Steel Roof Truss Optimization

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type o f computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate

the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6 x 9 black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeefo Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/S21-0600
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STEEL ROOF TRUSS OPTIMIZATION

by
Min Shuai
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF BUILDING SCIENCE

(Architecture)
May 1998
Copyright 1998
M in Shuai
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
UMI Number: 1391099
UMI Microform 1391099

Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road

Ann Arbor, MI 48103
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CA 90089-0291
This thesis, written 6y
Min Shuai
under the direction of h er____ Thesis Committee,

andapproved 6y off its members, has 6een presented
to and accepted 6y the (Dean o f The SchooCo f
Architecture in partiaCfuCfiKment of the requirements
fo r the degree of
MASTER- OF BUILDING SCIENCE
K[.
~
(Dean
(Date. 3 O
^ 3
THESIS COMMITTEE
\ L
\ U
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis is based on my studies undertaken in Building Science Program.
School o f Architecture at University o f Southern California from fall o f 1995 to summer
o f 1998.1 would like to thank all the individuals within USC as well as others who were
encouraging and helpful during this long time o f study. However, they are too numerous
to be mentioned individually. So. I just take this opportunity to express my sincere
gratitude to the following people:
Prof. Goetz Schierle. my chief advisor, for his expert ideas and clear guidance
for the development o f my thesis;
Prof. Dimitry Vergun for his extensive experience and invaluable suggestions,
which led me throughout the entire study;
Prof. Marc Schiler. who read my manuscript so carefully and offered
suggestions as well as criticism and whose support during a difficult period in my life
will be treasured forever.
I am grateful to the school for the financial aid. without which my study would
have been much more difficult. My love goes to my husband. Mingsong Yin, for his
unceasing support and encouragement.
Finally, my heart surrendered to God Almighty. Who answers my prayers and
gives me a new life in this New Land.
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
List o f Figures
List o f Charts
I. Objective of Roof Truss Study
II. Basic Concepts of Trusses

1.
From Beam to Truss - Definition o f Trusses
2.
Loads on Trusses
3.
Stability and Determinacy
4.
Common Types o f R oof Trusses
5.
Materials for Trusses
6.
Construction Concern: Joint
III. Comparative Truss Analysis by Computer

1.
Computer Program: MultiFrame
2.
Prototypes of Trusses to be Studied
3.
Simulation Assumptions
4.
Static Loads
5.
Comparing Self-Weight o f Trusses of Different

Configurations
5.1.
Design of Steel Compressive Members
5.2.
Design of Steel Tensile Members
6.
7.
8.
9.
5.3.
Comparison o f Truss Self-Weight and Deflection
28
5.4.
Conclusions
33
Comparing TS Construction with the WT&DL
34
6.1.
Design of TS Trusses
35
6.2.
Comparing with the WT&DL Construction
38
6.3.
Conclusions
40
Comparing Combined Stresses with Axial Stresses for

200ft-Span Cases
42
7.1.
Design for Combined Stresses
42
7.2.
Comparison and Conclusions
46
Comparing Different H/L Ratios for 200ft-Span Cases
47
8.1.
R atiosof 1/5. 1/8. 1/10. 1/12.5 and 1/15
47
8.2.
53
Comparing Different Panel Sizes for 200ft-Span Cases
56
9.1.
Panel Sizes o f L/4. L/6. L/8. L/10 and L/12
56
9.2.
62
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
65
Appendix
67
Design o f Trusses
Reference
87
iv
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 A Simple Beam
Figure 2-2 A Simple Spanning Truss
Figure 2-3 Genesis o f the Truss from the Beam
Figure 2-4 Elements o f a Planar Truss
Figure 2-5 Typical Roof Truss Profiles
Figure 2-6 Basic Truss Patterns
10
Figure 2-7 Typical Steel Trusses
12
Figure 2-8 Arrangement o f Truss Joints

%
13
Figure 3-1 Prototypes o f Trusses to be Studied
15
Figure 3-2 Overall Study Schedule
17
Figure 3-3 Roof Truss Arrangement
17
Figure 3-4 Critical Bars at Quick Design
20
Figure 3-5 Internal Axial Force Diagrams of 200-ft Span Trusses
24
Figure 3-6 Trusses o f Combined Stresses
43
Figure 3-7 Trusses at Different H/L Ratios
48-52
Figure 3-8 Trusses o f Different Panel Sizes
57-61
List of Charts
Chart 3-1 Truss Weight Assumption
22
Chart 3-2 Comparison o f Self-Weights o f Trusses @ Different Spans
29
Chart 3-3 Comparison o f Truss Weights with Assumptions
31
Chart 3-4 Comparison o f Top/Bottom Chords with Web Members
31
Chart 3-5 Truss Deflection
32
Chart 3-6 Comparison o f Self-Weights of Tube Trusses @ Different Spans
39
Chart 3-7 Comparison o f TB Trusses with WT&DL Trusses
41
Chart 3-8 Comparison o f Top/Bottom Chords with Web Members
41
Chart 3-9 Comparison o f Trusses Loaded Differently
46
Chart 3-10 Comparison o f Self-Weights of Trusses @ Different H/L Ratios
54-55
Chart 3-11 Comparison o f Self-Weights of Trusses o f Different Panel Sizes
63-64
VI
I. O b jectiv e o f R o o f T r u ss S tu d y
Trusses have been used extensively for roof structure o f many spans. Truss
configuration has a significant impact on both a buildings exterior appearance and
interior space.
However, in current practice, there is a lack of guidelines for optimum truss
design for architects and engineers. The usual design routine is that architects first
design, or even just draw , a truss profile and pattern for some sort o f architectural
concerns without enough structural knowiedge. The design is then given to structural
engineers to calculate without regard o f optimum, because o f time and profit concerns.
As a result, the most efficient design is seldom achieved.
The objective o f this study is to set up a guideline for preliminary design. The
study is to compare the self-weight o f steel roof trusses o f different configurations at
different spans. Constructions o f Tee & double angle (WT&DL) and tube (TS) trusses
are compared. Different loading conditions, height-to-span ratio and panel size have
also been studied to see how they affect the design of roof trusses.
Basic concepts o f trusses need to be reviewed first.
II. Basic Concepts of Trusses

1. F rom B eam to T ru ssD efin itio n o f T ru sses
1.1. What is a Beam?
A beam is a linear structural element that is primarily subjected to transverse
loading. Bending and shear stresses are developed to resist loads. Figure 2-1 are shearand bending- diagrams o f a simply supported beam with a uniformly distributed load vt
along its span. As shown in the graph, the stresses are not evenly distributed along the
span o f the beam, and the deflection o f the beam increases with the 4th power of its
span under uniform load. Certainly, the beam will collapse under its own weight when
its span goes beyond a certain limit.
1.2. What is a Truss?

A truss is a framework of triangular formation o f linear elements. Just like a
beam, a simple spanning truss carries superimposed loads to its supports. However,
because inefficient stresses such as bending and shear are eliminated and only
compression and tension are developed in its members to resist loads, a truss is more
efficient than an equivalent beam earn ing the same load over an equal span (Figure 22 ).
Span = L
, L / 6 , L /6 , 1 / 6 , L /6 t L /6 , L / 6 f
Simple Beam
Simple Spuming Tim
-Uniformly Distributed Load: w
-Concentrated Load at Joints:

P = wL/6
wL/2
2.5P
I I.5P
I 0.5P
ÔlP|
Shear Ditgnm
-2.5P
wL/2
*L/ 8
(2 /3 )P L _ S ^ )E L
( 5 /t2 )P L ^ > '
Moment Ditgnm
Shear St Moment Diagrams

-The truss viewed os o beam
as a whole
'
5 wL'/384E!
Deflection
nJ
Tv h x J
^ss s
l 'h
Internal Axial Force Diagram
Figure M
A Simple Beam
Continuous line - Compression

Dashed line - Tension
Deflection
Figure 2-2
A Simple Spanning Truss
The genesis o f the truss from the beam is interpreted by Michele Melaragno as
the following two steps (Melaragno: 1981. p.86.):
1) Removing some o f the material along the neutral axis where the bending stress
is small, but leaving enough material to resist shear (horizontal and vertical):
2) Moving the remaining material farther away from the neutral axis to increase
its flexural resistance. (Figure 2-3)
a.
/REM OVED
MATERIAL
b.
SHEAR
c.
Figure 2-3 The Genesis of the Truss from the Beam

as a Proces
~ timization
(Meioragno: w u i. p.ts/.
a. The beam action in bending.
b. Removal o f inefficient material in the 2 one near the neutral axis.
c. Expanding the remaining material away from the neutral axis, thus increasing the resisting moment
and generation o f the truss.
1.3. Single Planar Truss

A single planar truss, as its name indicates, has all members lying in one single
plane. It is a thin structure and the compression chords o f the truss tend to move out of
plane throughout its span if there is no bracing in the direction perpendicular to the
plane o f the truss.
In practice, roof and ceiling constructions normally provide enough bracing for
roof trusses. If not. other means, such as a vertical plane o f X-bracing at each truss joint
or horizontal planes o f X-bracing at the level o f the bottom chords, could be utilized.
The method of bracing for trusses is actually beyond the scope o f this study. The
purpose o f mentioning it here is to restrict the following study to single planar trusses
only. The basic assumption is that all necessary bracing has been provided and loads
have been included in roof dead load.
1.4. Terminology of a Truss

The top and bottom perimetric members of a truss are chord members-top/upper and bottom/lower chords. They are analogous to the top and bottom flanges of
a steel beam. The interior members of the truss are web members. All truss members are
ordinarily called bars. The connection of members or bars are called joints.
Most trusses have a pattern that consists o f some repetitive, modular unit. This
unit is referred to as the panel of the truss. Joints sometimes are called panel points.
A single planar truss has dimensions o f span and height/depth. The latter is referred to
as rise when its top chords slope. (Figure 2-4)
- Joints
Top Chords
Web Members
Bottom Chords
Span
Figure 2-4 Elements of a Planar Truss
2. L oads on T ru sses
2.1. Static loads
Trusses are subjected to both gravity and lateral loads. Gravity load includes
gravity dead and live loads. The permanent loads on a truss, caused by the weight o f the
truss and everything attached to it. are all dead loads. Other loads caused by the usage of
the building are generally referred to as live loads. Both gravity dead and live loads are
considered as static load.
Wind and earthquake generate lateral loads. Lateral refers to effects having a
direction at right angles to that of gravity. They tend to push the building sideways.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
Although wind load and earthquake load have dynamic effects on buildings, they
are normally treated as equivalent static loads in building structure design. Lateral loads
are not considered in this study.
2.2. Secondary stress

