Mechanism of Collapse of

Space Trusses with Steel

Hollow Circular Bars with
Flattened Ends
Alex Sander Clemente de Souza and Roberto Martins Gonçalves

Department of Structural Engineering, University of São Paulo at São Carlos campus

Av. Trabalhador São-Carlense, 400 – CEP13.566–590 – São Carlos, SP – Brazil – e.mail: goncalve@sc.usp.br

(Received 5th July 2005)

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of experimental analysis of space

trusses using steel tubular bars with flattened ends. The connections are
formed by overlapped bars connected by single bolt. Such system has been
used due to the low cost and assembly facilities. The behavior and collapse
modes were determined by experimental analysis on six space trusses with
1.5 m height and spans of 7.5 m × 7.5 m and 7.5 m × 15 m. Structures with
steel nodes in the top corner and supports points were also tested. The
structural collapse was caused by either connection collapse or yielding in the
bar ends. Traditional theoretical analysis models (linear truss model) are not
suitable for these structures.

INTRODUCTION
Over the last two decades there has been an increase in
the use and development of space trusses for different
applications like gymnasiums, exhibition pavilions
and hangars. In other words, structures with large free
areas and long spans. The space truss system has some
advantages over the conventional ones1.
A suitable design is necessary to explore the
advantages of space trusses. It should integrate
structure and architecture with economy of material,
durability, production and assembly easiness.
Guidelines for the design and classification of space
trusses have been presented by MAKOWSKI1,
IFFLAND2, AGERSKOV3 and MARSH4.
In many types of space trusses hollow circular
section bars are frequently used. The difficulty in
making connections details is a disadvantage when
hollow circular sections are used.
The main problem of design and development in
space trusses are the connection systems, because they
have significant influence on the cost, structural
behavior and collapse modes.
The choice of a connection system depends on
structural layout, types of sections and distribution of
bars. Many patented or ad hoc connection systems are
available and new ones continue to be invented but the
code of practice does not include specific design rules
for these connections.
Bars are connected to a spherical node, hub or joint
block in the patented connection systems. MERO
system (fig. 1) was the first patented system for space
structures1.
Many other patented systems were also developed –
IMAI5, IWATA & KAMIYAMA6, LANDOLFO &
MAZZOLANI7. Designers and researchers have used
ad hoc systems – GERRITS8, GANDOLFI9, De
MARTINO10, COOD11, EL-SHEIKH12 and
CUENCAS13 – due to their lower cost than patented
systems.

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 20 No. 4 2005 201

 Mechanism of Collapse on Space Trusses with Steel Hollow Circular Bars with Flattened Ends
Figure 1. Mero connection system
There are systems without a special nodal piece like
the ones studied here. In this case, the chord bars have
flattened ends and can be continuous or not. Diagonal
bars are flattened and bent at the ends, Fig. 2.
The typical node, which is reported in this paper, is
a connection system, similar to the one previously
shown and largely used in Brazil, (Fig. 3).
CUENCAS13 describes a gymnasium built in Spain
where a similar typical node was used, Fig. 4.
Figure 2. Systems without a special nodal piece11, 12
Figure 3. Typical node
202
Figure 4. CUENCA (2002)13 connection system
Connections like the ones shown in figures 2, 3 and
4 are easy to produce and assemble, and are low in
cost, however aspects of structural behavior, collapse
modes and theoretical analysis should be carefully
evaluated.
In Brazilian design offices, the space trusses are
usually analyzed using linear elastic models (a linear
truss model), without eccentricity, with flexible nodes
and uniform sections along the bars length.
However, in space trusses with a connection system
previously described those hypotheses are not
confirmed. In this case it is necessary to include the
nodal stiffness, section variation in the bar ends,
eccentricity in the connections, physical and
geometrical nonlinearities.
TYPICAL NODES – FEATURES
The typical node (Fig. 3) is the most popular
connection system in Brazil. The main advantages are
low cost, easy production and easy assembly. These
connection systems have an important influence on the
structural behavior of the compression bars and the
whole space truss.
Their flattened ends may lead to a reduction in the
compression strength capacity and premature failure
by local instability.
A direct test of compression bars with flattened
ends shows a reduction of up to 50% in compression
strength in relation to the theoretical results calculated
without flattened ends – SOUZA14. Strut bars, with
slenderness less than 60 are more critical.
SOUZA14 presented an approximate procedure for
the design of compression bars with flattened ends, but
it is very complicated to use in design offices as the
shape and length of the flattening do not follow a
standard manufacturing process.
The behavior of compression members is a function
of node stiffness, bar slenderness and the other
connected members in the same node. Therefore full-
scale tests are necessary to obtain compression bars
behavior and space trusses collapse modes.
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 20 No. 4 2005
Alex Sander Clemente de Souza and Roberto Martins Gonçalves

