DESIGN OF A TRIANGULAR CROSS-SECTION BRIDGE

TRUSS 3
By Robert H. Durfee,1 Associate Member, ASCE, P.E.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: The structural advantages and aesthetics of a triangular

cross-section truss have long been recognized by structural engineers
and architects alike. Until recently, however, it has not been considered
cost-effective to design and build this system over the traditional
rectangular or two-dimensional truss to carry heavy loadings. But with
recent advances in welding techniques, the use of computer analysis
methods, and the increased availability of structural tubing for truss
members, the triangular cross-section truss has seen a wide range of new
applications. This paper discusses the analysis and design of this type of
truss to carry highway loadings. The structural analysis program TRUSS1
by the writer, is used for the analysis and design of various truss
configurations. Several primary bracing, sway bracing, and truss depth
configurations are investigated, andfinalselection for design is based on
least weight criteria. Thefinaldesign conforms to the current American
Association df State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
bridge specifications. The design deals with member selection consid-
ering buckling and stress constraints, joint design, and deflection
criteria.

INTRODUCTION

A triangular cross-section truss, although three-dimensional, is simply a

truss with three main chord members as shown in Fig. 1. These chord
members are separated by batten or lattice bracing which varies in
configuration and spacing along the truss, depending on the type and
location of loads the truss must support. The spacing of the main chord
members may vary with respect to each other depending on the type of
loading, but are usually spaced equidistant to form an equilateral triangle
in cross section.
The truss configuration has been used on a limited basis for a number of
structures such as crane booms, highway overhead sign structures, portal
frames, offshore oil rig platform legs, material transfer and pipeline
bridges, roof truss beams, and pedestrian bridges (Durfee 1986). There
have been no instances in recent history where a bridge truss of this nature
has been designed and constructed for heavy loads such as highway and
railway traffic (Durfee 1986).
Studies (Kuzmanovic 1977; Electrical World 1971) of this type of truss
under continuously distributed loads and cantilever conditions indicates
that a weight and material savings of up to 14% can be gained when using
a triangular cross-section truss over a conventional rectangular truss of
four main chord members. Research [Comite International pour le Deve-
a
Presented at the April 7-10, 1986, ASCE Convention, held at Seattle, WA.
'Manager of Struct. Services, Rist-Frost Assoc, P.O. Box 720, Laconia, NH
03247.
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 1988. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must befiledwith the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on July 25, 1986.
This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 12,
December, 1987. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/87/0012-2399/$01.00. Paper No. 22041.
2399

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 Y
MAIN CHORD
MEMBERS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

BATTEN OR
LATTICE BRACING

MAIN CHORD

BATTEN OR
LATTICE BRACING

FIG. 1. Typical Triangular Cross Section Truss

loppement et L'etude de la Construction Tubulaire (CIDECT) 1981] on the

aerodynamics of certain trusses indicates that triangular trusses can have
an 11% smaller drag coefficient than rectangular trusses, and require 35%
fewer joints. Also, this type of truss is efficient in resisting lateral loads
(Stelco 1981).
Realizing these advantages, it is the subject of this paper to present the
analysis and design of a highway bridge utilizing a triangular cross-section
truss. This design will include a computer analysis to determine the most
efficient truss configuration, selection of truss member section shapes, and
design of truss joints. The overall design will conform to the current
specifications [American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) 1985].

DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF STUDY

It is the intent of this paper to investigate a single span, simply

supported, tangential truss bridge. The span length would be in excess of
what would normally be bridged by plate girders, but would not be so long
as to be more practical or economical to span with some other structural
2400

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 2. General Truss Configuration

system. The literature (McCormack 1971; U.S. Steel 1973) deems this
range to be of medium span for bridges and suggests a clear span of 150 ft
(45.72 m) would be appropriate for this study.
The truss configuration to be investigated is shown in Fig. 2. Joint
numbers (nodes) are represented inside squares, and member numbers
(elements) are shown in circles. The truss is oriented such that two upper
main truss chord members are in compression and the single lower main
truss chord member is in tension. The lower main truss chord terminates
at the bearings through inclined end posts as suggested by AASHTO
10.16.1.3. The truss has four bearing points, all simply supported, located
at the ends of the two main compression chords. The bracing member con-
figuration, which is determined later in this paper, is that which produces
the lightest structure while conforming to the AASHTO specifications.
The depth of the truss is also determined later in this paper, and
selection is based on the depth which produces the lightest structure. As an
initial dimension for preliminary analysis, a depth, d, of 30 ft (9.14 m) is
used. This dimension translates into a depth-to-span ratio of 30/150 = 1/5,
which represents the higher limit of the range of this ratio deemed feasible
by the literature (McCormack 1971).
The truss members, as well as stringers and floorbeams, are propor-
tioned using the allowable stress design method (AASHTO 10.31), and
fabricated of steel with a yield stress of Fy = 50.0 ksi (344.5 MPa). ASTM
A-618 material is used for truss members, and ASTM A-588 material is
used for stringers and floorbeams.
The panel points are located throughout the truss at 25-ft (15.25-m)
intervals. A typical panel point is shown in cross section in Fig. 3. The
panel points are designed as a deck^-type truss consisting of a floorbeam on
which the stringers bear and transfer loads to the truss. The ends of the
2401

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 I'-to'/g"
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

u FLOORBEAM

NOTE
I FT. « 0.30Sm.
DELTA MEMBER I IN. • 25.4 mm.

