SECTION PROPERTIES FOR LATTICED MEMBERS OF

SAN FRANCISCO –OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE

By Lian Duan,1 Mark Reno,2 and Jason Lynch3

ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on the determination of section properties of latticed members for seismic
retrofit of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. To consider actual section integrity for a latticed member,
the concept of reduction factors ␤m for moment of inertia and ␤t for torsional constant is introduced to account
for the shear flow transferring capacity of lacing bars or battens and their connections. A set of formulas is
proposed for calculating section properties required for seismic analysis and capacity determination. The validity
of the proposed section properties is confirmed by a finite-element analysis of a latticed member. It is found
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 06/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

that the proposed simple procedure closely resembles the finite-element analysis results. The proposed method
is also supported by the recent 1/2 scale model test of the SFOBB laced member at UNR.

INTRODUCTION ensure a fully integral action of the solid main components

(McCormac 1989; Salmon and Johnson 1996). Based on the
The San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) (Fig. 1), concept of shear flow transferring capacity of lacing bars and
a main crossing over the San Francisco Bay, completed in connections, reduction factors ␤m for moment of inertia and ␤t
1936, is one of the most important bridges in the United States. for torsional constant are proposed to consider actual section
The main double-decked bridge, consisting of continuous steel integrity. For clarity and simplicity, typical latticed members
truss spans, suspension spans [Fig. 1(a)], a rock tunnel, a can- as shown in Fig. 3 are discussed in this paper.
tilever truss [Fig. 1(b)], and through and deck truss spans,
crosses the San Francisco Bay with a total length of approx- SECTION PROPERTIES
imately 6.7 km (4 mi). Most of the superstructure and tower
members are latticed members (Fig. 2) that are rarely used Cross-Sectional Area—A
today in bridge construction (Galambos 1988). Seismic retrofit The contribution of lacing bars is assumed negligible. The
of the SFOBB has been the top priority of the California De- cross-sectional area of latticed members is only based on the
partment of Transportation. main components
Section properties, such as moment of inertia and torsional
constant for latticed members, are the basic quantities that
need to be determined prior to any member-based structural
analysis and design for seismic retrofit of the SFOBB. For
solid wall members, procedures to calculate section properties
are well established. For latticed members, however, there is
no detailed procedure available in the public literature on how
to consider section integrity for the determination of section
properties. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the basic
ideas for considering section integrity for latticed members and
to present practical formulas for calculating section properties
required for seismic analysis and capacity determination. A
finite-element analysis of a latticed member is performed to
confirm the proposed procedure. The recent 1/2 scale model
test of a laced member on SFOBB (Dietrich and Itani 1999)
supported the proposed concept and procedure.

BASIC CONCEPT
Although latticed members are mainly designed for axial
load, and lacing bars and battens are designed only to provide
shearing strength normal to the axis of the member equal to
2% of the compressive design strength of the member (Load
1993), bending and torsional moments actually exist in mem-
bers due to rigid or semirigid connections. It is generally as-
sumed that section properties can be computed based on cross
sections of main components if the lacing bars and battens can
1
Sr. Bridge Engr., California Dept. of Transp., 1801 30th St., Sacra-
mento, CA 95816; Prof. of Struct. Engrg., Taiyuan Univ. of Technol.,
Taiyuan, China.
2
Sr. Bridge Engr., California Dept. of Transp., 1801 30th St., Sacra-
mento, CA.
3
Civ. Engr., California Dept. of Transp., 1801 30th St., Sacramento,
CA.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2000. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on April 21, 1997. This paper is part of the Journal
of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2, May, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1084- FIG. 1. San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge: (a) West
0702/00/0002-0156–0164/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 15613. Crossing Spans; (b) East Crossing Spans

156 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 2000

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:156-164.

 A= 冘 Ai (1)
where Ai = cross-sectional area of main individual compo-
nent i.

