See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269100377

Stability analysis of a steel roof truss

Conference Paper · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

0 1,548

3 authors, including:

Aleksander Kozlowski Fonseca J.

Rzeszów University of Technology Universidade da Beira Interior
67 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New stone structures View project

joints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aleksander Kozlowski on 09 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF A STEEL ROOF TRUSS

Aleksander Kozlowski1, João Fonseca1, Ryszard Kowalczyk1

1
Universidade da Beira Interior, Departamento de Engenharia Civil e Arquitectura, Covilhã, Portugal
E-mail: kozlowski@ubi.pt - jfonseca@ubi.pt – rkow@ubi.pt

Received ; accepted

Abstract. A steel structure of a storage building is analyzed. The main structure of the building consists of several
plane frames of 20 m span, spaced every 5 m. The light roof lattice girders are supported by H-shaped columns. The
purlins are made of cold formed channel sections with pinned connections to the upper chord of the trusses. The main
risk of collapse of this structure is out of plane buckling of the upper compressed chord of the lattice girder. Non-
-linear buckling analysis using ROBOT software was conducted for several models of the structure. The results of the
analysis show that the EC3 recommendations for design should be complemented in terms of required stiffness of the
bracing system. Possible simplified model for analysis as well as guidelines for designers have been pointed out.

Keywords: steel, buckling, truss, nonlinear analysis.

1. Introduction 2. Description of the analyzed structure

Statistics show that the most frequent reason for the
collapse of steel structures is instability. The essential
problem in the design of steel roof trusses is proper
estimation of the buckling length of the compressed
upper chord. “In plane” buckling is rather good defined
and related to node spacing. Much more problems arise
with “out of plane” buckling, especially in the
compressed chords of so-called “light” roofs. One of such
cases is analyzed in this paper. The main aim is to show
the influence of some usually neglected factors on the
stability of the steel roof truss and give guidelines for
designers.
The structure of the building consisted of a series of
9 parallel steel hipped internal frames spaced 5 m,
composed of roof lattice girders supported by H-shaped
steel columns fixed by bolts to the concrete foundations.
Each roof girder was a welded truss connected by bolts to
the columns and was provided with a tie in the form of a
horizontal prestressed cable (Fig. 1).
At two ends of the building, special external 4 bay
frames were arranged, composed of a girder made of
profile IPE 140 and five H-shaped columns spaced 5 m
each (Fig. 2). These frames served as end supports for
purlins.

2,0

Prestressed Tie

5,0
HEB 200

HEB 200

20,0

Fig 1. Side view of the internal frames

 IPE 14
IPE 140 0
0 IPE 14 2,0
IPE 14 0

HEB 200

HEB 200

HEB 200

HEB 200

HEB 200
5,0

5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0

Fig 2. Side view of the external frames

In order to stiffen the structure horizontally, X- 3. Model applied in the analysis

braces made of steel rods Ø10 connecting two
neighboring parallel frames were arranged, in the planes
of the façades and of the upper chords of the lattice
girders, in few locations along the building (Fig. 3).
Fig 3. Bracing of the system
In the routine design of such roof, out of plane
buckling length of the upper truss chord is established by
X-bracings and can be taken as about 4 m. Influence of
purlins, which are considered as pin-connected to upper
chord, is customary neglected. Using EC3 [1] design
procedure for compressed members, the load capacity of
the upper chord is about 24 kN. This value is much lower
than force carried by upper chord due to applied loading,
which value was found as 150 kN [2].
A computer model of the structure was adopted for
the analysis of the behavior of the upper chord of the
trusses of the internal frames and for the quantification of
the respective critical buckling forces. A plane model was
considered, composed of 9 parallel compressed T70 bars,
20 m long, spaced 5 m apart, representing the upper
chords of the 9 internal frames. The T70 bars were
connected transversally by pin-joined elements spaced 0,5
m, representing the purlins. The two girders of the
external frames were modeled as continuous 4 span
beams with elastic internal supports. The roof bracing
rods in X-form were included as pin-joined tension
elements. The intermediate columns of the external
frames were modeled as elastic supports (Fig. 4). Loading
was applied in the form of concentrated forces P acting on
the T70 bars. The values of these forces were estimated
by an iterative process to be as close as possible to the
critical axial forces of the upper chord of the trusses.

