)50.
4.2.3
Summary of chord members
Boel has combined the developed formulae into one formula for chord members:
Lcr
K
E F ,
(4.12)
L
where the buckling length factor is given the range of K 0.9 and the values for E and F
are given in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14 Constants to determine buckling length factors of chord (Boel, 2010 p.176).
Comparison of buckling length factors of the chord by Eurocode and FE-analyses of

Boel are presented in Figure 4.2.
50
43
Figure 4.2 Comparison of chord buckling length factors (Author is Boel) (Boel, 2010
p.178).
It can be deduced that the formulae developed by Boel give much more accurate results
than the Eurocode.
4.3 Range of applicability

The formulae developed by Boel have specific boundary conditions:
- the symmetrical geometry of Figure 3.18;
o all braces are of same hollow section,
o both chords have same hollow section,
o the aspect ratio (length/height) of the girder must be approximately 10,
o the angle between a brace and the chord is same in all joints, 40
5051 and
o the gap between braces must be close to the minimum gap determined by
the Eurocode
- both ends of the girder are forked and restrained from translation (vertical and
lateral), one end is also restrained from horizontal translation;
- there are lateral supports at each joint on the upper (compressed) chord and the
load is applied as shown in Figure 3.18;
- the slenderness of the used circular or square hollow sections must apply for the
beam-theory.
Furthermore, the scale of the dimensions (as and remain unchanged) needs to be
considered, since it has major effect on the in- and out-of-plane rotational stiffness and
thus on the buckling length factors (see chapter 3.3.5.).
51
In the Discussion chapter of Boels thesis (2010, p.181) the limits are set 40
that angle of 56 is utilized throughout th thesis
50, despite the fact
44
The new formulae are applicable only for lattice girders with symmetric K-joints
and members with square or circular hollow sections. The applicable combinations of
section types are SHS chords and SHS braces; SHS chords and CHS braces; CHS
chords and CHS braces.
In this study, certain limitations are tackled to enlarge the scope of the interesting
research of Boel for more practical cases. Main limitations tackled are identicalness of
braces and identicalness of chords. Urge to utilize the minimum gap determined by the
Eurocode is also eliminated.
45
5. RESEARCH METHODS
Based on the literature review (Chapters 2-4), rotational in-plane stiffness and buckling
of K-joints is studied further. It is aimed to confirm a range of applicability for the
formulae (Equations (4.8) and (4.12)) developed by Boel (2010), and to investigate
whether they are applicable also for K-joints of trusses with un-identical chords and for
joints with un-identical braces.
The actual study is conducted by FE-modelling and analytical calculations. For
validation and verification of the models, previous experimental as well as theoretical
research is utilized respectively as illustrated in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Explanatory sketch of verification and validation of FE-models

(Kwasniewski, 2010).
FE-modelling program Abaqus52 is utilized for studying K-joints numerically and
MatLab53 is utilized for analytical calculations.
52
53
http://www.3ds.com/products-services/simulia/portfolio/abaqus/latest-release/
http://www.mathworks.se/products/matlab/
46
The first step is validating of FE-models. Two finite element models (of solid
elements) are validated with two corresponding recent experiments conducted in
Laboratory of Steel Structures in Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT)
(Tuominen & Bjrk, 2014). Ultimate axial resistance and corresponding deflections of
K- and X-joints54 have been measured in the experimental tests. The dimensional and
material properties of two of the experimental K-joint tests are adopted into a
preliminary FE-model55 in Abaqus. The joints are loaded and restrained simulating the
test setup, presented in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2 Experimental test setup in LUT (Tuominen & Bjrk, 2014).
Deflections are obtained from FE-analysis, and they are contrasted with the numerical
results of the experimental study. For demonstration, one of the tested joints is
presented with a photo of the deformed joint tested in LUT (Figure 5.3) and the
corresponding deformation in Abaqus (Figure 5.4).
54
55
The members of the joints are of high strength steel, S500.

Developed by Timo Jokinen, TTY
47
Figure 5.3 A deformed K-joint after loading in LUT.
Figure 5.4 A deformed K-joint in Abaqus.

One of the validated models is further edited and utilized for verification with two
chosen K-joints of the joints studied by Boel (2010). The dimensional, loading as well
as restraining properties of the joints, of Boel, are adapted to Abaqus models. Maximum
elastic moments (that are undoubtedly elastic) and the corresponding rotations are
obtained and in-plane rotational stiffnesses of both of the joints are derived. The results
are compared with those of Boel.
The validated and verified FE-models are utilized for further analyses of different
connection combinations and geometries of K-joints as well as deriving of beam
models. Results of the analyses are compared to the results obtained with the formulae
of Boel (2010) and enlarging the applicability of buckling length formulae of Boel is
attempted.
48
6. RESULTS
6.1 Validation of the Abaqus model

K-joints of high strength CFRHS members (with nominal strength of 500MPa) have
recently been tested experimentally in Lappeenranta University of Technology56. Two
of the tested joints were used to validate the FE-model for the basis of further numerical
study (see the test setup from Figure 5.2).
In the experiment, pretensioning of 60% of the nominal yielding strength of the
chord (approximately 840 kN) was applied to the chord. During pre-loading, the upper
end of the chord was fixed (restricted in translation in x-, y- and z-directions as well as
in rotation about x-, y- and z-axes) and the bottom end of the chord was restricted in
translation in x-direction as well as rotation about y- and z-axes (see Figure 6.1 for
coordinate systems).
Figure 6.1 Sketch of the coordinate systems.

After pretensioning, the lower/right brace, hereinafter the tensile brace, was loaded
with increasing axial tensile loading until the ultimate strength was achieved and the
56
Tuominen & Bjrk, 2014.
49
joint failed. The tensile brace could rotate and translate in local z-direction,
perpendicularly to its cross-section. The upper/left brace, hereinafter the compression
brace, also had a hinge at its end so that it could rotate around the hinge, but it was
restricted from translation in all directions. After pretensioning, the whole joint can
rotate around the Hinge 1 of Figure 5.2. The ends of braces and chords are kept together
with a special rounded steel frame allowing elongation of the tension brace and
supporting axial displacement of the compression brace. By these means rather accurate
tension/compression loads can be transmitted to the braces.
In order to keep modeling simple, such section combinations were chosen that the
width of the brace and the surrounding weld fit on the flat surface of the chord, not on
the rounded edges. In other words, the width of a brace (bi) with fillet weld need to be
narrower than the flat width ( b0
2 * r0 )57 of the chord in the cross direction (x-
direction) of the chord.

6.1.1
Analysis method in Abaqus
There were three steps in the analyses of the models: initial, pre-loading and loading
steps. Pretensioning of the chord was applied to the joint in the pre-loading step. After
pretensioning, the boundary conditions changed and axial tension was applied to the
tensile bracing member. The analyses were force controlled, and the load step was
calculated with Static, Riks procedure. Static, General procedure was also tested
with displacement steered analysis, but displacement controlling was found to give
incorrect results.
6.1.2
Modeling of hollow section members
All sections were modeled with round corners, according to EN 10219-258. Meshing of
the truss members was created with solid hexahedral elements (see Figure 6.2 and 6.3).
Figure 6.2 A meshed view of a chord section in Abaqus.

57
58
For 6mm t0 10mm, r0 = 2*t0

External corner radius r0 of a square or rectangular hollow section: if t
10 mm , r0 = 2.5*t, and if t >10 mm r0 = 3.0*t.
6 mm, r0 = 2.0*t, if 6 mm < t
50
Figure 6.3 A meshed view of a chord section in Abaqus, in the joint area.
The measured sectional dimensions of the two joints, chosen to be modeled, were
applied to Abaqus models and four optional material models I-IV were utilized to
compare the results of Abaqus to the tests. The material grade was S500. True stress
true and true strain true of the material were calculated according to following
equations:
true
(1
(6.1)
true
ln(1
),
(6.2)
where is the nominal stress and is the nominal strain and nominal stress refers to the
measured engineering stress59. Nominal stresses (yielding and ultimate stress) and A5
strain were given in material certificate of the tested materials. The material models
were calculated for all sections of the joint members, that is, two different brace sections
(CFSHS80x4 and CFSHS120x4) and one chord section (CFSHS150x5) due the chords
of both joints being of the same cross-section. Material models I-IV of the following
paragraphs were applied to each joint for the FE-analysis. The obtained forcedisplacement figures of the joints were compared with those of measured results in
LUT.
In the initial material model I, an assumption was made that A5 strain corresponds
to the ultimate stress. The calculated curves, excel calculations and input data for
material model I are available in Appendix 1:I. The curve of initial material model of
the chord is shown in Figure 6.4. For the 150x150x5 chord, the measured yield stress y
is 548 MPa, ultimate stress u is 651 MPa and the A5 strain A5 is 0.281.
59
In the following calculations and curves, nominal stress refers to the measured engineering stress, not
to 500 MPa.
51
Figure 6.4 Material model I: stress-strain curve of chord CFSHS150x5.

In order to avoid overestimating, a more conservative, elastic-plastic material model
II was made based on annex C of EN 1993-1-5, based on the linear strain hardening
assumption, see Figure 6.5.
Figure 6.5 Material model II (EN 1993-1-5: Annex C).

The stress corresponding to the A5 strain was assumed to be 0 MPa in material model
II. The calculated curves, excel calculations and input data are available in Appendix
1:II. The material model II for the chord is shown in Figure 6.6.
52
Figure 6.6 Material model II: stress-strain curve of chord CFSHS150x5.

In order to better simulate reality and to use less conservative approximation, the
stress corresponding A5 strain was given the value 0.55* y and more points were also
calculated between y and u as well as u and A5. The calculated curves, excel
calculations and input data are available in Appendix 1:III. The material model III curve
for the chord is shown in Figure 6.7.
Figure 6.7 Material model III: stress-strain curve of chord CFSHS150x5.
53
The fourth material model is intended for elevated temperatures, it was adapted
from EN 1993-1-2 p.21 (see Figure 6.8). The calculated curves, excel calculations and
input data for material model IV are available in Appendix 1:IV. The material model IV
for the chord is shown in Figure 6.9.
Figure 6.8 Material model IV (EN 1993-1-2: Figure 3.1).
54
Figure 6.9 Material model IV: stress-strain curve of chord CFSHS150x5.

All of the material models introduced were used for comparison of the two joints.
The results are presented in Chapters 6.1.4 and 6.1.5.
6.1.3
Modeling of welds
The braces were joined to the chord by fillet welds. The welds around braces were
modeled with the nominal throat thickness used in LUT.
An effort was made to model the welds with as simple elements as possible. In
Abaqus, the cross-sections of fillet welds were modeled with hex-dominated solid
elements. Tthis means that most elements are hexahedral and the welds include wedgeshaped elements where no hexahedral elements fit, see Figure 6.10. Welds were
connected to the joint members by tie constraints with analysis default
discretization. The mesh of the welds was made finer than that of the brace or the chord
and the weld surface was a slave to the brace and chord surfaces. A top view of a
whole weld is presented in Figure 6.11.
55
Figure 6.10 Cut view of the cross section of a weld.
Figure 6.11 View of a weld from the top.

In Abaqus, same material properties were used for the welds as for the brace
members. In case more efficiency is required from the welds, separate material
properties shall be applied.
6.1.4
Joint no. 1
Joint number 1 consisted of a CFSHS150x5 chord (with measured width of 150.13 mm,
wall thickness of 5.15 mm and length of 1270 mm) and two CFSHS80x4 braces (with
measured width of 80.05 mm, wall thickness of 4.15 mm and system length of 406.892
mm). Therefore, parameter = 80/150 = 0.533 The angle between chord and brace
was constant, 60, and the joint was a gap joint with g = 105 mm.
Meshing was created with linear hexahedral C3D8 elements. In the joint area, both
chord and the bracing members had elements in two layers (perpendicularly to the
56
surface). In other regions, the elements were in one layer only (see Figures 6.12, 6.2 and
6.3). Cross-section of the chord comprised of 120 elements in one layer in edge regions
and 240 (since the elements are divided in two layers) in the joint area. Cross-sections
of the braces comprised of 76 elements in one layer in edge regions and 152 in the joint
area.
Figure 6.12 Sketch of K-joint in ABAQUS.

Fillet welds with throat thickness of 6 mm were modeled around both braces. The
cross-section meshing comprised of 4*4 elements as illustrated in Figure 6.13.
Figure 6.13 View of a weld, Abaqus.