The ideal assumption is that loads are applied to truss joints, so the members are
loaded only through the joints and only direct compression or tension forces are
generated in truss members.
Since the truss weight is actually distributed along the bar span, the above
assumption is never exactly true. The small flexural stress in a real truss is called
secondary stress. Since for short to medium span trusses, the truss weight ordinarily is
not a major part o f the total design load, the usual practice is to consider units of weight
as collected at the truss joints.
Live load can be applied to the truss joints through joists. However, if roof decks
are supported by the top chords directly or ceiling load is continuously distributed along
the bottom chords, the chords are loaded with a linear uniform load and function as
beams between their end joints. Secondary stress is therefore generated. In such cases,
truss chords need to be designed for the combined effects o f the axial stress caused by
the truss action and the bending stress caused by the direct loading. One study will
compare the combined stress cases with joint loaded cases.
3 . S ta b ility and D eterm in acy

Before a given truss is analyzed, its stability and determinacy need to be
determined. When a structure can not satisfy static equilibrium, it is unstable, and
therefore unacceptable. If a structure has the minimum number o f members and
supports required for its equilibrium, it is called statically determinate. A statically
determinate structure can be analyzed by means o f statics alone. If a structure has more
than the necessary members and/or supports (over stabilized), it is called statically
indeterminate. A statically indeterminate structure cannot be analyzed by means of
statics, but requires also the theory o f elasticity.
According to its definition, the generation of a truss from single elements can be
viewed as two steps: 1) Connection o f three bars to form a base triangle, that means
three initial bars with three initial joints: 2) More triangles are added to the first one.
that is. two bars for each additional joint. So. the total number o f truss members m is
equal to the initial 3 bars o f the base triangle, plus 2 members for each additional joint
{f-3):
m=3~2(j-3)=2j-3
Obviously, if m<2j-3. uhich means not enough bars, the truss is unstable. If
m>2j-3. which means there are more bars than needed, the truss is indeterminate. Only
if m=2j-3. which means enough and necessary bars are provided, is a truss internally
stable and determinate. Another effect factor is the arrangement o f bars. They have to
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
form triangles. If there are polygons, other than triangles, existing in the truss, the truss
would have geometric instability.
The support conditions can also affect the external stability and determinacy o f a
truss. Since the planar truss to be discussed in this study functions as a simple beam in
terms o f supports, the external stability and determinacy are assumed as for beams.
4. C om m on T yp es o f R o o f T ru sses
Functioning as a solid beam in a roof structure, a simple spanning truss usually
takes some typical profiles, such as those shown in Figure 2-5. The arrangement o f web
members must form triangles. In years o f practice, a number o f classic truss patterns
have evolved and have become standard parts of our structural vocabulary'. Some of
them are named after the engineers who first introduced them. Among the important
truss types are the Howe truss, the Pratt truss, and the Warren truss (Figure 2-6).
Flit Truss
u .
_____________
Truss with Sloping Top Chords
_____________
Cumbered Truss
Arched Top Chord Truss
Gtble Truss
Gsble Truss with Cambered Bottom Chords
Figure 2-5 Typical Roof Truss Profiles

9
m zi
Howt- gtbk
Pntt - gtble
AAAAAA
WilTU
Figure 2-6 Basic Truss Patterns

The Howe truss is characterized by the fact that tension members between the
two chords are all vertical, while the diagonal compression members may be parallel to
each other in a flat Howe, but not in triangular Howe.
Just reversed from the Howe truss, in the Pratt truss, the compression members
between the two chords are all vertical, but the diagonal members are in tension and
may be parallel to each other in flat Pratt, but not parallel to each other in triangular
Pratt.
The Warren is a flat truss with all members of the top and bottom chords being
of equal lengths: all diagonal members, whether in compression or in tension, have
equal lengths. In each half o f the truss, the diagonal compression members are parallel
to each other: and the diagonal tension members are also parallel to each other. The
original Warren was subdivided into equilateral triangles: the common types used
nowadays, however, may have isosceles triangles.
10
. M aterials fo r T ru sses
Materials most used in the U.S. for trusses are wood and steel.
There are two categories of wood truss construction: light-frame trusses and
heavy-timber trusses. The light-frame trusses are made o f dimension lumbers for small
to medium spans. The heavy-timber trusses are made o f timbers or manufactured wood
products for larger spans.
Steel trussesthe only ones to be studied in this thesisare usually made of
standard rolled sections. The most common forms of steel trusses o f small to medium
size are Tee and double-angle members, connected by rivets, bolts, or welds (Figure 27a). Another form is that o f tubular members, such as round pipe and flat-sided,
rectangular tube, that are directly welded to each other (Figure 2-7b). In practice,
welding is cheaper and more quality-guaranteed when used in the fabricating shop and
high strength bolts (torque tensioned) are cheaper and easier for field connections.
In other cases, wood and steel elements are sometimes mix-used in the same
truss: this is called composite construction. The reason and benefit of this are effective
utilization o f materials and effective connection achievement.
Reinforced concrete has been used extensively as truss material in Europe and
Asia but not in the USA.
a. Teed Double-Angle Truss Detail
& Tube Truss Detail
Figure 2-7 Typical Steel Trusses
Some general considerations that may affect the decision about what materials to
use for a particular truss design include:
1)
2)
3/
4)
Cost;
Other structure elements;
Fire Requirements;
Local Availability. (Ambrose: 1994. p. 127.)
6 . C o n stru ctio n C o n cern : Jo in ts

The means used to achieve the connection o f truss members at the truss joints
depends on a number o f considerations. The major ones are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
The materials o f the members;

The form o f the members;
The size o f the members;
The magnitude o f forces in the members. (Ambrose: 1994. p. 129130.)
For short- to medium-span trusses, chord members may run through two or more
panels, or even entire length o f the truss. This not only reduces the number o f individual
pieces that need to be fabricated, but also eliminates a large amount of connecting. For
long-span or multi-span trusses, the truss pattern must be designed as the necessary
division o f units that can be fabricated in the shop, then transpoted to the building site
and finally assembled into whole at the site. Figure 2-8 shows such examples.
Small Truss Joist with Continuous Chord Members

Shop Fabricated Sections
____________
'
____________
Field Joints ----------
Large Truss with Shop Fabricated Units and Reid Joints
Figure 2-8 Arrangement of Truss Joints
III. Comparative Truss Analyses by Computer

1. C om puter P rogram : M u ltiF ram e
MultiFrame is a structural analysis and design program for Windows 95 and
Windows NT released by Formation Design Systems Pty Ltd. ''M ultiFrame" and
"Section Maker" are two o f several parts o f the program, which are used in this study. In
MultiFrame. a structure can be first established in a Frame window, and load can then
be applied on the structure in a "Load window. After analyzing, a "Plot window
shows results graphically and a "Result" window shows numerical results. In Section
Maker, after a section is designed/drawn and material is assigned, the properties of the
section are computed by the program automatically. However, since functions such as
editing, formatting and plotting are not yet implemented, the working process is actually
not as easy as it sounds. All the information needed can only be read from screen.
2. P rototyp es o f T ru sses to be Stu died

For the purpose of this thesis, several truss profiles parallel top and bottom
chords, cambered top chords, parabolic-arched top chords and simple gablehave been
selected for the study. The Pratt truss is chosen over the Howe truss since it. having
shorter compression web members, is more efficient than the Howe. The Warren truss is
also included. Figure 3-1 shows the configurations to be studied.
Simple P itt P ntt with Ptnllel Top dt Bottom Chords

