Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences (2018) 30, 130–140

King Saud University

Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences

www.ksu.edu.sa
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Effect of floor openings on the capacity

of composite space trusses
Mostafa El-Shami a, Sayed Mahmoud a,*, Maher Elabd b

a
Department of Construction Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Dammam, Saudi Arabia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Menoufia University, Egypt

Received 21 January 2016; accepted 16 March 2016

Available online 1 April 2016

KEYWORDS Abstract Presenting the composite deck, which consists of concrete slab with profiled steel sheets
Composite space truss; fixed to the top layer of Double Layer Grid (DLG), proved its great efficiency in increasing the load
Openings; carrying capacity for this type of structures. Earlier studies concluded that the application of the
Finite element modelling; prescribed composite action had solved many problems facing the spread of DLG structures such
Steel structures; as their prone to collapse in a progressive manner besides their suitability to be used only as roof
Numerical analysis covering structures. In addition, the application of the composite action introduced an economical
solution due to considerable savings in steel material used in building the top layer of the DLG
structures. However, openings in the deck are needed for architectural purposes such as passing ser-
vice ducts, day-lighting panels or passing shear walls or continuous structural elements. Adding
such openings in the deck affects the efficiency of the composite deck in carrying the assigned loads
especially if the openings are being added after the construction is completed. The current research
introduced experimental tests along with numerical investigation using ABAQUS software for com-
posite deck space trusses with common cases of support patterns and different deck opening loca-
tions. The study shows the obvious effect of the existence of openings and their locations on the
load carrying capacity and ductility of DLG space structures.
Ó 2016 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