In pretensioning step, axial tension load of 840 kN was applied to the chord. In
loading step, axial tension of 840 kN was applied to the chord and axial tension of 500
kN was applied to the tensile brace.
57
As for the boundary conditions, the supports were modeled in the middle of section
(on reference points)60 at the ends of each joint member.
Calculation of displacement was done in accordance with the experiments.
Measurement points (sets) were created on the outer face of the chord (see Figure 6.14).
Figure 6.14 For the intersection of upper face of the chord and the center lines of
braces, reference points were created for making output sets and additional sets for the
corresponding points on the lower face of the chord.
Only vertical (y-direction in Abaqus) displacement is considered. Total displacement of
the compression brace was calculated by subtracting the displacement of set Brace1_lower_face from the corresponding displacement of set Brace-1_upper_face.
Likewise, the displacement of the tensile brace was calculated by subtracting the
displacement of set Brace-2_lower_face from the corresponding displacement of set
Brace-2_upper_face.
Displacement of each brace is presented against the magnitude (sum of x-, y- and z-)
reaction force/ load bearing on the tip of the brace. Comparison of experimental and the
Abaqus results with all of the material models I-IV are presented in the following
Figures 6.15-18:
60
Reference points (RP) with kinematic coupling, because it is assumed that it makes no difference with
hollow section whether kinematic/distributing , see http://imechanica.org/files/l7-connections.pdf p. 4. In
the experiment, the actual hinge is not connected to the chord but behind some apparatus.
58
Reaction Force / Loading [kN]

450
Abaqus results:
U2 in y-direction
CF MAGnitude
RF MAGnitude
400
350
Weld: throat
thickness of
6 mm
300
250
Material:
Model I
200
LUT Compression Brace

LUT Tension Brace
150
Abaqus Tension Brace 2
100
Abaqus Compression Brace 1
50
0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
Displacement [mm]
10
20
Figure 6.15 Force-Displacement curve comparison, LUT and Abaqus (material model
I).
450
Abaqus results:
U2 in y-direction
CF MAGnitude
RF MAGnitude
400
350
Weld: throat
thickness of
6 mm
300
250
Material:
Model II
Elastic-plastic
200
LUT Tension Brace

150
100
50
0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
Displacement [mm]
10
20
II)
59

450
Abaqus results:
U2 in y-direction
CF MAGnitude
RF MAGnitude
400
350
Weld: throat
thickness of
6 mm
300
250
Material:
Model III
Logarithmic
200
LUT Tension Brace

150
100
50
0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
Displacement [mm]
10
20
III).
450
Abaqus results:
U2 in y-direction
CF MAGnitude
RF MAGnitude
400
350
Weld: throat
thickness of
6 mm
300
250
Material:
Model IV
Elevated
temperatures,
EN1993-1-2:
Fig 3.1
200
LUT Tension Brace

150
100
50
0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
Displacement [mm]
10
20
IV).
The results are discussed in chapter 6.1.6.
60
6.1.5
Joint no. 2
Joint number 2 consisted of a CFSHS150x5 chord (with measured width of 150.13 mm,
wall thickness of 5.15 mm and length of 1270 mm) and two CFSHS120x4 braces (with
measured width of 119.85 mm, wall thickness of 4.19 mm and system length of 406.892
mm) Therefore, parameter = 120/150 = 0.8. The angle between chord and brace was
constant, 60, and the joint was a gap joint with g = 45 mm.
Meshing was created with linear hexahedral C3D8 elements in same way as joint
number 1 (see Chapter 6.1.4). In LUT, they have attempted to make the welds of this
joint the critical part of the joint. Fillet welds were modeled around both braces same
way as in joint number 1, but with throat thickness of 3 mm 61. Loading and supports
(boundary conditions) were identical to the joint number 1.
Calculation of displacement was done in accordance with the experiments in the
same way as for joint number 1 (see Chapter 6.1.4) considering only vertical (ydirection in Abaqus) displacement. Displacement of each brace is presented against the
magnitude (sum of x-, y- and z-) reaction force/ load bearing on the tip of the brace.
Comparison of experimental and the Abaqus results with all of the material models I-IV
are presented in following figures 6.19-22:
LUT Tension Brace
600
Abaqus results:
U2 in y-direction
CF MAGnitude
RF MAGnitude
Weld : throat
thickness of 3 mm
500
Material:
Model I

700
400
300
200
100
0
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
Displacement [mm]
10
I).
61
Size of the welds is not in accordance with EC, they are made critical part of joint, and the joint fails
in weld.
61
LUT Tension Brace
Abaqus results:
U2 in y-direction
CF MAGnitude
RF MAGnitude

700
600
Weld : throat
thickness of 3 mm
500
Material:
Model II
Elastic-plastic
with linear strain
hardening
400
300
200
100
0
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
Displacement [mm]
10
II).
LUT Tension Brace

700
600
Abaqus results:
U2 in y-direction
CF MAGnitude
RF MAGnitude
Weld : throat
thickness of 3 mm
Material:
Model III
Logarithmic
500
400
300
200
100
0
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
Displacement [mm]
10
III).
62
LUT Tension Brace
Abaqus results:
U2 in y-direction
CF MAGnitude
RF MAGnitude
Weld : throat
thickness of 3 mm

700
600
Material:
Model IV
Elevated
temperatures,
EN 1993-1-2:
Fig 3.1
500
400
300
200
100
0
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
Displacement [mm]
10
IV).
The results are discussed in chapter 6.1.6.
6.1.6
Selection of the material model
The Force-Displacement curve comparison results of material model I corresponded

relatively well to the experiments. However, it could not be utilized since it was built on
false assumptions. Material model II was very conservative, and it can be seen in ForceDisplacement curve comparisons of both joints (Figures 6.16 and 6.20), that the
maximum force obtained from Abaqus is far from the measured maximum force. Thus,
it is not profitable to utilize material model II either.
Material model III is given in the Eurocode and it is intended for FEM analysis. It is
an improved version of material model II. Furthermore, material model III gave
relatively good results in both Force-Displacement curve comparisons. Material model
IV did not provide significant improvement compared to material model III. Moreover,
it is intended for cases of elevated temperature. Therefore, material model III was
chosen for further analyses in Abaqus.
6.2 Verification with the results of Boel and deriving of

analytical beam-models
The models described in previous chapter were utilized for moment loading analyses
with same material properties as for joint no. 2. Axial tensile loading was replaced by
63
moment loading (of 109 Nmm) and the, previously tensile, brace was released in
translation in local y-direction. Pretension was eliminated.
Boel stated that out of six available degrees of freedom, in-plane and out-of-plane
rotational stiffness were found to be the most significant. Boel also suggested that other
stiffness could be taken as fully rigid. 62 In this thesis, the emphasis is on in-plane
buckling only. Load case LCin1 (the case with a moment on the end of the brace on the
right, see Figure 3.5) was chosen according to Boel for calculating in-plane rotational
stiffness. According to Boel, it should be used preferably with small gaps.
In order to calculate in-plane buckling, rotation was obtained from Abaqus analysis.
Two joints were generated with the dimensions utilized by Boel, each with five different
brace lengths (Boel, 2010 p. 77). All of the joints had the chord section of SHS200x6.3.
The first joint (number 3) had SHS100x6.3 braces and a 135.3 mm gap between two
braces as presented in Figures 6.23 and 6.25:
Figure 6.23 A view of joint number 3.

The length of the chords was constant, 2000 mm, and the lengths of the braces were
500/700/900/1100/1300 mm. The angle between the chord and the braces was 56
degrees. Boel had not modeled round corners or welds, but in Abaqus model these
properties were already generated. Thus, rounding (for wall thickness t = 6.3 mm (6 mm
< t 10 mm) internal corner radius ri = 1.5t and external corner radius ro = 2.5t)63 and a
minimum fillet weld of 3 mm were applied to the joint. The second joint (number 4) is
otherwise identical, but with brace sections of SHS150x6.3 and a gap of 75.2 mm (see
Figure 6.24).
62
63
See Chapter 3.2.2

According to EN 10219-2:2006 Annex B, Chapter B.3
64
Figure 6.24 A view of joint number 4.
Figure 6.25 A deformed view of joint number 3.

The angle of rotation is at the free end of a cantilever beam (Figure 6.26), when
loaded with moment M (Outinen et al., 2007)
ML
.
(6.3)
EI
Figure 6.26 A cantilever beam representing the loaded brace.

Deflection curve of the beam of Figure 6.27, loaded with moment M (Outinen et al.,
2007):
65
vx
ML2
6 EI
b2
3 2
L
x
1
L
x
L
3
x a
L2
(6.4)
where
x a
x a
x a , if x - a
0;
(6.5)
0 , if x - a < 0;
(6.6)
a is the distance from the left end of chord to the intersection of the loaded brace and b
is the distance from the intersection of the loaded brace to the right end of the chord.
Figure 6.27 A beam representing the chord.

Derived angle of rotation, or in other words, the slope of the beam (of Figure 6.27):
v' x
M
b2
3
6 EI
L
3x 2
L
6 x a
(6.7)
At the point of applied moment (x=a)

M
v' a
L2 3a 2 3aL .
(6.8)
3LEI
In Abaqus, the obtained rotation in the end of a brace consists of the rotation of the
brace brace, the rotation of the chord chord and the local deformations related to the
rotational in-plane stiffness Cin. Therefore, the stiffness of the rotational spring
describing local deformations i.e. the in-plane stiffness of the connection:
M
.
(6.9)
C in
FEM
brace
chord
In this case of K-joints, in the in-plane stiffness equation (6.9), brace is substituted by
equation (6.3) and chord is substituted by equation (6.8) as follows:
M
,
(6.10)
C in
ML br
M
2
2
Lch 3a
3aLch
FEM
EI br 3Lch EI ch
where M is the maximum elastic moment observed, E is Youngs modulus, Lbr is the
system length of the brace 64, Lch is the system length of the chord, Ibr is the area moment
of inertia of the brace and Ich is the area moment of inertia of the chord.
In order to identify the impact of welds, the analyses and the calculations were also
conducted without welds. The Abaqus results of the two joints are presented in
Moment-Rotation Figures 6.28 and 6.29, where M1 refers to the brace length of 500
64
See Chapter 3.1 of the thesis at hand or Boel, 2010 p.129.
66
mm, M2 to 700 mm, M3 to 900 mm, M4 to 1100 mm and M5 to 1300 mm. Note the
different scales of moment and rotation in the two figures.
Abaqus results:
UR MAGnitude
CM MAGnitude
<- Without weld Material: Model III
Weld: Throat thickness of 3mm
Moment [kNm]/Rotation [rad] -Figure
25
20
M1 with weld
With weld ->

Moment [kNm]
M1 without weld
15
M2 with weld
M2 without weld
10
M3 with weld
M3 without weld
M4 with weld
M4 without weld
0
0,00
M5 with weld
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
M5 without weld
Rotation [rad]
Figure 6.28 Moment-Rotation -curve of the joint number 3, SHS100x6.3 braces and
SHS200x6.3 chord.
Abaqus results:
UR MAGnitude
CM MAGnitude
Material: Model III
Weld: Throat thickness of 3mm
60
50
Moment [kNm]
<- Without weld

40
M1 with weld
With weld ->
M1 without weld
M2 with weld
30
M2 without weld
M3 with weld
20
M3 without weld
M4 with weld
10
M4 without weld
0
0,00
M5 with weld
0,10
0,20
0,30
M5 without weld
Rotation [rad]
Figure 6.29 Moment-Rotation -curve of the joint number 4, SHS150x6.3 braces and
SHS200x6.3 chord.
67
The analytical calculations were conducted up to the maximum moment, and the
corresponding rotation, that could be taken as elastic. For joint number 3, the rotations
corresponding to a moment of around 5 kNm were utilized in analytical calculations.
For joint number 4, rotations corresponding to a moment of about 15 kNm were utilized
in analytical calculations. In order to find the effect of the welds the same joints were
analyzed without welds. When analyzed without welds, the rotational in-plane
sitffnesses obtained were 31-41% smaller than those of the joints with welds. The
results showed also that when modeled with welds, the rotational in-plane stiffness was
15-23% more than the in-plane stiffness of Boel. In case the joints were modeled
without welds, the rotational in-plane stiffness was 15-33% less than the in-plane
stiffness of Boel. The results are briefly presented in Table 6.1. Detailed MatLab
calculations are available in appendix 2.
Table 6.1 In-plane rotational stiffness by Boel and by the author.
Joint number
3
4
Boel65
262 kNm/rad
1810 kNm/rad
Author, without welds

222 kNm/rad
1219 kNm/rad
Author, with welds

323 kNm/rad
2080 kNm/rad
According to Figures 6.28 and 6.29, it seems that the joint without weld can bear
higher maximum moment than with weld. Reason for the difference in the curves (with
weld/ without weld) could be that there were sharp corners modelled in the outer
corners of the fillet welds (see Figure 6.11), and the model failed in one of the corners
due to a large stress concentration. In this study the focus is on the elastic/linear part of
the Moment-Rotation curves, hence the maximum moment capacity achieved is
irrelevant.
It can be concluded that sufficient resemblance is achieved when modeling Boels
joints with Abaqus. Evidently Abaqus analyses give higher joint stiffness when
modeled with welds since the contact surface increases significantly. The results
obtained without welds are smaller than those of Boel, since Boel has modeled the
sections with angular corners.66
6.3 Abaqus analyses varying

Based on the theory of previous chapters, further in-plane connection stiffness analyses
were conducted for new K-joints. Such joints were chosen for analyses, that the
boundaries for applicability of Boels formulae could be confirmed for a certain realistic
range with the use of validated and verified Abaqus models.
The CFSHS cross-sections were utilized, with class 1 chord sections and class 1 or 2
brace sections67. Practical minimum and maximum sizes of chord, CFSHS120x5 and
65
See Table 6-1 of Boel (2010)

See Figure 4-18 in the thesis of Boel (2010, p. 60).
67
EN 1993-1-1 (Chapters 5.5-5.6)
66
68
CFSHS300x12.5, were chosen. In order to achieve minimum and maximum for each
joint combination, smallest 68 and largest possible brace sections were chosen for each
joint, as presented in Table 6.2. Due to modeling of the fillet weld and round corners,
the maximum brace width (b1 / b2) was very limited and thus, the values of were less
than 0.7. Therefore, one joint was modelled without welds. The length of the chords was
constant, 2000 mm, and the lengths of all of the braces were 500/700/900/1100/1300
mm. The angle between the chord and the braces was 56 degrees. The maximum gap 69
was chosen for each joint, in order to obtain conservative results. For class 1 the
maximum value for is 12.81.
Table 6.2 The chosen joint combinations of analyses.70
Joint
1A
1B
1C
1D
2A
2B
2C
2D
3 no weld
3 no weld
b0
120
120
120
120
300
300
300
300
120
120
t0
5
5
5
5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
5
5
b1
t1 Weld: a1
80
3
5.0
50
3
5.0
80
3
5.0
50
3
5.0
180 7.1
11.5
110
4
6.5
180 7.1
11.5
110
4
6.5
50
3
5.0
100
4
6.5
b2
80
80
50
50
180
180
110
110
100
100
t2
3
3
3
3
7,1
7,1
4
4
4
4
Weld: a2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
11.5
11.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
0.67
0.54
0.54
0.42
0.60
0.48
0.48
0.37
0.63
0.83
gmax g
12.0 60
12.0 82.5
12.0 82.5
12.0 105 82.5
12.0 180
12.0 232.5
12.0 232.5
12.0 285 232.5
12.0 67.5
67.5
12.0 30
Joints 1A and 2A are comparable directly with the results obtained with the
formulae of Boel since they have identical braces (b1 = b2). Furthermore,
was
calculated for these joints with equation
b1
.
(6.11)
b0
The tensile braces (b2) of joints 1B, 2B and 3 are of maximum size that could fit on the
flat surface of the chord, and compression braces (b1) minimum size allowed. For 1B
and 2B, was calculated with equation
b1 b2
.
(6.12)
2b0
The results of joints 1B and 2B are compared with the results of joints 1A and 2A
respectively, in order to distinguish the supporting effect of the compression brace. Joint
3 is considered as comparable with the results of Boel, with a joint where both braces
are the size of the tensile brace.
The tensile braces (b2) of joints 1C and 2C are of minimum size, and the
compression braces (b1) are of maximum size that could fit on the flat surface of the
68
EN 1993-1-8 (Table 7.8)

