AXIAL STRUCTURE SYSTEMS

including TRUSSES
using SAP2000
Prof. Wolfgang Schueller
For SAP2000 problem solutions refer to “Wolfgang Schueller: Building
Support Structures – examples model files”:
https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/sap2000/Wolfgang+Schueller%3A+Building+Su
pport+Structures+If you do not have the SAP2000 program get it from CSI. Students
should
request technical support from their professors, who can contact CSI if necessary,
to obtain the latest limited capacity (100 nodes) student version demo for
SAP2000; CSI does not provide technical support directly to students. The reader
may also be interested in the Eval uation version of SAP2000; there is no capacity
limitation, but one cannot print or export/import from it and it cannot be read in
the
commercial version. (http://www.csiamerica.com/support/downloads)
See also,
(1) The Design of Building Structures (Vol.1, Vol. 2), rev. ed., PDF eBook by
Wolfgang Schueller, 2016, published originally by Prentice Hall, 1996,
(2) Building Support Structures, Analysis and Design with SAP2000 Software, 2nd
ed., eBook by Wolfgang Schueller, 2015.
The SAP2000V15 Examples and Problems SDB files are available on the
Computers & Structures, Inc. (CSI) website:
http://www.csiamerica.com/go/schueller
Structure Systems & Structure Behavior
INTRODUCTION TO STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS
SKELETON STRUCTURES
•
•
•
•
•

Axial Systems
Beams
Frames
Arches
Cable-supported Structures

SURFACE STRUCTURES
•
•
•
•
•

Membranes: beams, walls

Plates: slabs
Hard shells
Soft shells: tensile membranes
Hybrid tensile surface systems: tensegrity

SPACE FRAMES
LATERAL STABILITY OF STRUCTURES
L I NE E L E M E NT S

AXIAL STRUCTURE
SYSTEMS

TENSILE MEMBERS

COMPRESSIVE
MEMBERS

BEAMS

FLEXURAL STRUCTURE
SYSTEMS

FLEXURAL-AXIAL STRUCTURE SYSTEMS

BEAM-COLUMN
MEMBERS
FRAMES

S UR F A CE E L E M E NT S

TENSILE MEMBRANES
SOFT SHELLS
MEMBRANE FORCES

PLATES
SHELLS

SLABS, MEMBRANE BENDING and TWISTING

RIGID SHELLS
SKELETON STRUCTURES
PLANAR STRUCTURES
Axial force systems

• TRUSSES
• STAYED STRUCTURES

Flexural force systems

• BEAMS

Flexural-axial force systems

• FRAMES

• ARCHES

SPATIAL STRUCTURES
• SPACE FRAMES

• CABLE STRUCTURES
• COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Examples of AXIAL

STRUCTURE SYSTEMS include, for instance,

• trusses

• compression-tension roof enclosure systems

• lateral bracing of frames

• suspended glass walls
• battered piles

• polyhedral domes
• space frame structures
• cable-supported structures: e.g. beams, roofs

• air-supported structures, air members

• etc.
AXIAL STRUCTURE SYSTEMS
primarily in compression and tension
The following structure types are investigated:
•

