253

NEEDHAM AND BEAUFOP O N ANALYSIS O F 4 VIERENREEL TRUSS.

Paper No. 5138.

Analysis of a Vierendeel Truss byMoment-Distribution

and DeformeterMethods.
h R o Y

By EGBERTSTEPHENNEEDHAM,
and
ARTHUR
BEAUFOY,
Ph.D. (Eng.),M.Sc. (Eng.), Assoc. MM. Inst. C.E.

(Ordered by the Council to be published with written discusswn.)l

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .
Mechanics of the moment-distributionmethod
Moment-distribution . . . . . . .
Demonstration of the method . . . . .
Effect of axial deformation
. . . . .
The
deformeter analysis. . . . . . .

PAQE

. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

253
255

268
263
266
268

INTRODUCTION.
IN the design of the welded footbridge which was constructed by the
Building Centre in New Bond street, London, to connect with the Grafton
Galleries, for the purpose of extending their premises, the requirements
to be met suggested the Vierendeel type of construction. The resulting
bridge, which was erected in 1935, became the first welded Vierendeel
bridge to be put up in Great Britain. Owing to a skew a t one end of the
bridge, the two trusses were not the same. The present Paper de& with
only one of these trusses, and this had the form shown diagrammatically
in Fig.l (p. 254). It was symmetrical about mid-span and was built up from
plates to give members of 1 section throughout. To increase the sectionmodulus a t the ends of the vertical members next to theend posts, &-inch
stiffening plates were added as shown in Fig. 1. The moments of inertia
in inch4 units of all sections are given as ringed figures. The loads assumed
for design-purposes included allowance for concrete casing, slab-floor
and roof, brick walls with tile facing, and a live loading of 1.5 cwt. per
square foot. For the designed panel-length of 5 feet 8 inches the totalload
per panel amounted to 13-5 tons, or to 6.75 tons per panel per truss.
Fig. I shows the panel-lengths adoptedfor construction, which differ
slightly from the designed layout based on panels 5 feet 8 inches long.
1 Correspondence on this Paper can be accepted until the 15th March, 1939, and
will be published in the Institution Journal for October 1 9 3 9 . 4 3 ~ 0INST.
.
C.E.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

254

NEEDHAM AND BEAUFOY ON ANALYSIS OF A VIERENDEEL

A complete analysis of this structure was made theoretically, using the

Hardy Cross methodof
moment-distribution. An experimental check
was obtained by applying the method of deformeter analysis to a smallscale xylonite model of the truss, and the present Paper shows the comparison between the results derived from the two methods.
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

TRUSS BY MOMENT-DISTRIBUTION AND DEFORMETERMETHODS.

MECHANICSOF

255

THE MOMENT-DISTRIBUTIONMETHOD.

I n his Paper * to the American Society of Civil Engineers, Professor

Hardy Cross did not discuss the mechanics involved, preferring to treat
the application of the method as if it were a physical occurrence rather
than one of a series of simultaneous equations solved by successive approximations. He makes use of three beam-constants defined as follows :Fixed-end mment.--By fixed-end moment in a member is
meant themoment which wouldexist at theends of a member
if its ends were fixed against rotation.
Stiffness.-- Stiffness, as herein used, is the moment a t one end
of a member (which is on unyielding supports a t both ends)
necessary to produce unit rotation of that end when the other
end is fixed.
Carry-over fador.-If one end of a member which is on unyielding
supports a t both ends is rotated while the other end is held
fixed, the ratioof the moment at thefixed end t o the moment
producing rotation at the rotating end is herein called the
CL
carry-over factor.
The values of these beam-constants may be derived by several methods,
but as the method of sIope4eflexion is perhaps the best known, use wiII
be made of the fundamental equations of members in flexure subject to
end restraint, as stated in
Bulletin 108 t of the University of Illinois
Engineering Experiment Station, namely :-

the various symbols being explained on p. 256. The quantities E and I

are here considered as constant throughout the length AB, which is the
case assumed for theframe under consideration. The application of
moment-distribution analysis for members of varying moment of inertia
is outside the scope of this Paper, but thederivation of the beam-constants
for such members may be found in the discussion of Professor Hardy
Crosss Paper, notably in the contribution by Mr. A. W. Earl.$ Valuable
Tables and graphs are also available to shorten the work. The notation
of the above equations is as follows, referring to Fig. 2 (p. 256).

