Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • LRFD VD Asd

    Uploaded by

    Gui Reimao
    1 views124 pages
    aisc

    Original Title

    LRFD VD ASD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    aisc

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views124 pages

    LRFD VD Asd

    Uploaded by

    Gui Reimao
    aisc

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 124
    COMPARISON ANALYSIS BETWEEN ASD AND LRFD METHODS OF STEEL TRUSS DESIGN A PROJECT PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF SCIENCE MATTHEW CHRISTIAN KASUNICK ‘APRIL 2000 ‘This project, by Matthew Christan Kasunick, is accepted in its present form by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of Brigham Young University as satisfying the project requirement forthe degree Master of Science. Leslie Youd, Contnittee Chair Femnando S. Fonseca, Committee Member Nag 31, 2000 Date ABSTRACT Historically, the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method of stel design has been applied as the conventional design method by many steel truss manufacturers. This study investigates the use of the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method in designing steel trusses. In order to compare the two methods, three Vuleraft asses (Vuleraft 1995) of varying lengths and sizes were analyzed using ASD and LRED at different live load to dead load ratios in order to compare the load to capacity ratios of each method at these varying ratios. The trusses analyzed were the 20K6 (30" long), 36LH110 (60° long), and the 72DH19 (140 long). The truss members with lower ratios of live loads to dead loads (generally less than 2.0 ~ 3.0) yield lower load to capacity ratios than ASD when analyzed using LRFD. ‘These same trusses were then optimized using the ASD and LRFD methods atthe same allowable live loads and total service loads published by Vuleraft(Vuleratt 1995) A these live load to dead load ratios, the LRED designs ofall thee trusses yielded the smallest members. The cost analysis of the approximate cost of steel forthe optimized trusses revealed « 2% - 7% savings with the LRFD-optimized trusses. Although the difference in materials cost savings may vary from truss to truss, the objective of the cost analysis was to show that truss companies have the potential of saving money in the production oftheir trusses while adequately maintaining proper strength and serviceability through application of the LRFD method, While LRFD may allow for a ‘more economical truss design in many cases, the ASD method will also provide for a more efficient design ifthe allowable live load to dead load ratio of the service loads is sufficiently high, Acknowledgments | would like to thank Professor Warren Lucas, my project advisor, for providing ‘me with a Masters projet that helped me increase my knowledge and understanding of steel russ design, I would also ike to thank him forall the time eff, an patience he ‘exhibited in helping me complete this project. I would also like to thank Rick Jensen from Vuleraft and Dr, Fernando Fonseca for addressing several of the questions that hhad, In addition, I would like to thank my wife Jennifer fr al of her sacrifice in allowing me to spend the time needed in completing this project. Table of Contents Abstract. Acknowledgments 1.0 Introduetion 2.0 ASD and LRFD Design Procedures and Parameters 2.1 Tension Members : 4 2.1.1 Round Bars (web members) sed 241.1 Round Bars- ASD 4 2.1.1.2 Round Bars -LRED 5 2.1.2 Single Angles with Equal Legs (eb members) 5 24.241 Single Angles - ASD . 5 2.1.22 Single Angles - LRED 6 2.1.3 Double Angles with Equal Leg Angles (web members; bottom chord) .7 2.1.3.1 Double Angles - ASD 7 2.1.3.2 Double Angles - LRFD 9 2.2 Compression Members 10 2.2.1 Round Bars (web members) 10 22.1.1 Round Bars- ASD 10 22.1.2 Round Bars - LRFD BR 22.2 Single Angles with Equal Legs (web members) “ 22.2.1 Single Angles - ASD “ 22.22 Singles Angles -LRED 19 2.2.3 Double Angles with Equal Leg Angles (web members) 2 2.23.1 Double Angles - ASD 4 22.3.2 Double Angles - LRFD 30 23 Truss Members with Combined Compression and Flexure ..... 35 23. Double Angles with Equal Leg Angles (top chord) 35 23.11 Double Angles - ASD 35 23.12 Double Angles - LRFD es aT ‘Table of Contents (continued) 3.0 Analyses of Steel Trusses Using ASD and LRED....+.+.++ 3.1 20K6 Steel Truss oa 3.2 36LH10 Steel Truss : 0 3.3 72DH19 Steel Truss : 78 34 Summary : 4 4.0 ASD Optimization of Steel Trusses .. 285 4.1 20K6 Stee! Truss 86 42 36LHI0 Steel Truss 88 43 72DH19 Steel Truss aren 90 44 Summary Srnec 92 ‘5.0 LRED Optimization of Steel Trusses . 5.1 20K6 Steel Truss 94 52 36LH10 Steel Truss 96 53 72DH19 Steel Truss ae 54 Summary 100 6.0 Cost Comparison of the Optimized Trusses - seseseseseeese OL 7.0 Conclusions errs | Appendix . Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure S: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Figure 14: Figure 15: Figure 16: Figure 17: List of Figures Member Configuration of a 20K6 Steel Truss Load/Capacity Ratios for the Top Chord of a 20K6 Truss Load/Capacity Ratios for the Bottom Chord of a 20K6 Truss. Load/Capacity Ratios for the Tension Web Member, W1 of 20K6 Truss 6 “endCapacty Ratios for the Compresion We Member, W2 ofa 20K6 Truss . 66 Member Configuration of a 36LHIO Steel Truss. Load/Capacity Ratios for the Top Chord of a 361.110 Truss Load/Capacity Ratios for the Bottom Chord of a 361.10 Truss «. Load/Capacity Ratios for the Tension Web Member, W2 of a 36LHI0 Truss « Load/Capacity Ratios for the Tension Web Members, W6, WS, and W10 of a 36LHI0 Truss Load/Capacity Ratios for the Compression Web Members, V1 - V9 (of a 36LH10 Truss . Land Capacity Ratios for he Compresion Web Member, W3 of a 36LH10 Truss... ‘Member Configuration of a 72DH19 Steel Truss . ‘Load/Capacity Ratios for the Top Chord of a 72DH19 Truss tom Chord of a 72DH19 Truss « Load/Capacity Ratios for the Load/Capacity Ratios for the Tension Web Member, W2 of a 72DHI9 Truss ....+++eseee0 Load/Capaeity Ratios for the Compression Web Member, W3 ofa 72DHI9 Truss List of Tables ‘Table 1: ASD and LRFD Load/Capacity Ratios of Truss Members for the 20K6 Truss ... ‘Table 2: ASD and LRFD Load/Capacity Ratios of Truss Members for the 361110 Truss ..... ‘Table 3: ASD and LRFD Load/Capacity Ratios of Truss Members for the 72DH19 Truss ....+++++ Table 4: ASD and LRED Load/Capacity Ratios of Truss Members for the 20K6 Truss after Optimization Using ASD .. Table §: ASD and LRFD Load/Capacity Ratios of Truss Members for the 36LH10 Truss after Optimization Using ASD ‘Table 6: ASD and LRFD Load/Capacity Ratios of Truss Members for the 72DH19 Truss after Optimization Using ASD Table 7: ASD and LRED Load/Capacity Ratios of Truss Members for the 20K6 Truss after Optimization Using LRED ... ‘Table 8: ASD and LRED Load/Capacity Ratios of Truss Members for the 361.110 Truss after Optimization Using LRED . ‘Table9: ASD and LRFD Load/Capacity Ratios of Truss Members for the 72DHI9 Truss after Optimization Using LRED . Materials Cot Analysis ofthe 20K6, 36.110, and 72DH19 Steel Trusses 102 ‘Table Al: Materials Costs of the 20K6 Truss (Vuleraft design)... 107 ‘Table A2: Materials Costs ofthe 36L.H10 Truss (Vuleraft design). ‘Table A3: Mater 109 ls Costs of the 72DH19 Truss (Vuleraft design) ‘Table Ad: Materials Costs of the 20K6 Truss (ASD optimization) . 10 ‘Table AS: Materials Costs of the 36LH10 Truss (ASD optimization) ‘Table A6: Materials Costs of the 72DH119 Truss (ASD optimization) mm List of Tables (continued) ‘Table A7: Materials Costs of the 20K6 Truss (LRED optimization) . 