Moment of Inertia—I

For Lacing Bars or Battens in Plane of Web (Bending about

冘 冘
y-y Axis in Fig. 3)
Iy-y = I( y-y)i ⫹ ␤m Ai x 2i (2)
where Iy-y = moment of inertia of section about y-y axis con-
sidering shear transferring capacity; Ii = moment of inertia of
main individual component i; xi = distance between y-y axis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 06/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and centroid of main individual component i; and ␤m = reduc-

tion factor for moment of inertia, which may be determined
by the following formula:
For laced member [Fig. 3(a)]:

m sin ␾ ⫻ smaller of 再 ml (P comp

n ⫹ P ten
n )

ml nr Ar (0.6Fu)
␤m = ⱕ 1.0 (3a)
Fyf Af
For battened member [Fig. 3(b)]:

FIG. 2. Latticed Members in San Francisco–Oakland Bay
Bridge: (a) Stiffening Truss Members; (b) Tower Members
␤m =
m ⫻ smallest of
再 mb Ab(0.6Fyw)
mb(2Mp⫺b /h)
mb nr Ar (0.6Fu)
ⱕ 1.0 (3b)
Fyf Af
where ␾ = angle between diagonal lacing bar and axis per-
pendicular to member axis (Fig. 3); Ab = cross-sectional area
of batten plate; Af = flange area to which battens or laces are
attached; Fyf = yield strength of flange component; Fyw = yield
strength of web component (battens or lacing bars); F = ulti-
mate strength of rivets; m = number of panels between point
of maximum calculated moment to point of zero moment to
either side [as an approximation, the number of panels in half
of the main member length (L/2) may be used]; mb = number
of batten planes; ml = number of lacing planes; nr = number
of rivets of connecting lacing bar or battens to main compo-
nent at one joint; Ar = cross-sectional area of rivet; Mp-b =
plastic moment of batten plate about strong axis; P comp
n = nom-
inal compressive strength of lacing bar, which can be deter-

FIG. 4. Laced Member Subjected to Different Loading: (a)

FIG. 3. Typical Latticed Members: (a) Laced Member; (b) Bat- Simply Supported Laced Member; (b) Moment Diagram for Uni-
tened Member form Loading; (c) Moment Diagram for End Moments

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 2000 / 157

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:156-164.

 mined by the American Institute of Steel Construction load
and resistance factor design (AISC LRFD) (Load 1993) col-
umn curve; and P ten n = nominal tensile strength of lacing bar,
which can be determined by the AISC LRFD (Load 1993).
Fig. 4 shows a laced member subjected to a uniform load
[Fig. 4(b)] and two end moments [Fig. 4(c)]. Assuming a fully
integral section, at the flexural strength limit state (Fig. 5),
compression or tension flanges will reach their maximum ca-
pacity (Fyf Af). It implies that lacing bars are required to transfer
the compressive or tensile force developed in flanges. In other
words, the plastic flexural strength of a latticed member is
achieved when lacing bars can effectively transfer all of the
horizontal shear forces. From this viewpoint, the function of
lacing bars in a latticed flexural member is similar to that of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 06/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

shear studs in a composite steel-concrete section (Fig. 6).

Since the section integrity mainly depends on the shear trans-
ference between various components, it is rational to introduce
the ␤m factor in (2). As seen in (3a) and (3b), ␤m is defined
as the ratio of the shear capacity transferred by the lacing bars/
battens or the connections to the shear flow (Fyf Af) required
by the plastic bending moment of a fully integral section. For
a laced member, the shear transfer capacity is controlled by
FIG. 7. Flexural Strength Limit State of Battened Member: (a)
Force-Flow at Flexural Strength Limit State; (b) Bending Mo-
ment Diagram
either the lacing bars or the connecting rivets. The smaller of
the two values should be used in (3a). For a battened member
(Fig. 7), the shear transfer capacity is controlled by either the
pure shear strength (0.6Fyw Ab) or the flexural strength (Mp-b)
of the battens, or the connecting rivets. The smallest of the
three values should be used in (3b). It is important to point
out that the limiting value of unity for ␤m implies a fully in-
tegral section when shear can be transferred fully by lacings
or battens and connections.

