Toomas Kaljas CEO / Chief Engineer

Author:

Rak Tek Solutions Oy

Linnoitustie 4A, FI-02600 Espoo
(Suomi)
+358 445575835
toomas.kaljas@rakteksolutions.fi
www.rakteksolutions.fi
Skype rakteksolution

Load bearing capacity analysis of collapsed Maxima shopping center steel trusses.
On November 21.11.2013 Maxima shopping center roof collapsed in Riga. This technical
report is intended to verify the maximum load bearing capacity of steel truss due to failure of tension flange connection. This paper is a second step on collapse analysis, preceded by preliminary
analysis based on photographic and video evidence. The report will be succeeded by more elaborate
calculations, identifying all connection capacities and maximum load bearing capacity of the steel
truss, given that tension connection would have been sufficiently strong.
This report is based on technical documents, provided by steel truss manufactures SIA
Vikom in Latvia. This report is impartial and independent and aims to find the true collapse load
and mechanisms behind it.

Rak Tek Solutions Oy Linnoitustie 4A, 02600 Espoo, Finland Puh. +358 44 5575 835 info@rakteksolutions.fi

1/9

Technical data: (Based on manufacturing drawings)

Tension connection bolts M20

steel grade 8.8

Number of bolts

10 pcs

Tension area of bolts

At

244.794 mm2

Ultimate strength of bolts

fu

800MPa

Yield strength of bolts

fy

640MPa

Nt.Rd

141

Rupture strength of bolts

Nt.rupture

195.8 kN

Tension connection end plate 20mm

steel grade S235JR

Design strength of one bolt

(EN 1993-1-8)

kN

(14 t)
(19.8 t)

changed to S355 during manufacturing

Bottom flange beam HEA260

steel grade S355J2G3

Top flange beam HEA300

steel grade S355J2G3

Diagonals:
-

First tension diagonals HEA260

steel grade S355J2G3

All remaining diagonals CFRHS 160*5

steel grade S355J2G3

Figure 1. Dimensions of truss, profiles: HEA260 (blue), CFRHS 160*5 (red), HEA300 (pink)

Span of truss:

Lspan

16

Spacing of trusses

cc

Maximum effective height of truss

heff.steel

1.7 m

including benefit from hollow core slabs composite action

heff.composite

1.88 m

Self weight of steel truss

gsw

2 kN/m

Self weight of hollow core slabs (320mm)

ghollow

33.6kN/m

Maximum effective height of truss

Rak Tek Solutions Oy Linnoitustie 4A, 02600 Espoo, Finland Puh. +358 44 5575 835 info@rakteksolutions.fi

2/9

Self weight of concrete toping (average 40mm)

gtoping

8 kN/m

Figure 2. Dimensions of tension connection end plate, location of bolt hole, red holes represent
(NFT = non-functional bolts), load is carried through truss with eccentricity of 26.76mm. End
plate 20mm, yields safely due to bolt forces and redistributes forces in safe manner between 8 effective bolts.

Bolts are initially assumed to be loaded in statically determined fashion with eccentric tensile load
from HEA 260 steel beams, with load eccentricity calculated from FEM model.
Assuming the 20mm plate infinitely rigid can the load capacity of bolts group be found as:

NRd.connedtion =

(94.29mm+40.71mm)/( 94.29mm)*4*141kN

807

kN

(1)

Nconnection,final rupture =

(94.29mm+40.71mm)/( 94.29mm)*4*195.8kN

1121

kN

(2)

(These results here are based on blind engineering analysis, no bias)

To ensure that no steel is wasted and structure exhibits ductile behaviour, the bolt connection shall
be able to carry yield force of the truss lower chord HEA260 profile. Load is applied with eccentricity of 26.76mm, leading to reduced axial yield capacity of HEA260 profile.

Nyield.profile,ecc

= [EN 1993-1-1, eq 6.38]

2801.5 kN

Rak Tek Solutions Oy Linnoitustie 4A, 02600 Espoo, Finland Puh. +358 44 5575 835 info@rakteksolutions.fi

(3)

3/9

Connection is brittle and efficiency is low (steel beams HEA 260 strength reserves cannot be used)

NRd.connedtion/ N.yield.profile,ecc = 807kN/2801.5kN =

(4)

0.28805 < 1

Calculations of maximum rupture load of steel truss:

In final stages before approaching collapse connection could have been carrying 1121kN. Based on
span of trusses the applied distributed load acting on truss can be calculated as:

qcollapse

Nconnection,final rupture* heff.composite *8/Lspan2

1121kN*1.88m*8/(16m)2

65.85 kN/m (5)

In moment before final collapse, steel truss would have been loaded with 6585 kg/m.
The extra loads on hollow cores can be calculated using trivial algebra calculus:
qextra

qcollapse - ghollow - gsw - gtoping

22.25 kN/m (6)

2.78 kN/m2

Converting truss line loads into average square meter loads

q gardening + heat insulations =

(22.25kN/m)/cc

(7)

Hence the average load on roof before collapse was 278kg/m2 including heat insulation.
Based on visual inspections from photographic evidence the loading was most likely 400kg/m2.
This means that secondary effects not included here, helped carry the load and relieved stresses on
bolts. Secondary continuity of truss top chord helped increase the final collapse load.
Structure behaved better, than structural engineer could have imagined after blind calculations.