Columns

• Beam Columns
• Cables

• Trusses
• etc.
Simple compression-tension enclosure systems
The
building
response
to load
intensity
Some roof support structures
Examples of horizontalspan roof structure
systems
Balance of forces
COLUMNS
COMPRESSION/ TENSION
MEMBERS
BEAM – COLUMN
Intersections
Paper Mill, Mantua, Italy, 1979,
Pier Luigi Nervi Struct. Eng
UNESCO Headquarters,
Paris, France, 1958, Marcel
Breuer, Bernard Zehrfuss,
Pier Luigi Nervi
FM Constructive system,
Elmag plant, Lissone,
Milano, 1964, Angelo
Mangiarotti Arch
Theatre Erfurt, Erfurt,
Germany, 2003, Joerg
Friedrich Arch
Theater Erfurt (2003), Joerg Friedrich Arch, foyer
Bundeskanzleramt, Berlin, 2001,
Axel Schultes Arch
Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders-Haus, Berlin,
2003, Stephan Braunfels Arch
Paul-Löbe-Haus, Berlin, 2002,
Stephan Braunfels Arch
New Beijing Planetarium, 2001, AmphibianArc – Nanchi Wang
School of Architecture, Bond
University, Brisbane, Australia, 2014,
Peter Cook (CRAB) Arch
Paper Concert Hall, L’
Aquila, Italy, 2011,
Shigeru Ban Arch
TU Munich, Munich, Germany
Museum of Art, Bonn, Germany,1993,
Axel Schultes Arch
Crematorium Baumschulenweg,
Berlin, Germany, 1998, Axel Schultes
Arch, GSE Saar Enseleit Struct Eng
Pinakotek der Moderne,
Munich, Germany, 2002,
Stephan Braunfels Arch
Canadian Embassy, Washington, 1989,
Arthur Erickson Arch
Xinghai Square shopping mall, Dalian, China
Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport, 2004, Parsons
Atrium, Germanisches Museum, Nuremberg, Germany, 1993, me di um Arch
Interchange Terminal Hoenheim-Nord, Strassbourg, 2002, Zaha Hadid
Undulating viewing platform,
Ludian, Yunnan, China, 2014,
John Lin +Olivier Ottevaere
Architects
Wanli University, Ningbo, China
Centre Céramique, Maastricht,
The Netherland, 1999, Jo
Coenen Arch
Haans Office, Tilburg, The Netherlands,
1993, Jo Coenen Arch
Modern Wing at the
Art Institute of
Chicago, Chicago,
Illinois, 2009, Renzo
Piano Arch
The Luxembourg
Philharmonie, Luxemboug,
2007, Portzamparc Arch
The Aluminum Forest
,Utrecht, Netherlands, 2001,
M.de Haas Arch
Kanagawa Institute of Technology Workshop , Kanagawa, Japan, 2007,
Junya Ishigami + Associate
Leonardo Glass
Cube, Bad Driburg
2007, 3deluxe Arch
The Netherlands
Architectural Institute,
Rotterdam, 1993, Jo
Coenen Arch
Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg, Wolfsburg,
Germany, 1994, Peter P.Schweger Arch
Indianapolis
International Airport,
Aerodesign Group
Arch, 2008
Sendai
Mediatheque,
2-1, Kasugamachi, Aobaku, Sendai-shi
980-0821,
Japan, 2001,
Toyo Ito Arch,
Mutsuro
Sasaki Struct
Eng
Park Güell, Santa Coloma de Cervello, Spain, 1908, Antoni Gaudi Arch
column shapes
Members in compression have the potential to buckle: to suddenly lose the ability
to carry load my moving laterally with respect to the load. In some cases, a
member may buckle about the strong axis direction (based on a strong axis
bending shape), or a weak axis direction, as shown below. The allowable stress
for each is calculated using appropriate k, L, and r properties for the direction.
Column formula: material failure (short
column), inelastic buckling (intermediate
column), elastic buckling (long column)
The load which causes a member to buckle elastically depends on the following
member properties:
The unbraced length: L
The cross section size and "spread-outness": I
The material stiffness: E
The end conditions are also important, since they change the effective length of
the member. This is accounted for by an "effective length factor", denoted by k.

The following table shows effective length factors:

Effective Length Factor, K
•
•
•
•

0.5

To account for “Axial-Flexural Buckling”

Indicates the “total bent” length of column between
inflection points
Can vary from 0.5 to Infinity
Most common range 0.75 to 2.0

1.0

0.5 - 1.0

2.0

1.0 - 
K = 0.5

K = 0.7

K=1

K=1

K=2

K=2

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

SAP2000 examples of basic elastic buckling modes

(1) Fig. 3.21 & (2) Fig. 4.5, Effective Length Factors
Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, 1882 -2028(?), Antonio Gaudi
Elephant Temple, Bombay
Expo Dach, Hannover EXPO 2000,
Thomas Herzog, Julius Natterer
Turmrestaurant Bierpinsel, BerlinSteglitz, 1976, Ralf Schüler +
Ursulina Schüler-Witte Arch
Parkland Mall, Dalian, China, 1999
San Francisco Federal Building, 2007, Thom Mayne of Morphosis
Tokyo International
Forum,,1997,
Rafael Vinoly Arch,
Kunio Watanabe
Struct. Eng
Altmarkt Galery, Dresden,
Germany, 2002, Manfred Schomers
+ Rainer Schürmann Arch
Science and Technology Museum Shanghai, 2002, RTKL/Arup
Guangzhou Baiyun
Internationl Airport, 2004,
Parsons (Asia Pacific) +
URS Greiner Arch, T.Y.
Lin Struct. Eng.
Ningbo Air Terminal
Civic Center, Shenzhen ,
2004, Li Mingyi Arch
Science Museum Principe Felipe, Valencia,
Spain, 2001, Santiago CalatravaArch
BEAM COLUMNS
INLINED COLUMNS, FRAMES
Typical beamcolumn loading
Beam-column interaction
What is Slenderness Effect
Moment
Amplification

Capacity
Reduction

I
e

II
C

D = f(Mc)

I. Mc = P.e
Short Column

II : Mc = P(e + D)
Long Column

Column Capacity (P-M)

e = Mu/Pu
Pu

Pu

Mu

Region 1:
max axial compression

Po

e
Pu фPn
e = Mu/Pu
Mn/Pn
a.