p
P
T
P
T
& Mures
P /?
c Fist Pntt with Ctabend Top Chord
-P
P /2
v
d Arched Top Chord Pntt
p
P /2
e Simple Gtble Pntt
Span = L
Figure 31 Prototypes of Trusses to be Studied
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
From practical experience, a height to span ratio o f 1:10 is assumed for the
parallel-chord Pratt and the Warren trusses: a ratio o f 1:8 for the cambered top and
arched top Pratt trusses; and 1:5 for the gable truss. The average o f the height to span
ratios o f ail these trusses is actually 1:10. which would make this comprehensive truss
configuration-vveight study more meaningful since a choice of either truss for a roof o f a
specific building would add no other variables to the building.
It is obvious that the roof slope o f the gable is 2:5: the slope o f the cambered
Pratt is designed as 1:10.
Panel size is assumed to be 25 feet.
The truss span ranges from 100 feet to 300 feet at a 50-foot interval. Figure 3-2
shows a complete study schedule. It needs to point out that the panel size o f 100-ft span
group is not 25 feet but 12.5 feet. Except for that, all the above configuration
assumptions apply to all trusses.
An indefinite roofing plan of a grid o f "Span o f Truss x 3 0 ft" is assumed.
Therefore, the truss spacing is 30 feet on center (Figure 3-3).
Spta
ottpppp)
A /W W \
/S7W W VAA
I'sN N P lA 'i
rxjxTxfxI/l/Txu-n
A A 7W W W W V \
NTxinM Î/I/PITI
100-ft Spta
ISO-ft Spta
200-ft Spta
250-ft Spta
300-ft Spta
Figure 3-2 Overall Study Schedule
Figure 3-3 Roof Truss Arrangement
3. Simulation Assumptions
The following assumptions are made for structural analysis:
A planar truss is a rigid structure composing o f straight bars that are lying in
the same plane and connected to one another through frictionless single pin
joints;
All members are assumed to be perfectly straight and of constant cross
section: their centroidal axes coincide with the centroid of the joint:
Bracing has been provided at panel joints in the direction perpendicular to
the plane of the truss and the load o f the bracing has been included in the roof
dead load:
Only vertical static load is considered in this study and the load is applied at
joints through roof construction except that in combined stress study:
Forces act in the same plane of the truss plane:
Displacement o f truss is small and hardly influences the magnitude o f the
force flow.
4. S tatic L oads
As it has been mentioned before, the principal sources and types o f loads on
trusses include gravity dead loads, gravity live loads, wind loads and seismic loads,
among which only vertical static loads are considered in this study.
According to the Uniform Building Code, the live load o f a roof is assumed to
be 12psf since the tributary area of all trusses is over 600 square feet. For a typical metal
deck roof construction, roof dead load is assumed as 20psf exclusive of the weight o f
the truss itself, which is a subject o f this study.
A ssu m p tio n o f S e lf-W e ig h t o f T ru sses
The flat Pratt trusses at all spans are selected for self-weight assumption study.
A 3psf is first assumed and. therefore, the concentrated load at central joints of the truss
of 100-ft span is
P = (1 2 -2 0 -3 ) x 1 2 .5 x30 = 13.1251b = 13.125Kips;
for the trusses spanning 150-ft to 300-ft. the load is
P = (1 2 -2 0 -3 ) x 25 x 30 = 26.250lb = 26.25Kips.
The internal axial forces are calculated by MultiFrame and quick designs are
done as 1) top and bottom bars are based on mid-span critical bars: 2) vertical and
diagonal bars based on critical bars at the ends of truss span (Figure 3-4).
Figure 34 Critical Ban at Quick Design
Truss member selections are recorded in the following table.
Table 3-1 Q uick Design o f Flat Pratt Trusses o f 3p sf Self-W eight A ssum ption
Truss
Top Chord
Bottom Chord
Vertical Bar
Diagonal Bar
Par-100
WT7X30.5
WT5X19.5
DL3.5X3.5X3/8
DL3X3X5/16
Par-150
WT10.5X55.5
WT 12X27.5
DL5X5X3/8
DL5X5X5/16
Par-200
W T12X73
WT7X4I
DL6X6X5/8
DL6X6X3/8
Par-250
WT 15X86.5
WT7X49.5
DL8X8X1/2
DL6X6X3/8
Par-300
WT 15X95.5
WT 10.5X61
DL8X8X3/4
DL8X8X1/2
The design result shows that the assumption o f 3psf is only true for the 100-ft
span truss and the self-weights o f all others are far beyond the assumption (Chart 3-1 -1).
So different assumptions have to be made for trusses o f different spans separately
according to the first trial as follows: 5psf for 150-ft span. 7psf for 200-ft span. 9psf for
250-ft span and 13psf for 300-ft span. The concentrated loads at central joints for the
trusses o f 100-ft to 300-ft spans are calculated as follows:
:o
Prziooj,
(12+ 20+ 3)
1 2 .5 * 3 0
13,1251b
= 13.125Kip;
Paisoft =
(1 2 + 2 0 + 5 ) x 25 x 3 0
27, 7501b = 2 7 .7 5 K ip ;
P <3200ft =
(1 2 + 2 0 + 7 ) x 2 5 x 3 0
2 9 .2501b = 29. 75K ip:
Pa250ft =
(1 2 + 2 0 + 9 ) X 2 5 X 3 0
3 0 . 7501b = 3 0 . 75Kip;
P 3300 /,
(1 2 + 2 0 + 1 3 ) x 25 x 3 0 = 3 3 . 7501b = 3 3 . 75Kip.
A second series o f designs is recorded in Table 3-2 and results prove that the
assumptions o f the trusses from 150-ft to 250-ft span are good enough and that of the
300-ft span truss seems slightly lower than the result (Chart 3-1-2). In light o f the fact
that, in these quick design, truss chord internal force reductions along their span are not
considered, which will be considered in the later study, the assumption o f 13psf o f 300ft span truss is taken as acceptable.
Table 3-2 Q uick Design o f Flat Pratt T russ o f Different Self-W eight Assum ptions
Truss
Top Chord
Bottom Chord
Vertical Bar
Diagonal Bar
Par-100
WT7X30.5
W T5XI9.5
DL3.5X3.5X3/8
DL3X3X5/I6
Par-150
WT12X58.5
WT9X30
DL6X6X3/8
DL5X5X3/8
Par-200
WT 13.5X80.5
WT9X43
DL6X6X5/8
DL6X6X3/8
Par-250
WT 15X95.5
W TI5X58
DL8X8X1/2
D L6X 6X 12
Par-300
WTI6.5X120.5
WT 18X80
DL8X8X1
DL8X8X1/2
All further studies are. therefore, based on these assumptions.
Chart 3-1-1 Truss Weight Assumption - Trial One

12
I S e lf-W e ig h t
-A s s u m p tio n
10
M
5* 6
I
L
CO
P a r -1 0 0
P a r -1 5 0
P a r -2 0 0
P a r-2 5 0
P a r-3 0 0
Span (ft.)
Chart 3-1-2 Truss Weight Assumption - Trial Two

14
I S e lf-W e ig h t
12
-A s s u m p tio n
10
M
a
r
CD
|
6
a>
CO
P a r -1 0 0
P a r -1 5 0
P a r-2 0 0
P a r-2 5 0
P a r-3 0 0
Span (ft.)
5. C om p arin g S elf-W eig h t o f T ru sses o f D ifferen t C on fig u ra tio n s

The purpose o f this study is to compare the self-weights of trusses o f different
configurations/types at different spans. A typical construction of structural Tees for top
and bottom chords and equal-leg double angles for web members (Figure 2-7a) is
selected for the study.
Two series o f loading conditions are simulated-symmetric loading o f roof live
load applied through out the span of trusses and asymmetric loading o f roof live load
applied on the right half o f the whole span. Structural analyses are performed by the
MultiFrame and internal axial forces o f all truss members are given by the program.
Figure 3-5 is a reproduction of internal axial force diagrams o f the 200-ft spam
trusses. For the symmetric loading situation, critical compressive and tensile forces (C
and T in the figure) o f the parallel chord Pratt and the Warren occur at mid-span in the
top and bottom chords and at the ends o f span in web members. When the top chords
are cambered, the maximum compressive forces shift away from the mid-span a litter
bit but overall force pattern remains similar. For the arched-top and gable Pratt trusses,
the situation seems quit different from the above three cases. The force distributes
evenly over the top and bottom chords o f the arched-top Pratt, and there is no force in
the web members at all. For the gable, the critical forces o f the top and bottom chords
occur at the ends o f the truss span and the force in the web bars, being uneven in length,
distributes more evenly than those of parallel-chord and cambered-chord trusses.
w r DL i LL (sh o w n in f i g . J - 1 )
w i DL
1
-2 9 3 6 -
w / DL 4 LL
-2466-
90C
246V
__ r
" *1__
Eg N T
T__
L2 5 6 V '~
J---
234J------------------------J
im -----------------------
4461-
L2 6 6 V ~ -
Symmetric Lotdiog
'-256P
toac
-4241-^--. - - -236P
Asymmetric Lading
Figure 3-5 Internal Axial Force Diagrams of 200 ft Span Trusses

(Continuous line Compression; Dashed line: tension. Drown in Scole. Unit: Kip.)
For the asymmetric loading situation, force patterns o f all cases look similar to
those o f the symmetric loading situation. However, the critical forces occur at the live
load side, but are less than those in the symmetric loading situations. Except that, some
small compressive and tensile forces occur in the web members o f arched-chord trusses.
So. the selection o f the web members o f arched-chord trusses should be based on the
asymmetric loading situation, while all others should be based on the symmetric loading
situation.
In consideration o f uneven distribution o f force in truss chords and limitation of
the length c f steel elements being able to be transported (less than 60 feet), design of top
and bottom chords are done for every other panel (50 feet per piece) except for the 100ft span cases. For simplicity, however, truss web members are designed as vertical or
compressive bars and diagonal or tensile bars in accordance with their critical
compressive and tensile forces.
5.1. Design of Steel Compressive Members

By assuming all trusses are braced at their panel joints, all compressive members
are designed for their own lengths.
Theoretically, design o f a compressive bar is a trial and error process, since the
allowable stress is a function o f L/r. with L being the full length o f the member and r
being that for the weak axis, which cannot be known until the member is chosen.
However, the selection can be easily done by using available Column Design tables in
the AISC Manual, in which allowable compression loads have been predetermined for
specific lengths of various elements.
Example: Select a structural Tee o f A36 steel from AISC for a top chord o f the 200ftspan parallel Pratt with C = 293 kips (Figure 3-5).
Solution:
From the data in table, we can make following reasonable choices:
a) WT12 x 81KL = 26 ft. allowable Cxv = 342.298 kips:
b) WT13.5 x 80.5KL = 26 ft. allowable Cxv = 367 309 kips;
c) WT15 x 86.5 KL = 26 ft. allowable Cxy = 387/324 kips.
The lightest section WT13.5 x 80.5 is the best choice.
26
5.2. Design of Steel Tensile Members

Assuming the cross section of member is not reduced, the stress permitted for
design is simply:
F, = 0.6Fy = 0.6 x 36 = 21.6 Icsifo r A36 steel.
T
A cross area A for a tension force T isA = and the maximum allowable L r
F,
240. so rmm = L/240
Based on these two considerations, some possible choices from AISC Manual
can be made.
Exam ple: Select a structural Tee o f A36 steel from AISC for a bottom chord o f the
200ft-span parallel Pratt with T - 274 kips (Figure 3-5).
Solution:
, T
274.000
A = = ----------- = 12.69 in
F,
21.600
J mtn
L
240
25 x 12 _
I
240
IH
From the data in table, following possible choices can be made:

a) WT7 x 45 A = 13.2 in'. rxv = 1.66'3.70 in:
b) WT8 x 44.5A = 13.1 in'. rxv = 2.2~ 2.49 in:
c) WT9-X. 43A = 12. ~ in'. rxv = 2.55/2.63 in:
d) WT10.5 x 46.5A = 13. ~ in'. rxv = 3.25 1.84 in:
e) WT12 x 47 A = 13.8 in2. rxv = 3.67/1.98 in:
f) WT13.5 x 47 A = 13.8 in2, rxy = 4.16/2.12 in;

g) WT15 x 49.5 A = 14.3 in2, rxy = 4.71/2.10 in.
The lightest section WT9 x 43--is the best choice.
All trusses are designed to have lightest possible weight and designs are
recorded in Appendix A.
5.3. Comparison of Truss Self-Weight and Deflection