Rak Tek Solutions Oy Linnoitustie 4A, 02600 Espoo, Finland Puh. +358 44 5575 835 info@rakteksolutions.fi

4/9

Fact: 20mm S235 end plate will form yield lines and form plastic mechanism. This reduces axial
loading eccentricity. Appendix 1 contains calculation of yield line and required bolt forces for that
mechanism (justification). However, according to manufacturer, the steel grade was increased to
S355, which makes the end plate stronger, but connection in general more brittle.
Bolts were observed to not break in tension, but shearing the threads. This could mean that bolts
themselves were performing in a ductile manner, which is a very good sign. It allowed for redistribution of internal bolt forces before the collapse, allowing structure to obtain its maximum peak
load carrying capacity.
In any case, both the plate and bolts performed better that one can expect from blind calculations.

Utilizing the fact of bolt internal force redistribution connection strength can be assumed to be
on higher levels as follows:

NRd.connedtion

8*141kN

1128

kN

(8)

Nconnection,final rupture

8*195.8kN

1566.4 kN

(9)

To ensure that no steel is wasted and structure exhibits overall ductile behaviour, the bolt connection shall be able to carry at least yield limit of the truss lower chord HEA260 profile with centric
loading.

Nyield.profile,centric

(10)

3083.5 kN

Connection is brittle NRd.connedtion/ N.yield.profile,centic = 1128kN/3083kN =

0.365 < 1

(11)

Based on span of trusses the applied distributed load acting on truss can be re-calculated.
Composite action between hollow cores and steel truss is neglected in this calculation, partly because there is little evidence for effective and reliable composite action in current structural system.

qcollapse

Nconnection,final rupture* heff.steel *8/Lspan2 =

1566.4 kN*1.7m*8/(16m)2

83.2 kN/m

Rak Tek Solutions Oy Linnoitustie 4A, 02600 Espoo, Finland Puh. +358 44 5575 835 info@rakteksolutions.fi

(12)

5/9

In moment before final collapse, steel truss would have been loaded with 8320 kg/m.
The extra loads on hollow cores slabs can be calculated using algebra calculus:

qextra

qcollapse - ghollow - gsw - gtoping

39.615 kN/m

(13)

4.95 kN/m2

(14)

Converting truss line loads into average square meter loads

q gardening + heat insulations =

(39.615kN/m)/cc = (39.615kN/m)/8m =

Results seem to match with visual inspection of photos. Hence the probable loading due to gardening would have been 495 kg/m2 on average, just a moment before collapse.

Allowable loads of steel truss:

Since truss design is brittle, safety factors of brittle materials like concrete are applicable.
Total allowable load:
behaviour

brittle behaviour safety factor

1.5

permanenload

permanent load safety margin

1.15/1.35

additional.load

additional load safety margin

1.151.5

q total

Nconnection,final rupture* heff *8/Lspan2

q total

1128*1.7m*8/(16m)2

59.925 kN/m

(15)

Using algebra and safety factors, maximum allowable extra load on structure would have been:
qallowable.extra

= (q total 1.15(ghollow + gsw + gtoping))/ additional.load/ behaviour = 4.35 kN/m

(16)

Distributing allowable load for truss, to slab yields suitable and allowable extra load on truss:
q allowable gardening + heat insulations

qallowable.extra /cc

0.543kN/m2.

(17)

Structure could have been considered safe only for 54.3kg/m2 of variable load like snow. Beyond
this limit, structure can be considered exceeding it suitable design limits.
It could be seen, that real loading involved in collapse exceeded safe allowable value almost 10
times.

Rak Tek Solutions Oy Linnoitustie 4A, 02600 Espoo, Finland Puh. +358 44 5575 835 info@rakteksolutions.fi

6/9

Additional loads acting on top of hollow core slabs specified on design drawings:
Characteristic permanent load acting on roof has been specified as: 6.38 kN/m2 (638kg/m2)
Characteristic snow load acting on roof has been specified as:
Characteristic garden soil pressure

1 kN/m2 (100kg/m2)

20 kN/m2 (2000kg/m2

(18)
(19)
(20)

augsnes uzbrums ar iesegumu - 20 kN/m2;

Design loads

= characteristic load* (safety factor for variable loads = 1.5,

permanent loads 1.15/1.35)

Design loads

= 6.38kN/m2 *1.15 + 1 kN/m2*1.5 + 20kN/m2*1.5 =

= 38.837 kN/m2

(21)

Design loads exceed the observed performance of structure. Structure was underperforming as
compared to characteristic and design load levels. Design extra load levels of 3883kg/m2, would
have required much more robust solution. Structure resisted maximum of 500kg/m2 on average.

Figure 3. Loadings as specified in drawings, Additional characteristic permanent load g = 6.38

kN/m2 and variable q = 1.0kN/m2.