P P P P P P P P P

K1 K1

K1 K1

K2 K2
K1 K1

P P P P P P P P P

Fig 4. Computer plane model of the roof

 The ROBOT software was used in the stability Table 1. Influence of the support stiffness K1 on the
analysis. The problem of linear buckling analysis of a critical force
structure is formulated and solved through the problem of K1 [kN/m] Pcr [kN] λ Lo [m]
eigenvalues. Critical loads are obtained as the 0 0,92 1680 23,5
eigenvalues of the characteristic equations (1), where K is 22 8,4 555 7,8
the stiffness matrix with the influence of the member 50 12 459 6,4
normal forces. For each required buckling mode, it is 100 14 425 6,0
possible to determine critical load coefficients 223 14 425 6,0
(eigenvalues) and eigenvectors. 1000 14 425 6,0
∞ 14 425 6,0
det [K] = 0 (1)
4. 3. Stiffness K2 of the girders of the external frames
Non-linear behavior of the structure can be also
taken into account in buckling analysis. There are two
The influence of the girder stiffness on the critical
levels of geometrical non-linearity available in this
force was investigated by changing the girder cross
software: second order theory and P-∆ theory. The most
sections, using IPE 160, IPE 180, IPE 200, IPE 220, IPE
accurate theory was adopted in the computations: P-∆
270 and IPE 300 profiles. Two cases were considered for
with large displacements and rotations. Incremental
each of these profiles: vertical position (as it was built in
approach with geometry update was applied.
the presented structure) and horizontal position (as it
should be). Results of these calculations are listed in
4. Parametric study Table 2 and presented in graphical form in Fig.s 5a and
5b. The values of K2=EI/L are considered for L=5 m.
4.1. Identification of the parameters
Table 2. Influence of external frame girder stiffness K2 on
The following factors influencing stability of the the critical force
upper chord of the truss were investigated: Profile K2 [kN/m] Pcr [kN] λ Lo [m]
K1 – Stiffness of the columns of the external frames; Girder web in vertical position
K2 – Stiffness of the girders of the external frames; IPE 140 19 14 425 6,0
K3 – Stiffness of the connections between purlins IPE 160 29 19 368 5,2
and upper chord of the truss;
IPE 180 42 22 341 4,8
K4 – Stiffness of the X-bracing system of the roof;
IPE 200 60 26 317 4,5
LG – Span of the girders of the external frames.
IPE 220 86 31 291 4,1
IPE 240 119 36 268 3,8
4.2. Stiffness K1 of the columns of the external frames
IPE 270 176 45 240 3,4
The stiffness K1 of the elastic supports of the end IPE 300 254 56 216 3,0
girders (Fig. 4) was calculated using equation (2). Each Girder web in horizontal position
HEB 200 column was considered as a cantilever having IPE 140 227 52 221 3,1
the height h=5 m, fixed with bolts to a concrete IPE 160 365 70 193 2,7
foundation. The stiffness Sj of the column base was IPE 180 554 81 178 2,5
estimated in accordance to EC 3, part 1-8 [3] and the IPE 200 815 96 163 2,3
value Sj=25000 kNm/rad was adopted. IPE 220 1163 115 150 2,1
IPE 240 1634 141 136 1,9
h3 h2 (2) IPE 270 2432 184 119 1,7
K1 = 1 /( + ) = 223 kN / m IPE 300 3511 248 102 1,4
3EI S j

The bold values in Table 2 indicate sections that

The buckling force was calculated for several values
would supply appropriate stiffening of the roof structure,
of K1 from 0 to infinity and the results are summarized in
that means that the critical forces were greater then those
Table 1. Pcr is the critical force in the upper chord of the
calculated for the real structure before collapse (150 kN).
truss, calculated using nonlinear second order buckling
It can be concluded that even relatively big profiles
analysis, λ is the bar slenderness and Lo is the member located in vertical position are not sufficient to stiffen the
buckling length.
roof. However, arranging profiles IPE 270 and 300 in
The results show that, above a certain lower limit, horizontal position as the girders of external frames, could
the stiffness K1 of the columns has no influence on the provide satisfactory results.
critical force. For a wide range of practical values of K1,
the critical force remains constant. Even slender columns
have a stabilizing effect, as it is in the case of a HEB100
with K1 =22 kN/m.
 300 160
250 140
P cr (kN)

200 120
150 100

P cr (kN)
100
80
50
60
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 40
20
K2 (kNm)
0
22 30 50 75 100
Fig 5a. Influence of stiffness K2 on the critical force
K3 (kNm/rad)

300
Fig 6. Influence of purlin-upper chord connection stiffness
Vertical
250
Horizontal From Fig. 6 it can be concluded that only very high
200
stiffness of purlin-upper chord connection may
sufficiently increase the critical force, but such high
P cr (kN)

150 values of K3 are practically unrealistic.