Total weight (in pounds per square foot) o f all trusses shown in Figure 3-2 are
plotted in Chart 3-2. It is obvious that the self-weights o f trusses increase unlinearly
after a 250-ft span and the weight differences among trusses o f different configurations/
types increase as trusses span longer. The biggest differences are 0.56psf. 1,29psf.
1.75psf. 1.93psf and 3.83psf for 100-ft to 300-ft span groups respectively. They are. in
other words. 26.4%. 34.4%. 32.1%. 26.3% and 36.3% increases based on each group's
lightest cases.
The arched-chord Pratt has the lightest self-weight among all truss
configurations/types at all spans except 200-ft span. The irregular situation at 200-ft
span, where the Warren weighs least, seems to be caused by the limitation of steel
sections and the roughness o f design. And actually, the Warren, being the second
lightest truss type, weighs very close to the arched-chord Pratt at all spans. The
28
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
X&
o'
t^ usscS
\6
SeV
a t 's
cambered-chord Pratt weighs almost the same as the Warren and less than the parallel
Pratt at the shorter spans o f 100-ft and 150-ft and the longer span o f 300-ft: but at the
mid spans o f 200-ft and 250-ft. it weighs more than the parallel one. which could be
also caused by the roughness o f the design. The gable has highest weight at all spans
except at 10 0 - f t .
Chart 3-3 compares the self-weight of every truss with its original self-weight
assumption. The arched-chord Pratt, having the lowest self-weight, is 1.466psf lower
than the assumptions on average; the Warren, the second lightest truss type, is 1.378psf
lower: being the third and fourth, the cambered-chord and the parallel-chord Pratt
trusses are 0.99psf and 0.732psf lower than the assumptions respectively; the heaviest
truss type, the gable one. having higher self-weight than the assumptions of 5psf .7psf.
9psf and 13psf from 150-ft through 300-ft spans, has slightly higher self-weight
(0.282psf) than the assumptions on average.
While the self-weights o f both top/bottom chords and web members increase
constantly for all truss types along with the increase of their spans, we observe that the
proportion of the web member weight increases and eventually exceeds that of chords
for some cases at longer spans (Chart 3-4). The average percentages of web member
weight are 45.36%. 42.5%. 47.37%. 32.08% and 42.44% for the five groups
respectively. According to truss span, the average percentages o f web members are
33.37%. 36.78%. 42.98%. 45.93% and 52.2% from 100-ft to 300-ft span.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
Chart 3-3 Comparison of Truss Weights with Assumptions

16
O T o p /B o t.
X W eb
T o ta l
A s s u m p tio n
14
12
(0
Q . 10
.2* 8
i
s=
o
CO
co
co
Q.
Q.
0m
CM
If)
If )
CM
If)
If )
CM
e0 E
<
CO
a O
Truss Type - Span
O
if)
X
>
CO
O
If )
CM
Chart 3-4 Comparison of Top/Bottom Chords

with Web Members
16
^
14
12
I T o p /B o t.
O W eb
tT 10
..i
a>
co
o
o
CM
CO
Q.
CM
CO
CO
^.O 100%
a
5 80%
ofl 6 0 %
S
O
a
40%
20%
T o p /B o t
W eb
0%
Truss Type - Span
Assuming the allowable deflection o f truss with both dead and live roof loads
being L/240, which means 5 inches, 7.5 inches. 10 inches, 12.5 inches and 15 inches for
100-ft to 300-ft span respectively, the design results and computer analyses show that all
trusses have far less deflections than the allowables (Chart 3-5). The average deflections
o f 100-ft to 300-ft span trusses are 1.91 inches, 2.75 inches, 3.70 inches. 4.84 inches and
5.92 inches respectively. They are 38.2%. 36.67%. 37.00%, 38.72% and 39.47% of their
allowables.
Chart 3-5 Truss Deflection
A rc -3 0 0
W a r-3 0 0 i i ^
------m m
----- ---
'
---
A rc-2 5 0
W a r-2 5 0
e
to
Q.
CO
^
A rc -2 0 0
W a r-2 0 0
A rc-1 5 0
W a r-1 5 0
A rc -100
A llo w a b le
W a r-1 0 0
D e fle c tio n
10
12
14
Deflection (in.)
16
It is interesting to notice that, while the gable Pratt has the highest self-weight at
almost all spans, it has the smallest deflection at all spans~an average o f 32.71% of
allowable deflection amount among all truss types. The second to the fifth are the
cambered Pratt 36.04%. the arched Pratt38.56%. the Warren 40.19% and the
parallel Pratt 42.61%.
It needs to be pointed out that, in reality, the flat roof system shall be
investigated to assure adequate strength and stability under ponding conditions, which is
out o f the scope o f this study.
5.4 . C on clu sion s
Trusses seem to be very economic structure types at a span less than 250 feet:
after this point, their self-weight increases non-linearly.
Truss configuration has an increasing impact on weight as the truss span
increases. The parabolic-arched-top shape, which follows a beam's moment curve, is
the most effective configuration by distributing internal forces/stresses even in its top
and bottom chords and dramatically reducing those in its web members. The camberedchord Pratt, surprisingly, does not show superiority over the paralle 1-chord Pratt at some
spans. Between the two parallel-chord ones, the Warren has more even internal
forces/stresses distribution and lighter self-weight than the Pratt over all spans. The
gable has reasonable self-weight only at small spans: so it seems not a good choice for
longer spans.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
The deflection o f a planar truss seems not to be a big concern except ponding
needs to be considered.
6. Comparing TS Construction with the W T&DL

Structural tube is used in this series o f design o f chosen cases (100-ft. 200-ft and
300-ft span) in order to compare with the construction o f WT&DL. Loading conditions
and design methods are basically the same as the study before. However, there are two
points which need to be noticed: 1) the structural tube is o f A46 steel instead o f A36: 2)
the selections o f member sections must have comparable dimensions in order to be
constructed and transfer load efficiently (Figure 2-7b).
6.1. Design of TS Trusses

Example'. Select a structural tube of A46 steel from AISC for the 200ft-span arched-top
Pratt.
Solution: Referring to Figure 3-5. we design
1) top chords fo r C = 255 kips, L = 27ft.

From the data in table, possible square tube sections from the smallest are:
a) TS9x 9 x 9 /1 6 (61.83) KL = 27ft. allowable C = 279 kips:
b) TS10 x 10 x 1/2 (62.46) KL = 27 ft. allowable C = 318 kips:
b) TS12 x 12 x 3/8 (58.10)) KL = 27ft. allowable C = 341 kips.
2) bottom chords fo r T = 234 kips, L = 25 ft.

.
T 234.000 . . . . ,
L 25x12
so A = = ------------= 8.48 in . rmm =------= ----------- = 1.23 in.
F,
27.600
240
240
From the data in table, following choices can be made in accordance with the top chord
choices.
a) TS9x 5 x 3/8 (32.58)A = 9.58 in2. i\ = 2.0/ in:
TS9 x 6 x 5/16 (29.72)A = 8.73 in2. ry = 2.43 in:
TS9 x 7 x 5/16 (31.84).-! = 9.36 in2. ry = 2.80 in:
TS9x 9x 5/16 (36.10) A =10.60 in2, r = 5.55 in
b) TS10 x 5 x 5/16 (29. ~2)A
=8.73 in'. rv= 2.07 in:
TS10 x 6 x 5/16 (31.84)A
=9.36 in'. rv= 2.46 in:
TSIO x 8 x 1/4 (29.23)A = 8.59 in'. rv = 3.24 in:

TS10 x 10x 5/16 (40.35) A = 11.90 in', r = 3.93 in:
c) TS12 X 6x3/ 8 (42.79)A = 12.60 in2, ry = 2.48 in;

TS12 x 8 x 3/8 (47.90) A = 14.10 in2, r, = 3.26 in;
TS12 x 12x 3/8 (58.10) A = 17.10 in2, r = 4.72 in.
3) Vertical web bars fo r critical C = 4 kips, L = 23 ft.

From the data in table, following choices can be made in accordance with the top and
bottom chord choices.
a) TS9 x 5 x 5/16 (27.59) KL = 23 ft, allowable C = 66 kips:
TS9 x 6 x 5/16 (29.72) KL = 23 ft, allowable C = 101 kips:
TS9 x 7x 1/4 (25.82)KL = 23 ft, allowable C = 113 kips:
b) TSIOx 5 x 5/16 (29.72) KL = 23ft. allowable C = 74 kips;
TS 10x 6 x 5/16.(31.84) KL = 23ft, allowable C = 111 kips :
TSIO x 8 x 1/4 (29.23) KL = 23 ft, allowable C = 147 kips:
TS10 x 10x 5/16 (40.35) KL = 23 ft. allowable C = 234 kips.
b) TS12x 6 x 3 /8 (42.79) KL = 24ft, allowable C = 139 kips:
TSIOx 8 x 3/8 (47.90) KL = 24ft. allowable C = 233 kips :
TS12x 12 x 3/8 (58.10) KL = 23 ft. allowable C = 367 kips.
4) Diagonal web bars fo r critical C = 10 kips, L = 3 4 ft.