* Corresponding author. Double Layer Grid (DLG) space truss is the most common
E-mail addresses: melshami@ud.edu.sa (M. El-Shami), application of space structures. It can be defined as a three-
elseedy@hotmail.com (S. Mahmoud), maherelabd@yahoo.com dimensional structural system assembled of linear elements
(M. Elabd). and arranged to ensure a three-dimensional force transfer from
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University. the load application points to the supports (Makawski, 1981;
BSI, 2001). DLG can have many configurations, see Fig. 1.
Earlier studies on DLG showed obviously that the common
cases of space truss collapses emerged from the buckling of
Production and hosting by Elsevier
one or more critical top chord members, spreading rapidly to
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2016.03.002
1018-3639 Ó 2016 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Effect of floor openings
A C
A. Square on square offset (SOS)
B. Square on diagonal (SOD)
C. Diagonal on square (DOS)
D. Square on square (SOLS)
Upper chords
Diagonals
Lower chords
B D
Figure 1 Common configurations of flat DLG space frames.
other members and causing the overall progressive collapse
(Martin and Delatte, 2001; Smith and Epstein, 1980). Many
techniques were introduced to improve the prone of such type
of structures to progressive collapse. Some of those techniques
were over design of top chord members and under design of
lower chord members to increase the ductility of the structure
at failure (Schmidt et al., 1976, 1980), pre-stressing by lack of
fit for some specific members (Hanaor and Levy, 1985), diag-
onal removal technique (Tabatabaei and Marsh, 1993), the
use of force limiting device (Schmidt and Hanaor, 1979;
El-Sheikh, 1999) and eccentric diagonal technique (Marsh
and Fard, 1984). The most effective technique was introduced
using a top continuum such as concrete slab, or timber plates
or ferrocement slabs connected to the top joints of the DLG to
achieve a composite action. Intensive research was introduced
to prove the efficiency of such technique under static loads
besides the introduction of various techniques to achieve such
interaction between the top continuum and the top layer of the
DLG (Castillo, 1967; Al-Bazzaz, 1976; Chu, 1984; Kuleib,
1989; El-Sheikh and McConnel, 1993; El-Sheikh and
Shaaban, 1999; Shaaban, 1997; Aboul-Anen et al., 2009).
Fig. 2 presents samples of techniques used to achieve the
(Castillo, 1967)
(Elsheikh and Shabaan, 1999)
Figure 2 Different techniques used to achieve the composite action.
131
composite action between the top continuum and the top
chord layer in DLG structures. Experiments showed that using
any of these techniques increased obviously the load carrying
capacity of DLG as can be seen in Fig. 3 (El-Sheikh and
McConnel, 1993). An intensive experimental study conducted
at the University of Dundee (Elabd, 2010) concluded the high
efficiency of applying the composite action technique in
increasing the resistance of DLG to dynamic loads such as
those produced by earthquakes. A more recent study con-
cluded that using a top plate of ferrocement slab on top of
DLG remarkably reduced the deformations of DLG to earth-
quake loads (Bakr, 2013). Research and innovations in DLG
space trusses witness continuous changes. New trends for using
composite materials Fibre Reinforced Plastic (FRP) and Carbon
Fiber Reinforced (CFRP) polymers are introduced to be used
in the design of DLG space structures for large varieties in
practical applications such as bridges, sandwich panel or even
bridge deck (Dong et al., 2012; Awad et al., 2012; Soudki et al.,
2012; Zhu et al., 2015). Novel techniques are also developed
for joint assembly for all composite space structures (Bai and
Yang, 2013). Prestressing composite space trusses are also
one of the latest developed techniques to increase the load
carrying capacity of DLG space trusses (Liu and Li, 2014).
The current study aims to investigate the behaviour of com-
posite DLG under the presence of structural openings. In addi-
tion, it investigates the best locations for these openings
leading to a minimum effect on the structural efficiency of this
type of structures.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental programme
To achieve the goals of this research the research group at
Dammam University developed a specially designed test facil-
ity that consisted of a 3.0 m  3.0 m model DLG space truss,
testing box/frame and a high accuracy data acquisition system.
(El-Sheikh and McConnel, 1993)
( El-Shami and Aboul-Anen, 2010)
132
400
350
Total applied load (kN)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
Central vertical deflection (mm)
Figure 3 Comparison between composite and non-composite
DLG space truss (El-Sheikh and McConnel, 1993).
2.1.1. Space truss
Technicians of Al-Rafid Steel Company built the tested space
truss (DLG) model which was designed by the researchers under
the expecting loads according to ASTM standards. The model
consists of tubular members connected at their ends by standard
MERO connections. All truss members were designed to have
41.6 mm diameter and 2.30 mm thickness. Fig. 4 shows the lay-
out of the built space truss. The DLG space truss was mounted
on four steel columns of 1.0 m height supported on four rein-
forced concrete footings (1 m  1 m  0.6 m) as shown in the
Figs. 4 and 5.
A steel plate of 3 mm thickness was laid on top of space
truss using purlin stool of about 140 mm height at each joint
of the top grid. This steel plate with purlin stool formed the
support for the reinforced concrete slab. Shear connectors of
12 mm diameter and 30 mm height were welded to the steel
plate at 300 mm on both directions as seen in the Fig. 6. A
50 mm reinforced concrete (RC) slab was casted on top of
the steel plate. The RC slab was reinforced by a 5 Ø 12 mm
steel bars in each direction as shown in Fig. 7. Special treat-
ment (curing) has been applied on the slab according to ASTM
for 28 days.
M. El-Shami et al.
Composite Truss
Non-Composite Truss
20.0 25.0 30.0
Figure 4 Test model of DLG space truss structure.
2.1.2. Test box
Since there is no structural lab and due to the lack of equip-
ment, researchers decided to test the space truss using uniform
distributed load. In order to achieve that, a test box has a
3 mm steel side plate. 60 mm steel angles welded to the side
plates, form a container/ chamber shown in Fig. 5. The total
dimensions of the test chamber are 2.95  2.95  1.23 m.
The steel chamber is mounted on the top of the RC slab and
welded to the steel columns to prevent any side movement dur-
ing the test. The wall of the test chamber was marked at equal
intervals of 11 cm height from inside. These markers helped in
forming equal levels of sand inside the test chamber. It should
be noted that the last interval was left to be 13 cm (see Fig. 8).
2.1.3. Data collection system
The data collection system consists of a PC computer, measur-
ing devices, and associated wiring and tubing. The data collec-
tion system monitored and recorded the vertical deflection at
two locations during the testing, see Fig. 11. The laboratory
computer received two signals (one for each displacement
transducer) through ADU (Autonomous Data Acquisition
unit, MM700 Series, ELE International). Fig. 9 shows a typi-
cal view of ADU while Fig. 10 shows the Linear Variable
Deflection Transducers (LVDT) model AML/SGD-50
Figure 5 Layout of the space truss.
Effect of floor openings
Figure 6 Fixing shear connectors.
Figure 7 Casting of reinforced concrete slab.
Figure 8 Loading chamber.
mm-ELE and AML/SGD-15 mm-ELE that was used to mea-
sure deflections. Researchers calibrated the LVDT before test-
ing. Researchers taped the LVDT to a moveable stand at the
required locations as can be seen in Fig. 14.
2.2. Test procedure
The testing procedure and loading rate remained constant for
all test steps except the last step. First, the technicians carefully
moved the sand to the test chamber using JCB equipment
133
Figure 9 Autonomous Data Acquisition.
Figure 10 LVDT transducer unit, MM700 series.
Figure 11 Test loading with sand using JCB.
(see Fig. 11). Next the technicians condensed the sand on the
chamber and made it to the required level (11 cm each inter-
val). After securing load level, the researchers used the ADA
with LVDT to record the vertical displacement at the associ-
ated load intervals. It should be noted that the connections
between the steel deck and purlin stool failed during the last
loading interval as shown in Fig. 12.
Fig. 13 shows the load versus vertical displacement at Loca-
tion 1. Fig. 14 shows the location of measured displacements.
134 M. El-Shami et al.