However considering the favorable combination of
100 the effects of K1 = 223 kN/m, K2= 1163 kNm and K3 = 22
kNm/rad results in increase of the critical force in the
50 IPE220 girder profile in the horizontal position from 115
to 158 kN. This value is larger than the value of the force
0
carried by upper chord due to applied loads (150 kN).
140
160
180
200
220
240
270
300

Therefore applying such profile for the external frame

Profile IPE girder and assuming realistic value of torsional stiffness
of purlin connections could make the structure stable.

Fig 5b. Influence of girder cross-section on the critical force 4.5. Stiffness K4 of the X-bracing system

The results of the analysis performed in [2] have

4.4. Stiffness K3 of the connections between purlins
shown that X-bracing as applied in the project had no
and upper chord of the truss
pratical influence on the critical force of the upper chord.
To find out whether this was caused by too small cross
The bolted connections between purlins and T70
section of the bars, calculations were performed for a
profiles of upper chord are customary considered as
wide range of sections, namely from Ø 0 to 100 mm. In
pinned. However considering our plane model the
all these cases the same values of critical forces were
possibilities of rotation of these connections in the roof
obtained.
plane are limited by the torsional stiffness of connecting
It can be concluded that the influence of the X-
plate welded to the upper cord. The influence of the
bracing system is negligible in the presence of the other
torsional stiffnes of these connections was modeled by
stabilizing factors, like K1, K2 and K3.
sprigs, which stiffness was assumed to have the minimum
value K3 = 22 kNm/rad.
4.6. Span of the girders of the external frames
The influence of the stiffness of these connections
on the critical force was then investigated for various
To investigate the influence of the support conditions
values of K3, and the results are summarized in Table 3
of the girders of the external frames, three different spans
and Fig. 6.
were considered: LG=5 m (like in analyzed structure),
LG=7,5 m and LG=10 m. The results presented in Table 4
Table 3. Influence of the torsional stiffness K3 of
and Fig. 7 show a approximate linear relation between Pcr
purlin-upper chord connection on the critical force
and LG.
K3 [kNm/rad] Pcr [kN] λ Lo [m]
22 57 213 3,0
30 70 192 2,7
50 99 161 2,3
75 128 142 2,0
100 151 131 1,8
Table 4. Influence of the span of the external frame Table 5. The relation between the correspondent values of
girders on the critical force Tables 2 and 5 is presented in Fig. 9.
Pcr (kN) IPE140 IPE200 IPE270 IPE300
Girder web in vertical position Table 5. Critical forces in the simplified model
LG=5 m 14 26 45 56 Profile Pcr [kN] Pcr [kN]
LG=7,5 m 8,0 13 27 36 Girder web in Girder web in
LG=10 m 7,3 12 24 32 vertical horizontal
Girder web in horizontal position position position
LG=5 m 52 96 184 248 IPE 140 47 417
LG=7,5 m 33 86 170 185 IPE 160 67 585
LG=10 m 30 80 127 145 IPE 180 94 711
IPE 200 128 844
IPE 220 180 1017
300 IPE 240 245 1249
2 50 IPE14 0 v IPE 270 349 1249
200 IPE14 0 h IPE 300 450 1249
IPE2 0 0 v
150
IPE2 0 0 h
10 0
IPE2 70 v
50 IPE2 70 h
10
9
IPE3 0 0 v 8

PcrT5/PcrT2
0
IPE3 0 0 h
7
5,0 m 7,5 m 10 ,0 m 6
Sp an o f t he ext ernal g ird ers
5
4
3
2
1
Fig 7. Influence of support spacing of the girders of the 0
external frames 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
K2 (kNm)
5. Reduced model for simplified analysis