Pu
Pu

min

Region 2:
compression controls
e

Pn, Axial compression

Pn max
= 0.80Po
(tied)

Balanced strain
condition

Pb
eb

Region 3:
tension controls

Mo
Mb
Mn, bending moment

b.

Fig. 4.11 Concrete Column Behavior Under Combined Bending and Axial Loads
Looped Hybrid Housing, Beijing, 2008,
Steven Holl Arch
Green roofs, Vancouver Civic Centre West, LMN + DAQ/MCM, 2009
Vancouver Civic Centre West, LMN + DAQ/MCM, 2009
Beijing
Downtown Ningbo, China,
2002, Qingyun Ma Arch
Dresdner Bank, Verwaltungszentrum, Leipzig, 1997, Engel und Zimmermann Arch
CABLES
TENSION MEMBERS
Golden Gate
Bridge, San
Francisco,
1937,
Joseph
Strauss and
Irwing
Morrow
Bollman Truss Railroad Bridge, Savage,
Maryland, 1869, Wendel Bollman Eng.
Sunniberg Bridge,
between Klosters and
Serneus, Switzerland,
2005, Christian Menn
Designer
Paper Mill, Mantua, Italy, 1979,
Nervi Struct..Eng.
Sundial Bridge, Redding, CA, 2006, Santiago Calatrava
Experiments with structure,
Iakov Chernikhov Arch, Russian
Constructivism, 1925-1932
NY Times, New York, 2004, Renzo Piano
Arch; X-bracing of high-rise building
Building stability and
slope stability anchors
Hopewell Center,
Wanchai, Hong Kong,
Gordon Wu & Assoc.,
Ove Arup Eng.
Berlin Stock Exchange, Berlin, Germany, 1999, Nick Grimshaw
House (World War 2
bunker),
Aachen, Germany
Godzilla House, Seoul, South
Korea, Chae-Pereiera Architect
Cable-supported structures
Yountville Town Center, Yountville, CA, 2011,
Siegel+Strain-Arch, Coastland Engineering
Structures primarily
in tension
Funicular tension lines, or pressure lines in the inverse
Single-strut and
multi-strut cablesupported beams
Kempinski Hotel, Munich, Germany, 1997, H. Jahn/Schlaich:
Auditorium
Paganini,
Parma, Italy,
2001, Renzo
Piano Arch
Landeshauptstadt
München, Baureferat,
Georg-Brauchle-Ring,
Munich, Germany,
Christoph Ackerman
Saibu Gas Museum for natural
Phenomen-art, Fukuoka, 1989, Shoei
Yoh + Architects
Hongkong Bank, Honkong, 1985, Foster + Arup
Pompidou Center, Paris, 1977, Piano and Rogers
Centre George Pompidou,
Paris, 1977, Piano & Rogers
Fondation Avicienne (Maison de l'Iran),
Cité Internationale Universitaire, Paris,
1969, Claude Parent + Moshen Foroughi
et Heydar Ghiai Arch
Fondation Avicienne (Maison de l'Iran), Cité Internationale Universitaire, Paris,
1969, Claude
Parent + Moshen Foroughi et Heydar Ghiai Arch
Petersbogen shopping center,
Leipzig, 2001, HPP HentrichPetschnigg Arch
Tower Bridge
House, London,
2006, Richard
Rogers Arch
Airport Munich Hangar 1 (153 m), Munich, 1992, Günter
Büschl Arch, Fred Angerer Struct. Eng
Patcenter, Princeton, USA, 1984, Richard Rogers
Arch, Ove Arup Struct Eng
Shanghai-Pudong
International Airport, 2001,
Paul Andreu principal
architect, Coyne et Bellier
structural engineers
Milleneum Bridge, London,
2000, Foster/Arup
The Munich Airport Business
Center, Munich, Germany,
1997, Helmut Jahn Arch
Sony Center, Potzdamer Platz, Berlin, 2000,
Helmut Jahn Arch., Ove Arup Struct. Eng
Munich Olympic Stadium, 1972,
Günther Behnisch, Frei Otto
Cable-supported structures
Space needle, Hirshhorn,
Washington, 1968, Kenneth
Snelson
SPHRERICAL ASSEMBLY OF TENSEGRITY TRIPODS
TRUSSES
COMPRESSION-TENSION
MEMBERS
Palladio's Trusses, 1580
TRUSSES are typical examples of axial structure systems . Because
of their simplicity of behavior they provide an ideal introduction to
computer analysis. Trusses are composed of frame elements ,which
are modeled as straight lines connecting two joints I and J which are
also called nodes. It is assumed that the members in trusses are pinconnected and
subject only to joint loads, hence only axial internal
member forces are generated in the truss.
For determinate structures the effect of material and member sizes is
in the first introduction to structural software disregarded (i.e. use
using either elements with zero moments of inertia or using default
setting), since member stiffness has no effect on the magnitude of