From the data in table, following choices can be made in accordance with the top and
bottom chord choices.
a) TS9 x 5 x 5/16 (27.59) KL = 34 ft. allowable C = 30 kips:
TS9 x 6 x 5/16 (29.72) KL = 34 ft. allowable C = 46 kips:
36
TS9 x
7 x
1/4 (25.82) KL = 34 ft, allowable C = 55 kips:

b) TS 10 x 5 x 5/16 (29.72) KL = 34 ft, allowable C = 34 kips:
TS 10 x 6 x 5/16 (31.84) KL = 34 ft, allowable C = 51 kips :
TSIO x 8 x 1/4 (29.23) KL = 34ft, allowable C = 81 kips:
TSIOx 10x 5/16 (40.35) KL = 34ft, allowable C = 162 kips.
c) T S I2 x 6 x 3/8 (42.79)KL = 34 ft, allowable C = 69 kips:
TS 12 x 8 x 3/8 (47.90) KL = 34 ft, allowable C = 134 kips :
TS 12 x 12 x 3/8 (58.10) KL = 34 ft, allowable C = 289 kips.
Total weights of TS9. TS10 and TS12 designs are 26,9901b, 28.1041b and 34.2071b
respectively. Since smaller section seems to achieve lighter truss weight, let us try TS8
sections, starting from a rectangle tube for the top chords.
1) Top chords:
TSIOx 8 x 5/8 (67.82) KL = 27ft. allowable Cxv = 326/260 kips.
2) Bottom chords:
TS8 x 4 x 1/2 (35.24) A = 10.40 in : . ry = 1.54 in:
TS8 x 6 x 3/8 (32.58) A = 9.58 in ". i\ = 2.36 in:
TS8 x 8 x 5/16 (31.84)A = 9.36 in 2 , r = 3.12 in:
TSIOx 8 x 1/4 (29.23)A = 8.59 in 2. ry = 3.24 in.
3) Vertical web bars:
TS 8 x 4 x 1/4 (19.02)KL = 24 ft, allowable C = 27 kips.
4) Diagonal web bars:

T S 8 x 6 x 1/4 (22.42)KL = 24ft, allowable C = 70 kips.
Total weight o f the TS8 truss is summed as 26.6151b. so it is the best choice.
By the same procedure, another 14 trusses are designed to have the lightest
possible weight and the designs are recorded in Appendix B.
6.2. Comparing with the WT&DL Construction

Chart 3-6 shows self-weights o f all TS trusses. The weight differences between
trusses o f different configurations/types increase, just like those o f the WT&DL trusses,
as trusses span longer, but they are not as dramatic as those o f the WT&DL trusses. The
biggest differences are 0.29psf. 0.41psf. and 2.27psf for 100-ft to 300-ft span groups,
which are 13.74%. 8.45%. and 24.3% increases based on each group's lightest cases.
Except for the gable, the weight o f all other trusses increase almost linearly from 100-ft
to 300-ft span, which is different from the WT&DL trusses.
Chart 3-6 Comparison of Self-Weights of

Tube Trusses @ Different Spans
10
10
(0
o(0
(0
3
o>
"5
CO
P a ra lle l
-X W a r r e n
C a m b e re d
- A rch ed
-X G a b le
100
200
300
Truss Span (ft.)
The arched-chord Pratt still weighs least among all truss types at all spans. The
cambered Pratt is the second lightest one this time. The Warren switches to the third
place. At 100-ft and 200-ft spans, the gable Pratt has lower weight than the parallel Pratt
and at 300-ft span, the gable weights most.
Chart 3-7 compares the self-weights o f TS trusses with those o f WT&DL
trusses. It shows obvious weight reduction at all cases. At 100-ft span, the truss weight
reduces 20.43% on average; at 200-ft span. 24.95%; at 300-ft span. 32.6%.
The truss weight distribution between its top/bottom chords and web members is
similar as that o f the WT&DL truss (Chart 3-8 and 3-4). The weights o f truss chords and
web members increases straightly for all truss types along truss span, and the proportion
o f the web members increases as truss spans longer.
6.3. C o n c lu sio n s
In concern o f the self-weight of truss, the tubular construction is more economic

than the WT&DL one. Reasons must be: 1) the TS sections have higher stress capacity:
2) tube sections have more even gyration radius between .v-.v and y-y axis, which makes
the use o f material more efficient.
Chart 3-7 Comparison of TB Trusses

with WT&DL Trusses
16
14
W T&DL
IT B
12
10
21 6
o
4
0
o
in
CQ
0.
o
in
O
in
CQ
CM
CL
O
w
CM
oin
oin
CM
CO
CO
O O
Truss Type - Span
o
o
m
iO
CM
6
<
om
-O
to
O
G a b -2 5 0
Chart 3-8 Comparison of Top/Bottom Chords

with Web Members
10
M
a
o>
% of Chords & Web Bars
a>
to
IT o p /B o t.
W eb
8
7
6
5
4
3
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
I T o p /B o t. D W e b
0%
.o o
to o
O^
Truss Type - Span
7. Comparing Combined Stresses with Axial Stresses for 200ft-Span

Cases
7.1. Design for Combined Stresses
Assuming that the dead and live loads o f the roof are applied uniformly on the
top chords o f the 200-ft span trusses directly, this study is trying to find out how loading
condition changes truss weight. Figure 3-6 shows a study schedule, in which the
concentrated load o f P is that of the assumed dead weight o f truss only:
P = 7 x 25 x 30 = 5.25 Kips;
the distributed load o f w generated by roof loads is calculated as
w = (12+20) x 30 = 0.96 Klf.
Computer analyses show that a moment of 75kip-ft occurs in all top chords and
axial forces in all members keep unchanged from the concentrated loading condition
(Chart 3-6 & 3-5). An asymmetric loading has also been checked for the arched-top
Pratt and internal forces in its web members are shown in the diagram by not showing
zero force o f the symmetric loading condition.
In investigating the combined actions of compression and bending, the following
formula must be satisfied.
f
<
1.0
in which f a is the axial compression stress:

Fa is the allowable compression stress;
42
P/ 2
P P/ 2
T f T f f ^ T T T T
T T T T H'T
29JC
? ?
{ i.J
29JC
mtr-Ttr-
c f
-zW-
gfflf w
l2S6F--/ 0 0 ' = B X 25
--^256fi
latenul Axiil Force 1 Moaeat Ditgrtm

(Some os Fig.J-5. M = 75Kip-lI)
Figure 3-6 Trusses of Combined Stresses

4-
04
f , is the actual bending stress;

Fb is the allowable bending stress.
Designing such a member is a trial and error process. Following steps are set up
to do the work. 1) find the area (A) and section modules (S) required if the actions o f
compression and bending occur separately; 2) find possible sections with higher values
of both A and S from the step one; 3) verify the combined effect o f compression and
f
f
bending o f one section at one time: if the formula + < 1.0 is satisfied, the section
Fa FH
is OK: but if +
F,d Fh
n
1.0. the section mav be more than enough~a section with a
slightly lower A and/or Svalues needs to be checked following the same procedure: if
~ r + > 1.0. the section is not adequate and a section of higher A and/or S values
*.a F'hn
must be verified and used.
Example: Select a structural tube o f A46 steel for the top chord o f the 200-ft span
arched-top Pratt with C = 255 kips and M = 75 kip-ft (Figure 3-6).
Solution:
1) For Ur = 50. Fa = 22.66 ksi
required A - = --------% 11.25 in.
F
22.66
For noncompact section. Fb = 0.6Fy = 0.6 x 46 = 27.6 ksi
Required S = -
44
2) For a first try. let us double both of A and 5 values and look for steel sections with
A = 2 x 11.25 =22.50 in.2
S = 2 x3 2 .6 1 =65.22 in.3
From AISC. we find following possible sections:
a) TS14x 10
x1/2w = 76.07p l f A = 22.4 in.2, Sx = 86.9 in.3, rx = 5.22 in.
b) TS12 x 12 x1/2w = 76.07plf, A = 22.4 in.2. S = 80.9 in.3, r = 4.66 in.

c) TS14 x 14
1/2vv = 89.68 plf, A = 26.4 in.2. S = 113 i n 3, r = 5.48 in.
3) Verify a) TS14 x 10 x 1/2

f , = = * 11.38 ksi.
A 22.4
Lr =
=s 62, therefore Fa = 20.94 ksi.
M
75x12
Jb = = --------- ' 10.36 ksi.
S
86.9
,
10
190 _u
b. t = - = 20 < - t =28 => compact section,
X2
therefore Fb = 0.66FV = 0.66 x 46 = 30.36 ksi.
f L + f L=
+ 10^6 ^ Q 54 ^
F, Fh 20.94 30.36
<
So the section ofT S14x 10 x 1/2 is OK! From previous experience, the design
of smaller section (TS 10) is lighter than that of bigger one (TS12). The sections of
TS12 x 12 x 1/2 and TS14 x 14 x 1/2 need not to be checked. Furthermore, a section of
45
TS9 can not be found for the top chord, TS10 sections should be best choice. TS10 for
other members need to be picked.
Another four trusses are designed in the same way and designs are recorded in
Appendix C.
7.2. Comparing with the Joint Loading Cases and Conclusion

Chart 3-9 shows that the combined stress cases weigh more than the joint
loading cases. For the five trusses of different configurations, the increases are 18.14%.
10.04%. 28.77%. 16.22% and 19.09% respectively.
Chart 3-9 Comparison of Trusses Loaded Differently

10
A x ia l
C o m b in e d
-r- 7
to
B 6
5
5
5
CO
o
o
*
o
o
CQ
Q.
CQ
0 .
CM
o
o
CO
CQ
CL
o
o
o
o
CM
(0
CQ
o
o
CO
o
o
CM
o
o
CO
o
o
o
o
CM
O o
(0 CQ CQ
<
O O o
Truss Type - Span
CQ
o
o
<
o
o
CO
o
o
o
o
CM
o
o
CO
ACQ A
.o
CO
CQ
o o o
46
8. C om p aring D iffer en t H /L R atios fo r 2 0 0 -ft S p an C ases

8.1. Ratios of 1/5,1/8,1/10,1/12.5 and 1/15
The height-to-span ratio o f trusses is to be studied to see how it affects the self
weight of trusses. Ratios o f 1/5. 1/8, 1/10. 1/12.5 and 1/15 are assumed to 200-ft span
trusses. Figure 3-8 shows complete study schedules (big dots show the original cases in
previous study) and internal axial force diagrams reproduced from MultiFrame. It is not
surprising to see that the lower the truss, the larger the compressive and tensile forces in
top and bottom chords. While vertical bars change lengths, the magnitude o f the
compressive force in them remains unchanged. However, from higher to lower trusses,
tensile force in diagonal bars becomes larger in order to have the same amount of
vertical component to resist the same amount o f shear force o f the truss viewed as a
beam.
Structural tubes are used in this series o f designs. Design procedure is the same
as that in the section 6 and designs are recorded in Appendix D.
me
N\
V>
0.
/ >
<
<
&
Q.
0 . >
Figure 3-7-2 Warren Truss at Different H/L Ratios
me
ia
<
\\
4%
j#
O.
.OP
',oz'
/ /
.91
- p ti
49
p-K
o
I
5}
i
}
Q>
*?
1
f *r
CQ
CU
'Z
<*>
n
x .0*
'
.S t
,ot
.5 /
> -r/
50
i OL i LL (shown ol left)
H :L = l: 5
p
T
T P/2
H ;L = l: 8
p/2 T
L-fftH----------------------- M - J
--2M T---------------
T ft*
n
H :L * /: ,
..1
ft? f
'
L-
------
2m
----------
T T /*/?
H : L = 1:12.5
L -------------------------^
--------------------------J
285T----------------- ---------------------
Atff-
-4& &
7*
H: L = 1; I.
200' = 8 X 25'
C S d rK E p
-439C-
n s ts s c n
i
latemil Axitl Farce Dugnai
---------------------(Some as F ig.j-5)
Figure 3-7-4 Arched-Top Pratt at Different H/L Ratios
-4 m -
8.2. Comparison and Conclusions