Figure 15 3D finite element model by ABAQUS.

Figure 12 Collapse of steel deck/purlin stool connections.

200

150
Applied Load (kN)

100

50

Figure 16 Deformation of ABAQUS FEM model.

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Vertical Displacement (mm)

Figure 13 Load verses vertical displacement at Location 1.

1 2
Figure 17 Stress distribution in slab.

simulate the behaviour of DLG with the prescribed load.

The programme is then used to carry out a parametric study
for a large number of models with openings at different loca-
tions to thoroughly investigate this behaviour. In this simula-
tion, T3D2, B3D2 and Frame 3D elements were tried to
simulate a number of 182 elements of the actual space truss ele-
ments and connections and to capture the behaviour of the
physical model. Simulation of joints depended on the type of
Figure 14 Locations of measured displacements during the test. elements used to present the elements of the DLG. In case of
using truss element (T3D2 elements) to present the elements
of the DLG, MERO joints were presented as hinges connect-
2.3. Finite element programme ing elements intersecting at those joints. In case of using frame
elements (Frame 3D or B3D2), MERO joints are presented as
2.3.1. Validation process fully a rigid connection to frame elements. In all cases, top
This section describes briefly the numerical simulation by the layer grid are simulated as frame elements connected rigidly
famous FEM Software ABAQUS. The programme is used to to MERO joints and the pedestal that carried the composite
Effect of floor openings 135
Experimental Results FE Model
350
used. For simplification, full interaction was assumed between
the 47 mm concrete slab and the 3 mm steel plate. The rein-
300 forcement of 5 / 12 was introduced to the model as a rebar
layer in both directions with the specified area for 12 mm
250 diameter reinforcing steel. The deck was divided into 15 ele-
Applied Load (kN)

ments at both directions with a total of 225 shell elements.

200 Two cases of support conditions were considered which
included both hinged supports at joints and supports around
150
all edge points. A minimum number of degrees of freedom
were constrained to allow for the stability of the structure.
100
Materials of DLG members and RC were taken from the
50 experiments carried out on samples of the materials used and
data obtained were used to feed the material specification of
0 the FEM programme. Steel material for rebar or DLG ele-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 ments were taken to have Fy = 240 N/mm2 with a poison’s
Vertical Displacement (mm) ratio of 0.3. The concrete used in the deck was taken to have
Fcu = 25 N/mm2 with a poison’s ratio of 0.20. Steel pipes
Figure 18 Results FE model versus experimental test results.
had an external diameter of 30 mm with 3.0 mm thickness.
Figs. 15–17 show the 3D ABAQUS FEM model with
deck was also rigidly connected to the top layer grid joints. 36 deformation and stress distribution in RC Slab. The same
pedestals carrying the deck were modelled as pipe elements points where the LVDTs were fixed in the experimental work
with 150 mm height fixed from one side to the top joints of were also monitored by the FEM model.
the DLG space truss and from the other side to the composite Fig. 18 shows a comparison between the FEM results and
deck. Results of FE analysis did not show a large effect of the results obtained from the experimental tests. Although
extreme cases of joint rigidity of DLG joints on the structural the experimental work suffered many difficulties due to lack
load carrying capacity. of lab capabilities and little labour experience, FEM analysis
To model the RC slab with the steel plate, S4R two layer results showed a decent accuracy of the programme in simulat-
composite shell elements with total thickness of 50 mm were ing the experimental work. The premature failure at the

(a) Location 1 (b) Location 2 (c) Location 3

(d) Location 4 (e) Location 5

Figure 19 Locations of openings for FE models.