EN 1993-1-8 (Table 7.23)
70
Subscription 0 refers to the chord, subscription 1 is refers to the compression/left brace and 2 to the
tensile/right brace.
69
69
chord. They are considered comparable with the results of Boel, but with the value of
of a joint with two minimum braces. In this case, is taken as
b2
.
(6.13)
b0
The comparison of the buckling length factors is available in chapter 6.4.
6.3.1
Joint 1A
The joint 1A was modeled with SHS120x5 chord and two identical SHS80x3 braces.
Thus, the factor was calculated with equation (7.11) = 80 mm / 120 mm = 0.667 and
the factor was calculated with equation (3.3) = 120 mm / (2*5 mm) = 12.0. Fillet
welds were modeled with throat thickness of 5 mm and a gap of 82.5 mm. The large
weld size of 5mm corresponds to the full-strength weld of steel grade S500, and the wall
thickness of 3mm of the brace (Ongelin et al., 2012).
In order to identify the impact of welds, the analyses and the calculations were
conducted again without welds. When modelled without welds, the analyses represent
also the behavior of a joint with butt weld that can be utilized with high strength steel
members. The Abaqus results are presented in Moment-Rotation Figure 6.30, where M1
refers to the brace length of 500 mm, M2 to 700 mm, M3 to 900 mm, M4 to 1100 mm
and M5 to 1300 mm.
Moment [kNm]

15
14
13
With weld ->
12
11
<- Without weld
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40 0,45
Rotation [rad]
Abaqus results:
UR MAGnitude
CM MAGnitude
Material: Model III
Weld: Throat thickness of 5 mm
M1 with weld
M1 without weld
M2 with weld
M2 without weld
M3 with weld
M3 without weld
M4 with weld
M4 without weld
M5 with weld
M5 without weld
Figure 6.30 Moment-Rotation -curve of the joint 1A, SHS80x3 braces and SHS120x5
chord.
In order to comprehend the reasons for the knee points of the curve (Figure 6.30),
deformed views of the Abaqus model with welds are shown in Figures 6.31 and 6.32.
First, ending of the linear behavior is captured in Figure 6.31, at the point where the
70
moment loading is about 11kNm. Followed by, the deformed shape of the last
numerical calculation (before the joint fails numerically), as presented in Figure 6.32.
The points of maximum PEEQ (Equivalent plastic strain) indicate the location in the
joint where yielding starts.
Figure 6.31 A deformed view of the joint 1A at the point where the moment is about 11
kNm.
71
Figure 6.32 Deformed views of the joint 1A, two steps before numerical failure.
The analytical calculations were conducted with the maximum moment that could
be taken as elastic, and the corresponding rotations. The rotations corresponding a
moment of around 3 kNm were utilized in analytical calculations with welds and
without welds. The calculated rotational in-plane stiffnesses are presented in Tables 6.3
and 6.4.
Table 6.3 Rotational in-plane stiffness of joint 1A, with weld.
With weld
Brace length
[mm]
M1 =
500
Max. Elastic
moment
[kNm]
3,416
M2 =
700
M3 =
900
M4 =
M5 =
Corresponding
rotation FEM
[rad]
Rotational in-plane
stiffness Cin
[kNm/rad]
0,015
694,38
3,424
0,019
693,39
3,429
0,022
692,00
1100
3,433
0,026
690,94
1300
3,436
0,059
689,74
=>Average Cin:
692,09
72
Table 6.4 Rotational in-plane stiffness of joint 1A, without weld.

Without weld
Brace length
Max. Elastic
moment
[kNm]
[mm]
Corresponding
rotation FEM
[rad]
Rotational in-plane
stiffness Cin
[kNm/rad]
M1 =
500
3,293
0,019
335,61
M2 =
700
3,309
0,023
335,05
M3 =
900
3,322
0,027
334,65
M4 =
1100
3,332
0,030
334,05
M5 =
1300
3,341
0,034
333,64
=>Average Cin:
334,60
In this case (with brace wall thickness of 3 mm and weld size of 5 mm), it can be seen
that the rotational stiffness of the joint with welds is around twice the stiffness of the
joint without welds. The detailed MatLab calculations are available in appendix 3.1A.
6.3.2
Joint 1B
The joint 1 B was modeled with SHS120x5 chord, SHS50x3 non-loaded brace and
SHS80x3 loaded brace. Thus, is calculated with equation (7.12) = (50 mm + 80 mm)
/ (2 * 120 mm) 0.54 and is calculated with equation (3.3) = 120 mm / (2*5 mm) =
12.0. Fillet welds were modeled with throat thickness of 5 mm and a gap of 82.5 mm.
In order to identify the impact of welds and the case with butt welds, the analyses
and the calculations were conducted again without welds. The Abaqus results are
presented in Moment-Rotation Figure 6.33, where M1 refers to the brace length of 500
mm, M2 to 700 mm, M3 to 900 mm, M4 to 1100 mm and M5 to 1300 mm.
Moment [kNm]
73
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0,00
With weld ->
Abaqus results:
UR MAGnitude
CM MAGnitude
Material: Model III
<- Without weld
M1 with weld
M1 without weld
M2 with weld
M2 without weld
M3 with weld
M3 without weld
M4 with weld
M4 without weld
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
M5 with weld
M5 without weld
Rotation [rad]
Figure 6.33 Moment-Rotation -curve of the joint 1B, SHS50x3 non-loaded brace,
SHS80x3 loaded brace and SHS120x5 chord.
moment of around 3 kNm was utilized in analytical calculations with welds and without
welds. The calculated rotational in-plane stiffnesses are presented in Tables 6.5 and 6.6.
Table 6.5 Rotational in-plane stiffness of joint 1B, with weld.
With weld
Brace
length
Max. Elastic
moment
[kNm]
[mm]
Corresponding
rotation FEM
[rad]
Rotational in-plane
stiffness Cin
[kNm/rad]
M1 =
500
3,416
0,015
693,94
M2 =
700
3,423
0,019
692,22
M3 =
900
3,429
0,022
691,64
M4 =
1100
3,433
0,026
690,61
M5 =
1300
3,436
0,030
689,42
=>Average Cin:
691,57
74
With weld
Brace
length
[mm]
M1 =
500
Max. Elastic
moment
[kNm]
3,292
Corresponding
rotation FEM
[rad]
Rotational in-plane
stiffness Cin
[kNm/rad]
0,019
334,72
M2 =
700
3,308
0,023
334,17
M3 =
900
3,321
0,027
333,78
M4 =
1100
3,331
0,030
333,18
M5 =
1300
3,340
0,034
332,76
=>Average Cin:
333,72
It can be seen that the results are very similar with the previous results, Joint 1B. The
detailed MatLab calculations are available in appendix 3.1B.
6.3.3
Joint 1C
The joint 1 C was modeled with SHS120x5 chord, SHS80x3 non-loaded brace and
SHS50x3 loaded brace. is calculated with equation (7.13) = (50 mm) / (120 mm)
0.42 and is calculated with equation (3.3) = 120 mm / (2*5 mm) = 12.0. Fillet welds
were modeled with throat thickness of 5 mm and a gap of 82.5 mm.
6
With weld ->
5
Material: Model III

<- Without weld
Moment [kNm]
Abaqus results:
UR MAGnitude
CM MAGnitude
M1 with weld
M1 without weld
M2 with weld
M2 without weld
M3 with weld
M3 without weld
M4 with weld
0
0,00
M4 without weld
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
Rotation [rad]
1,00
M5 with weld
M5 without weld
Figure 6.34 Moment-Rotation -curve of the joint 1C, SHS80x3 non-loaded brace,
75
moment of around 1 kNm was utilized in analytical calculations with welds and without
welds. The calculated rotational in-plane stiffnesses are presented in Tables 6.7 and 6.8.
Table 6.7 Rotational in-plane stiffness of joint 1C, with weld.
With weld
Brace length
[mm]
Max. Elastic
moment [kNm]
Corresponding
rotation FEM [rad]
Rotational in-plane
stiffness Cin [kNm/rad]
M1 =
500
1,396
0,027
146,47
M2 =
700
1,397
0,034
146,13
M3 =
900
1,398
0,041
145,99
M4 =
1100
1,218
0,041
146,36
M5 =
1300
1,097
0,043
146,39
=>Average Cin:
146,27
Table 6.8 Rotational in-plane stiffness of joint 1C, without weld.
Without weld
Brace length
[mm]
Max. Elastic
moment [kNm]
Corresponding
rotation FEM [rad]
Rotational in-plane
M1 =
500
1,381
0,034
80,33
M2 =
700
1,383
0,041
80,16
M3 =
900
1,211
0,042
80,84
M4 =
1100
1,094
0,043
81,31
M5 =
1300
0,974
0,043
81,41
=>Average Cin:
80,81
The detailed MatLab calculations are available in appendix 3.1C.

6.3.4
Joint 2A
The joint 2 A is modeled with SHS300x12.5 chord and identical SHS180x7.1 braces.
Thus, was calculated with equation (7.11) = 180 mm / 300 mm = 0.6 and was
calculated with equation (3.3) = 300 mm / (2*12.5 mm) = 12.0. Fillet welds were
modeled with throat thickness of 11.5 mm and a gap of 232.5 mm. The joint
area/connection area of chord (see Figure (6.12)) was changed, to extend past the edges
of braces.
76
Moment [kNm]/Rotation [rad] -Figure Abaqus results:

UR MAGnitude
CM MAGnitude
160
140
Material: Model III
With weld ->

Moment [kNm]
120
Weld: Throat thickness
of 11.5 mm
<- Without weld
100
M1 with weld
M1 without weld
M2 with weld
M2 without weld
M3 with weld
M3 without weld
M4 with weld
M4 without weld
M5 with weld
M5 without weld
80
60
40
20
0
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
Rotation [rad]
Figure 6.35 Moment-Rotation -curve of the joint 2A, SHS180x7.1 braces and
SHS300x12.5 chord.
moment of around 50 kNm was utilized in analytical calculations with welds and 30
kNm witout welds. The calculated rotational in-plane stiffnesses are presented in Tables
6.9 and 6.10.
Table 6.9 Rotational in-plane stiffness of joint 2A, with weld.
With weld
Brace length
[mm]
M1 =
500
Max. Elastic
moment
[kNm]
51,898
Corresponding
rotation FEM
[rad]
0,014
Rotational in-plane
stiffness Cin
[kNm/rad]
5987,79
M2 =
700
52,090
0,016
5975,63
M3 =
900
52,266
0,019
5964,07
M4 =
1100
52,416
0,021
5952,85
M5 =
1300
52,547
0,023
5942,52
=>Average Cin:
5964,57
Table 6.10 Rotational in-plane stiffness of joint 2A, without weld.
sWith weld
Brace length
Max. Elastic
moment
[kNm]
[mm]
Corresponding
rotation FEM
[rad]
Rotational in-plane
stiffness Cin
[kNm/rad]
M1 =
500
30,292
0,013
3080,55
M2 =
700
30,343
0,014
3078,06
M3 =
900
30,389
0,016
3075,56
M4 =
1100
30,429
0,017
3073,21
M5 =
1300
30,464
0,018
3070,90
=>Average Cin:
3075,66
77
In this case (with brace wall thickness of 7.1 mm and weld size of 11.5 mm), it can be
seen that the rotational stiffness of the joint with welds is about twice the stiffness of the
joint without welds. The detailed MatLab calculations are available in appendix 3.2A.
6.3.5
Joint 2B
The joint 2 B is modeled with SHS300x12.5 chord, SHS110x4 non-loaded brace and
SHS180x7.1 loaded brace. Thus, is calculated with equation (7.12) = (110 mm +
180 mm) / (2 * 300 mm) 0.0.48333 and is calculated with equation (3.3) = 300
mm / (2*12.5 mm) = 12.0. Fillet welds were modeled with throat thickness of 6.5 mm
and 11.5 mm respectively and a gap of 232.5 mm.
160
Abaqus results:
UR MAGnitude
CM MAGnitude
140
Material: Model III
With weld ->

Moment [kNm]
120

of 11.5 mm
<- Without weld
100
80
60
40
20
0
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
M1 with weld
M1 without weld
M2 with weld
M2 without weld
M3 with weld
M3 without weld
M4 with weld
M4 without weld
M5 with weld
M5 without weld
Rotation [rad]
Figure 6.36 Moment-Rotation -curve of the joint 2B, SHS110x4 non-loaded brace,
SHS180x7.1 loaded brace and SHS300x12.5 chord.
moment around 50 kNm was utilized in analytical calculations with welds and 30 kNm
witout welds. The calculated rotational in-plane stiffnesses are presented in Tables 6.11
and 6.12.
78
Brace length
With weld
[mm]
Max. Elastic
moment
[kNm]
Corresponding
rotation FEM
[rad]
Rotational in-plane
stiffness Cin
[kNm/rad]
M1 =
500
51,920
0,014
5965,87
M2 =
700
52,101
0,017
5954,10
M3 =
900
52,271
0,019
5942,71
M4 =
1100
52,418
0,021
5931,76
M5 =
1300
52,546
0,023
5921,33
=>Average Cin:
5943,15
Table 6.12 Rotational in-plane stiffness of joint 2B, without weld.
Without weld
Brace length
[mm]
M1 =
500
Max. Elastic
moment
[kNm]
30,294
Corresponding
rotation FEM
[rad]
0,013
Rotational in-plane
stiffness Cin
[kNm/rad]
M2 =
700
30,343
0,014
3072,08
M3 =
900
30,389
0,016
3069,72
M4 =
1100
30,428
0,017
3067,31
M5 =
1300
30,463
0,018
3069,76
=>Average Cin:
3070,69
3074,57
It can be seen that the results are very similar with the previous results, Joint 2B. The
detailed MatLab calculations are available in appendix 3.2B.
6.3.6
Joint 2C
The joint 2 C is modeled with SHS300x12.5 chord, SHS180x7.1 non-loaded brace and
SHS110x4 loaded brace. is calculated with equation (7.13) = (110 mm) / (300 mm)
0.3667 and is calculated with equation (3.3) = 300 mm / (2*12.5 mm) = 12.0.
Fillet welds were modeled with throat thickness of 11.5 mm and 6.5 mm respectively
and a gap of 232.5 mm.
79

UR MAGnitude
CM MAGnitude
<- With weld
40
35
Material: Model III

Moment [kNm]
30
25

of 6.5 mm
<- Without weld
20
15
10
5
0
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
M1 with weld
M1 without weld
M2 with weld
M2 without weld
M3 with weld
M3 without weld
M4 with weld
M4 without weld
M5 with weld
M5 without weld
Rotation [rad]
Figure 6.37 Moment-Rotation -curve of the joint 2C, SHS180x7.1 non-loaded brace,
SHS110x4 loaded brace and SHS300x12.5 chord.
In order to comprehend the reasons for the knee points of the curve (Figure 6.37) of the
joint with welds, deformed views are captured into Figures 6.38-6.40. First, ending of
the linear behavior is captured in Figure 6.38, at the point where the moment loading is
around 35kNm. Followed by, a view of the second bending point of the curve in Figure
3.39.
Figure 6.38 A deformed view of the joint 2C at the point where the moment is around
35kNm.
80
Figure 6.39 A deformed view of the joint 2C at the point of the maximum moment.
Last the deformed shape of the last numerical calculation (before the joint fails
numerically) is presented in Figure 6.40.
Figure 6.40 A deformed view of the joint 2C one step before numerical failure.
moment of around 15 kNm was utilized in analytical calculations with welds and
without welds. The calculated rotational in-plane stiffnesses are presented in Tables
6.13 and 6.14.
81
Table 6.13 Rotational in-plane stiffness of joint 2C, with weld.
With weld
Brace length
[mm]
Max. Elastic
moment [kNm]
Corresponding
rotation FEM [rad]
Rotational in-plane
M1 =
500
15,283
0,026
1092,80
M2 =
700
15,324
0,031
1091,66
M3 =
900
16,101
0,037
1084,59
M4 =
1100
16,130
0,043
1083,38
M5 =
1300
16,153
0,048
1082,00
=>Average Cin:
1086,89
Without weld
Table 6.14 Rotational in-plane stiffness of joint 2C, without weld.