Self-weights o f the 15 trusses are plotted in Chart 3-10-1. It is clear that the
parallel-chord Pratt and the Warren have the lightest weight at a height-to-span ratio of
1/10; the cambered-chord Pratt has the lightest weight at 1/8; the arched-chord has the
same and lightest weight at 1/8 and 1/5; and the gable Pratt has the lightest weight at
1/5. In each truss configuration/ type group, the worst case could raise the truss weight
up to 36.83%. 47.65%. 73.97%, 36.49% and 103.90% of the lightest case. It seems that
the height-to-span ratio is a key fact to the self-weight of trusses.
Chart 3-10-2 and 3-10-3 show more details. We see that the self-weights of
chords go straight up as trusses get lower. However, the tricky part is the weight of web
members. On one hand, in the higher truss, the vertical web bars are actually designed to
have reasonable slenderness ratios rather than resisting forces/stresses. On the other
hand, in the lower truss, the diagonal web bars need to be designed to resist much bigger
tensile forces. Combined result is that a medium height-to-span ratio around 1/10 seems
better.
Chart 3-10-1 Comparison of Self-Weights of

Trusses @ Different Height-to-Span Ratios
10
<0
a
a> 6
M
3
t
at
5
"35
to
-P a r
-X W ar
I
C am
- A rc
-X G ab
"
1 to 5
1 to 8
1 to 1 0
1 to 1 2 .5
A ssu m .
1to15
Height-to-Span Ratio
Chart 3-10-2 Comparison of Self-Weight of Trusses

@ Different H/L Ratios
10
X W e b
O T o p /B o t.
T o ta l
A ssu m p tio n
a 7
S.
r e
o
a
co
V < v <
tn o
o
i o
CQ
o-
cm
ti.
a(Q
00
00
CM
CM
CM
u
I
<
O
E
co
1
O
Truss Type - H/L Ratio
E
CO
2
o
<
i i
CM
.o
r-
CO
O
CO
Chart 3-10-3 Comparison of Self-Weight of Trusses

@ Different H/L Ratios
10
9
(0
W eb
T o p /B o t.
O)
I
a>
co
5
4
3
2
1
co
in
oi
1ra
5-
Aa
O
Truss Type - H/L Ratio
9. Comparing Different Panel Sizes for 200-ft Span Cases

9.1. Panel Sizes of L/4, L/6, L/8, L/10 and L/12
The panel size o f trusses is to be studied to see how it affects the self-weight of
trusses. Panels o f L/4. L/6, L/8, L/10 and L/12 are assumed for 200-ft span trusses.
Figure 3-8 shows complete study schedules (big dots show the original cases) and
internal axial force diagrams reproduced from MultiFrame. The critical compressive and
tensile forces in top and bottom chords remain unchanged in all cases while the lengths
o f truss chords change. While the critical compressive forces in the vertical bars at the
ends o f a span remain unchanged, the critical tensile forces in the diagonal bars at the
ends o f the span get smaller in shorter panel size cases. A different situation is that of
the Warren: the smaller the panel size, the smaller the compressive forces, but the larger
the tensile forces in web members.
Structural tubes are used in this series o f designs. The design procedure is the
same as that shown in the section 6 and designs are recorded in Appendix E.
-2 9 3 6 -
-2J6T 'i
4 X SO"Fuel
2 P /3
4P /3
2 P /3
6 X 33'-4 Ptnel
P /2
P /2
-249P
-2936----- ------
1------ 2 6 0 f ------r
-2 9 3 6 -
iX 2 f Ptael
2P /5
4P /5
2P /5
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A
10 X 20"Ptael
P /3
1 1 1 1 1
2 P /3
1 1 1 1 1 1
P /3
1 1
p w iiw w
|
L
-2 9 3 6 -
-2 9 3 6 -
SSSSEOZBSSM
12 X If-T Ptael
200 '
-284 P -
'
"^-'-'-2 8 4 3 '-'~-r'
latenul Axitl Font Diigrtau
(Some as fig .3 -5 )
Figure 3-8-1 Parallel-Chord Pratt of Different Panel Sizes

Vi
_________ i
4 X SO*Fuel
4P /3
293C
i__________
-iWF
4P/3
/\/\/\/\/\/\
6 X W r P ta tl
P
'
293T r
/v w w v v x
8X2fPioel
4P/5
X""L-
------------J" " J
4P/5
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
fjw w w w \
w /W \/V V A V /
2P /3
2P /3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
/W T O M A A A A A
--2934'-
12 X W4T
200 '
Internal Axitl Force Diignms

(Some os Fig.3-5)
Figure 3-8*2 Warren Truss of Different Panel Sizes

oc
pyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-2491-
4 X SOPrnel
4P /3
6 X J3-4mPtne!
P /2
1------ 2401 ------1
P /2
f^ ^ T \1 7 P P T ^ i
8 X 2 f Ptoel
" I - --------------
! 44T^ ^ - - T -
4P/5
-T
10X20'Ptx!
456 IT
- - 2441- -
2 P /J
200 '
Intend A dd Farce Ditgnat

(Some os Fig.J-5)
Figure 3-8-3 Cambered-Top Pratt of Different Panel Sizes
to
4 XSV Fuel
owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2P /3
6 X 33-4 Fuel
t X 2 f Pint!
AP/5
__!
T 2P /5
10X20'PtotI
2 P /3
j J r m - T L L i T P/i
12X I f r Fuel
200'
latcmtl Axial Force Ditgnms
(Some os Pig.3-5)
Figure 3-8-4 Arched-Top Pratt of Different Panel Sizes
Figure 3-7-5 Gable Pratt of Different Panel Sizes

61
9.2. Comparison and Conclusions

Self-weights o f the 15 trusses are shown in Chart 3-11-1. At the panels o f 16.7-ft
to 33.3-ft. the weights o f trusses are pretty close; but at the big panel of 50-ft. trusses
weigh a lot more. Specifically, the 50-ft panel trusses weigh 64.89%, 46.01%, 68.01%.
56.67% and 48.68% more than the best cases in five truss groups respectively. Except in
the 50-ft panel cases, the differences are just 9.33%. 3.05%. 10.66%. 10.77% and
8.99%.
Chart 3-11-2 and Chart 3-11-3 show more details. We see that the self-weights
of the chords go down steeply, just like the total weights of trusses, from 50-ft to 33.3-ft
panel, but go down very slowly from 33.3-ft to 16.7-ft panel. Since the smaller the panel
size, the more the number o f vertical bars, but in larger panel cases, diagonal web bars
need to be designed to resist much larger tensile forces at longer length, web bars weigh
less at medium panel sizes. Overall result is that the Warren weighs least at L/8 panel
size o f 25-ft and all others weigh least at L/10 panel size o f 20-fit.
Chart 3-11-1 Comparison of Self-Weights of

Trusses with Different Panel Sizes
8
Par
-X W ar
I
C am
Arc
G ab
" A s s u m p t i o n
Truss Type - Panel Size
Chart 3-11 -2 Comparison of Self-Weight of Trusses

with Different Panel Sizes
(0
O; 5
3 *
1
2
's
V)
3
_
>S<-x-*'XX
V>fJC'x >Sc^-x-x
- T o p /B o t.
tO
CO
X
CO
CO
0.
CM
T -
CQ
0.
X W e b
CO O
X
CO
o
CM
X
o
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
5
6
<
I
o o
CQ
- A s s u m p tio n
-T o ta l
CD
o
CM
X
2
6
<
CO
CO
CO
x>
CD
o
CM
X
o
.o
CD
Chart 3-11 -3 Comparison of Self-Weight of Trusses

with Different Panel Sizes
W eb
T o p /B o t.
CA
.5 *
4
3
0)
CO
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

In summary of the previous studies, following conclusions can be drawn:
Truss configurations have an increasing impact on the weight o f the truss as
a truss span increases. The parabolic-arched top chord is the best configuration.
The gable is good only at short spans. The Warren and the cambered-chord Pratt
are usually better than the parallel-chord Pratt.
A structural tube truss is more economic than WT&DL truss considering the
weight o f the truss alone.
Direct chord loading could increase truss self-weight about 20% and should
be avoided.
The height to span ratio plays an important role in reducing truss self-weight.
The study shows that the average ratio of 1/10 is the best ratio. For the parallelchord Pratt and the Warren, extremely high ratios should be first avoided: for the
gable, the cambered-top and the arched-top Pratt, extremely low ratios should be
avoided.
For trusses o f the H/L ratio o f 1/10. L/10 is also the best panel size for all
Pratt trusses (web bar 45); however. L/8 is the best for the Warren (web bar
50). Larger panels over L/6 seem very uneconomical because o f truss self
weight.
With truss weight alone, the final cost of a truss has not been determined yet.
Joint construction cost, which makes up another part of the total cost, needs to be
65
investigated and the investigation can only be done case by case because the labor cost
is mainly depended on other considerations such as the overall scale o f a project, the
availability o f skilled labor and etc. There is. actually, no straight forward answer to the
economics o f the truss structure according to Professor Dimitry Vergun. who practices
in the field for over 40 years.
However, for a given truss with its span predominantly determined by
architectural concerns, its height-to-span ratio is the most important factor for material
efficiency according to this series study. Bearing this in mind at preliminary design
stage, architects will significantly contribute to architectural and structural synergy.
Appendix A:
Design of WT&DL Trusses of 100-ft, 150-ft, 200-ft, 250-ft, 300-ft Spans
68-72
Appendix B:
Design of Tube Trusses o f 100-ft, 200-ft, 300-ft Spans
73-75
Appendix C:
Design of 200-ft Span Trusses for Combined Stresses
76
Appendix D:
Design of 200-ft Span Trusses at Different H/L Ratios
77-81
Appendix E:
Design of 200-ft Span Trusses of Different Panel Sizes
82-86
Appendices
Appendix A: Design of WT&DL Trusses