internal member forces, however deflection results can not be used.
Application of trusses ranges from the small scale of a joist to
the large scale of a deep truss supporting a stadium roof. They
are used as roof and bridge structures and as wind bents that
is vertical cantilevers, which brace high-rise skeleton
structures. Trusses may replace any solid element such as
beams, columns, arches, or frames. From a structure system
point of view, they may be classified as,
Truss cantilevers, truss beams of various profiles (flat,
tapered, pitched, curved, crescent, etc.)
Truss arches
Truss frames forming single or multi-bay structures
The typical truss profiles for roofs are flat, pitched (e.g.
triangular, trapezoidal, hip, gambrel) or curved. Trusses may
be organized according to the arrangement of members and
according to behavioral considerations as:
Trussed structures primarily in compression and tension
Examples of trussed structures
Fig. 7.24 Trussed Frames (The
Vertical Building Structure by
Wolfgang Schueller)
Warehouse Magazzini Generali, Chiasso,
1925, Robert Maillart Arch and Eng
Project, Nationaltheater, Mannheim,
1953, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe Arch
Abgeordneten Bridge, Berlin, Stephan Braunfels Arch, Setzpfandt Struct Eng;
Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders-Haus
Red-Bull-Arena, Leipzig, Germany, 2006, Wirth+Wirth, Glöckner Architekten, Körber,
Barton, Fahle
Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany, 2005, Herzog & de Meuron Arch, ARUP Struct Eng for
roof
Roof structure of Olympia
Stadium, Berlin, 2012, von
Gerkan, Marg Arch, Schlaich
Bergermann Struct Eng
Arena “Auf
Schalke”,
Gelsenkirchen,
Germany, 2001,
Hentrich,
Petschnigg
Arch, Klemens
Pelle, Struct Eng
Quingpu Pedestrian Bridge, Shanghai, 2008, Pedro Pablo Arroyo Alba Arch,
Bridge Structures Dept. of Tongji University
A380 Lufthansa Maintenance Hangar,
Frankfurt/Main Airport , 2007, van
Gerkan Marg Arch, Schlaich
Bergermann Struct. Eng.
Internationales
Congress Centrum
Berlin,1979, Ralf
Schüler + Ursulina
Schüler-Witte Arch,
George Washington
Bridge Bus Station ,
New York, 1963, Pier
Luigi Nervi
new Trade Fair Center, parking
garage across A8, Stuttgart, 2007,
Wulf & Partners
Trade Fair Centre, parking garage,
Stuttgart, 2007, Wulf & Partners
Gund Hall, Harvard U.,
Cambridge, 1972, John
AndrewsArch, William
LeMessurier Struct Eng
Picture Window House,
Shizuoka, Japan, 2002,
Shigeru Ban Arch
Daimler Chrysler, Potsdamer Platz, Berlin, 2002,
Richard Rogers Arch
Potsdamer Platz Office and
Commercial Building, Berlin,
Germany , 2000, Helmut Jahn
Arch
Schulhaus
Leutschenbach
, Zürich, 2009,
Christian Kerez
Arch
Medellin Sports Coliseum, Medellin, Colombia,
2010, Giancarlo Mazzanti + Felipe Mesa Arch,
Nicolás Parra+Daniel Lozano Struct Eng
Hancock Tower,
Chicago, 1970, Bruce
Graham + Fazlur Khan
/ SOM
Burj-Al-Arab Hotel,
Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, 1998, Tom
Wright Arch (W.S.
Atkins), W.S.Atkins
Struct Eng
Citic Bank HQ, Hangzou,China, 2015, by Norman Foster+Partners,
East China Architectural Design Institute Struct. Eng
8 Chifley, Syney,
Australia, 2013,
Rogers Stirk
Harbour +
Partners, Arup
Eng
San Francisco International Airport, International Terminal, 2001, SOM
Bush Lane House, London, 1976, Arup
The Leadenhall Building, London, 2010,
Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, Arup
Bank of China, Hong Kong, 1990, I.M. Pei Arch, Leslie E. Robertson Struct. Eng.
Core bracing
example
Highrise Beijing, 2006,
bracing example
Fiduciary Trust Building, Boston, 1977, The Architect’s Collaborative
Sony Tower (AT&T Building), New
York, 1984, Johnson/Burgee Arch,
Leslie Robertson Struct Eng
Onterie Center, Chicago, Ill,
1986, SOM Arch+Struct Eng
Citycorp Center, New
York, 1977, Stubbins
Arch, William
LeMessurier Struct Eng
Eccentrically braced frame
Hongkong Bank,
Hong Kong,
1985,
Foster/Arup
staggered
truss system