Eccentricity is another problem in typical nodes. A The prototypes were divided into two groups
local failure by yielding is possible because end (Table 1). In the top corner of ProtA-3 and ProtB-3 a
flattened tubes have low flexural stiffness and “steel node” was used. Fig. 6 presents the details of the
eccentric loads induce bends in bars. A local failure by nodes and bars ends.
yielding in critical regions, such as support nodes or
Materials
corner nodes, may lead to structural collapse.
ASTM A325 bolts with 19 mm diameter were used.
Connection failure is the most common cause of
Connection plates and steel nodes were made of
structural collapse which occurred in Brazil and are
ASTM A36 steel (fy = 250 MPa).
the object of investigation by the authors.
The tubular bars were made of ASTM A36 steel
Ten years ago the authors of the present paper began
for series A and ASTM A570 steel (fy = 290 MPa) for
a wide theoretical and experimental study of space
series B.
trusses. The objective was to determine the collapse
modes for several connection systems, mainly the
“typical node”, and develop criteria for analysis,
design and construction. The authors conducted their
research with tests in space truss prototypes of
different connection systems15,16,17. The main
experimental results for the typical nodes are
presented in this paper.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Six space truss prototypes with 1.5 m height and spans
of 7.5 m × 7.5 m and 7.5 m × 15 m were tested – see
Fig. 5a and Fig. 5b.

Figure 5a. Space truss (A series: protA-1, protA-2, protA-3) Figure 5b. Space truss (B series: protB-1, protB-2, protB-3)

Table 1 Prototypes tested

Prototypes Dimensions Support Diagonal (mm) Steel Observations

ProtA-1 Φ 76 × 2.0
ProtA-2 7.5 m × 7.5 m φ 88 × 2.65 ASTM A36
ProtA-3 φ 88 × 2.65 Steel node in top corner and supports.
ProtB-1 Φ 60 × 2.0
ProtB-2 15 m × 7.5 m φ 88 × 2.65 ASTM A570
ProtB-3 φ 88 × 2.65 Steel node in top corner and supports.

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 20 No. 4 2005 203

 Mechanism of Collapse on Space Trusses with Steel Hollow Circular Bars with Flattened Ends

a) Typical node – corner b) Typical node – support

(protA-1, protA-2, protB-1 e protB-2) (protA-1, protA-2, protB-1 and protB-2)

c) Steel node – corner (protA-3 and protB-3) d) Steel node – support (protA-3 and protB-3)

Figure 6. Details of the nodes and bar ends

Assembly and Test Procedures

The prototypes were assembled on a reactions slab
with a rigid base of columns. Fig. 7 shows some steps
of the assembly of the prototypes.
Loads were applied to Series A prototypes to four
bottom nodes and to ten bottom nodes of Series B
prototypes. Special steel nodes were used in the load
applications points.
The displacements were measured by LVDT in
the bottom and top nodes. The same bars in the
central regions and in the corners were chosen to
measure strains. The measurements were taken in
middle section bars and in two sections in the
flattened ends. Fig. 8 shows the set up details for the
test.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 7. Assembly of prototypes

204 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 20 No. 4 2005

Alex Sander Clemente de Souza and Roberto Martins Gonçalves

fy

0.1E
fp = 0.5fy

E = 20500 kN/cm2

Figure 8. Set up test

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS Figure 11. Stress vs. strain relationship