* Analysis of Continuous Frames by Distributing Fixed-End Moments. Tram

Am. Soc. C.E., vol. 96 (1932), p. 1.
t W. M. Wilson, F. E. Richart, and C. Weiss, Analysis of Statically Indeterminate
Structures by the Slope Deflection Method. November, 1918.
3 Trans. Am. Soc. C.E., vol. 96 (1932), p. 112.
5 Discus8ion on Messrs. L. H. Nishkians and D. B. Steinmans Paper Moments
in Restrained and Continuous Beams by the Method of Conjugate Points, by W.
Ruppel. Trans. Am. Soc. C.E., vol. 90 (1927), p. 167.
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

256

NEEDHAM AND BEAUFOY ON ANALYSIS ON A VIERENDEEL

Fig. 2.

Let MAB denote the resisting moment at the end A of the member
AB.
HBA
,, resisting moment atthe end B of the member
AB.
,, E
,, modulus of elasticity.
11
,, I j L where I denotes the moment of inertia of
the section.
>f
BA,
,, the changes inthc slope of the elastic curve a t A
and B respectively.
)j

1,

,, L or the angular slope of the member in its

deflected position.

Fixed-End Moment.
Let the end panel of the truss of Fig. l be considered to be deflected
as in Fig. 3, with the joints fixed against rotation, as defined for fixed-end
moment.
Fig. 3.

Then substituting zero for f?A and f?B in equations (1) and (2),
MAB =MBA

= 2EK(- 3R)

- _ 6EK-d
L

. . . . . . .

(3)

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

TRUSS
BY
MOMENT-DISTRIBUTION
AND
DEFORMETER
METHODS.

287

6EId
This is the familiar expression -for end moment in the stanchions
L2

of a building frame subjected to lateral displacement. The negative sign

is for the resisting moment, the bending at the ends of members AB and
CD in Fig. 3 being positive. As explained later, the moment at the end
of a member is considered positive if it tends to cause clockwise rotation
of the joint.
It will be noted that if d is the same for members AB and CD, the four
corner moments in the panel-are proportional to I/L2. Assuming I to be
the same for both members and L to be constant, then the four fixed end
moments are equal. Their sum equals the shear in the panel multiplied
by the panel-length, or, considering half the totalpanel shear to be carried
Fig. 4.

by each boom at its mid-point(point

MA, M,, etc., equal

of contraflexure), the moments

VL
$Vx*L=. . . . . . .
4
When the shear V is known from the loads on the structure the fixedend moment can be written from equation (4)without reference to equation (3), which involves the unknown deflexion d.
Stiffrns.
As defined above, stiffness of a member is the resistance to rotation
for unit rotation a t one end when the other end is fixed. Thus, in Fig. 4 ,
let the threemembers meeting a t A be subjected to a unit rotationof joint
A common to them all, the ends B, C, D remaining fixed. Equation (1)
gives MAB = 2EK(2 0 - 0) = 4 E K A B ;
= 4EKAc ; and MAD
= ~ E K A D .Thus any moment imposed on the joint A will be resisted
by the several members in proportion to their K-values. For the ordinary

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

258

NEEDHAM
AND
BEAUFOY

ON ANALYSIS
OF
A
VIERENDEEL

type of member with constant moment of inertia, the ratio I / & is all that
is implied in the term
stiffness, whilst the stiffness-factor of a member
for the end under consideration is the ratio which the stiffness of that
member bears to the sum of the stiffnesses of all the members at thejoint.