Godfrey Hotel, Chicago, Ill,

2014, Valerio Dewalt Train
Associates Arch, Structural
Affiliates International
Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 1977, R. Piano + R. Rogers
Arch, P. Rice (Arup) Struct. Eng
TKFC Yum! Center, Louisville Ky,
2010, Populous Arch, , Walter P
Moore Struct. Eng.
Merzedes-Benz Zentrale, Berlin,
2000, Lamm, Weber, Donath und
Partner
Holocaust Memorial
Museum,
Washington, 1993,
James Ingo Freed
Säynätsalo Town Hall,
Finland, 1993, Alvar
Aalto Arch
NOVARTIS CAMPUS,
FABRIKSTRASSE 14 , Basel,
Switzerland, 2009, JOSE
RAFAEL MONEO Arch,
Werner Sobek Struct. Eng
Veteran's Memorial
Coliseum, New Haven
Connecticut, 1972, Kevin
Roche Arch
De Brug Unilever,
Rotterdam, 2007, JHK Arch
Centra at Metropark, Iselin, NJ, 2011, Kohn
Pedersen Fox Arch, DeSimone Struct Eng
Pennsylvania State, Millennium Science
Complex, University Park, PA, 2010, Rafael
Viñoly Arch, Thornton Tomasetti Struct Eng
POPS, Arcadia, Oklahoma, 2008,
Elliott + Associates Architects
Library Gainesville, FL
Bordercrossing Aachen-Lichtenbusch,
Belgium, 2006
British Airways
hangar, Munich
BOK Center, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 2008,
Cesar Pelli Arch,
Thornton
Tomasetti Struct. Eng
TU Stuttgart, Germany
Valeo - Auto - Electric Motoren GmbH, Bietigheim –
Bissingen, Germany,
Germany, Christoph
Ackermann Arch
Museum Marta, Herford, 2005, Frank Gehry
Petersbogen shopping center, Leipzig, 2001, HPP Hentrich-Petschnigg
Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport Terminal, 2005, Llewelyn Davies Yeang
Arch, Arup Struct Eng
Serpentine Joists: Lindhout Architects Headquarters, Brighton, MI, 2008
Skijump tower, Oberhof, Thueringen,
Germany
INTRODUCTION TO
TRUSS ANALYSIS
Basic triangular and
rectangular trusses
Simple trusses are formed by the addition of triangular
member units and can be further subdivided into
regular, irregular (e.g. fan trusses), and subdivided
truss systems often used for bridge trusses to give
adequate support to the deck (Fig. 6.2, 6.3).
Compound trusses are formed by addition of simple
trusses. These trusses are not necessarily composed
of triangles, indicating that stable trusses can be
generated by figures other than triangles (Fig. 6.6)

Complex trusses are neither simple nor compound.

Special methods of analysis must be applied to these
trusses even if they are statically determinate, since
more than three members are attached to each joint,
and sections cut through at least four members result
in more unknowns than available equations at the
location to be investigated (Fig. 6.7).
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

G.

BASIC TRIANGULAR TRUSSES

Common simple truss types are identified in Fig. 6.3. It is demonstrated in
the drawings that the arrangement of the members determines which of
the members are in tension and in compression under uniform gravity
loading along the top chord..
Pratt truss (a.) with diagonals in tension and the verticals in
compression,
Howe truss (b.) using compression diagonals and vertical tension
members,
Modified Warren truss (c., d.) in which the diagonals are alternately in
tension and compression,
Lattice or double Warren truss (e.) can be visualized as two
superimposed single Warren trusses,
K-truss (f.) in which the top half behaves similar to a Howe truss, while
the bottom half behaves like a Pratt truss.
X-truss (g.) often designed as hinged frame truss cross-braced with
tensile rods, where the bars are not connected at their point of
intersection. Since the diagonals cannot carry compression, the truss
reduces to a Pratt truss under the given loading.
Irregular truss (h.): for the shown truss the diagonal bars cross each
other without being connected at their point of intersection. The truss
reduces to a Warren truss under the given loading. Other examples of
irregular simple trusses include fan trusses.
Composite, truss-like structures where struts resist compression
and ties tension (for discussion see Fig. 11.2)
a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

g.