13 ‘Table A8: Materials Costs of the 36LH10 Truss (LRED optimization) . ‘Table A9: Materials Costs of the 72DI119 Truss (LRED optimization) . Introduction Allowable Stress Design (ASD) isthe most widely used design method for many structural engineering applications currently. This particularly holds true forthe design of steel trusses, such as those manufactured by Vulcraft(Vuleraft 1995). The ASD approach involves the use ofa single safety factor that is used with any losd combination From this safety factor an alfowable sre is determined forthe design ofa particular ‘member. The service loads are then used to determine the actual stress, which must satisfy the allowable stress. Because only the total service load is relevant to the design of a structural member when using ASD, the required strength i always the same for varying load combinations. ‘On the other hand, the required strength obtained through application of the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method may vary. There are many different types of service loads to resis, such as dead loads, live loads, snow loads, etc, The service Joads are multiplied by code specified factors to form factored loads and load combinations. These factors are determined specifically for the type of loading being applied. These factors also vary depending upon which load combination applies tothe Toading situation. The sum ofthese factored loads has to be less than or equal to the design strength of the member in question in order forthe safety ofits use to be assured, ‘The design strength is the ultimate strength multiplied by a resistance factor. Although only the allowable service load is relevant in designing truss members to satisfy strength requirements using ASD, serviceability is also an important issue, Deflection ofthe truss due tothe application of live loads must satisfy the deflection criteria, whieh is the span divided by 360 (1/360). ‘Therefore, although the ASD ‘approach in designing a tuss may allow for any combination of live loads and dead loads, too much live load wil require the upsizng of members inorder to allow for a stifer wuss to satisfy deflection requirements. Similarly, LRED may yield the design of a safe truss however, serviceability requirements must be met. One significant difference between LRFD and ASD is thatthe strength requirements are not always met with LRFD at varying lve load to dad load ratios due tothe diferent load factors associated with the different types of loading Although ASD is used in designing Vulva steel trusses curently, the utilization of LRFD may prove tobe useful and economical f smaller chord and web members can be used inorder to cut down on materia costs. For this project, thee Vea trusses ‘wore analyzed using both LRED and ASD methods under the respective live and total service loads at specified by Vuleraft, The allowable load charts by Vuletaft (Vuleraft 1095) list the maximo allowable linearly distributed losd across the top chord ofeach truss at specified span lengths. The chars also list the maximum allowable ive loads for ‘each trss and span that wil yield maximum allowable live load deflection. The following trusses were analyzed: 20K6 (30" long), 36LHLO (60" long), and a 72DH19 (140 tong. Vulerat uses ASD in designing their trusses; however, it was dificul to emulate perfectly all ofthe assumptions and parameters used in the truss design. Therefore, when analyzing the trusses using ASD, not ll ofthe members passed the strength requirements. However, this only accurred with afew members. A more important consideration is that the same assumptions and parameters were applied to the trusses when analyzed using either LRFD or ASD. After analyzing the trusses using both design methods, the load to eepacit ratios at diffrent live load to dead load ratios fr each truss rember were determined snd a comparison between the two methods was made. ‘After analyzing the stel trusses as they are curently specified by Vuleraf, the same three trusses were optimized using ASD and hen again with LRED. The load to capacity ratios a the cferent live load to dead lod ratios foreach member were also calculated. Finally, a materials cost analysis was performed in order to compare the cost ‘of steel fr the optimized LRFD trusses to that ofthe optimized ASD trusses. Hopefully, te results ofthis project will prompt further research of LRED applications of truss (e ‘Flexural buckling strength about the x-axis is O.K. iff $ Fe 3) Find the lexural-torsional buckling strength about the y-axis: Find the elastic buckling stress, F: Find the elastic flexural buckling stress about the major axis, Fo aE (3 Fo= 2s Find the elt orsonal buckling sss, Fs Fe a Arley Find the elastic buckling stress, Fi FatFn 1s Find the nominal compressive strength, Py Pat Ager Find the design compressive strength, P,, where Chosen member is adequate if Py < Py, 31 2) Find the flexural-torsional buckling sength about the y-axis: Find the column slendemess parameter, OOF Find the critical flexura-torsional bucking stress, Fi Ae os agl) . Fleur buckling sess bot he a i AeYOis is Fen Fey = 0( 0658?" }p, AeyBi> 1s Flexura-torsional buckling tres, Fag! Find the nominal compressive strength, Py: Pea Ag-F ot Find the design compressive strength, 6P,, where = 0.85, Chosen member is adequate if Py < 6? 32 In which ‘Ag = gross cross-section area of the member length of angle lez length of angle leg (b= for angles with equal legs) ickness of angle leg space separating the angles joment arm between the centroid of compressive and tensile forces Fy = yield stress (50 ksi for Vuleraft tusses) modulus of elasticity ofstel (29,000 ksi) = required compressive strength (factored service load) K = effective length factor (K'= 1) ear-span unbraced length of the member unbraced length or distance between spacers of a single angle in the double angle ‘compression member inimum radius of gyration of a double angle 1. =minimum radius of gyration of a single angle hear modulus of elasticity of steel E ° ew u=03 sional constant (two methods of calculating J) ba} J douie =2-F angle 3 3 “io = the y-coordinate ofthe shear center with respect tothe centroid oe 2 olar radius of gyration about the angle’s shear center Teal, = flexural constant {1,= moment of inertia ofa double angle about the x-axis Ise ne)= 2g oe) 1 = radius of gyration of @ double angle abour the x-axis Paden age) = Tiga) 1, = moment of inertia ofa double angle about the y-axis Tye dat dele Le 1 tay tae doen [eset yA ween} ty ay radius of gyration ofa double angle about the y-axis (Q,= reduction factor for slender unstiffened compression members Qs=1 2.3 Truss Members with Combined Compression and Flexure 23.1 Double Angles with Equal Leg Angles (top chord) 2.3.1.1 Double Angles - ASD Configuration parameter: ‘The angles are separated by spacers and by web members ‘coming into the top chor Compressive Strength (Check slenderness: 1) Find the slendemess ofthe double angle and check its edequacy: Ze 35 (KL/P = greater of (KL/r), and (KL/n 2) Find the slendemess of each single angle inthe double angle compressive member and check its adequacy: Check compressive strength: 1). Find the actual compressive stress, 2) Find the flexural buckling strength about the x-axis: ‘Find the column slendemess ratio separating elastic and elastic buckling, C_ (to be used for buckling about x-axis and y-axis): 5 =. [=e OsFy Find he allowable compressive sts, 2 Flexural buckling stength about the x-axis is OK iffy < Fy. ‘Find the lexural-torsional buckling strength about the y-axis: Find the elastic buckling stress, F, a. Find the elastic flexural buckling stress about the major axis, Fe: Find the elastic torsional buckling tress, Fe: Gr are) ¢. Fine enc bacling se, F FotFal [=iFa Fall rel Fie Find the effective slendemess, (KL/Nyg. (KL/r), is set equal to (KL/r) when finding Fe the allowable compressive stress, F, under flexural-torsional buckling. 37 Find the allowable compressive stress, F Flexural-corsional buckling strength about the y-axis is OK. if fo Fo. Flexural Strength ‘When analyzing or designing the top chord ofa tuts, the strength ofthe chosen member must be evaluated for both postive and negative moment flexure, Check flexural strength of the top chord in positive bendin 1) Find the elastic section modulus, , and the elastic section modulus to the tip ofthe angle in compression, S. of a double angle: [.