WT7XJ0.5
DL3X3X5/16^ r ^ r ^ r ^ L A S \ / \ / \ ~-DL4X4X5/l6
__________ WT5X19.5_________ __
WT7X30.5
DL3X3X3/16 ~
A /\/\/\/\/\/\A
- DL5X5X5/I6
WT7X21.5
WT7X26.5
DL4X4X1/4 f r s j x l ' x l \ [ / ' | y i / V
> -ttW ? /<
__________ WT6X17.5_________
WT7XJ0.5
DL3.5X3.5XI/4 -
-DL2.5X2.5XJ/I6
WT7X17
WT7XJ0.5
DL4X4X1/4
-DL4X4X1/4
WT7X19
Figure Al 100-ft Span

68
Appendices
WT10.SX50.5
WT12X58.5
W T10.5X50.5
0L5X5X3/8-
DL6X6X3/8
WT7X19
WT9X30
WT10.5X50.5
WT12X58.5
WT7X19
WT10.5X50.5
DL3.5X3.5X1/4~
-DL6X6X5/8
WT7X26.5
WT9X43
WT8X33.5
WT7X26.5
WTI0.5X50.5
WT9X43
DL6X8XJ/8-
-DL5X5X5/16
WT8X20
WT9X27.5
WT8X20
WT10.5X55.5
DL6X6X3/8
DL3.5X3.5X1/4
WT7X26.5
WT12X58.5
WT10.5X50.5
WT12X58.5
DL8X8X1/2 ------
----- 0L5X5X3/8
WT9X27.5
WT9X38
WT9X27.5
Figure A-2 150-ft Span

69
Appendices
WT10.5X61
WT10.5X 61
WT15 .5 X 8 0 .5
1
016X6X5,
QHM6. 5 / p ^
WT7X21.5
WT7X21.5
WT9X45
WT10.5X61
WT15.5X80.5
WT10.5X61
WT6X29
WT10.5X46.5
WT6X29
WT10.5X61
WT12X65.5
WT10.5X61
N
WT9X25
WT8X58.5
WT9X25
WT15.5X75
^ ^ D M K 8 K 1 /2
WT7X57
WTI5.5X80.5
WT12X75
WT15.5X80.5
A i
WT7X41
WT9X58
WT7X41

70
Appendices
WT!2 X 6 5 .5
WT10.5X22
WT12X65.5
WT!5 X 9 5 .5
WT!3.5X51
WT15X95.5
W T15X95.5
WTI5X95.5
WT12X65.5
WT15X58
WT13.5X5J
WT!0.5X22
WT15X95.5
WT15X95.5
WT12X65.5
WT10.5X61
WT13.5X57
WT15X86.5
WT12X73
WT9X48.5
WT6X26.5
WT9X32.5
WT13.5X57
WT12X73
WT15X86.5
WT13.5X80.5
WT6X26.5
WT9X48.5
WTJ0.5X50.5
WT9X32.5
WT13.5X89
DL 9X8X1/2
6X3/J.
WT9X48.5
WT15X95.5
WT15X95.5
WTI2X73
WT15X95.5
WT15X95.5
X9XJ/2
WT10.5X55.5
WT10.5X55.5

71
Appendices
WT13 .5 X 8 0 .5
WT15X105.5
WT 16.5X 120.5
WT 15X 105.5
WT 13.5X 80.5
WT8X25
WT 10.5X61
WT18X80
WT10.5X61
WT8X25
WT13.5X80.5
WT15X105.5
WT16.5X120.5
/y k \ / \ / \ / \ h N
WT15X105.5
WT13.5X80.5
w \
AA
WT10.5X36.5
WT18X67.5
WT18X80
WT18X67.5
WT10.5X36.5
WT13.5X80.5
WT15X105.5
WT15X105.5
WT15X105.5
WT13.5X80.5
WT9X30
WT10.5X61
WT18X67.5
WT10.5X61
WT9X30
WT16.5X120.5
8X1A
WT18X130
WT16.5X120.5
WT15X95.5
WT16.5X120.5
WT18X130
WT10.5X61
WT12X73
lilt X.
WT12X73
WT10.5X6I
WT9X48.5

72
Appendices
Appendix B: Design of Tube Trusses

_________ T S6X 6X 5/J6 _________
TS6XJXJ/16 f K
S \ T
\ i \ l / l / i / \ S h -TS6X 4X J/16
__________ TS6X4X1/4__________ _
TS6X6X5/16
!S6X3X3/l6~
/ \ / \ J \ J \ / \ / \ / \ / \ r - TS6X5XJ/16
_______ TS6XJX5/16_______ _
_______ TS6X6X1/4_______
TS6X3X3/16
\ l Xl X\
/ \ / \ s S
156X3X3/16
TS6X3X1/4
----
_______ 156X6X5/16_______ _
156X3X3/16 -
-156X3X3/16
_________
1S6X5X3/16______
1S6X6X5/16
156X3X3/16
-1S6X4X3/16
' __________ 1S6X6X3/16_________ J
Figure B-l 100-ft Span

73
Appendices
T S 9 X 9 X 1 / 2 __________ TS9X 9X 9/16 _________
TS 9X 9X 1/2
TS9X7X1/4
TS9X7X1/4
159X6X3/8
TS9X9X1/2
T59X9X9/16
TS9X9X1/2
T S 9 X 7 X 1 / 4 ___________ TS9X9X5/16 _______________ TS9X7X1/4
T S 8 X 8 X 9 /1 6 ___________ TS10X8X9/16 ______________ TS8X8X9/16
1S8X4X1/4_______________ TS8X8X5/16_________
TS8X4X1/4
TS10X8X5/8
TS10X8X1/4
TS9X9X9/16
___________ T59X9X1/2 _______________ TS9X9X9/16
'7 X //4
159X7X1/4
TS9X7X5/I6
Figure B-2 200-ft Span

74
Appendices
TS1 4 X 1 0 X 3 /8
TS 10X8X1/4
TS 14X10X3/8
TS 10X8X1/4
TS14X10X3/8
1 5 1 4 X 1 0 X 5 / 8 __________ T S 14X 10X 5/8 ____________ T S 1 4 X 1 0 X 5 /8
TS10X8X9/16
TS10X10X3/8
TS14X10X5/8 .
TS10X6X9/16
TS14X10X5/8
TS14X10X 3/8
TS10X10XJ/8
TS10X10X1/2
TS14X10X5/8
TS 10X8X1/4
TS14X10X3/8
TS 10X6X9/16
TS14X10X1/2 _____________ TS14X10X1/2 _____________ TS14X10X1/2
TS10X8X1/4
TS14X10X3/8
TS1DX8X / h
TS 10X8X1/4
TSI OX10X3/8
TS 10X6X9/16
TS10X10X3/8
TS10X8X1/4
TS 14X10X5/8
fSIL X8X1/4
TS10X5X9/16
TS 12X12X5 / 8 __ TS12X12X5/ 8 i
TS 12X12X3/8
_____________ TS12X12X1/2 _____________ TS 12X12X5/8 <
TS12X8X3/8
TS12X8X3/8
75/ 2X12X5/8
TS 12X12X3/8
Figure B-3 300-ft Span
Appendices
Appendix C: Design of 200-ft Span Trusses for Combined Stresses

TS14X10X1/2 ______________ TS14X10X1/2 _________
TS14X10X1/2
T ^ d x a y i/^
TSW 8X / 4
TS10X8X1/4
TS10X5XJ/8
TS14X10X1/2
TS14X10X1/2
TS 10X8X1/4
TS14X10X1/2
/ \ / s% ^ \/\/\/V /V /\
TS10X8X1/4
TS10X8X5/16
TS 14X10X1/2
'
TS14X10X1/2
TS 10X8X1/4
TS14X10X1/2
N
TS10X8X1/4
TS 10X6X5/16
TS 10X8X1/4
TS14X10X1/2
^ f^ J S m 8 K l/4
TS 10X8X1/4
TS14X10X1/2
TS14X10X1/2
TS14X10X1/2 .
n
TS 10X6X5/16
'
TS 10X8X1/4
TS 10X6X5/16
Figure C
76
Appendices
Appendix D: Design of 200-ft Span Trusses at Different H/L Ratios
TS10X8X1/4
, __________ TSW X10X5/16 _____________ TS10X8X1/4
TS10X8X
TS 10X8X1/4
TS10X8XJ/4
TS 10X8X1/4
T S 8 X 8 X 1 / 2 ____________ TS8X8X5/8 ________________TS8X8X1/2
T S 8 X 4 X 1 / 4 ____________ TS8X4X3/8 ___________ ;
TS8X4X1/4
See Figure B - 2
TS10X10X1/2 _____________ TS10X10X9/16
TS 1 0 X 8 X 1 / 4 __________ TS10X8XJ/8 _________
TS10X10X1/2
TS 10X8X1/4
TS10X10X1/2 ____________ TS14X10X5/8 ______________ TSIOXlOXI/2^
TS 1 0 X 8 X 1 /4 ____________ TS10X6X9/16 ________
TS10X8X1/4
Figure D-l ParallelChord Pratt

77
Appendices
TS1 0 X 8 X 1 /4
TS 10X8X1/4
T S 1 0 X 1 0 X 5 /1 6
TS 1 0 X 8 X 1 /4
TS10X8X1/4
TS8X8X1/2
TS8X4X1/4
TS 10X8X1/4
TS8X8X5/8
TS8X8X1/2
TS8X8X5/16 _________
TS8X4X1/4
/wwvw\
See Figure B -2
TSI0XI0XJ/2 _________ TS 10X10X9/16
TS 10X8X1/4 ____
TS1GX5X1/2 _________
TSI0X I0X J/2 <
TS 10X5X3 / 8
TS10X10X1/2
TS14X 10X5/8
<
__________TS 10X6X9/16
TS10X8X1/4
TSlOXlOXl/2^
TS10X5XJ/8
Figure D-2 Warren
Appendices
T S8X 8X 5/16
TS8X8X 3/8
TS8X4X1/4
TS8X4XI/4
T S 8X 8X 5/16
TS8X4X1/4
See Figure 8 - 2
TS9X9X9/I6
TS9X9X5/8
TS9X9X9/16
\rS9X SX 5Y16
FX7X1Z
TS9X7X1/4
TS9X5X1/2
TS10XWX5/8
TS10X10X5/8
TS9X7X1/4
JS10X10X5/8
XjsmshjA^K
TS 10X6X3/8
TS 12X12X5/8
TSTSI0X5X9/I6 _____________ TS 10X6X3/8
TS 12X12X5/8
TS 12X12X5/8
TS12X6X5/8
TS12X6X1/2
r ~ ~ -^ llS T ? X 6 X J /2 '
TS 12X6X1/2
Figure D-3 Cambered-Top Pratt