Theoretical analyses by Finite Element using ANSYS
software were performed. In the first analysis both In order to include the section variation, the bars
nodal displacements and bar forces were determined were divided as shown in Fig. 9.
by a linear truss model and the theoretical ultimate The end bends of diagonal bars were inserted in the
strength was determined as a function of the bars analysis model to reproduce the eccentricities
capacity. according to the nodal geometry – Fig. 10.
The second analysis with eccentricity, inertia Experimental results show that the structural
variation in end bars and physical non-linearity was collapse in space trusses depends on both rotation
further included in the numerical analysis. and yielding in the bar ends. The flattened ends in the
bars cause residual stress in the transversal sections;
therefore the stress vs. strain relationship of Fig. 11
Tube Φ 88 × 2.65 was adopted.
section 1

section 2

section 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

circular section The collapse mode has been generally associated with
138 mm

connections failure – Figure 11.

Only in prototype ProtA-3, due to the existence of
steel nodes in the top corner and supports, the
structural collapse was caused by the instability of the
top chord bars – Fig. 12.
140 mm 90 mm 90 mm
The experimental loads were lighter than the
8 mm

theoretical ones for ideal truss analysis – Table 2.

In the nonlinear analysis with eccentricity and
section 1 section 2 section 3 circular sections variation the correlation between the
section experimental and theoretical loads was better – Table 3.
Figure 9. End bars for numerical analysis The difference between the experimental and
theoretical loads was significant for the displacements
even with eccentricity and nonlinear analysis in the
eccentricity
50 mm theoretical model, (Table 4).
e
Diagonal Table 2 Experimental vs. theoretical loads – elastic
eccentric node
linear analysis
Node

Prototype Fexp (kN) Fteo (kN) Fexp/Fteo

1500 mm

Diagonal
centered node φ 60 × 2.0 mm ProtA-1 161.3 259.7 0.62
ProtA-2 160.2 245.9 0.65
Node
ProtA-3 179 259.7 0.69
ProtB-1 93 129.7 0.72
e ProtB-2 71 162.8 0.43
ProtB-3 148.8 162.8 0.91
Figure 10. Modeling of eccentricities

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 20 No. 4 2005 205

 Mechanism of Collapse on Space Trusses with Steel Hollow Circular Bars with Flattened Ends

Table 4 Theoretical vs. experimental

displacements – nonlinear analysis

Prototype Dexp (kN) Dtheo (kN) Dexp/Dtheo

ProtA-1 7.5 3.75 2.0
ProtA-2 6.56 3.75 1.75
ProtA-3 2.6 3.0 0.87
ProtB-1 4.62 5.5 0.84
ProtB-2 4.56 3.55 1.28
ProtB-3 7.9 7.6 1.04
a) ProtA-1

The curve load vs. displacement shows the

nonlinear behavior due to the yielding of the flattened
ends and slips in the nodal region. These phenomena
justify the differences between the experimental and
theoretical results, as the slip was not considered in the
theoretical analysis. The graphs of Fig. 13 and Fig. 14
show the load vs. displacement curves.
According to the graphs the elastic linear analyses
are not adequate for these space trusses. The
eccentricity, inertia, end-bar variation and non-
linearities are very important for the behavior of space
b) ProtA-3 trusses, therefore they must be included in the
theoretical analysis – see Fig. 15 and Fig. 16.
200
180
160
140
Load (kN)

120
100
80
60 ProtA-1
ProtA-2
40
ProtA-3
20
theoretical linear
0
0 –1 –2 –3 –4 –5 –6 –7 –8 –9
Displacement (cm)
c) ProtB-1 Figure 13. Load vs. displacement experimental curves –
Figure 12. Collapse mode Series A

140

120
Table 3 Experimental vs. theoretical loads –
100
nonlinear analysis
Load (kN)

80

Prototype Fexp (kN) Ftheo (kN) Fexp/Ftheo 60

40 ProtB-1 exp.
ProtA-1 161.3 195 0.83 ProtB-2 exp.
ProtA-2 160.2 195 0.82 20 ProtB-3 exp.

theoretical linear
ProtA-3 179 215 0.83 0
0 –1 –2 –3 –4 –5 –6 –7 –8 –9
ProtB-1 93 90 1.03 Displacement (cm)
ProtB-2 71 79 0.9
ProtB-3 148.8 200 0.74 Figure 14. Load vs. displacement experimental curves –
Series B