FIG. 3. Typical Truss Panel Point

floorbeams are assumed pinned and are attached to the two truss members
which form the remaining sides of the triangular panel point (henceforth
referred to as delta members). Where the delta members meet at the
centerline of the cross section, they are connected to a single, lower main
truss chord. Two upper main truss chord members connect to the panel
point at the floorbeam joints.
Bridge deck slab, stringer, and floorbeam design calculations are not
presented in this paper. The design procedure for these components is the
same as would be used for conventional bridges. Fig. 3 shows dimensions
and details of these components as a result of using current design aides
and design references to provide for a two-lane highway bridge.

DESIGN LOADS

The loadings that will be considered to act on the structure are dead
load, live load, impact, wind load, and wind load on live load. The scope
of this investigation is limited to the analysis and design of the bridge
superstructure (floorbeam, truss members, and connections) for the load-
ings considered. Components of the substructure (abutments, wingwalls,
and approach slabs) will not be covered.
The computer program TRUSS 1 by the writer, is used to analyze the
various truss configurations and loading conditions. The program utilizes
matrix methods to analyze three-dimensional trusses. For output the pro-
gram computes member forces and stresses, reactions, and joint displace-
ments. When a multiple of loading conditions are analyzed, the program
identifies the loading condition that produces the maximum stress in each
member.
2402

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 TABLE 1. Truss Member Linked Groupings

Group number Members

(1) (2)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 Floorbeams 1, 17
2 Floorbeams 2, 8, 14
3 Delta members 3, 4, 15, 16
4 Floorbeams 5, 11
5 Delta members, 6, 7, 12, 13
6 Delta members 9, 10
7 Main chord compression members 18, 23, 24, 29
8 Main chord compression members 19, 22, 25, 28
9 Main chord compression members 20, 21, 26, 27
10 Main chord tension members 30, 33
11 Main chord tension members 31, 32
12 End post members 34, 35, 36, 37
13 Primary bracing members 38, 41, 42, 45
14 Primary bracing members 39, 40, 43, 44
15 Sway bracing members 46, 51
16 Sway bracing members 47, 50
17 Sway bracing members 48, 49

For optimal output, the program selects member properties to satisfy a

given allowable stress (Faiiow) for each member based on the fully stressed
design algorithm (FSD) (Kirsch 1981). This algorithm reproportions mem-
ber properties until the member stress is within set tolerances of the given
allowable stress. When using the FSD solution, the program can also link
truss members into groupings and select member properties for all mem-
bers of that group based on the maximum stress occurring in any one
member. If the truss members are linked in a symmetrical pattern about
the truss centerline (i.e., floorbeams 1 and 17, delta members 3, 4, 15, and
16, etc.), moving live loads need only be applied to half of the truss. The
program selects member properties for symmetric members on each side
of the truss centerline. Finally, after new section properties have been
determined, the program computes the total structure weight based on the
given density of the material.
For simplicity, only truck loading is used for the preliminary analysis.
The truss member groups linked symmetrically about the center of the
structure are given in Table 1. Now that all the loading conditions and
method of analysis have been defined, a preliminary analysis of the truss
configuration can be made. To simplify the preliminary analysis, an
allowable stress of F aHow = 27.0 ksi (186.0 MPa) (AASHTO Table
10.32.1(A)) will be used for both tension and compression members.

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY BRACING

The main function of bracing members is to prevent large deflections and

buckling of the structure. For trusses this is accomplished by using
diagonal members between joints to give the structure rigidity. For
primary bracing members, which are located on the two diagonal faces of
the truss (see Fig. 2), the main loads which these members must resist are
2403

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 r 25.0'
(TYR)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GO H B S3 Gal GD B