=1,of a single angle 2) Find the actual bending stress of the double angle in positive flexure: wf Because the double angle is designed through consideration of geometric axis bending only, a factor of 1.25 is applied when calculating the bending stess. 3) Find the allowable bending stress, Fy, ofa single angle in the top chord: 1 Find the F when local buckling ofthe tip of an ange leg in compression is 06-Fy Fy =06-04-Fy >. Find the Fy when the ip of an angle leg is in tension Fy =066-Fy Find the Fy when lateral-torsional buckling is critical 39 Find the bending coefficient dependent upon moment gradient, C 125-M ax Cpe Mim 25-M mar 3M at 4- Mgt 3 Me <5 Find the elastic lateral-orsional buckling stess, Fy 85900 uy Fo Co fro ( yy a inwhich sera unbroced length Lateral unbracd length isto be taken asthe distance between panel points or 36°, whichever smaller Find Fi FoSFy Fos> Fy Fy Fy=| 095-05: | |.F, < 066-F, 4) Find the allowable bending stress, F, ofthe double angle: Fy =2-Fomin Foie = governing Fy ofa single angle 5) Positive flexural strength is OK. iffy $F ‘Check flexural strength of the top chord in negative bending: 1) Find the elastic section modulus, 5, andthe elastic section modulus tothe tip ofthe angle in compression, 5,, of a double angle: I= Lofasingle angle 2) Find the actual bending stress of the double angle in positive flexure: i neuo() Because the double angle is designed through consideration of geomettic axis Lending nly, a facion of 1.25 is applied when calculating the bending stress. 3) Find the allowable bending stress, Fy, of single anglein the top chor: ‘4. Find the F, when local buckling of the tip of an angle leg in compression is critical F y= 066-F, 41 %6 ie Fy=06-0y-Fy Find the Fy when the tip ofan angle legis in tension Fe 66-F y cc. Find the F when lateral-torsional buckling i critical: Find the bending coefficient dependent upon moment gradient, Cy 125-M nar os 25-M mart Mat 4M 4 3-M c Find the elastic lateral-torsional buckling stress, Fo: raat fool L » > in whieh Intra unbraced length Lateral unbrace length is tobe taken asthe distance between panel points oF 36", whichever is smaller Find Fe FasFy Fep> Fy Fy rafal ler a2 4) Find the allowable bending stress, Fy, of the double angle: Fy=2-Fomin Figin= governing Fy of a single angle 5) Positive flexural strength is OK. iff SF Interaction Equations In order to determine the adequacy of a double angle top chord, the interaction equations ‘must be satisfied, These equations involve an interaction ofthe compression and bending present in the member. 1) Find the Buler stress divided by a safety factor, F, Ree Tas bE a 135 en 2) Find Cy, the coefficient used in the bending term of the interaction equation. Cy {depends upon column curvature due to applied moments. Interior truss panels Exterior truss panels Cm Fe 3) Use the interaction equations to determine the adequacy of the double angle top chord. These equations must be used to verify adequacy of under both positive and a negative bending about the x-axis combined with the compression at those particular sections of the top chord, fa, Cmte eyo Ifthe interaction equations are satisfied, the chosen double angle is adequate In which: ‘A= gross cross-section area ofthe member i for angles with equal legs) iekness of angle leg space separating the angles joment arm between the centroid of compressive and tensile forces FF, = yield stress (50 ksi for Vuleraft trusses) = modulus of elasticity of steel (29,000 ksi) service compressive load effective length factor Slendemess about the yas ka10 Slendemess about the x-axis for K series joss: K=10 Senderess about the x-axis for LH and DH joist: k=075 L= clear-span unbraced length ofthe member ‘unbraced length or distance between spacers of a single angle in the double angle compression member minimum radius of gyration of a double angle 1.= minimum radius of gyration of a single angle G = shear modulus of elasticity of stl E ai +a) n=03 torsional constant (two methods of calculating J) ae 3 J double = 2F angle ‘Yo the y-coordinate of the shear center with respect tothe centroid 45 = flexural constant (ey 4,= moment of inertia ofa double angle about the x-axis He dot one) = lg an 1r.= radius of gyration of a double angle about the x- ate an rasa an) 1, = moment of inertia ofa double angle about the y-axis Qelys+2Tya 2 a we (on-(Leseder to (Seed) 1 5 1 1 Type by 1b-9 2-94 4d pee ooo [ic Der toa 1, = radius of gyration of a double angle about the y-axis (Q,= reduction factor for slender unstiffened compression members Qs=1 46 Qs ‘Mya: = absolute value of the maximum moment inthe unbraced segment (segment between panel points in the top chord) ‘Mg = absolute value ofthe moment atthe quarter point in the unbraced segment My absolute value of the moment atthe midpoint in the unbraced segment ‘Me= absolute value of the moment atthe three-quarter point in the unbraced segment 2312 Double Angles -LRFD Configuration parameter: The angles ae separted by spacers and by web members coming into the top chor. Compressive Strength Check stenderness: 1) Find the slendemess of the double angle and check its adequacy: KL = 200 «uy greater of (KI/r, and (KL), a 2) Find the slendemess of each single angle inthe double angle compressive member 2.42) 3) Find the modified slendemess ofthe double angle, (K1/ru) 5 (ay ‘olumn slenderess of the double angle about the y-axis ()-() snbraced length of length between spacers ofa single angle in a ‘and check its adequacy: in which {double angle compression member sadus of gyration ofa single angle relative to its centroida axis parallel tothe double angle axis of buckling T= Figen) ‘n= distance between the centroids of the angles perpendicular tothe ‘double angle section of buckling heafert 2 (c= separation ratio 48 Check compressive strength: 1) Find the flexural buckling strength about the x-axis: Find the column slendemess parameter, 2, (GE Find the critical stress, Fs Ae (Dis 1s F= 00638” ost Feo | OTe, (FF Find the nominal compressive strength, Pi: Pat Ag Fer Find the design compressive strength #P, where #= 0.85 Chosen member is adequate if P< @Pa 2) Find the lexual-torsional buckling strength about the y-axis Find the column slendemess parameter, A 49 Find the entical flexural-tosional buckling stress, Fe a, Torsional buckling stress, Fe: GI ary b, Flexural buckling stress about the y-axis, Fn Aes 15 Fey= 0 0658", ¢. Flexural-torsional buckling stress, Fo rene Ege) ee] Find the nominal compressive strength, Py Paz Ag Fon Find the design compressive strength, @Py, where g Chosen member is adequate if Py S Px Flexural Strength ‘When analyzing or designing the top chord ofa truss, the strength ofthe chosen member ‘must be evaluated for both positive and negative moment flexure, 50 (Cheek flexural strength ofthe top chord in positive bending: 1) Find the elastic section modulus, S, andthe elastic section modulus to the tip ofthe angle in compression, Sofa single angle 12 Loa single angle 2) Because the double angle is designed trough consideration of geomet axis bending only, factor of 0.8 is applied for calculating a modified Sand S os-s 08-56 3) Find the positive nominal flexural strength, My, ofa single angle in the top chord: ‘4. Find the My when local buckling ofthe tip of an ange leg in compression is. critical » sos. [F 1 F SI Maz Oe Fy Se Find the My when he tip ofan angle legis in tension: My = 125Fy-S Find the My when lteral-torsional buckling sential: Find the bending coefficient dependent upon moment gradient, Ci 125-M max C42 cis 25-Mmgt 3 Mat4-Mpt3-Me Find the elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment, Moy 0.66- EC My = ee hore 2) a1 z 2 2 ? inwhich = lateral unbraced length Lateral unbracd length is tobe taken as the distance between panel points oF 36°, which ever is smaller. Find the iil yield bending moment, My: My=FyS Find My Mop S My Mq=(092-0.7 2). a, ne u, [Me 32 Mop > My Me My 158-083. > | ay < 128-M, 44) Find the positive nominal flexural strength, My, of the double ange: My Monin soverning M, of a single angle '5) Positive flexural strength is