Carry-Over Fador.
Due to the rotation at A in Fig. 5, equations (1) and (2) give for the
resisting moments at thetwo ends, end B being fixed,
M A = 2 E K ( 2 8 ~ 0 - 0) = 4EKeA
M , = 2EK(O OA - 0) = ~ E K ~ A

Thus for members of constant moment of inertia, the ratio of M , to

MA is B, which is the carry-over factor asdefined above.
MOMENT-DISTRIBUTION.
From a practical point of view the value of the moment-distribution
method in solving indeterminate structures lies in not depending on
the small rotations of joints and the angular slope ( R = d/L) of members,
but indealing directly with the moments themselves by simple arithmetic.
The procedure is unique in the initial fixing of all joints against rotation.
Fixed-end moments are determined for all members and written down with
the proper sign. Any one joint is then released and rotation takes place
unless the algebraic sum of the moments at that joint equals zero, which
is not usually the case.
The algebraic sum of the moments around a joint is called the unbalanced moment, which, due to the rotation permitted, is distributed
to the connecting members, so that the condition ZM = 0 i s established
temporarily and the jointis again considered fixed against rotation.
The distribution of the unbalanced moment is accomplished by imposing on the joint an equal balancing moment of opposite sign allocated
to the various connecting members in accordance with their respective
stiffness-factors. These momentshaving been written down, the sum
of all moments tabulated shows that the joint is now balanced.
The balancing moment thus imposed at one end of a member induces
at the other end a moment of the same sign, as will be evident from a
study of Fig. 5. The carry-over factor being 4, the moment written at the
far end is one-half of the balancing moment just written at the near end,
and thisis done for all the members of the joint just balanced.
The moment carried over is added algebraically to the fixed-end or
other moments existing at the far
end, and is thus included in determining
the unbalanced moment of the next joint to be released. All the jaints
are released in succession by thesame procedure of distributing unbalanced
moments and carrying over one-half totheadjacent
(farend)jaints.
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

TRUSS BY MOMENT-DISTRIBUTIONAND DEFORMETER

METHODS.

269

The process is then repeated once or twice until the unbalanced moments
to be distributed are negligible. Accurate balance of all joints may be
secured, if desired, by sufficient repetition. The method
is thus not an
approximate one, but one of successive approximations. Asummation
of all moments tabulated for each end of each member gives the final
moments resulting at the ends of the members, and the assumed sections
can be revised if necessary.
If the shears derived from the resulting moments arenotequal to
the known shears, a correction must be applied or the procedure must be
altered to provide for maintaining the shears a t their proper values.
This matter has been ably dealt with by Profeasor J. F. Baker, M.A.,
D.Sc., Assoc. M. Inst. C.E., in his work for the Steel Structures Research
Fig. 5.

Committee.1 His method of tabulation for moment-distribution is commendable. His sign convention has the same basis as that described
herein, but unfortunately the positive and negative signs are used in the
reverse manner to those preferred by the Authors.
SQn Convention.

In applying the moment-distribution method to the present analysis,

the simple sign convention adopted was that positive moment at the end
of a member tends to rotate the adjacent
joint clockwise.
By using this convention all members can be treated in exactly the
same manner, and the necessity for employing a subsidiary convention,
such as that associated with turning the calculation-sheet through a right
angle so that vertical members shall take up the position of horizontal
members, is eliminated. Carry-over moments have the same sign 8s the
corresponding balancing moments, and the algebraic sum of all moments
around a joint in equilibrium is zero. For any given balance a t a joint,
the balancing moments are all of the same sign, their sum being equal
and opposite to that of the unbalanced moment.
I n F9.6 (p. 260), representing the end penel of a truss, the shears V in
the horizontal members tend to rotate the
joints ina clockwisedirection, the
The Stress Analysis of Steel Building Frames.
Second Report of the Steel
Structures ResearchCommittee, pp. 214-220. H.M. Stationery M c e , 1934.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

260

NEEDHAM AND BEAUFOY ON ANALYSIS OF A VIERENDEEL

moments at the ends of each member having the positive sign. The
opposing shears H in the vertical members tend to rotate the joints in a
counter-clockwise direction, the resulting moments being negative and
equal to the sum of the positive moments in the horizontal members.
The signs give a mental picture of the type of curvature in themembers,
and once this convention is understood, the confusion about signs for rigidframe analysis disappears.
When the bending-moment diagram is drawn it is necessary to adopt
the usual convention, as shown in Pig. l 7 (p. 271), opposite signs now
representing the tension or compression on one face of a member, whilst
the points of contraflexure also become evident.
Fig. 6.