Rak Tek Solutions Oy Linnoitustie 4A, 02600 Espoo, Finland Puh. +358 44 5575 835 info@rakteksolutions.fi

7/9

Conclusions:

Shopping centre had safe allowable load level of 54.3kg/m2.

From a Euro-norms design point of view, structure could not have been considered safe
even for normal snow loads (100kg/m2) due to bad connection behaviour.

Before immediate collapse the extra load on roof panels was in range of 400 to 500 kg/m2
according to calculations and visual inspection.

Composite action between steel trusses and hollow core slabs could have increased precritical load levels. However failure of longitudinal shear between hollow cores and steel
truss could have led to sudden increase in bolt forces in later stages, causing final bolts
snapping (rupture).

20mm HEA 260 bolt connections end plate could have allowed for more warning, if S235
material would have been used instead of S355. Redistribution of bolt forces would have
been safer.

M20 8.8 bolts were most likely behaving in relative ductile manner and allowing for sufficient redistribution hence higher plastic capacity of connection.

2 bolts out of 10, where not functional at all (figure 2). Moving these ineffective bolts more
close to HEA 260 section webs, would have yielded 2 more effective bolts in equation.

Number of bolts is too low for this connection or instead size of bolts is too small. M36 size
bolts would have given sufficient warning of overload, due to excessive and visible plastic
deformation of 20mm end plate.

Bolts were performing much better than could be expected from blind engineering calculations. Bolts were probably behaving in relative ductile fashion.

Design and characteristic loads specified in drawings, exceed the real collapse loads. Hence
the structure was most likely underperformer.

The weight of debris from collapse could be measured to verify the exact average load carrying capacity of trusses. It cannot be known otherwise, since the composite action between
hollow cores and steel trusses shall be taken into account as well. Measuring the weight of
total debris, can give reasonable verification.

Structures overall performance was brittle and it did not give any warning before sudden
collapse.

Rak Tek Solutions Oy Linnoitustie 4A, 02600 Espoo, Finland Puh. +358 44 5575 835 info@rakteksolutions.fi

8/9

This accident and tragic loss could have been avoided by safe steel connection design. The
capacity reserves of steel sections could not be used due to weak connection. Hence resources were used with very low rate of return on investment. Engineering community can
and should improve the performance of designs. Random overdesign does not lead to necessarily safer structures.

Engineers can use lots of steel, without gaining anything in real performance.
This is a lesson, engineering community in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, etc should learn. Brute
force methods do not solve problems.

Disclaimer: This report is concerning technical details of a collapse only. It does not take a position of what and how has happened during initial construction and later in retrofitting new winter
garden

Appendixes:
Appendix 1: Yield line method analysis of end plate

Literature:
Yield line method, for steel end plate connections

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-07212009040533/unrestricted/LD5655.V855_1995.B674.pdf
Steel and concrete composite structures

http://219.223.252.149/service/courseware/%E5%A5%BD%E4%B9%A6/Composite%20St
ructures%20of%20Steel%20and%20Concrete.pdf

MSc Toomas Kaljas

CEO Rak Tek Solutions Oy
26.11.2013
12.00
Suomi, Finland

Rak Tek Solutions Oy Linnoitustie 4A, 02600 Espoo, Finland Puh. +358 44 5575 835 info@rakteksolutions.fi

9/9

20 mm end plate bolt load carrying capacity using yield line method
MSc Toomas Kaljas
Rak Tek Solutions Oy
11.2013

Figure2. Yield line pattern of 20mm end plate

Figure2. Plastic mechanism, yield lines and bolt holes of connection plate and rotations yield lines
a, b and c. Unit (1) deformation in corner. Bolt experiences 0.5 times the corner displacement
Dimensions

a 115

b
55.49

c 60.45
d 45 mm

e 225
f 135

g 170.49

1.

Bolt holes: 22mm

11.2013

Appendix 1

1/2

Rotations in plastic yield lines and internal energy

Plastic moment capacity of 20mm steel plate
fy 235MPa

t 20mm

t
Wpl
4

2.

kN m
Mpl Wpl fy 23.5
m

2 a b 2 a b 2 e e 2 M
pl
d
d
b

Eint

3.

kN m
Eint 482.1
m
External energy
1 Fext

4.

Solving force F from equation 3 and 4

Fext

Eint
482.1 kN
1

External force is made out of 4 bolts, hence in requires one bolt to have loading of
Fbolt.forplateyield

Fext
120.5 kN
4

End plate of S235 would have form a plastic mechanism before the bolt ruptures. This would
have been beneficial factor. It adds possibility to redistribute bolt forces and alleviate
prying forces
Given the manufacturer statement, that the plate material was changed to stronger S355
Calculations follow:
355 Fext
Fbolt.forplateyield

182.1 kN
235 4
It becomes less likely that the end plate would have yielded, but it could have done so
when the bolts were finally rupturing. Increasing the steel strength reduced all possible
warnings signs and made structure more brittle

11.2013

Appendix 1

2/2