O.K. if My < $M, where 9. Check flexural strength ofthe top chord in negative bending: 1) Find the elastic section modulus, S, and the elastic seetion modulus othe tip ofthe angle in compression, S, of a single angle: of asingle angle 2) ‘Because the double angle is designed through consideration of geometric axis bending only, a factor of 0.8 is applied for calculating a modified § and 5. s Bs Se B-Se 3) Find the postive nominal flexural strength, My ofa single anglein the top chord: 4 Find the My when local buckling ofthe tip of an angle leg in compression is critical 3 My = LIS-Py Se Ele o382- |= <2 < 0446 Fyo F Sq 125-148 My [2% fs Fy Find the Mf, when the tip of an angle lagi in tension My = LISP 5S Find the My when Iateral-orsonal buckling ertcl: Find the bending coeficent dependent upon moment gradient, Cy: 125-M max C52 > cis 25-Mpge 3M a+ 4-M ged Me Find the elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment, Mo! : ose ac Mag = SC oe E)-1 = v In which = lateral unbraced length “Lateral unbraced length isto be taken asthe distance between panel points oF 36°, which ever is smaller. Find the initial yield bending moment, M;: Myerys Fn Mop S My ate=[002-017-52) Ma>M, 158-083. /“ |.m, < 125.0, OE Pats J O* - 44) Find the positive nominal flexural strength, Mp, ofthe double angle: My = 2M amin Manig= governing My ofa single angle 5). Positive flexural strength is O.K. if MS M, where 6= 08. Interaction Equations In order to determine the adequacy ofa double angle top chord, the interaction equations ‘must be satisfied. These equations involve an interaction ofthe compression and bending present in the member. 1) Find Cy, the coefficient used in the bending term ofthe interaction equation. Cy ‘depends upon column curvature due to applied moments. My C= 06-044 = M2 -My and My are the moments at ends of the span between panel points, My i the smaller ofthe two moments, and Mz isthe larger. M; and M; are positive ifthe 55 2 » 4 ‘moment is caused by positive bending and are negative if the moment is caused by negative bending. Find the elastic buckling load, Py Find Bi 2 is muliplied by My in the interaction equations if Af represents the nominal flexural strength ofthe compression sie ofthe double angle, In other words, if local buckling or laerel-orsonal bucking govems over yielding duc to tension, then this factoris used Use the interaction equations to determine the adequacy of the double angle top chord, These equations must be used to verify adequacy of under both positive and negative bending about the x-axis combined with the compression at those particular sections ofthe top chord. Pa 202 oP, Pu af Ma oP, OM, 56 P. —<02 Parl 20P 4 OM, <0 If the imeraction equations are satisfied, the chosen double angle is adequate In which ‘Ay = gross cross-section area ofthe member length of angle leg for angles with equal legs) length of angle leg ( iekness of angle leg space separating the angles joment arm between the centroid of compressive and tensile forces Fy= yield stress (50 ksi for Vuleraft trusses) = modulus of elasticity of steel (29,000 ksi) factored compressive load -M, = factored moment about the x-axis ofthe op chord fective length factor Sendemess about the y-axis: K=10 Slendemess about the xan for K series joists K=10 Slenderness about the x-axis for LH and DH joists: ‘L-=clear-span unbraced length ofthe member inbraced length or distance between spacers of a single angle inthe double angle ‘compression member ‘minimum radius of gyration of a double angle ‘= minimum radius of gyration ofa singe angle G= shear modulus of elasticity of stee! aise) H=03 (orsional constant (two methods of calculating J) 4(o- 3 J double = I ange ‘Yo the y-coordinate ofthe shear center with respect to the centroid 38 1,= moment of inertia ofa double angle sbout the x-axis 17 = radius of gyration of a double angle about the x-axis adobe angle = Fags 1, = moment of inertia of double angle about the y-axis Dy t2-1yp 1 3 1 ee 1, = radius of gyration ofa double angle about the y-axis .Q,= reduction factor for slender unstffened compression members 9 ‘Max = absolute value of the maximum moment inthe unbraced segment (segment ‘between panel points in the top chord) jbsolute value ofthe moment atthe quarter point in the unbraced segment bsolute value ofthe moment a the midpoint in the unbraced segment solute value ofthe moment atthe three-quarter point in the unbraced segment o Analyses of Steel ‘Trusses Using ASD and LRED. Each ofthe three Vulerafttusses was analyzed in Visual Analysis, a commercial computer program used in modeling trusses and frames. Each truss was modeled with the same member types and sizes originally specified by Vulcraft(Vuleraft 1995) so that deflection ofthe trusses could be analyzed as well as their strength. Also, the ultimate service loads as published by Vuleraft (Vulcraft 1995) were applied in the Visual ‘Analysis analysis of each russ. Next, each member of the truss was analyzed with both the ASD and LRFD spreadsheets, using the resulting forces and moments obtained inthe analysis. The purpose of this analysis is to verify the accuracy of the spreadsheets and procedures, make a comparison between the ASD and LRED results, and confirm that the live load deflection requirement of L/360 is met with each trus, After verification, different ratios of live load to dead load were applied tn each truss in order to study the effects ofthese ratios on load to capacity ratios when using a LLRED analysis. As mentioned in the introduction and as will later be illustrated, an ASD analysis yields the same load to capacity ratio, regardless ofthe ratio ofthe live Toad to the dead load. However, the use of load factors in a LRED analysis results in different Joad to capacity ratios when the ratios of live loads to dead loads vary. In order to obtain the LRFD factored loads on each truss member, the following load case was used: 1.2DL+ 1.6LL, Because the live load is multiplied by a higher load factor than the ‘dead load, the loading on a truss using higher live load to dead load ratios yields higher load to capacity ratios. The objective ofthis part ofthe analysis was to detect at what live load to dead load ratios the load to capacity ratios for both ASD and LRFD methods are the same. 6 3.1 20K6 Steel Truss Figure 1: Member Configuration of 20K6 Steel Truss ‘Vuleraft publishes the following service loads of the 30" long 20K6 steel truss: total uniform load = 336 pif and live load = 218 lf, yielding live load to dea oad ratio ‘of 1.847. These same loads were applied inthe truss analysis, After finding the capacity ofeach truss member using both LRED and ASD methods, the load to capacity ratios of truss members foreach design method were calculated for alter comparison analysis between the two methods, as shown in Table 1. In Table I there are two sets of Toad/eapacity ratios for each member alyzed using LRED, The hard conversion involves the calculations performed from following the procedures outlined in the previous chapter. The Vuleraft conversion isthe simplified method used by Vuleraft in ‘order to convert the total service load onthe trusses to an equivalent LRFD factored load. ‘The following equation s used by Vuleraf and was applied in this analysis Wuseo = Waso x 1.65 x 0.9, where Wingo ithe LRED factored load on a truss member and Wasp isthe allowable sevice load, The Vuleraft conversion was onl used withthe bottom chord and web members, and not with the tp chord because the conversion does not work very well with members that involve both flexure and compression. oe ‘Table I: ASD and LRFD Load/Capacity Ratios of Truss Members for the 20K6 Truss [ROOD eee rT] — ar jewro eave szro_[exvo leave leave aro |more [ure | a preras| oa fare |azroexea [zero [sore nce aso eco [raze T ror bw sor |ecos azo [ero [isso Jeo [aco janeo zor T__| ana en) papa CDE CL ES I PLE (Togmsos ge omuD see mA So AReeSPSH GAT ow fowo Jeoro [toro foro fesro Jono ara ero [aro] 9 on [avo lowe sero foeva aco [sero _|eevo [> faeo_|aieo seco |eeeo osc [eara [see T Frere] ae jaca rara sto [sero aro [are [rero [rae T ee) [sar Jal ek acl sll cll cd Tee a COT Iperf Per SET [sae fseET eee faa] BOT ET BREE] Ts maa Eas Tay co z TORT SRST PSE an] OY fea] aR flexural member = compression member; F tension member; Note: T 6 ‘A comparison ofthe hard conversion LRED load/capacity ratios tothe Vuleraft ‘conversion ratios shows tat the simplified Vulrat conversion is comparable othe hard conversion, even at ferent live load to ded load ratios. The Valeraft conversion tends tobe slightly more conservative forthe tension members and slightly les conservative for the compression members. ‘Where the loadcapacity ratio exceeds 1.0, the truss member fils to meet the strength requirements forthe applied load. From Table 1, the top chord failed when analyzed using both ASD and LRED methods. Respectively, the loadeapacityratios ‘wore 1.374 and 1.308. Although failure to meet the strength requirements occurred with both methods, the LRFD method yielded a lower load/eapacty ratio, which means that [LRFD will allow fora slightly higher service load on the top chord than ASD wnder the specified lve load to dead load ratio, This is hetr illustrated upon examination ofthe bottom chord. The ASD loadleapacity ratio of 1.003 shows thatthe chosen member size is inadequate; however, the LRFD analysis yields a loadlcpacity ratio of 0.976, showing thatthe member size is adequate. Both the tension and compression web members were adequate under both the ASD and LRFD analyses. ‘The general tend for the analyses ofthis truss that the LRED analysis ofthe truss members was less conservative than the ASD analysis under the uniform loads specified by Vuleraft. However, lve load to dead load ratios may vary, which in tum affect the loadleapaity ratios ofthe LRFD analyses. Figures 2~ illustrate graphically the ASD load/eapacity relationship tothe LRFD relationship at varying live load to dead Joad ratios forthe tp chord, bottom chord, typical tension web member, and typical ‘compression web member of a 20K6 truss, oa 1.40 Aig @ 2 190 a 1.20 sas} 7 —| | 00 61002030 LLL Ratio © a8 sie & LoadiCapacity Ratio Cl eee LUDL Ratio Figure 3: Load/capacity ratios forthe bottom chord of a 20K6 6s 0s 108) 20) a0 40 co eo 70 LLL Ratio Figure 4: Loadicapacity ratios forthe tension web member, WI of a 20K6 truss 0.46 045 os 30s Pow oat oo 4 038 0.38 O10 eco ao eo coo) LUDL Ratio Ratio Figure 5: Load/eapacity ratios forthe compression web member, W2 of a 20K6 truss 66 From Figures 2~5, the graphical comparison between the ASD losdeapacity ratios andthe LRFD losd/capacity ratios shows theta low live to dead Toad ratios, the LLRFD method yields a lower loadlcaacity rato than ASD. "Thus, tuss members designed with LRFD can ess higher service loads, The opposites true for high live load to dea! load ratios ~the ASD method yields & lower load/capacity ratio Figure 2 illustrates that at ive load to dead load rato of about 5, he Joadieapacit ratios for ASD and LRFD converge for the top chord of the tuss. This [LLIDL ratio of Si bit higher than the LLIDL ratio ofthe service loads used by ‘Vuleraft Therefore it may be advantageous to desig the top chord using LRFD instead of ASD because there exist a higher possiblity that the member size can be reduced Perhaps the LI/DL rato at which the ASD and LRED curves intersect is higher than the ratios forthe web members and bottom chord because ofthe interaction ofboth compression and flexure. Figures 3 and show thatthe convergence point of the ASD and LREFD load/capacity curves are about the same forthe tension web members as well 4 the bottom chord because the bottom chord sas tension member. The LDL ratio at which convergence occurs is approximately 3. The lowest LL/DL ratio at which the ASD and LRFD eurves intersect occurs with the compression web members. Although the LI/DL ratio is approximately 2, this stil higher than the LLIDL ratio of the service loads for this rus, which is 1.847. Therefore, the LRFD analysis ofthe 20K6 truss will yield lower load to capacity than the ASD analysis. Tn alton to checking the strength ofthe trass and comparing the londcapacity ratios using both ASD and LRFD methods, live load deflection ofthe truss was checked inorder to determine ifthe minimum criteria of L360 was satisfied. Live load deflection or ‘vas calculated by the Visual Analysis program to be 0.075" (0."), wheres the allowable live load deflection forthe 30-oot span is 0.083" 1"). Therefor, the live load deflection requirement was satisfied. Only flexural deflection was accounted for in this project. Shear deflection was not accounted for due tthe lack of @ method of calculation fort Rick Jensen, a structural engineer at Vulcraft, was contacted about the subject. He explsined that thei computer program calculates the shea deflection, although he was not able to explain exactly how. However, trough several discussions with the project adviser, Warren Lucas, it was determined that this typeof deflection is very small therefore, it was not accounted for in the deflection analysis ofthe trusses. Also, total load defleetion snot examined because total load deflection requirements may vary greatly between different types of construction projects. So Vulraft doesnot necessarily ‘maintain a certain minimum criteria fr total load deflection. {Upon examination of the live load deflection ofthe 30" long 20K tas, only a difference of 0.1" exists between the actual and allowable ive load flexural deflections. This difference may or may not be compensated fr with shear deflection. Either way, the live load deflection of the truss pushes it limit under the specified loads in the Vuteraft catalog A higher LLIDL ratio could cause the trass to fai to meet the live load deflection enters, Although the tp and bottom chords failed to meet the ASD stength criteria in the spreadsheets, Vulerat's analysis ofthis truss determined that it was adequate. Because ‘Vuleraft uses ASD in designing ther tastes, a higher live load to dead load ratio ofthe service loads would stil yield adequate strength; however, live load deflection could increase beyond its allowance, Thus, the design ofthe 20K6 truss is not governed. o specifically by either deflection or strength because both limits are being strained. Only the ratio ofthe live loads tothe dead loads governs the design because ofits effect on live load deflection. o 3.2 36LH10 Steel Truss Figure 6: Member Configuration of a 36LH10 Steel Truss Valeraft publishes the following service loads ofthe 60" fong 36LHI0 steel truss: total uniform load = 426 pt and ive load = 248 pf, yielding live load to dead lad ratio ‘of 1.3933. These same loads were applied inthe tuss analysis. After finding the capacity ofeach truss member using both LRFD and ASD methods, the load to capacity ratios of truss members for each design method were calculated for later comparison analysis between the two methods in Table 2. ‘A comparison ofthe hard conversion LRFD losdicapacity ratios tothe Vulraft conversion ratios shows thatthe simplified Vulcraft conversion is very close tothe more accurate hard conversion, even at diferent live load to dead load ratios. The Vuleraft conversion tends tobe slightly more conservative for both the tension members and ‘compression members. From Table 2, the top chord failed when analyzed using both ASD and LLRED methods. Respectively, the load/capacty ratios were 1.251 and 1.173. Although failure to meet the strength requirements ocurred with both methods, the LRED method yielded a lower load/eapacity ratio, meaning that LRFD allows fora slightly higher 0 Table 2: ASD and LRFD LoadiCapacity Ratios of Truss Members forthe 36LELO Truss co me [oaro a lezo mr jae Be leo Fa as aT PTT {tension member; C = compression member; F = flexural member Now: T Joad on the top chord than ASD. All ofthe web tension members andthe bottom chord \were adequate under ASD and LRFD. Mos of the compression web members were also adequate excep for WS, which is (2) L 114° 148" x 11S", This double