206 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 20 No. 4 2005

Alex Sander Clemente de Souza and Roberto Martins Gonçalves

200 1 00

80
150
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
60
100
ProtA-1 40
ProtA-2 ProtB-1 experimental
50 Theoretical ProtB-1 theoretical
20 ProtB-2 experimental
0 ProtB-2 theoretical
0 –1 –2 –3 –4 –5 –6 –7 –8 –9 0
Displacement (cm) 0 –1 –2 –3 –4 –5 –6
Displacement (cm)
250
220
200
200
180
Load (kN)

160
150 140

Load (kN)
120
100 100
Theoretical 80
50 ProtA-3 60
40
ProtB-3 experimental
0 20 ProtB-3 theoretical
0 –1 –2 –3 –4 0
Displacement (cm) 0 –1 –2 –3 –4 –5 –6 –7 –8 –9
Displacement (cm)
Figure 15. Load vs. displacement experimental curves –
nonlinear analysis (Series A) Figure 16. Load vs. displacement experimental curves –
nonlinear analysis (Series B)

100

80

60
Load (kN)

40
ProtB-1
1 - exp
20 2 - exp
Theoretical
0
0 –100 –200 –300 –400 –500
Points of strain measurements Strain (µε)

100
100

80
80

60
60
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

40
40

ProtB-1 - experimental ProtB-1 - theoretical ProtB-1 - theoretical ProtB-1 - experimental

20 20
point 5 point 5 point 4 point 4
point 3 point 3 point 6 point 6
0 0
-7000 –6000 –5000 –4000 –3000 –2000 –1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Strain (µε) Strain (µε)