The sign convention described is applicable to anyproblem in momentdistribution, and it is hoped that those not familiar with it will try to use
it infuture, and that theywill be rewarded for the slight effort involved.
Calculations.
For the Vierendeel truss with parallel booms, the shears in the panels
are resisted by the moments in the booms, the shear being equal to the
sum of the boom-end moments divided by the panel-length, as noted above
(equation (a), p. 257). From the known shears the fixed-end moments for
beginning the calculation can be written by this equation, assuming both
booms to have the same moment of inertia.Thus, in the end panel,
- VL
68
- = 16.88 X - = 287 inch-tons is the fixed-end moment a t each of
4
4
four boom-ends. However, as willbe seen later in distributing the unbalanced moments, a large proportion of the fixed-end moments is absorbed
by the verticals, due to therelativeiy large rotations of the joints, leaving
to the booms only a portion of the moments which must be present to
equalize the known shears.
There is a method 1 of applying arbitrary joint-rot,ations which provide
~

~~. .

~~~~-

Hardy Cross and N. D. Morgan, " Continuous Frames of Reinforced Concrete,"

pp. 229-233 (in prficular, footnote on p. 233).
l

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

TRUSS B Y MOMENT-DISTRIBUTION
AND
DEFORMETER
METHODS.

261

initialmoments of suchmagnitude that afterdistribution the correct

shears are realized. An advanced treatment 1 of the problem has been
presented by Professor J. F. Baker, in which initial adjustments based
on deforming thestructure formoment,shear,
andthrust effects arc
developed and their relation to speeding up the convergence is discussed.
Other methods of hastening the convergence and restoring the shear may
present themselves to thedesigner who has become familiar with momentdistribution, but in the analysis to be described a way of applying the

Hardy Cross method was derived which avoids repeated corrections and
eliminates the uncertainties of the problem. It consists in noting the effect
produced on the truss by an arbitrary " unit shear " in each panel treated
separately. By combining the resultant shears for eachpanel in three
simultaneous equations and solving, values were obtained by which the
required shearswere satidied and thefinal moments obtained.
The work was simplified in this case by thesymmetry of the two halves
of the truss, which were treated simultaneously as shown in Pigs. 7, and
by the assumption that the fixed-end moments for the upper and lower
booms might be taken in proportion t o theirrelative stiffness, which
permitted treating each panel as a whole, and avoided the larger number
of equations necessitated by treating each boom individually.
Taking 1O
, OO inch-tons end moment as a convenient measure of the
" unitshear
" multiplied by one-half
the panel-length, 550 inch-tons
was proportioned to theupper boom and 450 inch-tons to thelower boom,
for each of the three cases (A), (B), and (C) shown in Figs. r a n d 8 (p. 262).
The complete distribution is shown in Pigs. 8.
I n Pigs. 8 (U) the stiffness of the members is given in brackets.
In
determining these valuesof I / L a shorter lengththan thedistance between
" A DistributionMethod of Stress Analysis." Aeronautical Research Committee
R. and M.No. 1667, 1935.

17
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

262

NEEDHAM AND BEAUFOY ON ANALYSIS OB A VIERENDEEL

V = -5.OT

Case (A)

[l 1 51
-10

Case (B)

367

1.2)

[
-550

ill2

V-

Case (C)

+8

-8
-3

F 6

-4

+l3

241/1;69
-1.15T

-W

DISTRIBUTION
OF 1,000 INCH-TONS UNIT SHEAR
MOMENTS.
bD
NoTE.-The totals (indicated by double lines) include the,balancing operation, which
is omitted here for clarity.Thisaccounts
for the smalldifferencesin
the
addit,ions and shows the rapidity of the convergence.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

263

TRUSS BY MOMENT-DISTRIBUTION AND DEFORMETER METHODS.

centres of intersections was taken, to all6w for local stiffness of the jointdetail.

DEMONSTRATION
OF THE METHOD.
In order to illustratethe application of the moment-distribution
method, the calculation givenin Figs. 8 (a) will be explained in detail.
The fixed-end moments for member 1 3 were assumed to be
550
inch-tons a t each end and
450 inch-tons at each end of member 0-2.