angle filed under ASD and LRED with loadcapacity ratios of about 1. ‘The general trend for the analyses ofthis truss is thatthe LRED analysis ofthe truss members was a slighly less conservative than the ASD analysis under the niform loads specified by Vuleraft. Figures 7~ 12 graphically illustrat the varying nature ofthe [ASD loadleapacity relationship tothe LRED relationship at specified live load to dead Toad ratios forthe top chor, bottom chord, wo typical tension web members (single angle and double angle), and two typical compression web members (single angle and double angle) of « 36LHIO truss. LoadiCapacity Ratio | LUDL Ratio Ee ee eel Figure 7: Load/capacity ratios forthe top chord of a 36LHI0 truss n 00 «8100 20 0k LUDL Ratio Figure 8: Load/capacity ratios for the bottom chord of a 36LHIO truss O00 20s eo eo al LUDL Ratio ‘igure 9: Loadicapacity ratios fora tension web member, W2 of a 36LHIO truss B LoadiCapacity Ratio x 00 140 200k LUDL Ratio Figure 10: Load/capacity ratios for tension web members, W6, WS, and W10 of a 36LHI0 truss Load/Cepactty Ratio oo 610 2030 ksi LUDL Ratio Figure 11: Load/capecity ratios for compression web members, VI - V9 of @ 3OLHIO wuss "4 00 486100 200s __} Figure 12: Loadcapacity ratios for compression web member, WS of a 36L.HIO truss Figure 7 illustrates that the load/capacity ratios for ASD and LRFD converge ata live toad to dead load ratio of about 4.6 for the tap chord of the 36LHIO truss. This LLUDL ratio of 4.6 is quite a bit than the LLIDL ratio of 1.39% of the service loads used by Vuleraft, Therefore, LRFD yields lower loadcapacity ratio than ASD, inereasing the possibility of reducing the member size ofthe top chord. This convergence point is slightly lower than the convergence point for the 20K6 top chord. Nonetheless, the LUDL ratios are both high and approximately the same. Figures 8,9, and 10 show that the convergence point ofthe ASD and LRFD load/capacity curves are about the same for the tension web members as well as the bottom chord because the bottom chord is also @ tension member. The LLIDL ratio at which convergence occurs is approximately 3, ‘hich is also true forthe bottom chord and tension web members forthe 20K6 truss Interestingly, there are three different types of tension members between these two russes solid round rod, a single angle, and a double angle ~ yet all share the same 15 convergence point between ASD and LRFD ata LLIDL ratio of 3. ‘The ASD and LRFD curves forthe compression single and double angle web members in Figures 11 end 12 converged at a LL/DL ratio of about 35, which is higher than the convergence point for the tension members. Upon examination of he loadleapacty ratios in Table 2 itis apparent that this LLIDL ratio is nt the same forall the compression web members, but the average LLL rato seems tobe about 3.0. Ironically, this does not follow the same trend exhibited by the 20K6 truss, which has a lower convergence point (LLIDL = 2) for ‘the compression members than forthe tension members. Because the LL/DL ratios of «ach member type inthe truss ae all geater than the LL/DL. ratio ofthe service loads published by Vuleraft, the LRFD analysis ofthe 36LHLO truss will yield a lower Joad/eapacity ratio than the ASD snslysis when determining its ultimate capacity In akltion to checking the strength ofthe truss and comparing the load/capacty ratios using both ASD and LRED methods ive load deflection of the 36LHIO truss was checked inorder to determine if the minimum criteria of L/360is adequate, Live load deflection was calculated by the Visual Analysis program to be 0.1489" (18°), whereas the allowable live Toad deflection forthe 60" span is 0.1667 (2°), Therefore, the lve Joad deflection requirement was satisfied. Upon examination ofthe live load deflection of the 60" long 36LHIO truss, only a Aiference of 0.2" exists between the sctual and allowable live load flexural deflections Interestingly, the difference between actual and allowable live load deflections is twice that of the 20K6 truss, which spans half the distance ofthe 36LHIO, This ference may ‘or may not be compensated for with shear deflection. Either way, the live load deflection 16 ofthe iruss pushes its limit under the loads specified inthe Vulraft catalog. A higher [LLIDL ratio could cause the ts to fi to mee the live load defection ete, [Although the tp chord and one ofthe compression web members filed to meet the ASD sirength criteria in the spreadsheets, Vuleaf's analysis ofthis truss determined tat it was adequate, Because Vuleaft uses ASD in designing their trusses, higher live load to dead! load rato ofthe service loads would stil yield adequate strength; however, live load deflection could increase beyond its allowance, Thus, itis dificult to determine ‘whether the 36LHIO ins is govemed specifically by either deflection or strength because both limits are being pushed. Only the rato ofthe live loads tothe dad loads plays a role in governing the design because of is effect on live load deflection 3.3 T2DH19 Steel Truss ommetica) epi Figure 13: Member Configuration of a 72DHI9 Steel Truss Vuleraft publishes the following service loads ofthe 140" long 72DH109 steel truss: total uniform load = 533 pl and live load = 263 plf, yielding a live lod to dead load ratio of 0.4934. ‘These same loads were applied inthe iiss analysis. After finding the capacity of each truss member using both LRFD and ASD methods, the load 10 capacity ratios of uss members for each design method were calculated fora later ‘comparison analysis between the two methods as noted in Table 3. ‘A comparison of the had conversion LRED loud/cepcity ratios tothe Vulereft conversion ratios shows thatthe simplified Vuleraft conversion is similar tothe more accurate hard conversion, even a different ive lod to dead load ratios. ‘The Vulerft conversion tends to be slightly more conservative withthe compression members and slighty les with the tension members. From Table 3, the top chord filed when analyzed using ASD, but passed adequately withthe LRFD method. Respectively, the loa/capacity ratios were 1,092 and 0,992. All ofthe web tension members and the bottom chord were adequate under ASD 78 Table 3: ASD and LRFD LoadiCapacity Ratios of Truss Members forthe 72DH19 Truss EET EW TET EET, OT lsxco_[erzo_|sezo [sero fs160 oreo |con0 feszo fasvo[zor0_[soro_[soro fro [reco [esco_[saco foo oars [a0 Te SE ee Gersenios we onADiSEHEI OT fo oxso [oov0 eo oawafarao ise tension member; C = compression member; F= flexural member Note: T and LRFD. Most ofthe compression web members were also adequate except for W3, which is @)124" x 214"x 197". This double angle compression member filed under ASD and LRFD with loalcapacity ratios of about 12. ‘The general trend for the analyses ofthis truss is thatthe LRFD analysis ofthe truss members was a litle ess conservative than the ASD analysis under the uniform loads specified by Vuleraft. Figures 14~ 17 graphically lutte the varying nature of the ASD loadcapacity relationship tothe LRFD relationship at specified live load to ‘ead Joa ratios forthe top chord, bottom chord, atypical tension we member, and a typical compression web member of a 72DHI9 truss. Figure 14: Load/capacity ratios forthe top chord of a 72DH19 truss 80 102 1.00 08 0.96 098 foe |_ pe ——E ose ———— ————— ose ona ane age LUDL Ratio ee acity Ratio Figure 15: Load/eapacity ratios for the bottom chord of a 72DHI9 truss Figure 16: Load/capacity ratios fora tension web member, W2 of a 72DH19 truss at 134 1 1.30 128 cary 126 122 120 118 116 aa aie ato Loaaice oo 10020 kiki LUDL Ratio Figure 17: Loadicapacity ratios for a compression web member, W3 of a 72DH19 truss Figure 14 illustrates thatthe loadlcapaity ratios for ASD and LRFD converge at alive load to dead load rato of about 5.5 forthe top chord ofthe T2DHI9 truss, This LLLIDL ratio of 5. is much higher than the LLIDI rato of 0.4934 ofthe service loads used by Vulerat. Therefore, LRED yields a lower load/capacity rato than ASD, Increasing the possibility of reducing the member size ofthe top chord. This ‘convergence point is lightly higher than the convergence points forthe 20K6 and 3OLH10 tp chowis. Nonetheless, the LLDDL ratios are approximately the same forall tee ruses analyzed. Figures 15 and 16 show thatthe convergence pont of the ASD and LRED load/capacit ratio curves are about the same forthe tension web members as ‘well as the bottom chord. The LDL rato at which convergence occurs is approximately 3, which is consistent withthe results obtained with the other two trusses. ‘The ASD and LRFD curves forthe double angle compression web member in Figure 17 ‘converge at @ LLIDL ratio of about 2.4, which is lower than the convergence point for the 82 tension members. Again, there exists some variance between the convergence points LLLIDL ratios forthe web compression members; however, this trend i similar to that ‘exhibited by the 20K truss, which has a lower convergence point (LLIDL.