For Lacing Bars or Battens in Plane of Flange (Bending

about x-x Axis in Fig. 3)
The contribution of lacing bars is assumed negligible and
only the main components are considered

FIG. 5. Flexural Strength Limit State of Laced Member: (a)

Ix-x = 冘 I(x-x)i ⫹ 冘 Ai y2i (4)

Flexural Strength Limit State; (b) Bending Moment Diagram Elastic Section Modulus—S
I
S= (5)
C
where S = elastic section modulus of section; and C = distance
from elastic neutral axis to extreme fiber.

Plastic Section Modulus—Z

For Lacing Bars or Battens within Flange Plane (Bending

about x-x Axis in Fig. 3)
Z x-x = 冘 y i* Ai* (6)

For Lacing Bars or Battens within Web Plane (Bending

about y-y Axis in Fig. 3)
Zy-y = ␤m 冘 x*
i A*
i (7)
where Z x-x = plastic section modulus of section about plastic
x-x neutral axis; Z y-y = plastic section modulus of section about
plastic y-y neutral axis; x *
i = distance between center of gravity
of section A* i and plastic neutral y-y axis; yi* = distance be-
tween center of gravity of section A* i and plastic neutral x-x
axis; and A* i = cross-sectional area above or below plastic
neutral axis.
It should be pointed out that the plastic neutral axis is gen-
FIG. 6. Flexural Strength Limit State of Composite Beam: (a) erally different from the elastic neutral axis. The plastic neutral
Cross Section; (b) Composite Action; (c) Bending Moment Dia- axis is defined by equal plastic compression and tension forces
gram for this section.
158 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 2000

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:156-164.

 Torsional Constant—J

冘
4(A close)2
J= (8)
(bi /ti)
where A close = area enclosed within mean dimension for box;
bi = length of particular segment of section; and ti = average
thickness of segment bi . For the determination of the torsional
constant of a latticed member, it is proposed that the lacing
bars or batten plates be replaced by reduced equivalent thin-
walled plates defined as
A equiv = ␤t A*
equiv (9)
For laced member [Fig. 3(a)]:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 06/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

equiv = 3.12 Ad sin ␾ cos ␾

2
A* (10a)
For battened member [Fig. 3(b)]:
1
A*
equiv = 74.88 (10b)
(2ah/Ib) ⫹ (a2/If)
A equiv
tequiv = (11)
h
where a = distance between two battens along member axis;
Aequiv = cross-sectional area of thin-walled plate equivalent to
lacing bars considering shear transferring capacity; A* equiv =
cross-sectional area of thin-walled plate equivalent to lacing
bars or battens assuming full section integrity; tequiv = thickness
of equivalent thin-walled plate; h = depth of member in lacing
plane; Ad = cross-sectional area of all diagonal lacings in one
panel; Ib = moment of inertia of batten plate; and ␤t = reduc-
tion factor for torsion constant, which may be determined by
the following formula:
For laced member [Fig. 3(a)]:

再
FIG. 8. Torisonal Strength Limit State of Latticed Members: (a)
P comp
n ⫹ P ten
n Cross Section at Torsional Loading; (b) Force-Flow for Laced
cos ␾ ⫻ smaller of Member; (c) Force-Flow for Battened Member
nr Ar (0.6Fu)
␤t = ⱕ 1.0 (12a)
0.6Fyw A*
equiv An equivalent thin-walled plate for a lacing plane, (10a),
For battened member [Fig. 3(b)]: can be derived from the equal lateral stiffness principle. For a