All other members have zero moments.
Commencing a t joint 1, the unbalanced moment is 550. A balancing
moment of - 550 is distributed to the two members 1-3 and 1-0 in proportion to their stiffness- (I/L-)values 3.66 and 1.90, giving moments of
- 364 and - 186 respectively. The algebraic sum of the moments now
written a t joint 1 equals zero, and a line is drawnbelow to indicate that the
joint is temporarily balanced.
Care must be taken a t this stage not to
forget to carry over to the far ends of members 1 3 and 1-0 one-half of
the distributed moments just written a t joint 1. Thus
182 is placed a t
joint 3 and - 93 a t joint 0. It should be noted that the sign of the
moment carried over has not been changed. This is in conformity with
the convention adopted, clockwise rotation of joint 1 tending to induce
counter-clockwise rotation a t joint 3, and at joint 0.
Passing to joint 3, the unbalanced moment is 550 - 182 =
368
inch-tons, which must be distributed to the three members 1 3 , 3-2, and
%5, in proportion to their stiffnesses 3-66, 1.90, and 3.66. This gives
-148, -72, and -148, respectively,and the joint is balanced.Hence
- 74 must be carriedover to joint 1, - 36 to joint 2, and - 74 to joint 5.
Passing to joint 5, the unbalancedmoment - 74 isdistributedas
30, 14, and
30, carrying over
15 to joint 3,
7 to joint 4, and
15 t o joint 7.
At joint 7 the reverse operation from the other half of the truss gives
- 15 carriedoverfrom
joint 9. Theunbalancedmomentthereforeis
zero, and there are no distributed moments to be dealt with or moments
to be carried over.
Passing to the bottom boom, the tabulation is written upwards for
convenience. At joint 0 the unbalanced moment is 450 - 93 = 357
and the distributed moments are - 140 and - 217, while - 70 is carried
over to joint 1, and - 108 to joint 2.
At joint 2, the unbalanced moment is
450 - 108 - 36 = 306,
the distributed moments are - 116, - 74, and - 116, while the moments
carried over are - 58, - 37, and - 58.
The distributiona t joint 4 completes the first balance.
Reverting to joint 1, there now appear under the line unbalanced
moments of - 70 and - 74 = - 144. The distribution is 48 and 96,
and
24 and
48 are carried over.
17*

+ +
+

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

264

NEEDHAM AND BEAUFOY ON ANALYSIS OF A VIERENDEEL

The procedure is continued to complete the second balance, with

rapidly converging values. Finally, a t joint 1, summing up the original
fixed-endmoment,balancingmoments,andcarry-overmoments,
the
algebraic totals indicated by the double lines are - 201 and
201, and
indeed for each joint it will be noted that EM = 0. It will also be noted
that in the panel where the loading was applied, the moments remaining
in the top and bottom booms are less than half their original values, due
to theelastic propertiesof the frame. The simplicity of the process will be
a t once realized if the above operations are followed through in detail.
The moments imposed on the first panel in Figs. 8 (a) having been
balanced as demonstratedabove, the resultingshearsareobtainedby
dividing the sum of the fourcornermoments by the panel-length. It
should be noted that the shear in the second panel is negative. The calculation for cases (B) and (C) needs no comment, except perhaps to point
out in the
case of (C) the effect of the simultaneous applicationof the fixedend moments a t panel-points 7 and 6 derived from the adjacent panels.
As will be noted, the centre vertical (member 7-6) transmits no bending
stress, as there is no unbalanced moment to produce rotation.
The problemnow is to determine what factor
X to apply to the unitshear
ineachpanel in turn in order to produce the requiredshearsfor the
combination of (A), (B), and (C) for the panel.
Denoting the proportion contributed in each case by XA, XB, and ZC,
three equations are written as follows in which the constant terms are the
required shears.
13.05 X A - 5.04 ZB
1.15 XC - 16.88 = 0 . . .
(I)
- 5.0 ZA
15.62 X B - 6.88 xc - 10.13 0 . . . (11)
1.10 ZA - 6.90 XB +20*98 xc - 3.38 == 0 . .
(111)

These equations yield the following values for the factors :ZA = 1.81 ; XB = 1.47 ; ~c = 0.55.
These factors are then applied to the boom terminal moments of (A),
(B), and (C), and a summation for final moments is madeas in Figs. 9 (a).
Themomentsfor the verticals are obtainedfromthese by inspection.