Brace length
[mm]
Max. Elastic
moment [kNm]
Corresponding
rotation FEM [rad]
Rotational in-plane
M1 =
500
15,095
0,030
846,49
M2 =
700
15,880
0,036
841,70
M3 =
900
15,925
0,041
840,79
M4 =
1100
15,962
0,046
839,96
M5 =
1300
13,418
0,043
852,46
=>Average Cin:
844,28
The detailed MatLab calculations are available in appendix 3.2C.

6.3.7
Joint 3
The joint 3 is modeled with SHS120x5 chord, SHS50x3 non-loaded brace and
SHS100x4 loaded brace. For this case, is calculated with equation (7.13), = (100
mm) / (120 mm) 0.8333 and is calculated with equation (3.3) = 120 mm / (2*5
mm) = 12.0. No welds were modeled. A gap of 67.5 mm was applied to the joint.
The Abaqus results are presented in Moment-Rotation Figure 6.41, where M1 refers
to the brace length of 500 mm, M2 to 700 mm, M3 to 900 mm, M4 to 1100 mm and M5
to 1300 mm.
82

UR MAGnitude
CM MAGnitude
25
Material: Model III
20
Moment [kNm]
No weld
<- Without weld
15
M1 without weld
M2 without weld
10
M3 without weld
5
M4 without weld
0
0,00
M5 without weld
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
Rotation [rad]
Figure 6.41 Moment-Rotation -curve of the joint 3, SHS50x3 non-loaded brace,

moment of around 10 kNm was utilized in analytical calculations. The calculated
rotational in-plane stiffnesses are presented in Table 6.15.
Table 6.15 Rotational in-plane stiffness of joint 3.
Without weld
Brace length
[mm]
M1 =
500
Max. Elastic
moment
[kNm]
11,813
Corresponding
rotation FEM
[rad]
0,028
Rotational in-plane
stiffness Cin
[kNm/rad]
885,66
M2 =
700
10,397
0,027
1029,55
M3 =
900
10,504
0,032
1018,17
M4 =
1100
10,599
0,037
1007,67
M5 =
1300
10,684
0,042
998,23
=>Average Cin:
987,86
The detailed MatLab calculations are available in appendix 3.3.

6.3.8
Summary of rotational stiffnesses of joints 1A-3
The obtained rotational in-plane stiffnesses of joints 1A-3 are compiled in Table 6.16.
83
Table 6.16 Summary of obtained rotational in-plane stiffnesses Cin of joints 1A-3.
Joint
1A
1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
3 no weld
Chord,
Non-loaded
Loaded brace, Cin with weld Cin without weld
b0 [mm] brace, b1 [mm]
b2 [mm]
[kNm/rad ]
[kNm/rad ]
629
120
80
80
335
692
120
50
80
334
146
120
80
50
81
5965
300
180
180
3076
5943
300
110
180
3071
1087
300
180
110
844
120
50
100
988
Modeling of welds seemed to have significant influence on the rotational in-plane

stiffness of the joints. In four out of seven cases, the rotational in-plane stiffness of a
joint with welds was around twice the stiffness compared to that of the joint without
welds.
Based on the analyzed joints, in case the maximum size brace 71 of the joint was
loaded, it did not seem to have almost any effect which size the other brace was.
Difference in whether both braces were of maximum size or the other brace was of
minimum size was 0.2 % - 10 %. The obtained rotational in-plane stiffness decreased
significantly when the minimum brace of the joint was loaded and the maximum brace
only supported the joint (non-loaded).
6.4 Analytical deriving of buckling length factor

The value for buckling length factor is known for multiple support conditions of a beam
with a free end, pinned or rigid supports (see Figure 1.3). For the case that has been
analysed throughout this thesis, the ends of the braces are not free, pinned, nor fixed but
they can be described with rotational springs at both ends, as presented in Figure 6.42.
Figure 6.42 A beam with springs at the ends, illustrating a brace of a truss.
Boel (2010) has found a formula72 for calculating the buckling length factor K for
the above-mentioned brace
K
71
72
2.25 5.505(C a C b ) 1.14C min

,
( 2 5.4C a )( 2 5.4C b ) 1
That could fit on the flat surface of the chord.

Equation 2.16 (by Hornung and Saal) on p.20 of the thesis of Boel (2010).
(6.14)
84
where Ca and Cb refer to the flexibility factors of the ends of a beam and Cmin refers to
the smaller of the two. For the case that Ca and Cb are identical, the flexibility factor is
referred to as C, and buckling length factor can be calculated, according to Boel (2010),
C 0.205
K
.
(6.15)
C 0.41
The dimensionless flexibility factors of previous formulae ((6.14) and (6.15)) Ca, Cb and
C are calculated with following equations
EI
(6.16a)
Ca
k a Lsys
Cb
C
EI
k b L sys
(6.16b)
EI
,
kL sys
(6.16c)
where EI stands for the bending stiffness of the truss member, ka, kb and k (previously
referred to as Cin) stand for the rotational stiffness of the spring at the end of the
member and Lsys stands for the system length of the member.
As a result of the Master of Science Thesis, Boel (2010) has developed a new
formula for calculating buckling length factors of the braces of K-joints
C
Lcr
Lsys
A B
d1
Lbr , sys
D,
(6.17)
where the constants A, B, C and D as well as explanations for the use of the formula can
be found in Chapter 4.1.3. Boel (2010) has also developed a new formula for calculating
buckling length factors of the chords of K-joints
Lcr
K
E F ,
(6.18)
Lsys
where the constants E and F as well as explanations for the use of the formula can be
found in Chapter 4.2.3.
Generally, the relationship between critical load Pcr and buckling length factor K
can be written
2
Pcr
EI
K 2 Lsys
(6.19)
if Lcr of equation (1.2) is substituted by equation (1.1). In an article by Newmark (1949),

the critical load, for a bar with springs restraining rotation in the ends (as in Figure
6.42), is written
2
Pcr
CN
EI
Lsys
(6.20)
where CN is an end-fixity factor (note that this in not same as the flexibility factor, Ca/
Cb/ C, of Boel) and Lsys refers to the system length of the bar in question. It can be seen
from Equations (6.19) and (6.20) that
85
1
.
(6.21)
K2
Newmark (1949) gives an approximating formula for the end-fixity factor
CN
CN
4n1
2n1
2
2
4n 2
,
2n 2
(6.22)
where n1 and n2 are dimensionless quantities relating to stiffness against rotation k1 and
k2 respectively as presented in following equations
Lsys
n1 k1
(6.23a)
EI
Lsys 73
n2 k 2
.
(6.23b)
EI
Thus, the buckling length factor can be written
2
2 n1
4 n1
2
2
2n 2
.
4n 2
(6.24)
Newmark claims, that the error of equation (6.22) is less than 4% and it is valid for
infinite and as well as finite values of n1 and n2. Furthermore, he claims that for
symmetrically restrained bars (n1 = n2), the error is always less than 2.5%.
With the formula (6.24) derived by Newmark (1949), for the case of symmetrically
restrained bars (n1 = n2 = n), buckling length factor K can be written
2
2n
.
4n
(6.25)
Buckling length factor has been calculated in the following sub-chapters for braces and
chords of trusses with identical chords and of a truss with un-identical chords
- equations (6.15), (6.17) and (6.25) were utilized for calculating buckling length
factors of braces of joints where the chords were identical
factors of braces of a joint where the chords were un-identical
factors of chords
Equations (6.14), (6.15), (6.24) and (6.25) do not take into account. Equations (6.17)
and (6.18) take into account, but do not require joint stiffness input for calculation,
thus the stiffening effect of welds does not affect the factor when calculated with these
equations. The results and comparison are presented in the following sub-chapters and
the detailed MatLab calculations are available in Appendixes 4, 5 and 6.
6.4.1
Buckling length factor comparison of joints 1A, 1B and 1C
With welding, buckling length factors of braces obtained with the formula developed by
Boel (Equation (6.17)) gave results 15.3-27.8% on the safe side (higher value)
73
k1 and k2 are previously referred to as Cin
86
compared to Newmark (Equation (6.25)). The results of the approximating equations
(6.15) and (6.25) were very similar, with Newmarks results around 0.1-0.2% more
conservative (see Table 6.17).
Table 6.17 Buckling length factor of brace with different equations, with weld.
Joint K with Eq. (6.17) K with Eq. (6.15) K with Eq. (6.25)
1A
0.9089
0.7097
0.7111
1B
0.8829
0.7098
0.7112
1C
0.8266
0.7155
0.7169
Same calculations have been run for the joints without welding, and the results are
available in Table 6.18.
Table 6.18 Buckling length factor of brace with different equations, without weld.
Joint K with Eq. (6.17)
K with Eq. (6.15) K with Eq. (6.25)
1A
0.9089
0.7995
0.8009
1B
0.8829
0.7998
0.8012
1C
0.8266
0.7891
0.7905
Without welding, buckling length factors of braces obtained with the formula developed
by Boel (Equation (6.17)) gave results 4.6-13.5% on the safe side (higher value)
(6.15) and (6.25) were very similar, with Newmarks results around 0.2% more
conservative. The detailed MatLab calculations are available in Appendix 4.1.
6.4.2
Buckling length factor comparison of joints 2A, 2B and 2C
With welding, buckling length factors of braces obtained with the formula developed by
Boel (Equation (6.17)) gave results 12.3-18.7% on the safe side (higher value)
conservative (see Table 6.19).
Table 6.19 Buckling length factor of brace with different equations, with weld.
2A
1.0000
0.8441
0.8453
2B
0.9734
0.8445
0.8457
2C
0.9085
0.8078
0.8092
Same calculations have been run for the joints without welding, and the results are
available in Table 6.20.
87
K with Eq. (6.15) K with Eq. (6.25)
2A
1.0000
0.9053
0.9062
2B
0.9734
0.9054
0.9063
2C
0.9085
0.8367
0.8380
Without welding, buckling length factors of braces obtained with the formula developed
by Boel (Equation (6.17)) gave results 7.3-10.7% on the safe side (higher value)
conservative. The detailed MatLab calculations are available in Appendix 4.2.
6.4.3
Buckling length factor comparison of joint 3
Buckling length factor calculations of braces have been run for the joint number 3,
without welding, and the results are available in Table 6.21.
K with Eq. (6.15)
K with Eq. (6.25)
3 0.9675
0.7830
0.7844
Buckling length factor of braces obtained with the formula developed by Boel (Equation
(6.17)) gave result 23.3% on the safe side (higher value) compared to Newmark
(Equation (6.25)). The results of the approximating equations (6.15) and (6.25) were
very similar, with Newmarks result around 0.2% more conservative. The detailed
MatLab calculations are available in Appendix 4.3.
6.4.4
Summary of buckling length factor for braces of trusses with
identical chords
The results show that whether calculated with Equation (6.15) or Newmarks equation
(6.25), the value of buckling length factor changes consistently in most cases from
the stiffest joint version (A) to the loosest one (C), with the loosest joint giving in most
cases the optimum buckling length factor. The fluctuation is caused by the significant
decrease of area moment of inertia I from the stiffer joints (A and B) to the loosest one
(C). With Boels formula (6.17) the buckling length factor decreases while the stiffness
of the joint decreases.
It can be seen, that the value of buckling length factor obtained with Boels formula
(6.17) gives results that are clearly on the safe side. The presence of welds does not
affect the buckling length factor obtained with the formula (6.17). Thus, a reduction
factor is proposed for the case of connections welded with fillet welding according to
the Eurocode with high strength steel.
88
6.4.5
Buckling length factor comparison of braces of a joint with unidentical chords
It is of interest, to see how the buckling length factor of the brace changes if the chords
are of different cross-section. A truss with SHS300x12.5 and SHS120x5 chords and
SHS110x4 braces is chosen as ultimate cases with respect to the factor . As presented
in Figure 6.43, there are different flexibility factors in the ends of the brace, Ca and Cb.
Here Ca presents the joint of SHS300x12.5 chord and SHS110x4 brace, and Cb presents
the joint of SHS120x5 chord and SHS110x4 brace. The impact of welds is neglected.
Figure 6.43 A section of a truss with un-identical chords.

Rotational in-plane stiffness for Ca can be taken as the stiffness of joint 2C 74, since
the unloaded brace does not seem to have significant effect on the stiffness, and the
stiffness of 2C can be assumed to be close to that of a joint with two SHS110x4 braces.
There is no rotational in-plane stiffness calculated that would correspond to Cb,
therefore the stiffness of joint number 3 75 is utilized instead. The stiffness of the joint
(presented by Cb) with SHS120x5 chord and SHS110x4 braces is presumed to be
greater than that of joint number 3 (SHS120x5 chord and SHS100x4 brace), thus it is
safe to use this underestimating stiffness.
Equations (6.14), (6.17) and (6.24) are utilized for comparison of buckling length
factor of the joint. The obtained buckling length factors are presented in Table 6.22.
Table 6.22 Buckling length factor with different equations, without weld.
Ka with Eq.
Ka with Eq.
K with Eq.
K with Eq.
K with Eq.
76
(6.17)
(6.17)
(6.17)
(6.14)
(6.24)
0.8740
0.9675
0.9675
0.5800
0.8022
74
See Table 6.1.