136 M. El-Shami et al.

400 350

Total Applied Load (kN)

Total Applied Load (kN)

350 300
300 250
250
200
200
150
150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

350 350
Total Applied Load (kN)

Total Applied Load (kN)

300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

300 350
Total Applied Load (kN)

Total Applied Load (kN)

250 300
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50 50
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 20 Load-displacement results of corner supported composite DLG with openings.

400

350

300
Total Applied Load (kN)

250 No Opening
Location 1
200
Location 2
150 Location 3

100 Location 4
Location 5
50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)

Figure 21 Comparison between different models FE models.

Effect of floor openings
(a) Corner Supported DLG
Figure 22 Locations of maximum displacement responses.
Table 1 Maximum load and displacement locations for different cases of corner-supported DLG.
Case Max. load (kN) Disp. @ monitored point (mm)
No openings 333.45 106
Location 1 330.05 100.055
Location 2 285.12 58.3
Location 3 301.54 102
Location 4 280.80 54.1
Location 5 309.31 78.9
connection between stool and top joints occurred due to inac-
curacies in the welding and installation process. However, the
programme extended the loading until failure occurred in some
members due to buckling in compression elements. Due to
the lack of fund and equipment besides the high capability
of the FEM software to predict the behaviour of the loaded
truss, the programme was then used to predict the changes
in the structure behaviour due to the presence of openings at
different locations in the DLG structure.
2.3.2. DLG model with deck openings at different locations
FEM model for the DLG is used to enlarge the study to
achieve our research objectives. The study included the model
described above with openings located at different positions of
the RC deck. Fig. 19 presents the considered locations of the
openings in the RC deck. Locations of the openings were
selected to cover all possible locations by the symmetry condi-
tions. Results of the FE analysis for different models supported
on their corners with different opening locations are pre-
sented in Fig. 20a through f. A comparison between the
load-displacement behaviour of the five models and the model
without any opening is presented in Fig. 21.
As shown from Fig. 22a, location of the point of maximum
displacement was variable according to the location of the
opening (see Table 1). Concurrently, for the case of fully-
edge supported DLGs, the presence of the supports at all edge
joints affected the rigidity around them resulting in keeping the
location of the point of maximum displacement to be similar
for all cases (Fig. 22b). It should be noted that all selected
opening locations were taken at one quarter of the structure
137
(b) Fully Edge-Supported DLG
Max. displacement (mm) Node of max. displacement
150 N1
100.055 N1
62.92 N2
128.36 N3
63.04 N4
91.323 N5
for symmetry purposes, so the obtained locations will be
reversed if the opening locations are moved to the opposite
directions.
Fig. 23a through f presents the results of the FE analysis for
different models supported on their edges with different open-
ing locations.
A comparison between the load-displacement behaviour of
the five models compared to the model without opening is pre-
sented in Fig. 24.
3. Results and discussions
The main objective of this research was to evaluate the effect of
the presence of openings in the floor of composite DLG struc-
tures on their load carrying capacity. In addition, investigating
the optimum location of having such floor openings and
extending this evaluation to other support configuration were
two other objectives of this research. The FE model developed
by ABAQUS has been tested by comparing results with those
obtained from the experimental tests on DLG space truss that
was built and tested at the University of Dammam. The FE
model was able to predict with decent accuracy the behaviour
of the experimental model. The FE model is used to extend the
study by having openings at many locations in the deck of the
DLG space truss. Two common cases of corner and fully-edge
supports are used during the FE analysis, which are the most
common cases in real structures. Five locations for openings
were selected to cover almost all places in the DLG considering
the symmetry effect. The load-displacement behaviour was
detected for each case so that the monitored joint was located
138 M. El-Shami et al.

2000 2000

Total Applied Load (kN)

1800

Applied Load (kN)

1600
1500
1400
1200
1000 1000
800
600
500
400
200
0 0
0 100 200 300 0 50 100 150 200
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

2000 2000
Total Applied Load (kN)

Total Applied Load (kN)

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

2000 2000
Total Applied Load (kN)

Total Applied Load (kN)

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 23 Load-displacement at node N1 of edge-supported composite DLG with openings.