= 2) for the compression members than for the tension members. Because the LLIDL ratios of each ‘member type inthe truss ae all greater than the LLIDL ratio of the ultimate service loads published by Vuleraf, the LRED analysis ofthe 72DH19 tess yields a lower Toadlcapacity ratio than the ASD analysis In addition to checking the stength of the truss and comparing the load/capacity ratios using both ASD and LRED methoss, live load deflection of the 72DH19 truss was checked inorder to determine if the minimum criteria of L360 is adequate. Live load defection was calulated by the Visual Analysis program to be 0.3402" (4.1°), whereas the allowable ive load deflection fr the 140-fot span is 0.3889" (4.7"), Therefore, the live load deflection requirement was satisfied. Although the top chord and one ofthe compression wel members failed to met the ASD strength criteria in the spreadsheets, Vleraft's analysis ofthis truss determined that it was adequate, Because Vuleraft uses ASD in designing their trusses, a higher ive oad to ded load ratio ofthe service loads would sil yield adequate stengt however, live load deflection could increase beyond its allowance. Thus, itis difficult to determine Whether the 72DHL9 truss is governed specifically by either deflection or strength ‘because both limits are being pushed. Only the ratio ofthe live loads to the dead loads plays a role in governing the design because ofits effect on live load deflection, 83 34 Summary From the analyses ofthese three uses, several observations were made. First the lower LLADL ratios (<2.0) assigned by Vulrat forthe sevice loads ofeach russ, the LRED method yielded lower load to capacity ratios than ASD for most compression, tension, snd combined compressioa/flexural members. The combined compresson/lexural members (op chords) had the highest LLIDL ratio point of ‘convergence, suggesting that it would be most beneficial to design these members using LLRED. ‘The tension members were consistent in maintaining the same point of convergence (LLIDL = 3.0), whereas the compression members were the most variable in exhibiting any type of tend. However, the point of convergence ofthe ASD and LRFD curves forthe compression members were generally between 2.0 and 3.0. Recause the points of convergence generally rere at higher LLUDL ratios than those used by Vuleraft, this suggests that some ofthe members on the trusses could be ‘downsized, resting in less mateils costs. The following chapters examine the Aiferences between trusses that were optimized using both ASD and LRED methods Following, there is an economic analysis ofthese optimized trusses, 84 eel Trusses ASD Optimization of § ‘The analyses of the three steel trusses shoved that afew ofthe members were not adequate while several others were conservatively adequate. This may be due in part to any inconsistencies that may have been present in trying to emulate the design parameters used by Vuleraf. These trusses were then optimized using the ASD method in order to ‘compare the differences between these new designs and the designs used by Vuleraft. Also, a compatison is made between the load/capacity ratios of the ASD analysis and LLRED analysis ofeach ASD-optimized truss. Given thelist of steel member types and sizes used by Vuleraft, an effort was ‘made to optimize the web and chord members so thatthe load/capacity ratio at each of the Valeraft-specified L/DL ratios used in the analyses would come as close to 1.0 as Possible without exceeding it, After optimization ofthe truss memhers according 10 strength ive load deflection was checked foreach of the ASD-optimized trusses, 85 4.1 20K6 Steel Truss Optimization of the 20K6 steel truss involved an upsizing of the tap and bottom chord. However, all ofthe tension and compression web members were downsized. See ‘Table 4 and compare the member sizes to those in Table 1. The differences inthe size increase ofthe top and bottom chords were relatively small ~the thickness ofthe top chord steel angles was increased by 0.027" and the thickness of the botiom chord steel angles increases was increased by 0.01”. The greatest change is the downsizing ofall of the tension and compression web members. With the exception ofthe tension web member, WI, all ofthe web members were reduced to ¥4" solid round bars, the smallest size used by Vulcraft. Because ofthis, the loadcapacty ratios of some of the web ‘members were much lower than 1.0. A comparison of the ASD loadlespacity ratios and the LRED landlespacity ratios st the LLDDL rato of 1.847 reveals that LRED yields a lower loadlcapacty ratio than [ASD. This means thatthe LRFD optimization of this truss may allow fr further downsizing of members Finally, the ASD-optimized 20K6 tru was checked in onder to verify thatthe lie load deflection criteria was satisfied. The lve load deflection was 0.074 (0.9 ‘which is actually slightly less than the deflection (0.075") ofthe Vulerft designed 20K6, ‘Therefore, the live load deflection limit of 1/360 is satisfied. Also, because this ma fsa |sse0[eas0 forse T Bra] — a paso [seco |oeeo [aco Taran el) pap we Te oan LP ae aeRO ve] soma a [peo [easo frase poor Tay saa Tessa ROT 4.2 36LH10 Steel Truss (Optimization of the 36LH10 stel truss involved an upsizing ofthe top chord and the compression web member W3. The only members that remained unchanged were the bottom chord and the compression web members Vi — V9. All of other tension and. compression web members were downsized. Sce Table 5 and compare the member sizes to those in Table 2. The differences in the size increase ofthe top chord and compression web member W3 were relatively small; however, the slight size increase in angle thickness of 0.063" has a much greater effect on materials cost than the upsizing and downsizing ofthe other web members because the top chord spans 60" as opposed to a few fect. The greatest change in the downsizing of members was withthe tension web embers. Not only were the tension web members’ angle sizes decreased in thickness, Dut als in leg length. The downsizing ofthe compression web members wae relatively small compared tothe downsizing ofthe tension web members. Optimization ofthe truss yielded s lond/capacity rato between 0.9 and 1.0 for most of the members. ‘A comparison of the ASD load/capacity ratios and the LRED loadVeapacity ratios st the DL/LL ratio of 1.3933 reveals that LRFD yields a lower load/capacity rato than ASD. This means thatthe LRFD optimization of this truss may allow for further downsizing of members. Finally, the ASD-optimized 36LHI0 satisfied live load deflection criteria, ‘The deflection was 0.141” (1.7"), which is actually slightly less than the deflection (0.1489°) of the Vuleraftdesigned 20K6. Therefore, the live load deflection limit is satisfied as well as any shear deflection accounted for by Vuleraft 88 Toble 5: ASD and LRFD Load/Capscity Ratios of Truss Members forthe 36LH10 Truss after Optimization Using ASD. 70 eso [pao [Sao [eso eee [nea awe [arene pero = EreaRET] ae por joso froeo ozo owe [nec fowo | > me [ewe peso [uso |izso ovo [owe fers | > ms fneo ToSO [Ore eave