再
lacing panel as shown in Fig. 9(a), the lateral stiffness (i.e.,
Ab(0.6Fyw)h/a the lateral force required to produce unit shear deformation
␥ = ␦/a = 1) is
smallest of 2Mp-b /a
nr Ar (0.6Fu)h/a S lacing
v = EAd sin ␾ cos2␾ (13)
␤t = ⱕ 1.0 (12b)
0.6Fyw A*
equiv
where E = modulus of elasticity.
For a thin-walled plate with a cross-sectional area A*equiv as
The torsional integrity is all from lacings and battens. A shown in Fig. 9(b), the lateral stiffness (Timoshenko and Gere
reduction factor ␤t, similar to that used for moment of inertia, 1961) is
is introduced to consider section integrity when the lacings
or battens are weaker than the equivalent thin-walled plates. A*
equiv G
S plate = (14)
The ␤t factor is defined as the ratio of the shear capacity trans- v
n
ferred by lacing bars and connections to the shear flow
(0.6Fyw A* where G = shear modulus of elasticity; and n = shape factor
equiv) required by the equivalent thin-walled plate. Fig.
8 shows force flows at the torsional strength limit state of for shear. For a rectangular cross section n = 1.2. By equating
latticed members. For laced members [Fig. 8(b)], the shear (13) to (14), we have the following formula:
transfer capacity is controlled by either the lacing bars or the E
connecting rivets. The smaller of the two values should be A*
equiv = n(Ad sin ␾ cos2␾) (15)
G
used in (12a). For battened members [Fig. 8(c)], there are mo-
ments (0.6Fyw A* equiv a/2) and associated shear (0.6Fyw A*
equiv a/h) Considering E/G = 2.6 for steel material and n = 1.2 for a
acting at the ends of the batten. It is obvious that the shear rectangular section, (15) can be simplified as (10a).
transfer capacity is controlled by either the pure shear strength An equivalent thin-walled plate for a batten plane, similar
of battens (0.6Fyw Ab) or the flexural strength (Mp-b) of battens, to the derivation of (10a), is derived in the following. For a
or the connecting rivets. The smallest of the three values batten plate panel as shown in Fig. 10(a), the lateral stiffness
should be used in (12b). It is also important to point out that (Timoshenko and Gere 1961; Kollbrunner and Basler 1969) is
the limiting value of unity for ␤t implies a fully integral section
when shear in the equivalent thin-walled plate can be trans- 1
S batten = (16)
(ah/12EIb) ⫹ (a2/24EIf)
v
ferred fully by lacings or battens and connections.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 2000 / 159

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:156-164.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 06/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 9. Equivalent Thin-Walled Plate for Lacing Panel: (a) Lac- FIG. 10. Equivalent Thin-Walled Plate for Batten Plate Panel:
ing Panel; (b) Equivalent Thin-Walled Plate (a) Batten Plate Panel; (b) Equivalent Thin-Walled Plate

where If = moment of inertia of one side of solid flange about Ix = 63.4 in.4; Iy = 30.7 in.4
weak axis. By equating (16) to (14), we have the following
formula: Main Plates 42 ⫻ 11/16 [Fig. 12(b)]