2000

1500
Total Applied Load (kN)

No Opening
Location 1
1000
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
500
Location 5

0
0 100 200 300
Displacement (mm)

Figure 24 Comparison between different FE models.

Effect of floor openings
Table 2 Maximum load and displacement locations for different cases of edge-supported DLG.
Case Max. load (kN) Disp. @ monitored point (mm)
No openings 1926 303
Location 1 1589.76 166
Location 2 1296.00 104
Location 3 1270.08 113
Location 4 1045.44 59.7
Location 5 1062.72 63.5
at the centre of the lower grid of the DLG space truss and kept
fixed for all models. At the same time, the node of maximum
displacement is mentioned as seen in Tables 1 and 2 for both
cases of corner and edge-supported DLG.
From analysis, it was noticed generally that the load carry-
ing capacity of all models with openings was lower than that
for models without openings. The maximum capacity was
obtained for the case when there is no opening followed by
the case where opening was located at the centre of the deck
(Location 1 for corner and edge-supported). The worst case
was obtained when opening was located at the edge of the
DLG between the corner support and the middle of the edge
(Location 4 for corner and edge-supported). Concurrently,
the maximum vertical displacement obtained did follow the
same behaviour, since it can be seen that the maximum dis-
placement was obtained for the case with no openings and
lowest with the case when opening was located at Location 4
for corner and edge-supported. As a result from the above
brief discussion the following points can be stated:
 The behaviour of composite DLG space truss having an
opening in the floor depends mainly on the location of such
opening.
 Floor openings have limited effect on the load capacity or
vertical deflection of composite DLG space truss due to
the high rigidity of the system.
 The worst location of adding openings in composite DLG
structures is between the support panel and the middle of
the edge for corner supported DLG space trusses (Location
4).
 The composite deck increased the ductility of the DLG
structure noticeably, which can be seen by the large defor-
mation before the failure occurs, since such type of struc-
tures suffers a highly brittle behaviour. However, this
ductile behaviour is reduced by adding a floor opening. This
behaviour agrees with the results previously obtained in the
literature by (El-Sheikh and McConnel, 1993).
 Composite edge-supported DLG has very high load capac-
ity compared to corner-supported DLG.
 The reduction in adding an opening on load capacity of
corner-supported DLG space trusses was not clear since it
ranged from 1.0% for an opening at Location 1 to 15.8%
for the case of an opening at Location 4.
 In case of edge-supported DLG space trusses, having an
opening has a significant effect on the load capacity of such
structures which ranges from 17.5% for truss with opening
at Location 1 to 45.71% at Location 4 .
 Edge-supported DLG space trusses are very sensitive to
floor opening especially those located away from the centre
of the structure.
139
Max. displacement (mm) Node of max. displacement
303 N1
167.14 N1
109.99 N1
116.28 N1
65.87 N1
67.95 N1
 As can be seen from the obtained results, the minimum
value of deformation and highest load carrying capacity
of composite DLG with opening was obtained when the
openings were at the centre of the structure. This result
was applicable for both cases of corner and edge-
supported composite DLG space trusses is by the centre
of the structure (Location 1).
 In general, the worst location for floor openings is to be
located around the middle-edge of the structure where the
highest values of stresses at top continuum can be found.
4. Conclusions
Authors accomplished the current research work through build-
ing and testing an experimental model for composite DLG space
truss. Experimental test results have been used to calibrate a
numerical model created by a commercial FEM software ABA-
QUS. The study concluded that removing a part of the compos-
ite deck in a composite DLG space truss will result in a reduction
in the load carrying capacity of DLG structures. This reduction
will be limited in case of corner-supported structures. Mean-
while, the case is not the same for fully-edge supported DLG
structures where there will be a noticeable reduction in the load
carrying capacity. Finally, the authors recommend a large para-
metric study to apply the current research findings on large scale