SIMPLE RECTANGULAR TRUSSES

From a point of view of optimum weight, the truss configuration should reflect the
funicular shape due to the critical external loading so that the chords carry all
the
loads and the web members are zero and are primarily used for the secondary
asymmetrical loading case and for lateral bracing of the compression chord. One
may also want to consider the constant-force design of trusses, where the force
flow along the top and bottom chords is constant. Several examples of efficient
truss forms as related to gravity loading, are shown in Fig. 6.4.
A truss should be curvilinear in response to uniform load action (e.) with a
funicular top chord arch and constant-stress bottom chord; for a fish belly truss
the
situation is opposite.
However, in the ideal form, the vertical web members should be arranged
in a radial fashion so that that their extensions intersect at a concurrent
point, the center of the circle forming the top (or bottom) arch. For this
situation, the forces are constant in the arched top chord and almost
constant in the radial web members and the bottom chord (e.).
A truss should be lens-shaped, if the loads are shared by the arched top and
bottom chords in compression and tension respectively (f.).
A truss should be pitched for point loading. In other words, the truss should be
triangular with respect to a single load (a.), trapezoidal for two loads (d.), and
of
gambrel profile for three single loads (c.).
A triangular truss should have a funicular bottom chord, if the web columns
transfer loads from the top chord to the tensile bottom chord (b.).
a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

FUNICULAR TRUSSES
a.

b.

c.

d.

d.

f.
FAN TRUSSES
Compound Trusses
When several simple trusses are connected to each other, they are
called compound trusses (Fig. 5.8). Trusses may be connected by:
by three nonparallel bars whose axes cannot cross a common point,
by a single member and common joint,
by replacing members of the main truss with secondary trusses.

Compound trusses can be analyzed by using a combination of the

methods of sections and joints. For the third truss type, however,
remove the secondary truss members and replace them with fictitious
members to form the main truss. First figure the reactions and force
flow of the secondary trusses, and then apply the reactions as
external loads to the main truss.
a.

b.

d.

c.

g.
e.

f.

COMPOUND TRUSSES
Complex Trusses
Trusses, which cannot be classified as simple or compound trusses
are called complex trusses. Complex trusses may have any member
configuration and any number of support conditions as long as Eq.
5.1 is satisfied for statically determinate trusses and they are stable.
To check the computer solution of complex, determinate trusses
manually may not be simple, since joints generally have more than
three unknowns. In other words, using the method of joints, the
equilibrium equations for several joints must be set up, and then the
equations must be solved simultaneously. Another method of analysis
is to reduce the complex truss to a stable simple truss by removing a
member and substituting it somewhere else to form a simple truss,
called the method of substitute members. For fast approximation
purposes of parallel chord trusses, however, use the beam analogy by
assuming that the moments are carried by the flanges and the shear
by the web members.
a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

COMPLEX TRUSSES
The distribution of force flow depends not just on the arrangement
of the web members but also on the truss shape. Comparing the
basic truss profiles of flat, pitched, and curved trusses under
uniform gravity loading, one may conclude:
The curvilinear profile can be considered optimal since it is nearly
funicular for the given loading.
The chords of the flat truss are only used efficiently in the midspan range thereby
suggesting the benefit of the shape for larger
spans where bending controls.

For the triangular truss the chords are only efficiently used at the
supports where the shear is maximum, indicating the advantage of
the shape for shorter spans where shear beam action controls.
The trapezoidal truss falls between the parallel and triangular
trusses.
Response of ordinary trusses to
uniform gravity loading
Concurrent force
system using
METHOD OF JOINTS
for analysis
The cabin of Mac Dunstan and Linda Grob, in a hillside near Seattle, 2008
Investigate a basic 15-ft (4,57-m) high, 30-ft (9,14-m) span, triangular, hinged
truss unit using SAP2000. Apply vertical, horizontal,
or combined single loads of 1-k = 4,45kN at the joints as indicated on the drawing;
assign zero to self-weight. Disregard the effect
of material and member sizes (i.e. use default setting), since member stiffness in
determinate structures has no effect on the
magnitude of internal member forces, however do not use deflection results.
Study the load flow effect due to change of:
GEOMETRY: profile, crown location, roof slope, inclination of bottom chord, etc.
LOAD ARRANGEMENT: load location, load direction
SUPPORT LOCATION and ORIENTATION (i.e. rotate supports)
Start with the basic symmetrical regular truss, and then reshape the unit and run
the case analysis, and so on. Use a 5x5-ft
(1,524x1,524-m) grid to construct the layout of the truss. Show the axial force
flow with numerical values, and show the reaction
forces. Study the relationship of member tension and compression so you can develop
a feeling for the structure and
predict the direction of the force flow.
Check manually (graphically or analytically) the computer results of member forces
and reactions for at least half the cases.

a.
c.

b.
d.