The final shears in the members are determined from the sum (not the
difference) of the end moments, divided by the panel-length in the case
of the booms and by the truss-depthfor the verticals. The direct stresses
in thebooms are thesummation of the horizontal shears. The final diagram
of forces is givenin Figs. 9 (b).
The end verticals transmit as B direct stress about one-half of the end
reaction, depending on the relative stiffness of the two adjacent booms.
The intermediate verticals take direct stress only from the panel-point
load, which involves a smalltension or compression depending on the
load being applied at thebottom or at thetop. If the panel-load is equally
divided between top and bottom, thedirect stress is negligible.
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

TRUSS BY MOMENT-DISTRIBUTION AND DEBORMETER METHODS.

268

In the bending-moment diagram shown in Pig. 17 (p. 271) the static

sign convention used in the analysis is replaced by the diagrammatic
convention noted on p. 259. Promthis diagram the moment atthe
critical section in the rounded corners is seen to be less than thecalculated
moment a t the intersection-points. For purposes of design 75 per cent. of
the maximum moment was used, combined with any direct stress in the
member.
The unit stress was restricted by the specification to 8 tons per square
Figs. 9.
(a1

Case (A)
Case (B)
Case (C)

tm

+470

-Ea

-222

+m
-

t 4
-318

+Ea

V =1688
-306
Case (C)
Case (B)
Case (A)

f305
+ 4
- 51

+353

14
-1 72
+416

-198

-30

j:.

v = 3 38

v=1013

-84

- 71

9
-202

+S

+ 18

inch intension. It is not proposed to enterinto a discussion of permissible

unit stresses for Vierendeel trusses, but it seems desirable to make this one
comment : that this type
of truss differs from that for which existing specifioations are applicable in that the deformation stresses are load-carrying
atresses, and therefore the margin in present specifications to cover deformation or " secondary " stress should be allowed as an additional permissible working stress for the design of Vierendeel trusses.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

266

NEEDHAM AND BEAUFOY ON ANALYSIS OF A VIERENDEEL

EFFECTOF AXIAL DEFORMATION.

Theerrordue
to the assumption that axial deformation is zero is
generally neglected in rigid-frame analysis. In Bulletin 108 of the
University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station,
to
which
reference has been madel, it is stated that
" for steelframes
of the
proportions common in engineering structures theerror is well under 2 per
cent."
Although for the Vierendeel truss under consideration the deformation
due to axial loads in some cases increases the bending moments more than
2 per cent., it will be shown that, for the purpose of design, the neglect
of axial-deformation stresses was justified.
The booms being designed primarily forbending, the direct unit stresses
are small, varying from4 to 2 tons per squareinch. The axial deformations
are given in Figs. 10. The relative displacement of the top and bottomof
vertical members is cumulative, the totalfor each panel being shown.
Figs. 10.
I

O.oM74"

Ow619"

000795''

ADDITIONAL
FIXED-END
FIXED-END
MOMENTS
HORIZONTAL
FOR
DISPLACEMENTS.
MOMENTS.ENDPANEL.

Fixed-end moments for the verticals derived from these displacements

- are given in Pigs. 10 and 11. As previously
by the formula M = 6EKA

noted, the axial load in the intermediate verticals is negligible. The error
in assuming for them zero vertical deformation is of the order of a fraction
of 1 inch-ton bending moment. In the calculations all moments less
than unity are neglected, and therefore in the fixed-end condition the
moments forthe booms are given as zero, except formembers 0-2 and 1-3.
The loadof 8.58 tons in the end
vertical produces a shorteningin it amounting to 0.006'76 inch and this imposes on the adjacent boom members
fixed-end moments of 13 inch-tons, with negative sign for member 1-3
and positive sign for member 0-2 (Pigs. 10).
Proceeding bythe
method of moment-distribution, the resulting
shears shown in Fig. l1 are obtained. It should be noted that the shears
in the panels are negative or opposite to the shears resulting from the
external loading used in the analysis for the design (Figs. 9 (a)). As no
external loading is applied in considering axial deformation, the vertical