A*
equiv =
E
G
n 冉 1
(ah/12Ib) ⫹ (a2/24If)
冊 (17)
A = 42 ⫻ 11/16 = 28.88 in.2
(11/16)423
Ix = = 4,245 in.4
Considering E/G = 2.6 for steel material and n = 1.2 for a 12
rectangular section, (17) can be simplified as (10b).
42(11/16)3
Iy = = 1.14 in.4
FINITE-ELEMENT ANALYSIS VERIFICATION 12
Latticed Member Example Lacing Angle and Bar
To investigate to validity of the proposed concept and pro- It is common practice that in computing the net area for
cedure, a finite-element analysis of a latticed member, the tension and shear, the width of a bolt hole shall be taken as
SFOBB bent A-B bottom chord L0-L2N, is performed. The 1/16 in. greater than the nominal dimension of the hole (Load
cross section and lacing bars layout are shown in Fig. 11. 1993, B.2).
Rolled carbon steel is used for the main components and lac-
ing bars, and carbon steel rivets are used. Basic material and • ⬔3 1/2 ⫻ 3 ⫻ 3/8
section data are as follows:
Ag = 2.30 in.2
For Rolled Carbon Steel
Ae = UAn = 0.75[2.30 ⫺ (1 1/16 ⫹ 1/16)3/8]
Fy = 37 ksi; Fu = 62 ksi
= 1.41 in.2 (Load 1993, C-B.3c, U = 0.75)
For Carbon Steel Rivet
rx = 1.09 in.; ry = 0.897 in.
Fy = 30 ksi; Fu = 55 ksi
rz = 0.625 in.
E = 29,000 ksi; Fyf = Fyw = 37 ksi • Bar 3 ⫻ 9/16
ml = 2; nr = 3
Ag = 3 ⫻ 9/16 = 1.69 in.2
m = 5; ␾ = 45⬚
Ae = An = 1.69 ⫺ (1 1/16 ⫹ 1/16)9/16
Main Angles ⬔8 ⫻ 6 ⫻ 3/4 [Fig. 12(a)] = 1.06 in.2 (Load 1993, B3.1)
A = 9.94 in.2 t
rmin = = 0.289t = 0.289(9/16) = 0.163 in.
x = 1.56 in.; y = 2.56 in. 兹12
160 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 2000

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:156-164.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 06/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 11. SFOBB Bent A-B Bottom Chord L0-L2N
FIG. 12. Angle and Plate: (a) Angle; (b) Plate
Finite-Element Analysis and Results
To verify the use of the proposed reduction factors, a finite-
element model is analyzed with MSC/NASTRAN (MSC/NAS-
TRAN) (1996). One-half of the SFOBB member L0-L2N
(Figs. 13 and 14) is described for nonlinear static analysis,
with a symmetric boundary imposed at one end. With simple
beam equations for bending and torsion, effective member
properties are back-calculated from the model response.
Four-node shell elements make up the main plate material,
and beam elements are used for the lacing. The rivets con-
necting the lacing to the main section are simulated by rigid
constraint equations rather than by discrete elements. In total,
the model has 23,500 degrees of freedom (Fig. 13). The anal-
ysis anticipates member failure through buckling of the lacing
bars. To initiate geometric nonlinearity in the lacing, all ec-
centricities are captured and each lace is meshed with eight
elements. Material nonlinearities in all elements are governed
by a complete stress-strain curve for carbon steel.
To verify ␤m for bending in the plane of the lacing, results
from four analyses are shown in Fig. 15. Specimen A repli-
cates the hand calculation for the cross section assuming full
integrity (␤m = 1.0) and linearity. To create this curve, the
lacing beams were removed and then replaced with several
hundred rigid constraint equations to keep plane sections plane
across the member length. As the constraint set is refined, the
model’s Ix-x approaches the hand calculation. In specimen B,
J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:156-164.
the member is analyzed with a set of elastic lacing bars. With-
out reaching a failure limit state, the lacing introduces signif-
icant flexibility to the system. Whereas hundreds of rigid con-
straints in specimen A could not duplicate fully integral
behavior, 10 sets of lacing bars are even less capable. Material
nonlinearity is introduced in specimen C. The lacing is re-
strained from buckling, but is allowed to yield in direct tension
or compression. As expected, the response is coincident with
curve B until yield, and the member softens until the material
failure strain, εu = 0.35, is reached. Local yielding is observed
in the main material at the lacing connections. Specimen D
represents the truest behavior of the member, as captured by
this finite-element model. As shown in Fig. 15, failure is
marked by the formation of plastic hinges in the lacing bars
as they buckle out of plane. Eccentricities in the lace connec-
tions create significant bending moments at the beginning of
the loading history. With the early onset of buckling, the ef-
fective stiffness of this specimen is not only stable, but is
established well before the failure of connecting rivets. Load-
displacement responses are shown in Fig. 16.
The same model is used to verify the torsional reduction
factor ␤t and the proposed use of equivalent plates to calculate
the torsion constant. As with the bending case, failure is gov-
erned by the plastic hinging of the buckled lacing (Fig. 17).
It should be noted that the asymmetric response is due to the
alternation of bar and angle lacing.
Proposed Section Properties
For comparison, section properties are based on dimensions
used in the finite-element model, and only the moment of in-
ertia Iy-y and torsional constant J are calculated. Since the rivet
failure model is not considered in the finite-element analysis,
the calculated properties are based on lacing failure only.
Moment of Inertia Iy-y
• For y-y axis, lacing bars are in the plane of the web, us-
ing (2) to calculate ␤m factor.
• For lacing bars, unsupported length L = 兹2 (30.5) =
43.1 in.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 2000 / 161
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 06/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 13. Finite-Element Analysis Model