Figure 17. Strain on the support diagonal ProtB-1

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 20 No. 4 2005 207

 Mechanism of Collapse on Space Trusses with Steel Hollow Circular Bars with Flattened Ends
The behavior of the structures (except TrussB-3),
mainly for the displacements in the first load steps, is
well represented by the numerical model analysis.
In ProtB-3 both structural arrangement and slip
between bars in the nodal region justify the
disagreement between the theoretical and
experimental results. The theoretical analysis model
does not include the slip between bars in the nodal
region.
Elastic linear strains were found in the middle
sections of the bar, but in the end sections plastic
strains with complicated pattern were found. Fig. 17
shows some experimental strain results.
Fig. 17 shows that the results of theoretical non-
linear analysis with eccentricity and inertia variations
in bars are very close to the experimental ones.
CONCLUSIONS
Tests on space truss prototypes were performed to
determine the collapse pattern. The results of
experimental and theoretical analyses allow to
conclude that:
1. The connections failure was the predominant
collapse pattern and was caused by plastic strains
in the end bars, node rotations and slip among
bars in the nodal region. These facts caused an
increase in the displacements and the premature
structural collapse.
2. The nodes failure began in the top vertices, where
there were the worst eccentricity conditions.
3. The structural collapse pattern was modified by
the use of steel nodes (Fig. – 5b) in the top
vertices (ProtA-3 e ProtB-3). Top chord
instability was the cause of collapse in ProtA-3
and excessive displacement was the convectional
collapse in ProtB-3.
4. Collapse pattern differences between ProtA-3
and ProtB-3 occurred due to the differences in the
ratio module length by span (3 for ProtA-3 and 6
for ProtB-3) and ratio height by span (5 for
ProtA-3 and 10 for ProtB-3).
5. The relationship between the experimental and
the theoretical loads was better in non-linear
analysis with eccentricity and inertia variation in
bar ends, but for displacements the experimental
and theoretical agreement was not good.
Differences of up to 100% between theoretical
and experimental displacements were found.
6. Low cost is the main reason for the use of
connection systems with flattened end bar.
However the results presented here show critical
points in the design: this connection system should
208
not be used in support nodes. The length of the
flattened ends must always be as short as possible.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Brazilian research
institutions FAPESP and CNPq for their financial
support for this research work.
REFERENCES
1. MAKOWSKI, Z. S., Review of development of various
types of double-layer grids. In: MAKOWSKI, Z. S., ed.
Analysis, design and construction of Double-layer grids.
Applied Science., p. 1–55. 1981.
2. IFFLAND, J., Preliminary planning of steel roof space
trusses. Journal of the Structural Division, v. 108, n. 11,
p. 2578–2589. Nov, 1982.
3. AGERSKOV, H., Optimum geometry design of double-
layer space structure. Journal of Structural Engineering,
v. 112, n. 6, p. 1454–1463. June, 1986.
4. MARSH, C., Some observations on designing double
layer grids. International Journal of Space Structures,
v. 15, n. 3/4, p. 225–231. 2000.
5. IMAI, K. et al., The KT space truss system. In:
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SPACE
STRUCTURES, 4, Guildford, UK, Sept. 1993.
Proceedings. London, Thomas Telford. v. 2,
p. 1374–1382. 1993.
6. IWATA, M., KAMIYAMA, K., Development and projects
of the NS space truss system. In: INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON SPACE STRUCTURES, 4., Guildford,
UK, Sept. 1993. Proceedings. London, Thomas Telford.
v. 2, p. 1417–1426. 1993.
7. LANDOLFO, R., Qualification analysis of a new
structural system. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON SPACE STRUCTURES, 4., Guildford, UK, Sept.
1993. Proceedings. London, Thomas Telford. v. 1,
p. 693–702. 1993.
8. GERRITS, J. M., Space structures in the Netherlands
since 1975. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
SPACE STRUCTURES, 3., Guildford, UK, Sept. 1984.
Proceedings. London/New York, Elsevier Applied
Science. p. 28–32. 1984.
9. GANDOLFI, A., Hangar per il montaggio e la revisione
di velivoli nello stabilimento aeritalia de Capodichino
Nord. Costruzioni Metalliche, n. 6, p. 317–324. 1989.
10. DE MARTINO, A., Relazione generale: progettaziopne,
lavorazione e montaggio. Costruzioni Metalliche, n. 1,
p. 14–54. 1992.
11. COOD, E. T., Low technology space frames.
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SPACE
STRUCTURES, 3., Guildford, UK, sept. 1984.
Proceedings. London, Elsevier Applied, p. 955–960. 1984.
12. EL-SHEIKH, A. I., Experimental study of behavior of
new space truss system. Journal of Structural
Engineering, v. 122, n. 8, p. 845–853. Aug, 1996.
13. CUENCAS, L. S., The stainless steel structures of a sport
stadium in quart. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON SPACE STRUCTURES, 5., Guildford, UK, Aug.
2002. Proceedings. London, Thomas Telford. v. 1,
p. 547–556. 2002.
14. SOUZA, A. S. C., GONÇALVES, R. M., Influence of
section variation by stamping of bar ends the behavior
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 20 No. 4 2005
Alex Sander Clemente de Souza and Roberto Martins Gonçalves
of space trusses. In: NORDIC STEEL CONSTRUCTION
CONFERENCE, 9., Helsinki, Finland, 18–20 June,
2001.
15. SOUZA, A. S. C., GONÇALVES, R. M., MALITE, M.,
Behaviour of tubular space truss connections with
stamped end bars. In: PARKE, G. A. R., DISNEY, P.
(Ed.). Space structures 5 (Proc. 5th International
Conference on Space Structures, Guildford, UK, 19–21
August 2002). London, Thomas Telford, 2002. v. 1,
p. 337–345 (ISBN: 0-7277-3173-4).
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 20 No. 4 2005
16. MALITE, M., MAIOLA, C. H., GONÇALVES, R. M.,
SOUZA, A. S. C., Experimental analysis of the structural
performance of space trusses commonly used in Brazil.
International Journal of Space Structures, v. 16, n. 4,
p. 253–260, 2001. (ISSN: 0266-3511).
17. SOUZA, A. C. S., GONÇALVES, R. M., MALITE, M.,
MAIOLA, C. H., Theoretical analysis of the structural
performance of space trusses commonly used in Brazil.
International Journal of Space Structures. v. 18, n. 3,
p. 167–179, 2003. (ISSN: 0266-3511).
209