Footnote (t),p. 256.
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

TRUSS BY MOMENT-DISTRIBUTION AND DEFORMETER METHODS.

267

shears inthe panels must bezero.

Positive shears must therefore be
imposed on the negative shears of such value that a state of zero shear is
restored. Having available the unit shearequations for positive shear,
the values of xA, xB, and xc given in Figs. 12 (a) (p. 268) are determined
by substituting the shears of Pig.l 1 for the constant terms, and solving.
Applying these X values to the moments of Pigs. 8 and summing up, the
bending moments are derived for the restoring shears. F@. I 2 (a)
give the moments corresponding to the twosets of shears, and their
algebraic sum gives the moments corresponding to zero shear in the panels.
These are
the
moments attributable to axial deformation. They
are of small proportions andthemajoritytendto
decrease thetotal
bending.
Fig. 11.
I

+60 -13

_-

-31
-12 - 4
+ 6 +l0

-+32
+2

-32
+3

-16

-13
-15
-9
+5
+ l
-31

+51

-5

-9

_ -z-

V=-l-eC
-22
0-

+ l + l
+42 -11

-+39

-17
+ l

-- -4
-7

V = -0.76

+n

-11

-4
+l8

-13

+l8

V=-025
-

- 2

- 2
2
f2

The distribution of the fixed-end moments of Pigs. 10 involves jointrotation only, as shown dotted in Pig. 13 (p. 268), without deflexion of
the truss as a whole. The restoration of zero shear is in effect the correction resulting from deflexion. Fig. 13 is drawn to illustrate that in the
deflected position the verticals take up a radial direction approximately
a t right angles to the booms. It should be clear, therefore, that the distortion of the truss due toaxial deformation does not necessarily give rise
to large bending moments.
In Pigs. 12 (b) these moments are shown asapercentage of the moments
used for design. The boom sections having been selected for the bending
a t panel-points 3 and 2, it will be noted that the maximum error calling
for increased section amounts to only 2.3 per cent. At panel-points 5 and
4, where the percentage of error is high, the moments involved are relatively
small. For this reason it may be expected that themembers in the central
panels will be sensitive to errors in calculation, and this is borne out in
comparing with the results obtained in the model-analysis.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

268

NEEDIIAM AND BEAUFOY ON ANALYSIS OF A VIERENDEEL

xA=Ole3

$B=0127

c=ow

Case (A)
Case (6)
Case (C)
Positive
Nepailve

(-B

- 9

- 3

+36

+36

- 9

-31
+42 -11
+5 -4

+l8
-11
+7

-v=o

Final i

v=0

c2

Negative

+l8

Positive
Case (C)
Case (B)
Case (A)

(,-i
6

-5
-17

-15
+42

Destan -316
Axlal
6 Percentage of
Designmoments:

- 6

-7

-393

+l25
L 4

05

OQ 1 +- :92

+224

+ l

11-91
+ 4

+m
0

Note:-Percentages

in brackets are increases in bsndlng due to axtal deformatton.

THE DEFORMETER
ANALYSIS.
I n view of the assumptions necessarily made in order to obtain a
solution by moment-distribution, it was decided to apply the method of
deformeter analysis to a two-dimensional model of the truss, and thus to
obtain a mechanical solution which would be entirely independent of these
assumptions.
Fig. 13.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

TRUSS BY MOMENT-DISTRIBUTION AND DEFORMETER METHODS.

269

It is not proposed in this Paper to enter intoa discussion of the deformeter method as a method, as theprinciples on which it is based have been
dealt with elsewhere 1, whilst the particular technique adopted has been
already described by one of the Authors 2. Here it is intended to present
and discuss the results of the model-test, with the addition only of brief
explanatory notes.
The model used was cut to a scale of
for the centre-line dimensions,
from a sheet of xylonite having a uniform thickness of 0.08 inch, whilst
the widths of the members were chosen so as to be proportional to the
stiffnesses of the prototype members, the whole model being designed
so as to satisfy as far as was possible the requirements of geometrical
similarity.
Small holes were drilled a t the ends of the bottom chord, and in the
working position the model, which was otherwise floating freely in a
horizontal plane, was secured about fixed pins passing throughthese
holes, thus reproducing the free end supports of the prototype.
The complete solution of the truss for bending-moment distribution