Angles ⬔3 1/2 ⫻ 3 ⫻ 3/8 (Fig. 18)

1. Compressive strength (Load 1993, chapter E)
␭c =
KL
rx␲
冑 Fy 0.7(43.1)
E
=
1.09␲
冑 37
29,000
= 2.104 < 1.5

• Check b/t ratio for angle (Load 1993, table B5.1)

0.877
b 3.5 95 P comp = Fy Ag = 0.198(37)(1.69) = 12.4 kips
␭c2
n
= = 9.33 < ␭r = = 15.62 O⭈K
t 3/8 兹Fy 2. Tensile strength (Load 1993, chapter D)

再
• For x-x axis, assuming K = 0.7 for out-of-lacing plane
buckling Fy Ag = 37(1.69) = 62.5 kips
P ten
n = smaller of
Fu Ae = 62(1.06) = 65.7 kips
KL 0.7(43.1)
= = 27.7 in.
rx 1.09 = 62.5 kips
• For y-y axis, assuming K = 0.5 for in-lacing plane Due to the small compressive capacity of the bar, it is
buckling obvious that bar compressive strength and angle tensile
KL 0.5(43.1) strength will control.
= = 24.0 in.
ry 0.897 For two lacing planes
• For z-z axis, assuming K = 0.5 for z-z plane buckling ml (P comp
n ⫹ P ten
n ) = 2(12.4 ⫹ 85.1) = 195 kips

KL 0.5(43.1) From (3a)

= 34.5 in. ← control ∴ z-z axis controls

再
=
rz (0.625)
⫹ P ten
冑 冑
ml (P comp
n n )
KL Fy 0.5(43.1) 37 m sin ␾ ⫻ smaller of
␭c = = = 0.392 < 1.5 ml nr Ar (0.6Fu)
rz␲ E 0.625␲ 29,000 ␤m =
Fyf Af
2
P comp
n = 0.658␭cFy Ag = 0.938(37)(23.0) = 79.8 kips
5(sin 45⬚)(195)
2. Tensile strength (Load 1993, chapter D) = = 0.236
37(2)[(0.75)(6) ⫹ (2.125)(8) ⫹ (1.375)(13)]

P ten
n = smaller of 再Fy Ag = 37(2.30) = 85.1 kips Based on the idealized section in the finite-element model

= 85.1 kips
Fu Ae = 62(1.41) = 87.4 kips
Iy-y = 冘 I( y-y)i ⫹ ␤m 冘 Ai x i2 = 4 冋 13(1.375)3 8(2.125)3 0.75(6)3
12
⫹
12
⫹
12
册
Bars 3 ⫻ 9/16 ⫹ 0.236{[(1.375)(13) ⫹ (2.125)(8)](13.25)2 ⫹ 6(0.76)(13.25 ⫹ 3)2}
= 6,992 in.4
1. Compressive strength (Load 1993, chapter E)
For y-y axis, assuming K = 0.7 due to angle bracing Assuming full section integrity, i.e., ␤m = 1.0, the moment of
for out-of-plane buckling inertia of this section is as follows:
162 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 2000

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:156-164.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 06/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 15. Failure State of Latticed Member in Bending