5'
5'
Structural software, West Point Bridge Designer, version 4.1.1, which was developed
by Colonel Professor Steve Ressler at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY.
(bridgecontest.usma.edu/index.htm).
a. b.
c. d.

4'
4'

a. b.
c. d.

4'
4'
COMPUTATION OF AXIAL MEMBER FORCES
Generally, two methods can be used: Method of Joints and Method of Sections
The internal member forces at mid-span are only checked. Therefore, a segment of
the truss is investigated by cutting an imaginary section through the truss, (i.e.
method of section) and looking only to the left free-body. The unknown internal
forces in the top, bottom and diagonal members are designated as Nt and Nb with
the assumed direction as shown in the previous free-body that is acting in
compression towards the members, and Nd acting in tension away from the
members.
Vertical equilibrium of forces gives the magnitude of the normal force Nd in the
diagonal member,
ΣV = 0 = 2.5 - 2(1) - (Nd /)1, or Nd = 0.707 k (C)
Rotational equilibrium about the top joint D at mid-span yields the magnitude of
the
bottom chord force Nb.
ΣMD = 0 = 2.5(16) -1(16) - 1(8) - Nb(8), or Nb = 2.0 k (T)
Rotational equilibrium about the bottom joint J yields the magnitude of the top
chord
force Nt.
ΣMJ = 0 = 2.5(8) -1(8) - Nt(8), or Nb = 1.5 k (C)
Check: ΣH = 0 = 2.0 - 1.5 - (0.707/)1, OK
The magnitude of the other members in the free-body can be obtained now by the
method of joints.
1k

1k
2.0 k

70
0.

0.5 k

7
k
1.5 k
i
2.5 k

METHOD OF SECTIONS for analysis

Dr.Frame program, the structural programs of Dr. Software, www.drsoftware-home.com
William J. Clinton Presidential
Center , Little Rock, Ark, 2004,
James Polshek
Seoul National University Museum,
2006, Rem Koolhaas
Cardinals Stadium, Glendale, Ariz, 2006, Peter Eisenman Arch, Walter P Moore+Buro
Happold (roof) Struct. Eng
Rafael del Pino Auditorium, Madrid,
Spain, 2008, Rafael de La-Hoz Arch
SPACE FRAME STRUCTURES
Three-dimensional structures may be organized as follows:
• Spatial frameworks, such as derricks, building cores, towers, guyed structures
• Linear space truss members, such as beams and arches
• Single-layer, three-dimensional frameworks, which are folded or bent latticed
surface structures, such as folded plate planar trusses, polyhedral dome-like
structures and other synclastic and anticlastic surface structures. They obtain
their
strength through spatial geometry, that is, their profile.

• Multi-layer, three-dimensional, space frames, which are generated by adding

polyhedral units to form three-dimensional building blocks. In contrast to single-
layer
systems, the multi-layer structure has bending stiffness and does not need to be
curved; familiar examples are the flat, double-layer space frame roofs and the
subtensioned floor/roof structure
trestle table by Carlo Mollino (1948)
Ningbo Airterminal
San Siro Stadium, Milan,
Italy, (1925 originally)
1990 renovation,
Giancarlo Ragazzi, Henry
Hoffer, Leo Finzi E
National Motor
Museum, Beaulieu,
Hampshire,
England, UK,
1972, Leonard Man
asseh + Ian Baker
Arch
Post Tower, Bonn, Germany,
2003, Murphy/Jahn Arch, Werner
Sobek Struct Eng
Petersbogen shopping
center, Leipzig, 2001,
HPP HentrichPetschnigg
Beijing Capital
International Airport Terminal 2, 1999
San Francisco International Airport, International Terminal, 2001, SOM
Leicester University, Engineering
Building, 1959, Stirling and Gowan Arch
Polyhedral Roof Structures
Single-layer space frame roofs
Force equilibrium in space
Atrium, Germanisches Museum, Nuremberg, Germany,1993, me di um Arch
Common polyhedra derived from cube
Support conditions for three-dimensional structures
The basic three-dimensional structure
1k
e
15'
z
y