See Table 6.1.
76
If the chords are not identical, Boel (2010) recommends calculating buckling length at both ends of the
brace and to utilize the higher value obtained.
75
89
Buckling length factor of braces obtained with the formula developed by Boel (Equation
(6.17)) gave result 20.6% on the safe side (higher value) compared to Newmark
(Equation (6.24)). The results of the approximating equations (6.14) and (6.24) were
unexpectedly not similar, with Newmarks result around 38.3% more conservative. The
detailed MatLab calculations are available in Appendix 5. The buckling length factor
obtained with equation (6.14) -given by Boel- is significantly smaller than that obtained
with Newmarks equation (6.24). Thus, it is suspected that there is an error in the
equation given by Boel.
6.4.6
Buckling length factors of chords
The same approximating equations (6.15) and (6.25) are utilized for calculating the
buckling length factor of the chords as for the braces, only substituting the system
length of brace with the system length of chord. In order to compare the results with the
results of Boel, formula (6.18) is also utilized. Buckling length factor calculations have
been run for the joints 1A-1C, 2A-2C and 3 without welding, and the results are
available in Tables 6.23-6.25.
Table 6.23 Buckling length factor of SHS120x5 chord with different equations, without
weld.
Joint K with Eq. (6.18) K with Eq. (6.15)
K with Eq. (6.25)
1A
0.8500
0.5000
0.5000
1B
0.8500
0.5000
0.5000
1C
0.9000
0.5000
0.5000
Table 6.24 Buckling length factor of SHS300x12.5 chord with different equations,
without weld.
Joint K with Eq. (6.18) K with Eq. (6.15)
K with Eq. (6.25)
2A
0.8900
0.5000
0.5000
2B
0.8900
0.5000
0.5000
2C
0.9000
0.5000
0.5000
Table 6.25 Buckling length factor of SHS120x5 chord with different equations, without
weld.
3 0.7500
0.5000
0.5000
Buckling length factor obtained by the approximating equations gave same result for all
chords, K = 0.5. The results obtained with Boels formula gave factors that were 5080% more conservative than the approximating formulae. The detailed MatLab
calculations are available in Appendix 6.
90
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Better, easy to use and more precise formulae for calculation of buckling length factors
are desired for tubular trusses. This is due to the fact that currently utilized codes and
design guides give mostly too conservative or -in some cases- even unsafe factors. New
formulae have been generated in Master of Science thesis of Harm Boel (2010) for more
precise calculation of buckling length factors for the members of K-joints in tubular
trusses. The aim of this thesis is to test the accuracy of the new formulae given,
especially for in-plane buckling, although, Boel pointed out that the out-of-plane
buckling occurred before the in-plane buckling in most cases (see Chapter 3.3.3).77
Finite element models of CFSHS K-joints were constructed with FE-modeling
program Abaqus in accordance with recent experimental tests run in LUT. Validation
was conducted comparing results obtained for two joints (see Chapter 6.1). It gave
starting point for further research in the form of material model of the tested high
strength steel. Verification was conducted with joints studied in the thesis of Boel (see
Chapter 6.2).
Interesting results were found in Chapter 6.3, where the factor was varied by
utilizing different sizes of hollow sections in a handful of new joints. Based on the
sample cases, it can be confirmed that modeling of the welds affects rotational in-plane
stiffness notably. Welded joints of trusses with identical chords were found to have
around twice the stiffness compared to those modeled without welds (see Table 6.16).
In case the maximum size brace78 of a joint was loaded, it did not appear to matter
which size the other brace was (minimum allowed or maximum size that could fit on the
flat surface of the chord), the stiffness of the joint remained approximately same in both
cases (see Chapter 6.3.8). In the cases that the braces were un-identical (minimum or
maximum), and the smaller one of the braces was loaded (while the maximum brace
was non-loaded), the stiffness decreased significantly compared to the previous cases.
In the abovementioned cases, investigated in Chapter 6.3, scaling appeared to have a
great influence on the stiffness of the joints (see Chapter 3.3.5 about the observation of
Boel). Doubling the sizes of the sections of the joint members seemed to increase the
rotational in-plane stiffness of the joint almost ten times. Therefore, the stiffness
remains unpredictable for all the cases that have not been investigated.
Analytical derivation of buckling length factors showed that the factors obtained
with the formulae of Boel (Equations (6.17) and (6.18)) are substantially safe. Braces of
77
This leads in only slightly higher buckling length factors for out-of-plane buckling than for in-plane
buckling, and for some cases in-plane buckling does occur first.
78
That could fit on the flat surface of the chord.
91
the joints modeled with welds were 12.3-27.8% on the safe side and the chords of the
joints modeled without welds were 50-80% on the safe side, compared to the results
obtained with approximating Equations (6.14) and (6.15) by Hornung and Saal (1998)
as well as Equations (6.24) and (6.25) by Newmark (1949) (see Tables 6.17-6.25). In
addition, the results obtained with the approximating equations for the members of
joints of trusses with identical chords were consistently almost the same compared to
one another (with the maximum difference of 0.2%). The presence of welds does not
affect the buckling length factors obtained with the formulae of Boel. Thus, a reduction
factor is proposed for the calculation of buckling length factors of braces and chords in
the case of welded joints with full strength fillet welding of high strength steels
according to the Eurocode.
The analytically derived buckling length factors of the FE-analysis of the new joints
(of Table 6.2) generated in this thesis and the results obtained with Boels formulae
have consistent resemblance. Thus, applicability of the formulae can be confirmed for
yet a wider range of joint combinations. In other words, being on the safe side, the use
of Boels formulae for joints of unequal size adjacent braces as well as un-identical
chords can be confirmed.
The formulae can be confirmed for tubular lattice girders with continuous chords
and adjoining braces with following requirements:
o the truss consists of K-joints of square hollow section members
o there are lateral supports at each intersection on the upper chord
o the angle between braces and the chord is same in all connections, 40
6079 and
o the gap between braces is designed according to the Eurocode.
Furthermore, the scale of the dimensions (as and remain unchanged) needs to be
considered, since it has major effect on the in- and out-of-plane rotational stiffness and
thus on the buckling length factors (see chapter 3.3.5.). In this thesis, the investigated
scale was for the bracing members from CFSHS50x3 up to CFSHS180x7.1 and chord
members of CFSHS120x5 as well as CFSHS300x12.5. The numerical study of Boel
(2010) was mainly conducted with the chord section of SHS200x6.3 and braces of
SHS100x6.3.
Regarding further studies, analyzing of K-joints with unequal angles between braces
and the chord is needed in order to cover even more joint combinations. Evidently, the
investigation of out-of-plane buckling of tubular members of K-joints of lattice girders
is also essential in the foreseeable future.
79
In the Discussion chapter of Boels thesis (2010, p.181) the limits are set 40
that angle of 56 is utilized throughout th thesis
50, despite the fact
92
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
It can be said that the formulae of Boel (2010) are safe to utilize with high strength
steels -at least- for in-plane buckling of tubular lattice girders. In addition, a reduction
factor of 0.9 is suggested for Boels formula for calculation of buckling length factors
for both bracing and chord members of K-joints of tubular trusses in case the joints are
modeled with full strength fillet welds for high strength steel. However, it is pointed out
that in case of bevel welds the formula of Boel shall be utilized without reductions.
If the chords of a truss are not of same size cross section, Boel (2010) recommends
calculating buckling length at both ends of the brace and to utilize the higher (that is, the
safer) value obtained for both of the ends of the brace. As pointed out multiple times
before, it is reminded that the scale of the dimensions (as and remain unchanged)
needs to be given special attention to, since it has major effect on the in- and out-ofplane rotational stiffness. It is not recommended to utilize the formulae (Equations
(6.17) and (6.18)) for the unexplored scale of hollow section sizes.
In case the chords are not parallel, the contact surface between chord and the brace
will increase which should lead to higher rotational stiffness, thus the formulae of Boel
(2010) are expected to give safe factors for trusses with un-parallel chords. Therefore,
the use of the formulae could be extended for even ridge trusses.
93
REFERENCES
Boel, H. 2010. Buckling Length Factors of Hollow Section Members in Lattice Girders.
Masters Thesis. Eindhoven. Eindhoven University of Technology. 186 p.
Chen, W-F.; Lorenzo, R. F. & Kato, B. and contributors. 1993. Semi-Rigid Connections
in Steel Frames. United States of America, McGraw-Hill, Inc. 318 p.
Construction with Hollow Steel Sections, CIDECT. 1984.80
Fekete, F. 2009. Buckling lengths of members in hollow section steel trusses.
Unpublished Master thesis. Eindhoven. Eindhoven University of Technology. 81
Galambos, T.V. 1998. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures. 5th edition.
Chichester: Wiley-Interscience. 82
Hornung, U. & Saal, H. 1998. A method for calculating the out-of-plane buckling length
of diagonals of truss girders with hollow sections and K-joints. Journal of constructional
Steel Research. 46 (1-3) pp. 489-501.83
Kanatani, H.; Kamba, T. & Tabuchi, M. 1986. Effect of the Local Deformation of the
Joints on RHS Vierendeel Trusses. Proceedings, International Meeting on Safety
Criteria in Design of Tubular Structures, Tokyo, Japan, July. pp.127-137.84
Korol, M. & Mirza, A. 1982. Finite Element Analysis of RHS T-joints. Journal of the
Structural Division, 108, 9, pp. 2081-2098.
Korol, M.; El-Zanaty, M. & Brady, F. J. 1977. Unequal width connections of square
hollow sections in Vierendeel trusses. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 4, 2, pp.
190-201.
Kwasniewski. 2010. [WWW]. [Referred to on 12.03.2014] Available:
http://people.fsv.cvut.cz/~wald/fire/ifer/2010-Workshop/prezentations/WG2/2.15.pdf
Lovett, T. Learneasy.info. Feb 2008. [WWW]. [Referred to on 09.01.2014] Available:
http://www.learneasy.info/MDME/modules/FEA/Buckling.GIF
80
Quoted in Rondal et al. (1992) , reference no. [12].

Unpublished reference of Boel (2010), list of references.
82
Quoted in the thesis of Boel (2010), list of references.
83
Quoted in the thesis of Boel (2010).
84
Quoted in Chen et al. (1993), References/Bibliography.
81
94
Mouty, J. 1980. Effective Lengths of Lattice Girder Members, CIDECT, Monograph
no. 4. 85
Newmark, N. M. 1949. A Simple Approximate Formula for Effective End-Fixity of
Columns, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences (Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences),
16, 2, pp. 116-116.
Ongelin, P.; Valkonen, I.; Salonen, M.; Tupala, M.; Saari, K.; Saari, J. 2012.
Rakenneputket EN 1993 ksikirja. Keuruu, Otavan Kirjapaino Oy. 688p.
Outinen, H.; Salmi, T. & Vulli, P. 2007. Lujuusopin perusteet. Tampere, Klingendahl
Paino Oy. 464 p.
Rondal, J.; Wrker, K-G.; Dutta, D.; Wardenier, J. & Yeomans, N. 1992. CIDECT
Design Guide no.2: Structural stability of hollow sections. 1 st issue. Kln, Verlag TV
Rheinland GmbH. 57 p.
Timoshenko, S. 1936. Theory of Elastic Stability. United States of America, McGrawHill Book Company, Inc. 518 p.
Tuominen, N. & Bjrk, T. 2014. Ultimate Capacity of Welded Joints Made of High
Strength Steel CFRHS. EUROSTEEL 2014, Naples, Italy, September 10-12, 2014.
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Laboratory of Steel Structures.
Vegte, G.J. 1995. The Static Strength of Uniplanar and Multiplanar Tubular T- and Xjoints. PhD Thesis. Delft. Delft University of Technology. 378 p.
Wardenier, J. 1982. Hollow Section Joints. PhD Thesis. Delft. Delft University of
Technology.544 p.
Xykis, C. & Galambos, T. V. 1991. The Effect of Lateral Bracing on the Stability of
Steel Trusses. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 20, 4, pp. 251-258.
Wald, F.; Burgess, I.; Kwasniewski, L.; Horov, K. & Caldov, E. 2014. Benchmark
Studies, Verification of Numerical Models in Fire Engineering. CTU Publishing House,
Czech Technical University in Prague. 328 p.
85
Quoted in Rondal et al. (1992) , reference no. [15].
Appendix 1: Material model excel calculations & curves

I) Material model I: Initial
a) Calculations for stress-strain curve of chord 150x150x5:
v=
E=
"ENGINEERING"
Model
0.3
210000
MPa
Nominal
Stress
[Mpa]
y=548, u=651, A5=0,281 values from Material

Certificate No: 30020/000
Strain
548
0,002609524
651
0,281
= u= A5
0,331
"TRUE"
= y= y/E , Elastic strain

A5+0,05
True
Model
Stress * [Mpa]
Strain
549,430019
0,002606125
ytrue=ln(1+ y) Elastic strain
833,931
0,247641023
utrue= A5true=ln(1+ A5) Elastic + plastic strain
1,331
0,285930539
true=ln(1+ ) Elastic + plastic strain
"TRUE, PLASTIC"
Input
ABAQUS
Stress
[Mpa]
Plastic Strain
549430019,0
833931000
0,245034898
= ytrue- ytrue=0 Because no plastic strain

= A5true- ytrue Plastic strain
1331000
0,283324414
= true- ytrue Plastic strain
1000000
true= (1+ )
b) Calculations for stress-strain curve of brace 80x80x4:

v=
E=
"ENGINEERING"
Model
MPa
Nominal
Stress
[Mpa]

Strain
557
0,002652381
634
0,283
= u= A5
0,333
"TRUE"
Model
0.3
210000
True
Stress * [Mpa]
Strain

A5+0,05
2
0
558,4773762
0,00264887
813,422
0,249201086
1,333
0,287432041
"TRUE, PLASTIC"
Input
ABAQUS
Stress
[Mpa]
Plastic Strain
558477376,2
813422000
0,246552216