involved separate testa with the deformeter at 18 sections, chosen on the
principle of finding the bending moment a t two points in each member
with not more than a single cut per member, from which the values of the
bending moment at thecentre-line intersections were deduced by assuming
a linear variation of the bending moment along the whole length of the
member fromintersection-point to intersection-point. In practice these
maximum-values will not be attained, as it is evident that the moments
cannot be transferred from one section to another exactly at the points
of intersection, but they do determine the variation of bending moment
along the length of the member between the joints.
The terminal moments in the posts c m be expressed in terms of the
terminal moments of the connecting chord members ; thus, for example,
at theupper endof vertical post No. 2 the terminal moment is - (p1 a2),
and similarly at thelower end of vertical post No. 4 the terminalmoment
is - (S, y4), where a and p denote the terminal moments (left- and
right-hand ends respectively) of the upper chord members, y and 6 having
a similar significance in respect of the lower chord members ; the suffixes
refer to the panel numbers, all numbering, both for panels and posts,
being from left to right.
Examination of the experimental figures for terminal moments showed
small residual moments at thejoints, but in all cases the discrepancies lay
within the limits of accuracy of the method, the experimental figures being
remarkably consistent and quite suitable for use for all practical purposes
without adjustment. From them were drawn Figs. I 4 , I 5 , and I 6 (pp. 270271) showing the experimental influence lines for terminal bending moment

The Beggs Deformeter.

Eqineerkng, vol. oxxvi (1928), p. 31.
L. A. Beaufoy, The Stress Analysis of Rigid Frames by the Method of Elastic
Models. The Welder, vol. vii (1935), p. 498.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

270

NEEDHAM AND BEAUFOY ON ANALYSIS OF A VIERENDEEL

in the upper chord members and at the upper ends of the vertical posts.
The curves showing the variation in the maximum bending moment in
the lower chord members, and in the lower ends of the vertical posts,
Fig. 14.

EXPERIMENTAL
INBZVENaE

LINES FOR

TERMINAL
BENDINGM O M E N T S o!

as the unit load moves across the bridge span, are similar in form, and
are therefore not included here.
From these influence lines the bending-moment diagram for the entire
truss under the given conditions of loading was derived and is shown in
Fig. 15.

3%.17, where it is compared with the bending-moment diagram obtained

by themethod of moment-distribution.
It will be seen that the agreement of the calculated results with those
obtained by the experimental method is quite good. In making the comparison it should be remembered that the calculated results were obtained

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

TRUSS BY MOMENT-DISTRIBUTIOX AND DEFORMETER METHODS.

271

Pig. 16.

UPPER

after making the following assumptions, none of which was required in

the model-method :( l ) that the imaginary unit shear applied to each panel in turn may
be allocated to the top and bottom booms in proportion to
their stiffnesses ;
(2) that the effect of direct stresses on the distribution of moments
may be neglected ;
Fig. 17.

Inches
12

Length scale: 1 inch=6 feet.

6 p 2 1
3 4
Bfeet.

Bendingmoment scale: 1 inch=750 Inch-tons.

Inch-tons 19 0 1 0 3 xO3a) 403 5p 6,03 7
", inch-tbns.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

272

NEEDHAM AND BEAUFOY ON ANALYSIS OF A VIERENDEEL TRUSS.

(3) that local rigidity at thejoints due to gussets may be accounted

for on an empirical basis by calculating the stiffness of the
members, assuming a shorter lengththan thedistance between
centres of intersections ; and
(4) that the depth of the members may be disregardedl.

The Paper is accompanied by seventeen diagrams from which the

Figures in the texthave been prepared, and by one photograph.

For comparative figures illustrating the effect of this assumption alonein a

similar form of truss, see Correspondence on Mr. E. H. Batemans Paper, The OpenFrame Girder.Journal Inst. C.E., vol. 1 (1936-36). p. 548*. (October 1936).

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER] on [11/09/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.