The results of the parametric study show clearly that
the strongest influence on the stability of this roof has the
stiffness of the girder of the external frames. The
minimum value for the girder stiffness required to obtain
a critical force above 150 kN was K2=EI/L=1163 kNm,
corresponding to IPE220 profile in horizontal position.
In order to avoid the complexity of the analysis of
the global model with 9 stiffened trusses, a reduced
model was analyzed (Fig. 8) with only one profile T70
between two girders.
P this kind of structure can be obtained by dividing the
K1 K1
Fig 9. Relation between the critical forces of the two
models
Comparing the results from Tables 2 and 5 it is
evident that for a wide range of profiles and values of K2,
the relation between the critical forces is about 9,
corresponding to the number of trusses in the complete
model. This range of values corresponds to girder profiles
in horizontal position.
Therefore the critical force for the global model of
value of critical force from reduced model by number of
trusses.
6. Design recommendations

K1 K1 According to EC3 [1], the bracing system of a roof

structure should be loaded and designed for the equivalent
stabilising force qsd given by (3):
K1 K1

e0 + δ q
K2 K2
q sd = ∑ N sd × 8 × (3)
L2

P where: Nsd is the design force in the stabilised

Fig 8. Reduced model for simplified analysis
The critical forces were calculated for different
solutions of external girders (K2), employing K1 = 223
kN/m and assuming pinned connections between the
purlins and the T70 profile. Results are presented in
member; L is the bracing span; e0 is the initial bow
imperfection; δq is the deflection of the bracing system
due to qsd and to any external loads calculated from first
order analysis. The initial bow imperfection e0 can be
estimated with equations (4) and (5), where m is the
number of members to be restrained.
 Beam stiffness K2 and support stiffness K1 play the
αmL main role in the design of external frames, but also the
e0 = (4) ULS of these beams should be checked using the forces
500
calculated in the model of Fig. 10 and vertical loading
 1 from supported purlins.
α m = 0,51 +  (5)
 m
7. Conclusions
In the analysed case, assuming m=9, αm=0,75, L=20
m, e0=0,03 m, δq ≈ L/200=0,1 m and ΣNsd=9×150= 1350 Advanced stability analysis done with the use of
kN, the equivalent bracing loading is qsd=3,5 kN/m. ROBOT software for a light roof steel structure can lead
The deflection of the girders of the external frames to the following conclusions:
under such a loading depends on the supports stiffnesses - The stiffness of external frame girder has the
K1 and girder stiffness K2, and can be calculated using the strongest influence on roof stability. The stiffness of the
scheme of Fig. 10. purlin-upper chord connections has also a certain
importance. The X-bracing system has no influence on
q sd =3,5 kN/m critical forces.
- For a wide range of solutions, reduced models can
be used to estimate the buckling load of this kind of roof
K2 structures.
K1 K1 K1 - The only realistic way to improve the stability of
the analyzed structure is to apply profiles with sufficient
Fig 10. Static scheme of the girder of external frame stiffness as girders of external frames.
- Design rules given in EC3 for bracing systems
Assuming a given value of K1=223 kN/m, the
seem to be not sufficient to ensure roof stability because
deflection of different profiles in horizontal position was
they do not provide rules for required girder stiffness. The
calculated and the results are given in Table 6.
design loads given by (3) can be used to estimate the
required stiffness of the external frames, as shown in the
Table 6. Maximal deflection of the model of Fig. 10
paper.
Profile IPE 200 IPE 220 IPE 240 IPE 270 IPE 300
δ (mm) 89,2 88,5 86,8 83,5 79,1
References
Using the results of point 4.3., were the profile
1. pr EN 1993 - 1-1: 2003: Eurocode 3. Part 1-1. General rules
IPE270 was found necessary to stabilize the structure, it and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, 2003.
is possible to define a limit for the deflection of about 2. Fonseca J., Kowalczyk R., Kozlowski A.: The collapse of an
83,5 mm (L/240). overloaded steel roof. XXI KONFERENCJA NAUKOWO-
It may be concluded that the required stiffness for TECHNICZNA. Szczecin 2003.
the girders of the external frames should keep the 3. pr EN 1993-1-8:2003: Eurocode 3, Part 1.8: Design of Joints.
horizontal deflections under the limit of L/240. CEN, Brussels, 2003.

View publication stats