1333000
0,284783172
1000000
true= (1+ )
Material of Brace SHS80x4
Nominal
True
900
800
700
Stress
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
Strain
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
c) Calculations for stress-strain curve of brace 120x120x4:

v=
E=
"ENGINEERING"
Model
0.3
210000
MPa
Nominal
Stress
[Mpa]

Strain
574
0,002733333
649
0,307
= u= A5
0,357

A5+0,05
3
"TRUE"
True
Model
Stress * [Mpa]
Strain
575,5689333
0,002729605
848,243
0,267734435
1,357
0,305276381
"TRUE, PLASTIC"
ABAQUS
Input
Stress
[Mpa]
Plastic Strain
575568933,3
848243000
0,26500483
1357000
0,302546776
1000000

true= (1+ )
Nominal
True
900
800
700
Stress
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
Strain
II) Material model II: Elastic-plastic linear strain hardening (stress at A5=0MPa)
v=
E=
0.3
210000
MPa
Nominal (Elastic-plastic with linear

strain hardening)
"ENGINEERING"
Model
Stress
0
[Mpa]
y, u, A5 values from
Strain
0
Material Certificate No:30020/000

0
4
1
548
0,002609524
y= y/E , Elastic strain
651
0,051657143
u=( u- y)/(E/100)+ y, Elastic+plast. strain
0,281
"TRUE"
= A5
True
Model
Stress * [Mpa]
Strain
549,430019
0,002606125
684,6288
0,050367151
utrue=ln(1+ u) Elastic + plastic strain
1,281
0,247641023
A5true=ln(1+ A5)Elastic + plastic strain
"TRUE, PLASTIC"
ABAQUS
Input
Stress
Plastic strain
549430019
684628800
0,047761026
= utrue- ytrue
1281000
0,245034898
= A5true- ytrue
1000000
true= (1+ )

v=
E=
0.3
210000
MPa

strain hardening)
"ENGINEERING"
Model
Stress
[Mpa]
Strain
557
0,002652381
634
0,039319048
0,283
"TRUE"

= A5
True
Model
Stress * [Mpa]
Strain
558,4773762
0,00264887
658,9282762
0,038565737
1,283
0,249201086
"TRUE, PLASTIC"
0
ABAQUS
Input
Stress
Plastic strain
558477376,2
658928276,2
0,035916867
= utrue- ytrue
1283000
0,246552216
= A5true- ytrue
5
4
*
1000000
true= (1+ )

Nominal (Elastic-plastic with linear strain hardening)
700
True
600
Stress
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
Strain
0,25
0,3
0,35

v=
E=
0.3
210000
MPa

strain hardening)
"ENGINEERING"
Model
Stress
[Mpa]
Strain
574
0,002733333
649
0,038447619
0,307
"TRUE"
= A5
True
Model
Stress * [Mpa]
Strain
575,5689333
0,002729605
673,9525048
0,037726924
1,307
0,267734435
"TRUE, PLASTIC"
ABAQUS
Input
Stress
Plastic strain
575568933,3
673952504,8
0,034997319

= utrue- ytrue
6
3
1307000
0,26500483
1000000
= A5true- ytrue
true= (1+ )

Nominal (Elastic-plastic with linear strain hardening)
800
True
700
600
Stress
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
Strain
0,25
0,3
0,35
III) Material model III: Logarithmic ( A5=0,55* y)

v=
E=
"ENGINEERING"
0.3
210000
MPa
Nominal (Elastic-plastic with linear strain

hardening)
Stress
[Mpa]
y=548, u=651, A5=0.281 values from
Strain
548
0,002609524
553,02
0,005
563,52
0,01
584,52
0,02
616,02
0,035
651
0,051657143
615,417192
0,075
577,3083095
0,1
539,1994269
0,125
10
501,0905444
0,15
11
462,9816619
0,175
= u=( u- y)/(E/100)+ y, Elastic+plastic strain

=
12
424,8727794
0,2
13
386,7638968
0,225
7
14
348,6550143
0,25
15
318,1679083
0,27
16
301,4
0,281
"TRUE"
= A5
True
Stress * [Mpa]
Strain
549,430019
0,002606125
555,7851
0,004987542
569,1552
0,009950331
596,2104
0,019802627
637,5807
0,034401427
684,6288
0,050367151
661,5734814
0,072320662
635,0391404
0,09531018
606,5993553
0,117783036
10
576,2541261
0,139761942
11
544,0034527
0,161268148
12
509,8473352
0,182321557
13
473,7857736
0,202940844
14
435,8187679
0,223143551
15
404,0732436
0,2390169
16
386,0934
0,247641023
"TRUE, PLASTIC"

true=ln(1+ ) Elastic +
plastic strain
utrue=ln(1+ u) Elastic +
plastic strain
true=ln(1+ ) Elastic +
plastic strain
A5true=ln(1+ A5)Elastic +
plastic strain
ABAQUS
Stress
Plastic strain
549430019
555785100
0,002381417
569155200
0,007344206
596210400
0,017196502
637580700
0,031795302
684628800
0,047761026
661573481,4
0,069714537
635039140,4
0,092704055
606599355,3
0,115176911
10
576254126,1
0,137155817
11
544003452,7
0,158662023
12
509847335,2
0,179715432
13
473785773,6
0,200334719
14
435818767,9
0,220537426
15
404073243,6
0,236410776
16
386093400
0,245034898
17
1000000
ytrue- ytrue=0 Because

no plastic strain
= true- ytrue
= utrue- ytrue
= true- ytrue
= A5true- ytrue
true= (1+ )

v=
E=
"ENGINEERING"
Curve
0.3
210000
MPa

strain hardening)
Stress
[Mpa]
y=557, u=634, A5=0.283 values from
Strain
557
0,002652381
561,93
0,005
572,43
0,01
593,43
0,02
624,93
0,035
634
0,039319048
586,0238905
0,075
552,4092402
0,1
518,7945899
0,125
10
485,1799396
0,15
11
451,5652893
0,175
12
417,950639
0,2
13
384,3359887
0,225

=
14
350,7213384
0,25
15
323,8296182
0,27
16
306,35
0,283
"TRUE"
= A5
True
Curve
Stress * [Mpa]
Strain
558,4773762
0,00264887
564,73965
0,004987542
578,1543
0,009950331
605,2986
0,019802627
646,80255
0,034401427
658,9282762
0,038565737
629,9756823
0,072320662
607,6501642
0,09531018
583,6439137
0,117783036
10
557,9569306
0,139761942
11
530,5892149
0,161268148
12
501,5407668
0,182321557
13
470,8115862
0,202940844

9
14
438,401673
0,223143551
15
411,2636151
0,2390169
16
393,04705
0,249201086
"TRUE, PLASTIC"
Input
ABAQUS
Stress
Plastic strain
558477376,2
564739650
0,002338672
578154300
0,007301461
605298600
0,017153758
646802550
0,031752557
658928276,2
0,035916867
629975682,3
0,069671792
607650164,2
0,09266131
583643913,7
0,115134166
10
557956930,6
0,137113073
11
530589214,9
0,158619278
12
501540766,8
0,179672687
13
470811586,2
0,200291974
14
438401673
0,220494682
15
411263615,1
0,236368031
16
393047050
0,246552216
17
1000000
true= (1+ )

= true- ytrue
= utrue- ytrue
= true- ytrue
= A5true- ytrue
= true- ytrue
10
Nominal (Elastic-plastic with

linear strain hardening)
True

700
600
500
Stress
400
300
200
100
0
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
Strain
0,2
0,25
0,3

v=
E=
"ENGINEERING"
Curve
0.3
210000
MPa

strain hardening)
Stress
[Mpa]
y=574, u=649, A5=0.307 values from
Strain
574
0,002733333
578,76
0,005
589,26
0,01
610,26
0,02
641,76
0,035
649
0,038447619
603,634889
0,075
572,6074225
0,1
541,579956
0,125
10
510,5524895
0,15
11
479,5250231
0,175
12
448,4975566
0,2
13
417,4700901
0,225
14
386,4426236
0,25
15
361,6206504
0,27
16
315,7
0,307

=
= A5
11
"TRUE"
True
Curve
Stress * [Mpa]
0
575,5689333
0,002729605
581,6538
0,004987542
595,1526
0,009950331
622,4652
0,019802627
664,2216
0,034401427
673,9525048
0,037726924
648,9075057
0,072320662
629,8681648
0,09531018
609,2774505
0,117783036
10
587,135363
0,139761942
11
563,4419021
0,161268148
12
538,1970679
0,182321557
13
511,4008603
0,202940844
14
483,0532795
0,223143551
15
459,258226
0,2390169
16
412,6199
0,267734435
"TRUE, PLASTIC"
Input
Strain
ABAQUS
Stress
Plastic strain
575568933,3
581653800
0,002257937
595152600
0,007220726
622465200
0,017073023
664221600
0,031671822
673952504,8
0,034997319
648907505,7
0,069591057
629868164,8
0,092580575
609277450,5
0,115053431
10
587135363
0,137032338
11
563441902,1
0,158538543
12
538197067,9
0,179591952
13
511400860,3
0,200211239
14
483053279,5
0,220413947
15
459258226
0,236287296
16
412619900
0,26500483
17
1000000
true= (1+ )
= true- ytrue
= A5true- ytrue
= utrue- ytrue
12
Nominal (Elastic-plastic with

linear strain hardening)
True

700
600
500
Stress
400
300
200
100
0
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
Strain
0,2
0,25
0,3
13
IV) Material model IV: EN 1993-1-2:2005 Fire
14
15
16
17
18
Appendix 2: MatLab Calculations for Verification, In-plane Rotational

Stiffness of Joints 3 and 4
% In-plane rotational stiffness
E=210e9; %[Pa] Young's modulus
alpha=56; % [degrees] angle between brace and chord in degrees
g=0.1353; % [m] gap between two braces
% Brace(s) SHS:
b_1=0.100; % [m] Outer width of the brace
t_1=0.0063; % [m] Wall thickness of the brace
R_1=2.5*t_1; % [m] outer radius
r_1=1.5*t_1; % [m] inner radius
% The area moment of inertia of the brace section [m^4]:
I_1code=314.2e-8; % [m^4]
I_1=I_1code;
% Chord SHS:
L_0=2; % [m] System length of the chord, this varies for different
brace lengths, but the impact is so minor that for simplification it
is left constant
b_0=0.200; % [m] Outer width of the chord
t_0=0.0063; % [m] Wall thickness of the chord
% The area moment of inertia of the chord section [m^4]:
I_0code=2922e-8; % [m^4]
I_0=I_0code;
a=L_0/2+g/2+b_1/(2*sind(alpha)); % [m] required distance
%------------ In-plane rotational stiffness, Average of 5 brace
lengths ------------%
% Abaqus (ABA) Model: Model-9-B100_C200_W3_G135-3_a56_Log_M1
L_1=0.5; % [m] System length of the brace
M=5133; %[Nm] Maximum moment loaded, elastic
fi_FEM=0.0201519;% corresponding rotation in the end of the loaded
(right-side/lower) brace in ABA
fi_1=(M*L_1)/(E*I_1); % analytical rotation capacity of the brace
(strength theory, cantilever beam)
fi_0=M/(3*L_0*E*I_0)*(L_0^2+3*a^2-3*a*L_0); % analytical rotation
capacity of the chord
fi_con=fi_FEM-fi_1-fi_0;% rotation of the joint - rotation capacity of
the chord
C_in_I=M/fi_con; % [Nm/rad] The in-plane rotational stiffness
% C_in_I=3.185046202256436e+005
% fi_1=0.003889697190143
% fi_0=0.0001462670461513801
% WITHOUT WELD: Abaqus (ABA) Model: Model-9-B100_C200_W0_G1353_a56_Log_M1:
19
fi_con=fi_FEM-fi_1-fi_0;% rotation of the joint - rotation
C_in_I0=M/fi_con; % [Nm/rad] The in-plane rotational stiffness
% C_in_I0=2.221291901790502e+005
% fi_1=0.003860143675548
% fi_0=0.0001451557243512820
the chord
C_in_II=M/fi_con; % [Nm/rad] The in-plane rotational stiffness
% C_in_II=3.245229110438546e+005
% fi_1=0.005485890091237
% fi_0=0.0001473498725207066
M=5104.6; %[Nm] Maximum moment loaded, elastic
C_in_II0=M/fi_con; % [Nm/rad] The in-plane rotational stiffness
% C_in_II0=2.218938294866107e+005
% fi_1=0.005415446636962
% fi_0=0.0001454577759174625
the chord
C_in_III=M/fi_con; % [Nm/rad] The in-plane rotational stiffness
% C_in_III=3.241956191502187e+005
% fi_1=0.007064199327089
% fi_0=0.0001475778359668805
20
C_in_III0=M/fi_con; % [Nm/rad] The in-plane rotational stiffness
% C_in_III0=2.216890987639848e+005
% fi_1=0.006972810766573
% fi_0=0.0001456686421051734
the chord
C_in_IV=M/fi_con; % [Nm/rad] The in-plane rotational stiffness
% C_in_IV=3.239644058450662e+005
% fi_1=0.008645691249129
% fi_0=0.0001477773039822827
C_in_IV0=M/fi_con; % [Nm/rad] The in-plane rotational stiffness
% C_in_IV0=2.215270780639515e+005
% fi_1=0.008532827134673
% fi_0=0.0001458481633190355
the chord
C_in_V=M/fi_con; % [Nm/rad] The in-plane rotational stiffness
% C_in_V=3.236527647356896e+005
% fi_1=0.010227486284138
21
% fi_0=0.0001479197811361415
C_in_V0=M/fi_con; % [Nm/rad] The in-plane rotational stiffness
% C_in_V0=2.213570823906871e+005
% fi_1=0.010094298445030
% fi_0=0.0001459934900159713
C_in=(C_in_I+C_in_II+C_in_III+C_in_IV+C_in_V)/5;
% C_in= 3.229680642000946e+005=322.97[kNm/rad] (Boel+23%)
C_in0=(C_in_I0+C_in_II0+C_in_III0+C_in_IV0+C_in_V0)/5;
% C_in0= 2.217192557768569e+005=221.72[kNm/rad] (Boel-15%)
% Boel: LCin1 = 262 kNm/rad
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<NEXT JOB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
alpha=56; % angle between brace and chord in degrees
% Brace(s) SH
I_1code=1174e-8; % [m^4]
I_1=I_1code;
% Chord SHS:
L_0=2; % [m] System length of the chord
b_0=0.200; % [m] Outer width of the chord, measured
I_0code=2922e-8; % [m^4]
I_0=I_0code;
lengths ------------%
22
the chord
% C_in_I=2.086777515253004e+006
% fi_1=0.002959073578324
% fi_0=0.0004157975297111932
% C_in_I0=1.223423069214807e+006
% fi_1=0.002832359860469
% fi_0=0.0003979922100832442
the chord
% C_in_II=2.082900275115093e+006
% fi_1=0.004159596819989
% fi_0=0.0004174931387346615
% C_in_II0=1.220951019761340e+006
% fi_1=0.003980948324815
% fi_0=0.0003995624295318677
23
the chord
% C_in_III=2.079390732406867e+006
% fi_1=0.005366451691409
% fi_0=0.0004189294193192463
% C_in_III0=1.218734077845148e+006
% fi_1=0.005135921148698
% fi_0=0.0004009331655659656
the chord
% C_in_IV=2.076061711411458e+006
% fi_1=0.006578226656932
% fi_0=0.0004201576672001116
24
% C_in_IV0=1.216663155144319e+006
% fi_1=0.006296244017198
% fi_0=0.0004021471646315076
the chord
% C_in_V=2.072878257858729e+006
% fi_1=0.007794305183743
% fi_0=0.0004212405771646796
% C_in_V0=1.214737717375251e+006
% fi_1=0.007461527541170
% fi_0=0.0004.032557224636574
% C_in= 2.079601698409030e+006 = 2079.6[kNm/rad] (Boel+15%)
% C_in0= 1.218901807868173e+006 = 1218.9[kNm/rad] (Boel-33%)
% Boel: LCin1 = 1810 kNm/rad
25
Appendix 3.1A: MatLab Calculations, In-plane Rotational Stiffness