79
Appendices
TS 1 0 X 8 X 1 /2
TS8X4X1/4
See Figure B - 2
TS10X10X1/2
TS10X8X5/16
TS10X10X5/8
TS10X5X1/2
______________ TS12X12X1/2 __________________________ _
_______________ TS_1 2X6X1/2 ___________________________
Figure D-4 Arched-Top Pratt

80
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
Appendices
See Figure B - 2
TS 14X10X5/8
TS10X10X9/16
TSI4X10X5/8
TS10X6X9/16
TS10X8X5/16
TS10X6X9/16
TS 12X12X5/8
TS 12X12X1/2
TS 12X12X5/8
TS12X6X5/8
TS 12X8X5/8
TS12X6X5/8
TS 16X12X5/8
TS 12X12X5/8
TS 16X12X5/8
TS16X12X1/2
TS 12X12X5/8
TS16X12X1/2
TS 16X16X5/8
TS16X16X1/2
TS 16X16X5/8
TS 16X16X1/2
TS 16X8X1/2
i
1516X16X1/2
Figure D-5 Gable Pratt
Appendices
Appendix E: Design of 200-ft Span Trusses of Different Panel Sizes
TS12X12X5/8
TS16X12X5/8
TS 12X12X5/8
TS 1 J/ X 3 /8 ~
TS 12X8X3/8
TS10X10X5/16 , TS10X10X9/I6
TS12X8XJ/8
TS14X10X1/2
TS12X8X3/8
TS10X10X9/16 , TS10X10X5/16
SIC (8X1.
TS 10X8X1/4 ITS10X8X1/4 m
TS10X5X3/8
_ \TS10X8Xl/4. TS 10X8X1/4
See Figure B - 2
TS8X8X1/2
TS 10X8X1/2
T S 8 X 4 X 5 / I 6 ________ TS8X4X1/2
TS8X8X1/2
TS8X4X5/16
T S 8 X 8 X 3 / 8 ___________ TS8X8X9/16_______________ TS8X8X3/8
I 4.
TS8X6X1/4
TS8X4X1/2
TS8X6X1/4
Figure E-I Parallel-Chord Pratt

82
Appendices
. TS12X12X5/8
TS12X8X3/8
TS10XW X 5/16
TS16X12X5/8
TS12X12X5/8
__________ TS12X8X3/8 _________ i
T SW X W X 9/!61S,4XW X,/'2 TSW XW X9/16 TSI0X10X 5/16

!
TS 10X8X1/4'
TS 12X8X3/8
TS 10X8X1/4
TS 10X8X5/16
TS1 0 X 8 X 1 / 4 'J S 1 0 X 8 x f/4
M A /\/W V \
See Figure B - 2
TS8X8X1/2
TS 10X8X1/2
TS8X8XI/2
_ _
M A A A A A A Â
TS8X4X3/8
TS 10X8X5/16
>
TS8X8X3/8 _ _
TS8X8X9/I6
TS8X4X3/8
TS8X8X3/8 _
/WVVXAAA/VÂ
TS8X8X1/ 4
_______ TS10X8X5/16_________ : < TS8X8X1/4
Figure E-2 Warren

83
Appendices
TS12X12 X 5 /8
TS12X12X5/8
TS 12X12X5/8
TS12X8X3/8
TS12X8X3/8
TS13X8XJ/8
TS 12X8X3/8
TS ! OX10 X 3/8
TS10X10X1/2
TS10X10X1/2
S10X8X4/4
TS10X8X1/4
TS10X8XJ/4
TS10X10X1/2 , TS10X10X3/8
TS1M8XL
TS10X5X5/16
TS10X8X1/4 ' TS10X8X1/4
See Figure B -2
TS8X8X1/4 1 TS8X8X1/2 <
TS8X8X1/2
- TS8X6K1/
TS8X4XJ/4i
TS8X8X1/4
JS8X 8X 1/2 JS 8 X 8 X 1 /4
E8X6X1Y4>
TS8X8X5/16
J S 8 X 8 X I/4
TS8X4X1/4
TS7X7X1/2
TS7X7X9/16
TS7X7X1/2
TS7X7X1/4
TS7X7X3/8
TS7X7X1/4
Figure E-3 Cambered-Top Pratt

84
Appendices
T S 14X 14X 1/2
1x10X3/8
TS14X10XJ/8
TS 10X10X5/8
TS 10X8X1/4
See Figure B - 2
TS8X8X9/16
TS8X8X5/16
TS9X7X9/16
TS7X7X3/8
Figure E-4 Arched-Top Pratt

85
Appendices
T S 14X 14X 1/2
7X3/1
: TS14X10X3/8
7X3/8
TS14XJ0X1/2
TS14X10XJ/8
TS 10X6X5/18 TSI0X8XI/4'
TS10X10X5/16
TS14X10X3/8
TS74X10X1/2
TS10X8X1/4 I TS70X6X5(16
See Figure B -2
TS8X8X5/8 [ TS8X8X9/16
TS8X8X3/8
'1X1/4
TS8X6X3/8
TS8X8X1/4
TS8X8X9/16
TS8X8X5/8
TSV
: TS8X6Xl/4_
< TS8X8X1/4
TS8X6X3/8
TS8X8X9/16____
TS8X8X1/2______________ TS8X8X9/16
TS8X4X1/ ?
TS8X8X1/4
TS8X4X1/2
Figure E-5 Gable Pratt
86
Reference
Reference
AISC. Manual o f Steel Construction/Ninth Edition.
Ambrose. James. Building Structures. John Wiley & Sons. Inc., 1993.
Ambrose, James. Design o f Building Trusses. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994
Griffin. C. W., and R. L. Fricklas. The Manual o f Low-Slope Roof Systems. McGrawHill. 1996 & 1982.
Holgate. Alan. The Art in Structural Design. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1986
MacDonald. Angus J. Structure and Architecture. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, 1994.
Mann. Thorbjoem. Building Economics for Architects. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New
York. 1992.
Melaragno. Michele. Simplified Truss Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Parker. Harry, and James Ambrose. Simplified Design o f Steel Structures. John Wiley
& Sons. Inc.. 1990.
Parker. Harry, and James Ambrose. Simplified Engineering for Architects and Builders.
John Wiley & Sons. Inc.. 1994.
Salvadori. Mario and Robert Heller. Structure in Architecture. Prentice-Hall. Inc..
Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey. 1986.
Schueller. Wolfgang. The Design o f Building Structures. Prentice Hall. Inc.. 1995.
Torroja. Eduardo. Translated by J.J. Polivka and Milos Polivaka. Philosophy of
Structure. University o f California Press. 1962.
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (Q A -3 )
<
150mm
A P P L I E D A IIW IG E . In c
>
1653 E ast Main S treet

- ^ = ~ R ochester, NY 14609 USA
- ^ = ~ Phone: 716/482-0300
Fax: 716/288-5989
0 1993. Applied Image, Inc.. All Rights Reserved
tS

Steel Roof Truss Optimization

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Steel Roof Truss Optimization

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

INFORMATION TO USERS

unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate

STEEL ROOF TRUSS OPTIMIZATION

A Thesis Presented to the

FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

MASTER OF BUILDING SCIENCE

UMI Number: 1391099

UMI Microform 1391099

300 North Zeeb Road

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

This thesis, written 6y

under the direction of h er____ Thesis Committee,

MASTER- OF BUILDING SCIENCE

I. Objective of Roof Truss Study

II. Basic Concepts of Trusses

From Beam to Truss - Definition o f Trusses

Stability and Determinacy

Common Types o f R oof Trusses

Materials for Trusses

Construction Concern: Joint

III. Comparative Truss Analysis by Computer

Computer Program: MultiFrame

Prototypes of Trusses to be Studied

Comparing Self-Weight o f Trusses of Different

Design of Steel Compressive Members

Design of Steel Tensile Members

Comparison o f Truss Self-Weight and Deflection

Comparing TS Construction with the WT&DL

Comparing with the WT&DL Construction

Comparing Combined Stresses with Axial Stresses for

Design for Combined Stresses

Comparison and Conclusions

Comparing Different H/L Ratios for 200ft-Span Cases

R atiosof 1/5. 1/8. 1/10. 1/12.5 and 1/15

Comparison and Conclusions

Comparing Different Panel Sizes for 200ft-Span Cases

Panel Sizes o f L/4. L/6. L/8. L/10 and L/12

Comparison and Conclusions

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

Figure 2-2 A Simple Spanning Truss

Figure 2-3 Genesis o f the Truss from the Beam

Figure 2-4 Elements o f a Planar Truss

Figure 2-5 Typical Roof Truss Profiles

Figure 2-6 Basic Truss Patterns

Figure 2-7 Typical Steel Trusses

Figure 2-8 Arrangement o f Truss Joints

Figure 3-1 Prototypes o f Trusses to be Studied

Figure 3-2 Overall Study Schedule

Figure 3-3 Roof Truss Arrangement

Figure 3-4 Critical Bars at Quick Design

Figure 3-5 Internal Axial Force Diagrams of 200-ft Span Trusses

Figure 3-6 Trusses o f Combined Stresses

Figure 3-7 Trusses at Different H/L Ratios

Figure 3-8 Trusses o f Different Panel Sizes

Chart 3-2 Comparison o f Self-Weights o f Trusses @ Different Spans

Chart 3-3 Comparison o f Truss Weights with Assumptions

Chart 3-4 Comparison o f Top/Bottom Chords with Web Members

Chart 3-5 Truss Deflection

Chart 3-6 Comparison o f Self-Weights of Tube Trusses @ Different Spans

Chart 3-7 Comparison o f TB Trusses with WT&DL Trusses

Chart 3-8 Comparison o f Top/Bottom Chords with Web Members

Chart 3-9 Comparison o f Trusses Loaded Differently

Chart 3-10 Comparison o f Self-Weights of Trusses @ Different H/L Ratios