structures so that empirical equations may be obtained to be
implemented in the design codes.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the deanship of Scientific Research at the
University of Dammam (Project # 2103140). It should be
noted that the second author is on leave from the Faculty of
Engineering at Mataria, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
and would like to acknowledge his institution.
References
Aboul-Anen, B., El-Shafey, A., El-Shami, M., 2009. Experimental and
analytical model of ferrocement slabs. Int. J. Recent Trends Eng. 6,
25–29.
Al-Bazzaz, A.J., 1976. An Investigation into Composite Double Layer
Space Grid Structures. University of Strathclyde.
Awad, Z.K., Arabinthan, T., Yan, Z.G., Gonzalez, F., 2012. A review
of optimization techniques used in the design of fiber composite
structures for civil engineering applications. Mat. Des. 33, 534–544.
Bai, Y., Yang, X., 2013. Novel joint for assembly of all-composite
space truss structures: conceptual design and preliminary study. J.
Compos. Constr. 17, 130–138.
140
Bakr, H., 2013. Nonlinear Behavior of Composite Space Trusses under
Earthquake Loads (MSc. thesis). Civil Engineering Dept., Menou-
fia University, Menoufia, Egypt.
BSI, 2001. Structural Use of Steel Work in Building, vol. Part 1. BSI,
London.
Castillo, H.A., 1967. Space frame construction with steel and
reinforced concrete, the tridilosa spatial structure. In: Davies, R.
M. (Ed.), Space Structures. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1089–1093.
Chu, H.S., 1984. Analysis and experiment of composite space slab-grid
structure. In: Space Structures, Third International Conference, pp.
192–195.
Dong, S., Zhao, Y., Xing, D., 2012. Application and development of
modern long-span space structures in China. Front. Struct. Civil
Eng. 6 (3), 224–239.
Elabd, M.M., 2010. Effect of Composite Action on the Dynamic
Behaviour of Space Structure (Ph.D. thesis). School of Civil
Engineering, University of Dundee, UK.
El-Sheikh, A., 1999. Effect of force limiting devices on behaviour of
space trusses. Eng. Struct. 21 (1), 34–44.
El-Sheikh, A.I., McConnel, R.E., 1993. Experimental study of
behavior of composite space trusses. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 119
(3), 747–766.
El-Sheikh, A., Shaaban, H., 1999. Experimental study of composite
space trusses with continuous chords. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2 (3), 219–
232.
Hanaor, A., Levy, R., 1985. Imposed lack of fit as a means of
enhancing space truss design. Space Struct. 1, 147–154.
Kuleib, M., 1989. The analysis and behaviour of composite space
frames with profiled steel sheet floors (Ph.D. diss.). University of
Salford, UK.
Liu, F., Li, K., 2014. Optimal design analysis of prestressed composite
space truss. Appl. Mech. Mater. 3489 (638), 178–184.
M. El-Shami et al.
Makawski, Z.S., 1981. Analysis, Design and Construction of Double
Layer Grids. Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London.
Marsh, C., Fard, R.M., 1984. Optimisation of Space Trusses Using
Non-Linear Behaviour of Eccentric Diagonals. Elsevier Applied
Science Publ., Guildford, England.
Martin, R., Delatte, N.J., 2001. Another look at harford civik center
coliseum collapse. J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 31–36
Schmidt, L.C., Hanaor, A., 1979. Force limiting devices in space
trusses. J. Struct. Div. 5, 939–951.
Schmidt, L.C., Morgan, P.R., Clarkson, J.A., 1976. Space trusses with
brittle-type strut buckling. J. Struct. Div. ASCE 102 (7), 1479–
1492.
Schmidt, L.C., Morgan, P.R., O’Meagher, A.J., Cogan, K., 1980.
Ultimate load behaviour of a full-scale space truss. Proc. Instn. Civ.
Eng. 69 (2), 97–109, London.
Shaaban, H.F., 1997. Effect of Composite Action on a Space Truss
System with Continuous Chord Members (Ph.D. thesis). School of
Civil Engineering, University of Dundee, UK.
Smith, E.A., Epstein, H.I., 1980. Hartford coliseum roof collapse
structural collapse sequence and lessons learned. Civil Eng. ASCE
50 (4), 59–62.
Soudki, K., El-Sayed, A.K., Vanzwol, T., 2012. Strengthening of
concrete slab-column connections using CFRP strips. J. King Saud
Univ. Eng. Sci. 24 (1), 25–33, Elsevier.
Tabatabaei, M., Marsh, C., 1993. Strengthening space trusses by
diagonal removal. Int. J. Space Struct. 8 (4), 21–26, Multi-Science
Publishing Co. UK.
Zhu, X., He, R., Lu, X., Ling, X., Zhu, L., Liu, B., 2015. An
optimization technique for the composite strut using genetic
algorithms. Mat. Des. 65, 482–488.