%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace(s) SHS:
I_1code=87.84e-8; % [m^4]
I_1=I_1code;
% Chord SHS:
I_0code=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
I_0=I_0code;
lengths ------------%
% Abaqus (ABA) Model: Model-11-B80_C120_W5_G82-5_a56_Log-M1
the chord
% C_in_I=6.943787100786484e+005
% fi_1=0.009259259259259
% fi_0=0.0005718350726981710
% WITHOUT WELD: Abaqus (ABA) Model: Model-11-B80_C120_W0_G825_a56_Log-M1:
% C_in_I0=3.356130788532058e+005
% fi_1=0.008925860872582
% fi_0=0.0005512449925044136
26

the chord
% C_in_II=6.933834569037497e+005
% fi_1=0.012993321190042
% fi_0=0.0005731742649058950
% C_in_II0=3.350528138670016e+005
% fi_1=0.012556921675774
% fi_0=0.0005539233769198618
the chord
% C_in_III=6.920010123316293e+005
% fi_1=0.016730093676815
% fi_0=0.0005740112600357225
27
% C_in_III0=3.346509891165118e+005
% fi_1=0.016208040593286
% fi_0=0.0005560995642574134
the chord
% C_in_IV=6.909427159924853e+005
% fi_1=0.020471745164368
% fi_0=0.0005746808561395846
% C_in_IV0=3.340529433288511e+005
% fi_1=0.019869459623558
% fi_0=0.0005577735545170684
the chord
% C_in_V=6.897390728178893e+005
% fi_1=0.024215022985515
% fi_0=0.0005751830532174812
28
% C_in_V0=3.336361057499730e+005
% fi_1=0.023545515656171
% fi_0=0.0005.592801457507580
% C_in= 6.920889936248803e+005=692.09[kNm/rad]
% C_in0= 3.346011861831087e+005=334.60[kNm/rad]
Appendix 3.1B: MatLab Calculations, In-plane Rotational Stiffness

%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 1 SHS (not utilized in calculations)
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2code=87.84e-8; % [m^4]
I_2=I_2code;
% Chord SHS:
I_0code=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
I_0=I_0code;
lengths ------------%
% Abaqus (ABA) Model: Model-11-B5080_C120_W5_G82-5-M1
L_2=0.5; % [m] System length of brace 2
L_1=L_2; % [m] System length of brace 1
M=3416; %[Nm] Maximum moment loaded (brace 2), elastic
brace (2) in ABA
fi_2=(M*L_2)/(E*I_2); % analytical rotation capacity of the brace (2)
29
the chord
% C_in_I=6.939414266262652e+005
% fi_2=0.009259259259259
% fi_0=0.0005718350726981710
% WITHOUT WELD: Abaqus (ABA) Model: Model-11-B5080_C120_W0_G82-5M1:
% C_in_I0=3.347170715366602e+005
% fi_2=0.008923150316593
% fi_0=0.0005510775934784481
brace (2) in ABA
the chord
% C_in_II=6.922190162475760e+005
% fi_2=0.012989526411658
% fi_0=0.0005730068658799295
% C_in_II0=3.341745911056398e+005
% fi_2=0.012553126897389
% fi_0=0.0005537559778938962
30
brace (2) in ABA
the chord
% C_in_III=6.916381085388855e+005
% fi_2=0.016730093676815
% fi_0=0.0005740112600357225
% C_in_III0=3.337786985000232e+005
% fi_2=0.016203161592506
% fi_0=0.0005559321652314479
brace (2) in ABA
the chord
% C_in_IV=6.906091269362514e+005
% fi_2=0.020471745164368
% fi_0=0.0005746808561395846
31
% C_in_IV0=3.331833810026831e+005
% fi_2=0.019863496400382
% fi_0=0.0005576061554911028
brace (2) in ABA
the chord
% C_in_V=6.894207675168917e+005
% fi_2=0.024215022985515
% fi_0=0.0005751830532174812
% C_in_V0=3.327648088857948e+005
% fi_2=0.023538468210599
% fi_0=0.0005591127467247925
% C_in= 6.915656891731739e+005 = 691.57[kNm/rad]
% C_in0= 3.337237102061602e+005 = 333.73[kNm/rad]
Appendix 3.1C: MatLab Calculations, In-plane Rotational Stiffness

%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1C>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
32
I_2code=19.47e-8; % [m^4]
I_2=I_2code;
% Chord SHS:
I_0code=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
I_0=I_0code;
lengths ------------%
brace (2) in ABA
the chord
% C_in_I=1.464653698627155e+005
% fi_2=0.017071440800254
% fi_0=0.0002316959304247443
% C_in_I0=8.032672689398783e+004
% fi_2=0.016888008413432
% fi_0=0.0002292063609717563
brace (2) in ABA
33
the chord
% C_in_II=1.461342834117120e+005
% fi_2=0.023917137476460
% fi_0=0.0002318619017216102
% C_in_II0=8.015992940902832e+004
% fi_2=0.023677452491012
% fi_0=0.0002295383035654881
brace (2) in ABA
the chord
% C_in_III=1.459876132540383e+005
% fi_2=0.030772617213295
% fi_0=0.0002320278730184760
% C_in_III0=8.084050463321760e+004
% fi_2=0.026656394453005
% fi_0=0.0002009912405045597
34
brace (2) in ABA
the chord
% C_in_IV=1.463610641823161e+005
% fi_2=0.032768361581921
% fi_0=0.0002021530395826207
% C_in_IV0= 8.130752310954666e+004
% fi_2=0.029432337906914
% fi_0=0.0.81573
brace (2) in ABA
the chord
% C_in_V=1.463901697213311e+005
% fi_2=0.034879056912955
% fi_0=0.0001820705126618513
35
% C_in_V0=8.141385588439139e+004
% fi_2=0.030968278425906
% fi_0=0.0001616560431473502
% C_in= 1.462677000864226e+005 = 146.27[kNm/rad]
% C_in0= 8.080970798603437e+004 = 80.81[kNm/rad]
36
Appendix 3.2A: MatLab Calculations, In-plane Rotational Stiffness

%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace(s) SHS:
I_1code=2313e-8; % [m^4]
I_1=I_1code;
% Chord SHS:
I_0code=18348e-8; % [m^4]
I_0=I_0code;
lengths ------------%
% Abaqus (ABA) Model: Model-12-B180_C300_W11-5_G232-5-M1
the chord
% C_in_I=5.987787477510032e+006
% fi_1=0.005342268338377
% fi_0=0.0002585233787340026
% WITHOUT WELD: Abaqus (ABA) Model: Model-12-B180_C300_W0_G232-5-M1:
% C_in_I0=3.080549380084246e+006
% fi_1=0.003118193234925
% fi_0=0.0001508957992333117
37
the chord
% C_in_II=5.975628408888723e+006
% fi_1=0.007506845366768
% fi_0=0.0002594798026562526
% C_in_II0=3.078060834108620e+006
% fi_1=0.004372820291108
% fi_0=0.0001511498493376593
the chord
% C_in_III=5.964072854365755e+006
% fi_1=0.009684269038355
% fi_0=0.0002603565245849817
% C_in_III0=3.075560609689781e+006
% fi_1=0.005630720770799
% fi_0=0.0001513789925690317
38
the chord
% C_in_IV=5.952847427827115e+006
% fi_1=0.011870298313878
% fi_0=0.0002611037307742395
% C_in_IV0=3.073210718119143e+006
% fi_1=0.006891050583658
% fi_0=0.0001515782475528338
the chord
% C_in_V=5.942517450150494e+006
% fi_1=0.014063595001338
% fi_0=0.0002617562908461913
% C_in_V0=3.070902364918218e+006
% fi_1=0.008153336215593
% fi_0=0.0001517525956636606
39
% C_in= 5.964570723748424e+006 =5964.57[kNm/rad]
% C_in0= 3.075656781384002e+006 = 3075.66[kNm/rad]
Appendix 3.2B: MatLab Calculations, In-plane Rotational Stiffness

%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2code=2313e-8; % [m^4]
I_2=I_2code;
% Chord SHS:
I_0code=18348e-8; % [m^4]
I_0=I_0code;
lengths ------------%
L_2=L_1;
the chord
% C_in_I=5.965872684903794e+006
% fi_2=0.005344532970992
% fi_0=0.0002586329689750938
40
% C_in_I0=3.074566885663711e+006
% fi_2=0.003118399110617
% fi_0=0.0001509057619825018
L_2=L_1;
the chord
% C_in_II=5.954104137077837e+006
% fi_2=0.007508430609598
% fi_0=0.0002595345977767982
% C_in_II0=3.072077378671587e+006
% fi_2=0.004372820291108
% fi_0=0.0001511498493376593
L_2=L_1;
the chord
% C_in_III=5.942707063079646e+006
% fi_2=0.009685195478970
41
% fi_0=0.0002603814314579570
% C_in_III0=3.069719915310203e+006
% fi_2=0.005630720770799
% fi_0=0.0001513789925690317
L_2=L_1;
the chord
% C_in_IV=5.931761723292982e+006
% fi_2=0.011870751240401
% fi_0=0.0002611136935234296
% C_in_IV0=3.067306981161607e+006
% fi_2=0.006890824120396
% fi_0=0.0001515732661782387
L_2=L_1;
42
the chord
% C_in_V=5.921329018742571e+006
% fi_2=0.014063327362938
% fi_0=0.0002617513094715963
% C_in_V0=3.065124829343568e+006
% fi_2=0.008153068577193
% fi_0=0.0001517476142890655
% C_in= 5.943154925419366e+006 =5943.15[kNm/rad]
% C_in0= 3.069759198030135e+006 =3069.75[kNm/rad]
Appendix 3.2C: MatLab Calculations, In-plane Rotational Stiffness

%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2C>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2code=305.9e-8; % [m^4]
I_2=I_2code;
% Chord SHS:
I_0code=18348e-8; % [m^4]
I_0=I_0code;
%---- In-plane rotational stiffness, Average of 5 brace lengths -----%
43
L_2=L_1;
the chord
% C_in_I=1.092801311577890e+006
% fi_2=0.011895421784274
% fi_0=0.00007271930524360109
% C_in_I0=8.464937548644105e+005
% fi_2=0.011749093229969
% fi_0=0.00007182476690781642
L_2=L_1;
the chord
% C_in_II=1.091661511116341e+006
% fi_2=0.016698267407650
% fi_0=0.00007291439073172433
44
% C_in_II0=8.416986335699203e+005
% fi_2=0.017304129889942
% fi_0=0.00007555994027798110
L_2=L_1;
the chord
% C_in_III=1.084593255041339e+006
% fi_2=0.022557791995517
% fi_0=0.00007661149864079180
% C_in_III0=8.407947542294050e+005
% fi_2=0.022311212814645
% fi_0=0.00007577405849665295
L_2=L_1;
the chord
% C_in_IV=1.083375042416009e+006
% fi_2=0.027620292968446
% fi_0=0.00007674948593726922
45
% C_in_IV0=8.399623532311723e+005
% fi_2=0.027332617257429
% fi_0=0.00007595011125422761
L_2=L_1;
the chord
% C_in_V=1.082000272875870e+006
% fi_2=0.032688709351017
% fi_0=0.00007685892413792373
% C_in_V0=8.524590741925190e+005
% fi_2=0.027153909618767
% fi_0=0.00006384529462531175
% C_in= 1.086886278605490e+006 =1086.89[kNm/rad]
% C_in0= 8.442817140174855e+005 =844.28[kNm/rad]
46
Appendix 3.3: MatLab Calculations, In-plane Rotational Stiffness