eae zero] —> or a [Oar env forro Joe farrs 2 wre jas raeo [sara eseo peso fee reo T THEW TT for —faemr— aro prea par rao T Tar beso |iaeo asa jauro lave jae T Pea fare _foe foe fese fare fom] oe Sac ee zr ass farefeno |e [ ovo foee-[—> a cea fatvoJose fae ore] —> | fous fare [aro foe forefoer-] —t mare faa portfase-faefatfose-fre-}-—P a a aaa 7S atc a = (is ees 4,3 T2DH19 Steel Truss Optimization ofthe 72DHI9 steel truss involved an upsizing of the top chord only. Only two member types stayed the same - the bottom chord and the tension web ‘member W2. All other tension and compression web members were downsized. See ‘Table 6 and compare the member sizes to those in Table 3. The differences inthe size Increase ofthe top chord and compression web member W3 were relatively small; however, the slight size increase in angle thickness of 0.063” has a greater effect on ‘materials costs than the upsizing and downsizing ofthe other web members because the top chord spans 140" as opposed tothe shorer lengths of the web members, Downsizing ‘occurred with all of the web members except forthe W2 tension members; however, the downsizing ofthese members was quite small. Optimization ofthe truss yielded loadfeapacity ratio between 0.9 and 10 foe most of the members ‘A comparison ofthe ASD load/eapacity ratios and the LRFD load/capacity ratios atthe DLILL rato of 0.9739 reveals that LRFD yields a lower foadcapacity ratio than ASD. This means thatthe LRFD optimization ofthis truss may allow for further downsizing of members. Finally, the ASD-optimized 72DHIO satisfied live load deflection criteria. The deflection was 0.333" (4), which is actually slightly less than the deflection (0.3402") of the Vulerat-designed 72DH19. Therefore the live load deflection limit is satisfied as ‘well as any shear deflection accounted for by Vuleraft 90 ‘Table 6: ASD and LRFD Load/Cspacity Ratios of Truss Members for the 72DH19 Truss after Optimization Using ASD fro owe [eoro [rea pero rare [moro ao mrkeenane Te] oa fes50_lesto_[ws0_[zos0|uuso_|owso luca [zo ZENER ANTI@] Ow fxr Joao [caso [paso [ese leon |eewo leo ME XEXETO] BA fescaloweo [soso [reno [eon |iew leew lewa HERERO oa lewwa|uavo [sora [zavo [sero lewro revo [zw FE] aw fesrafauro [uso [eoro [ies [eeso lara ira Ter eat ve] — BACH loos [eo aso [ses0|ase0 [reo _louso seo SRE Z TOL EMO aA [ee Br eeKe Ie oa isaro rR ERETO| ime EKER aTE TE] — at eT SEFTF TC) POST iso SEN ERE TO] CW UN izwo ze xaneeaneve] an [so WE EXE VG] a [eweo Be tene mee on iz Br eR Ie) aon aso TPR Rae Ae] BAe sca rr Kate an |e uM A [eo mr Kenz Ve] iewra EFF Sx e76} ine BER aeRO) em 1 4.4 Summary ‘Some ofthe members (mainly top chords) were slightly upsized and many ofthe web members were downsized; however, the overall optimized design ofthe trusses using ASD was fairly close to the Vuleraft design. Other than checking the ASD spreadsheet calculations with those performed by Vuleraft in designing the trusses, one of, ‘the most important observations made with the ASD-optimized trusses isthe comparison of load/eapacity ratios between ASD and LRFD at the LL/DL ratios ofthe service loads specified by Vuleraft. Predictably, the load/capacity ratios were lower for LRFD than ASD, This supports the results obtained inthe previous chapter conceming convergence lower live load to dead load points of ASD and LRED load to capacity ratios ~ that ratios of service load, such as those used in these trusses, yield lower load to capacity ‘toe for LRFD than for ASD. 92 LRED Optimization of Stet russes: Aer optimizing the ruses using ASD, they were then optimized withthe LRFD method using the same geometsc truss configurations. The purpose of this is to compare the two diferent optimized designs under the service losds and live lod to dead load ratios specified by Vuleraft foreach russ. As stated in the introduction of this report, the ‘Purpose of tis projects to explore the efficiency of using LRFD to design stel trusses rather than ASD withthe possibility of saving money in materials costs while still ‘maintaining adequate strength and staying within a deflection standard [Although it was difficult o find out and apply al ofthe design parameters that VVuleraft used, the ones used were applied consistently in both the ASD and LRFD ‘optimized designs. Therefore, the comparison betwen the two methods is fairly accurate and a comparison between the LRED optimization and the Vuleraft design wil not be considered. Tis accuracy is supported by the general ends illustrated inthe figures containing the graphs ofthe loadcapacity ratios at various LLIDL ratios. Therefore, the [LRFD increasing or decreasing in size ofthe ASD-optimized truss members is fairly representative of what canbe applied inthe engineering world for possible savings in materials costs while meetin strength requirements. After optimization ofthe russ ‘members according to strength criteria, live load defection was checked for each ofthe LLRFD-optimized trusses. 93 5:1 20K6 Steel Truss ‘When comparing the ASD and LRED optimizations of the 20KG steel truss, the LLRED optimization involved a downsizing of the botiom chord. However, the top chord and all ofthe tension and compression web members remained the same, See Table 7 for the LRFD-optimized members and compare the member sizes to the ASD-optimized ‘member sizes in Table 4, The downsizing of the bottom chord was relatively small - the thickness of the bottom chord tee] angles was decreased by only 0.007". Although the loadfeapacity ratios for LRED were smaller than for ASD with the web members, the #3" solid round bars ae the smallest used by Vuleraft. Thus, the load/eapacity ratios of several of the web members were much lower than 1.0 since they could not be downsized any further, Finally, the LRFD-optimized 20K6 truss was checked in order to verify thatthe live load deflection criteria was satisfied. The live load deflection was 0.075 (0.9" ‘whichis actually slightly more than the deflection (0.075") of the ASD design. Nevertheless thsi the same lve load defletionobtined forte Vuleraf-designed 20K6. ‘Therefore, the live load deflection limit of 1/360 is satisfied, and any shear deflection that Vulrafi may account foris also satisfied. Therefore, downsizing of the [ASD truss was made possible through the LRED method while satisfying both strength and deflection requirements ‘Table 7: ASD and LRFD Load/Capacity Ratios of Truss Members forthe 20K6 Truss after Optimization Using LRFD ee ER RT —s ae sea fca_ fee foeo | —T jss0_era_[wro|aso ata foo|co[eo[ > Sano eo [r0jor0 sa [mtesvo- sot} —? ae eo faee few ra a lsat Foros fast | —1 | a al wa z samo q era TT oO ote fee fco—|ueo feces Jaco arta ira aaa on [now arr—aotfave[aro[esso|uaro aera a seo frfasepst rr nso—foro— fara pavr mae jeso a faro favour fero|ro fra fav eso era faro— rope fr—feet—rt fart - aoe 5.2 36L1110 Steel Truss ‘Comparison ofthe ASD and LRFD optimizations ofthe 36LH110 steel truss shows thatthe LRED optimization involved a downsizing ofthe top chord and the compression ‘web member W3. All other tension and compression web members and the bottom chord remained the same as those inthe ASD-optimized design. See Table 8 and compare the ifference in member sizes to those in Table 5. The differences inthe size decrease of the top chord and compression web member W3 were relatively small; however, the size sdecrease in angle thickness of 0.032” has a much greater effect on materials costs than the downsizing of W3 for two reasons ~ the top chord spans 60" as opposed to only a few fet forthe web members, and the angle thickness of the W3 was downsized by only 0.008". Optimization of the truss yielded load/capacity ratios between 0.9 and 1.0 for ‘most of the members In addition to optimizing the truss to satisfy strengths requirements, the live load eflection was checked in order to verify thatthe minimum deflection criteria was Satisfied. The live load deflection 36LH10 truss was 0.146" (1.8"), which is actually slightly less than the deflection of the ASD-

    You might also like