FIG. 14. Actual Member and Finite-Element Model: (a) Cross

Section; (b) Plan View

I*
y-y = 冘 I(y-y)i ⫹ 冘 Ai x 2i = 29,335 in.4

Torsional Constant

• Calculate equivalent thin-walled plate for one lacing plane

using (9)–(12a)

equiv = 3.12(Ad sin ␾ cos ␾)

2
A*

= 3.12(2.30 ⫹ 1.69)(sin 45⬚)(cos245⬚) = 4.40 in.2

cos ␾ ⫻ smaller of 再 P comp

n ⫹ P ten
n

n Ar (0.6Fu) FIG. 16. Finite-Element Analysis—Bending Response

␤t =
0.6Fyw A*
equiv

冘
cos 45⬚(12.4 ⫹ 85.1) 4(A close)2
= = 0.706 J=
0.6(37)(4.40) (bi /ti)

A equiv = ␤t A*
equiv = 0.706(4.40) = 3.106 in.
2 4[26.5(42 ⫹ 0.102)]2
=
[2(26.5)/0.102] ⫹ [4(8)/2.125] ⫹ [2(26)/1.375]
A equiv 3.106
t equiv = = = 0.102 in. = 8,697 in.4
h 30.5
• Assuming full section integrity, i.e., ␤t = 1.0, the torsional
• Calculate torsional constant by (8) constant of this section is as follows:
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 2000 / 163

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:156-164.

 A equiv
* 4.4
t*
equiv = = = 0.144 in.
h 30.5

冘
4(A close)2
J* =
(bi /ti)

4[26.5(42 ⫹ 0.144)]2
=
[2(26.5)/0.144] ⫹ [4(8)/2.125] ⫹ [2(26)/1.375]
= 11,853 in.4

Comparisons
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 06/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1 shows the comparisons of section properties be-

tween the proposed formulas and the finite-element analysis.
It is seen that the proposed formulas agree reasonably well
with the finite-element analysis results. The lower values pred-
icated by the finite-element analysis may be due to the more
complete stress-strain curves used in the analysis.

SUMMARY
To consider actual section integrity for a latticed member,
the concept of reduction factors ␤m for moment of inertia and
␤t for torsional constant is introduced, depending on the shear
flow transferring capacity of lacing bars or battens and con-
nections. A set of formulas for calculating section properties
required for capacity determination and structural analysis of
FIG. 17. Failure State of Latticed Member in Torsion the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge is presented. The pro-
posed concept and procedure are confirmed by a finite-element
analysis of a latticed member and the recent 1/2 scale model
test of a laced member on SFOBB at UNR (Dietrich and Itani
1999).

APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Galambos, T. V. (1988). Guide to stability design criteria for metal struc-
tures, 4th Ed., Wiley, New York.
Kollbrunner, C. F., and Basler, K. (1969). Torsion in structures. Springer,
New York.
Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel build-
ings, 2nd Ed. (1993). American Institute of Steel Construction, Chi-
cago.
FIG. 18. Lacing Angle McCormac, J. C. (1989). Structural steel design: LRFD method. Harper
& Row, New York.
MSC/NASTRAN (version 70) user’s manual. (1996). The MacNeal-
Schwendler Corporation, Los Angeles.
Salmon, C. G., and Johnson, J. E. (1996). Steel structures: Design and
TABLE 1. Comparisons of Section Properties
behavior. Emphasizing load and resistance factor design, 4th Ed., Har-
Section properties Proposed FEA Proposed/FEA per Collins, New York.
(1) (2) (3) (4) Timoshenko, S. P., and Gere, J. M. (1961). Theory of elastic stability,
2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Iy-y (in.4) 6,992 6,570 1.064 Dietrich, A. M., and Itani, A. M. (1999). ‘‘Cyclic behavior of laced and
J (in.4) 8,697 7,830 1.111 perforated steel members on the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge.’’
Note: FEA = finite-element analysis. Rep. No. CCEER 99-9, Engineering Research and Development Center,
College of Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nev.

164 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 2000

J. Bridge Eng. 2000.5:156-164.