15'
1k

y
x

15'
d

20'

15'

Pyramidal Roof Structure

Spatial Tree Unit: Axial Force Diagram
Problem 1, Braced building core
Flat space-frame roofs
Generation of space grids by overlapping planar networks
Platonic solids
Double-layer space frame types
Common space frame
joints
Slab analogy and slab support
Structural behavior of double-layer
space frames
Space Grid Truss – Axial Force Flow
Two-Way Space Truss Beam Grid
US Air Force Hangar Projekt,
1951, Konrad Wachsmann Arch
Stuttgart Airport, Terminal 1, Germany, 1991, von Gerkan Marg Arch
Trees
concept of tree
geometry
Tree
geometry
a.
a.

b.

c.

Example of Space Frame Structures: tree construction in SAP2000

tree construction
National Air and Space Museum,
Washington, 1976, Gyo Obata of
Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum
Us Airline Terminal, O’Hare International Airport, Chicago, 1987, Helmut Jahn
B&B Italia Offices,
Novedrate, Italy, 1973,
Studio Piano & Rogers
New Trade Fair Parc Luxembourg and Train
Station, Luxembourg-Kirchberg, 2010, Pohl
Arch, Knippers Helbig Struct Eng
Ice and Swim Stadium Lentpark, Cologne,
Germany, 2012, Schulitz Arch, Arup Struct Eng
Eco House Prototype, Malibu ,
CA, 2009, Peter Jon Pearce
Eco House Prototype, Malibu ,
CA, 2009, Peter Jon Pearce
Arch
Olympic Stadium, Mexico
City, 1968, Felix Candela
Arch
Geodesic dome
Eden Project,
Cornwall, UK,
2001, Nicholas
Grimshaw
Architects,
Anthony
Hunt Struct Eng
Examples of terraced housing
Ramot Polin housing, Jerusalem,
Israel, 1975, Zvi Hecker
Habitat '67, Montreal, 1967, Moshe Safdie
Arch, August E. Komendant Struct Eng
Danciger Building,
Mechanical
Engineering Building,
Technion, Haifa, Israel,
1966, Zvi Hecker +
Alfred Neumann Arch
Beijing National
Stadium roof (Bird’s
Nest), 2008, Herzog
and De Meuron Arch,
Arup Struct. Eng.
The 313-m (1027-ft) span Beijing National Stadium roof (Herzog and De Meuron Arch,
and Arup Eng,) is saddle-shaped with an elliptical building footprint. The concept
of the
dome form is a “bird’s nest”, where the interwoven mesh of tubular steel members
appear to be arranged in a chaotic, random manner. This irregular, grid-like,
threedimensional space frame structure, however, only looks like random, in reality
it consists
of a primary members based on 24 column points at ground level spaced at regular
intervals around the elliptical footprint. Truss columns of roughly pyramidal shape
supporting a regular series of interwoven trusses that span tangentially to the
central
roof opening across the stadium. Secondary, diagonal members are placed along the
perimeter for the staircases and are arched across the roof down to the other side.
Finally, a tertiary group of infill members is added as required by the aesthetics
of the
façade. The façade is in-filled with translucent ETFE panels or openings are left,
to allow
natural ventilation through the public concourse, into the stadium, and through the
central opening in the roof structure.
Beijing National Swimming Center (Water Cube), 2008, Arup Arch
The 177x 177 x 31 m (581 x 581 x 102 ft) Beijing National Swimming Center (PTW Arch
and Arup
Eng., 2008) known as the “Water Cube” celebrates the transparency and dynamics of
water
bubbles. It has column-free spans up to 121 m (396 ft) in either direction. The
development of the
subdivision of space is derived from the arrangement of organic cells, mineral
crystals and the
natural formation of soap bubbles. The enclosing structure consists of a polyhedron
space frame,
but the arrangement of the cells is irregular and appears random and organic
although it is
mathematically rigorous and repetitious; because when an all space-filling regular
polyhedral
system is cut at an arbitrary angle it appears to be random. The space frame is
made up of
slender steel pipes and joints; it is clad with translucent plastic foil air
pillows that look like
bubbles. The skin’s material is ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) a species of
Teflon, which is
designed to react to changing light conditions thereby creating amazing visual
effects. The
building skin has excellent insulation properties and creates a greenhouse effect
capturing the
energy from the sun for heating and lighting.
Inflatable Yorkshire Diamond Pavilion,
Oslo Norway, 2009, Various Architekts AS,
Tom Gam Struct Eng
Culver City, LA, 1990, Eric
Owen Moss Arch