%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2code=226.4e-8; % [m^4]
I_2=I_2code;
% Chord SHS:
I_0code=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
I_0=I_0code;
%----In-plane rotational stiffness, Average of 5 brace lengths ------%
L_2=L_1;
% C_in_I0=8.856560629721977e+005
% fi_2=0.012423229008918
% fi_0=0.001982336139550
L_2=L_1;
47
% C_in_II0=1.029551968242350e+006
% fi_2=0.015307714958775
% fi_0=0.001744717585956
L_2=L_1;
% C_in_III0=1.018171832141235e+006
% fi_2=0.019883897021706
% fi_0=0.001762673225246
L_2=L_1;
% C_in_IV0=1.007667777687850e+006
% fi_2=0.024522337203433
% fi_0=0.001778615147980
L_2=L_1;
% C_in_V0=9.982284555592793e+005
% fi_2=0.029213360255763
% fi_0=0.001792878973584
% C_in0= 9.878552193205825e+005 = 987.86[kNm/rad]
48
Appendix 4.1: MatLab Calculations, In-plane Buckling Length Factor

for Braces, With Welding
% In-plane buckling length factor for braces (SHS-SHS joints) WITH
welding
L_1=0.9; % the average length of five brace lengths utilized
L_2=L_1;
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Abaqus (ABA) Model: Model-11-B80_C120_W5_G82-5_a56_Log
% Brace(s) SHS:
I_1=87.84e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
% The obtained average in-plane stiffness of five different brace
lengths:
C_in= 6.920889936248803e+005;
% Calculation of Buckling Length Factor K
% From BOEL's Own Formula:
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=b_1/b_0;
d_1=b_1; % brace width
L_br=L_1; % system length of brace
A=1.05; % a constant for in-plane buckling of braces of SHSSHS joints
B=0.025; % -llC=0.14; % -llD=0; % -llK_a=(A+B*gamma)*((beta*d_1/L_br)^C)+D
% K_a = 0.9089
% According to the Equation Given by Boel (eq. (2.18)on p.20 of
His Thesis):
k=C_in; % rotational stiffness of a spring
C=E*I_1/(k*L_1); % dimensionless flexibility factor
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.7097
% According to Newmark (1949):
n=k*L_1/(E*I_1); % dimensionless quantity
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.7111
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.1982%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 27.8168%
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Abaqus (ABA) Model: Model-11-B5080_C120_W5_G82-5
% Brace 1 SHS
49
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=87.84e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in= 6.915656891731739e+005;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=(b_1+b_2)/(2*b_0);
% K_a = 0.8829
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.7098
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.7112
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.1982%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 24.1386%
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1C>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=19.47e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
50
lengths:
C_in= 1.462677000864226e+005;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=(b_1+b_2)/(2*b_0);
% K_a = 0.826643229868018
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.715512830758838
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.716932343436649
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.1980%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 15.3028%
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Abaqus (ABA) Model: Model-12-B180_C300_W11-5_G232-5
% Brace(s) SHS:
I_1=2313e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=18348e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in= 5.964570723748424e+006;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=b_1/b_0;
51
% K_a = 1.003273042125499
% Due to restrictions K_a = 1
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.844087847932018
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.845326250498151
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.1465%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 18.6847%
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=2313e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=18348e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in= 5.943154925419366e+006;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=(b_1+b_2)/(2*b_0);
% K_a = 0.973357797969695
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.844473522395235
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.845710235200502
52
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.1462%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 15.0935%
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2C>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=305.9e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=18348e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in= 1.086886278605490e+006;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=(b_1+b_2)/(2*b_0);
% K_a = 0.908509217168817
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.807819905937660
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.809186631740404
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.1689%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 12.2744%
53

for Braces, Without Welding
% In-plane buckling length factor for braces (SHS-SHS joints) WITHOUT
welding
L_2=L_1;
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace(s) SHS:
I_1=87.84e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 3.346011861831087e+005;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=b_1/b_0;
% K_a = 0.908907399531851
His Thesis):
k=C_in0; % rotational stiffness of a spring
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.799520831260673
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.800908404305140
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.1732%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 13.4846%
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 1 SHS
54
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=87.84e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 3.337237102061602e+005;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=(b_1+b_2)/(2*b_0);
% K_a = 0.882866241471617
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.799836107280109
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.801222946370748
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.1731%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 10.1898%
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1C>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=19.47e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
55
C_in0= 8.080970798603437e+004;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=(b_1+b_2)/(2*b_0);
% K_a = 0.826643229868018
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.789134768760892
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.790543957317747
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.1783%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 4.5664%
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace(s) SHS:
I_1=2313e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=18348e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 3.075656781384002e+006;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=b_1/b_0;
% K_a = 1.003273042125499
% Due to restrictions K_a = 1
56
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.905300718782400
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.906185474453716
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.0976%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 10.7139%
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=2313e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=18348e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 3.069759198030135e+006;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=(b_1+b_2)/(2*b_0);
% K_a = 0.973357797969695
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.905447966313727
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.906331664218317
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.0975%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 7.3953%
57
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2C>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=305.9e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=18348e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 8.442817140174855e+005;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=(b_1+b_2)/(2*b_0);
% K_a = 0.908509217168817
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.836707112684226
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.837976534919589
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.1515%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 8.4170%
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=226.4e-8; % [m^4]
58
% Chord SHS:
I_0=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 9.878552193205825e+005;
gamma=b_0/(2*t_0);
beta=b_2/b_0; % this is decided to be calculated as with two
identical braces in order to represent conservatively the situation
with two identical braces
% K_a = 0.967507728179294
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.783013956654942
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.784433553126154
(K_c-K_b)/K_c*100 % = 0.1810%
(K_a-K_c)/K_c*100 % = 23.3384%
59

for Braces, Without Welding, With Un-identical Chords
welding
L_2=L_1;
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2C>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
b_2_a=0.110; % [m] Outer width of the brace
t_2_a=0.004; % [m] Wall thickness of the brace
I_2_a=305.9e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
b_0_a=0.300; % [m] Outer width of the chord
t_0_a=0.0125; % [m] Wall thickness of the chord
I_0_a=18348e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0_a= 8.442817140174855e+005;
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
b_2_b=0.100; % [m] Outer width of the brace
t_2_b=0.004; % [m] Wall thickness of the brace
I_2_b=226.4e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
b_0_b=0.120; % [m] Outer width of the chord
t_0_b=0.005; % [m] Wall thickness of the chord
I_0_b=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0_b= 9.878552193205825e+005;
gamma_a=b_0_a/(2*t_0_a);
beta_a=b_2_a/b_0_a; % this is decided to be calculated as with
two identical braces in order to represent conservatively the
situation with two identical braces
d_1_a=b_2_a; % brace width
60
B=0.025; % -llC=0.14; % -llD=0; % -llK_I_a=(A+B*gamma_a)*((beta_a*d_1_a/L_br)^C)+D
% K_I_a = 0.8740
gamma_b=b_0_b/(2*t_0_b);
beta_b=b_2_b/b_0_b; % this is decided to be calculated as with
d_1_b=b_2_b; % brace width
K_I_b=(A+B*gamma_b)*((beta_b*d_1_b/L_br)^C)+D
% K_I_b = 0.9675
K_I=K_I_a % Check that this is the smaller one!
His Thesis):
k_a=C_in0_a; % rotational stiffness of the spring a
k_b=C_in0_b; % rotational stiffness of the spring b
C_a=E*I_2_a/(k_a*L_2); % dimensionless flexibility factor
C_b=E*I_2_b/(k_b*L_2); % dimensionless flexibility factor
C_min=C_a; % Check that this is the smaller one!
K_II=((2.25+5.505*(C_a+C_b)+1.14*C_min)/((2+5.4*C_a)*(2+5.4*C_b)1))^(1/2)
% K_II = 0.5800
n_a=k_b*L_2/(E*I_2_a); % dimensionless quantity
n_b=k_b*L_2/(E*I_2_b); % dimensionless quantity
K_III=((pi^2+2*n_a)/(pi^2+4*n_a)*(pi^2+2*n_b)/(pi^2+4*n_b))^(1/2)
% K_III = 0.8022
61
Appendix 5: MatLab Calculations, In-plane Buckling Length Factor

for Braces for a Truss with Un-identical Chords, Without Welding
welding
L_2=L_1;
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<LOWER JOINT (2C)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
b_2_a=0.110; % [m] Outer width of the brace
t_2_a=0.004; % [m] Wall thickness of the brace
I_2_a=305.9e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
b_0_a=0.300; % [m] Outer width of the chord
t_0_a=0.0125; % [m] Wall thickness of the chord
I_0_a=18348e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0_a= 8.442817140174855e+005;
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<UPPER JOINT (3)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
b_2_b=0.100; % [m] Outer width of the brace
t_2_b=0.004; % [m] Wall thickness of the brace
I_2_b=226.4e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
b_0_b=0.120; % [m] Outer width of the chord
t_0_b=0.005; % [m] Wall thickness of the chord
I_0_b=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0_b= 9.878552193205825e+005;
gamma_a=b_0_a/(2*t_0_a);
beta_a=b_2_a/b_0_a; % this is decided to be calculated as with
d_1_a=b_2_a; % brace width
62
B=0.025; % -llC=0.14; % -llD=0; % -llK_I_a=(A+B*gamma_a)*((beta_a*d_1_a/L_br)^C)+D
% K_I_a = 0.8740
gamma_b=b_0_b/(2*t_0_b);
beta_b=b_2_b/b_0_b; % this is decided to be calculated as with
d_1_b=b_2_b; % brace width
K_I_b=(A+B*gamma_b)*((beta_b*d_1_b/L_br)^C)+D
% K_I_b = 0.9675
K_I=K_I_a % Check that this is the smaller one!
His Thesis):
C_a=E*I_2_a/(k_a*L_2); % dimensionless flexibility factor
C_b=E*I_2_b/(k_b*L_2); % dimensionless flexibility factor
C_min=C_a; % Check that this is the smaller one!
K_II=((2.25+5.505*(C_a+C_b)+1.14*C_min)/((2+5.4*C_a)*(2+5.4*C_b)1))^(1/2)
% K_II = 0.5800
n_a=k_b*L_2/(E*I_2_a); % dimensionless quantity
n_b=k_b*L_2/(E*I_2_b); % dimensionless quantity
K_III=((pi^2+2*n_a)/(pi^2+4*n_a)*(pi^2+2*n_b)/(pi^2+4*n_b))^(1/2)
% K_III = 0.8022
63
Appendix 6: MatLab Calculations, In-plane Buckling Length Factor

for Chords, Without Welding
% In-plane buckling length factor for chords (SHS-SHS joints) WITHOUT
welding
L_2=L_1;
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace(s) SHS:
I_1=87.84e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
L_0=1.1855; % [m] System length of the chord
I_0=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 3.346011861831087e+005;
% From BOEL's Own Formula, K < or = 0.9:
beta=b_1/b_0;
E=1.25; % a constant for in-plane buckling of braces of SHSSHS joints
F=-0.6; % -llK_a=E+F*beta
% K_a = 0.8500
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.5000
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.5000
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 1 SHS
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=87.84e-8; % [m^4]
64
% Chord SHS:
I_0=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 3.337237102061602e+005;
beta=b_2/b_0;
% K_a = 0.8500
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.5000
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.5000
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 1C>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=19.47e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 8.080970798603437e+004;
beta=b_2/b_0;
% K_a = 1.0000 % Cant be more than 0.9
K_a=0.9;
65
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.5000
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.5000
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace(s) SHS:
I_1=2313e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=18348e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 3.075656781384002e+006;
beta=b_1/b_0;
% K_a = 0.8900
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.5000
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.5000
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=2313e-8; % [m^4]
66
% Chord SHS:
I_0=18348e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 3.069759198030135e+006;
beta=b_2/b_0;
% K_a = 0.8900
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.5000
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.5000
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 2C>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=305.9e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=18348e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 8.442817140174855e+005;
beta=b_2/b_0;
% K_a = 1.0300
K_a=0.9;
67
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.5000
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.5000
%<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<JOINT 3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>%
% Brace 2 SHS
I_2=226.4e-8; % [m^4]
% Chord SHS:
I_0=485.5e-8; % [m^4]
lengths:
C_in0= 9.878552193205825e+005;
beta=b_2/b_0;
% K_a = 0.7500
His Thesis):
K_b=(C+0.205)/(C+0.41)
% K_b = 0.5000
K_c=(pi^2+2*n)/(pi^2+4*n)
% K_c = 0.5000

2014 In-Plane Buckling and Semi-Rigid Joints of Tubular High Strength Steel Trusses PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2014 In-Plane Buckling and Semi-Rigid Joints of Tubular High Strength Steel Trusses PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

i

Examiner: Professor Markku

6.1.2 Modeling of hollow section members ............................................. 49

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Hollow structural section

1.1 Phenomenon of buckling

where EI is the flexural stiffness of the member (Boel 2010, p.14).

Figure 1.2 System length of a brace (Boel, 2010 p.8).

1.2 Buckling behavior in lattice girders

1.3 Investigation of buckling

Figure 1.4 Outline of a joint in beam-element model (Boel, 2010 p.127).

2.1 Factors influencing buckling length

Influence of lateral supports

Figure 2.3 Laterally supported girders Galambos and Xykis (1990).

2.2 Studies on the influence of sectional dimensions

2.3 Comparing FE results of Fekete to the Eurocode and

According to Boel (2010, p. 185).

3. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF BOEL

Figure 3.1 A beam-element and shell-element model of a K-joint (Boel, 2010).

3.1 Defining connection stiffness

Figure 3.4 FE-Model of Boel (2010, p. 74).

Figure 3.5 Load cases in K-joint (Boel, 2010 p. 76).

In-plane rotational stiffness of the connection

Figure 3.6 Dimension symbols of the K-joint (Boel, 2010 p. 76).

In order to verify the reliability of obtained deflections and utilized calculations,

See details from the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 75-76.

Out-of-plane rotational stiffness of the connection

See the book by Chen et al. (1993), p. 182-183.

Figure 3.7 Simple brace to chord connection (Boel, 2010 p. 80)17.

The ux on the left-hand side is presumed to be uy.

The ux on the left-hand side is presumed to be uy.

Torsional stiffness of the connection

Axial stiffness of the connection

3.2 Beam-element model

Deflection and stability

Figure 3.15 Deflection locations (Modified; Boel, 2010 p. 93).

The analyses can be found in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 100-102.

See details in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 106-107.

Figure 3.17 Geometry of lattice girder (Boel, 2010 p. 108).

Original tables available in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 108-109.

3.3 Parameter study

Figure 3.18 Geometries of lattice girders (Boel, 2010 p.142).

Section combinations and length of the girder

This is contrary to the 1000 mm mentioned in Chapter 3.1.

Supports and section types

Interpretation of buckling shapes

Final comparison and testing

Table 3.17 Buckling length factors comparison (Boel, 2010 p. 157).

4. NEW FORMULAE OF BOEL

4.1 Buckling of braces

This formulae is utilized by Boel in the process of developing new formulas.

In-plane buckling of bracing members

The results are compared to the FE results in Table 4.1.

The derivation is presented in the thesis of Boel (2010) on p. 159.

The results are compared to the FE results in Table 4.2.

The results are compared to the FE results in Table 4.3.

Author (8.3) stands for new formula (4.2) by Boel.

Out-of-plane buckling of bracing members

The results are compared to the FE results in Table 4.4.

Author (8.7) stands for new formula (4.4) by Boel.

The results are compared to the FE results in Table 4.6.

Summary of bracing members

where the buckling length factor is given the range of 0.5