TTT

NOTE' I FT. • 0.305m

FIG. 4. Primary Bracing Configuration

dead load (D) and truck live load (L) plus impact (i). Fig. 4 shows four
possible bracing configurations to resist these loads. In proposing various
bracing configurations for study, only those orientations that are symmet-
ric about the bridge centerline in the X-Y plane are considered.
A summary of the computer analysis is given in Table 2. It can be seen
from the results that bracing configuration I produces the lightest weight
truss of 36.53 Kips (162.56 kN), but configuration I is only 0.2% lighter
than configuration III at 36.61 Kips (162.91 kN). With only a small
percentage difference in total weight, and this being a simplified prelimi-
nary analysis, no clear choice of configuration I over configuration III can
be made. Table 3 gives further results of the computer analysis. The total
member forces in the main tension and compression members were
calculated, and the ratio between the two groups (C/r) was computed. It
can be seen that bracing configuration III is more efficient in distributing
loads on the truss equally to main tension and compression members (C/T
2404

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 TABLE 2. Computer Analysis of Truss Geometries: Primary Bracing

Primary bracing Truss weight

configuration (Kips)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(D (2)
I 36.53
II 38.75
III 36.61
IV 40.93
Note: 1 Kip = 4.45 kN.

TABLE 3. Computer Analysis of Truss Geometries: Primary Bracing Member

Forces (Kips)

Total main
Primary bracing compression Total main
configuration forces (C) tension forces (T) C/T
(1) (2) (3) (4)
I 2,778.5 2,217.9 1.25
II 2,959.0 2,006.8 1.47
III 2,591.0 2,389.6 1.08
IV 3,144.6 1,835.1 1.71
Note: 1 Kip = 4.45 kN.

= 1.08). This should result in a lighter overall structure and thus config-
uration III is used in further analysis and design.

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF SWAY BRACING (LATERAL BRACING)

For sway bracing members, which are located on the horizontal face of
the truss (see Fig. 2, X-Z plane), the primary loads which these members
must resist are wind load (W) on the superstructure and wind load on live
load (WL). Fig. 5 shows three possible bracing configurations to resist
these loads.
A summary of the computer analysis is given in Table 4. It can be seen
from the results that bracing configuration I produces the lightest weight
truss of 1.45 Kips (6.45 kN), and thus is the configuration used for further
analysis and design. It should be noted that configuration I was arbitrarily
selected for use when analyzing the truss for primary bracing.

ANALYSIS OF TRUSS DEPTH

It is obvious that increasing the depth of the truss causes member forces
to decrease, and thus a smaller member cross section is required. But as
the members become longer as depth increases, more dead load weight is
contributed to the truss from the members. The internal angle a, between
floorbeams and delta members also increases, making the fabrication of
connections more difficult. At some point of increasing depth the two
2405

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 i. 2 5 . 0 ' • —K
(TYR)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

03 H3 BD S 0 GU
o
©/ Ss gl/ \®
@ \ /®
2 B B I ED OS

@\|@\|©\|@\|@\|@
NOTE'
I FT. " 0.305 m

FIG. 5. Sway Bracing Configuration

factors of decreased member cross section and increased member length

will offset each other.
Dead load, D, and truck live load, L, are used to analyze the various
truss depths. An initial truss depth of d = 210 in. (5,334 mm) is used. This
corresponds to an internal angle at the truss panel points of a = 45° (see
Fig. 3). The truss depth is increased by increments of 50 in. (1,270 mm) up
to a final analysis of d = 760 in. (19,304 mm) and a = 75°.
Table 5 gives the result of the analysis. It can be seen that a truss depth
of d = 560 in. (14,224 mm) produces the lightest weight truss of 33.89 Kips
(150.81 kN). However, at this point the analysis has not considered
slenderness effects which limit the lengths of the members as discussed in
AASHTO 10.7. Slenderness effects are represented by the slenderness
ratio, KLIr.
2406

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 TABLE 4. Computer Anaiysis of Truss Geometries: Sway Bracing

Sway bracing Truss weight

configuration (Kips)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(D (2)
I 1.45
II 1.70
III 1.71
Note: 1 Kip = 4.45 kN.

TABLE 5. Computer Analysis of Truss Geometries: Truss Depth

Truss depth (in.) Truss weight (Kips)

(1) (2)
210 53.13
260 45.38
310 40.65
360 37.71
410 35.85
460 34.70
510 34.11
560 33.89
610 33.95
660 34.22
710 34.67
760 35.29

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

1 Kip = 4.45 kN.

Square structural tubing is chosen for the design of truss members. The
advantages of structural tubing is discussed later in this paper. The lightest
tubular cross section to satisfy the KLlr requirments for each member is
selected from the steel manual [American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC) 1980]. This area, Ar, necessary to satisfy KLlr requirements, is
then compared with the cross-section area necessary to satisfy stress
requirements, Af. A plot of truss weight versus depth from Table 5 is
shown in Fig. 6. Also shown is the point when KLlr requirements control
in selecting truss members for various groups. Note that at a depth of 260
in. (6,604 mm) or less, no tubular sections are available to satisfy stress
requirements for groups 10 and 11, and at a depth of 360 in. (9,144 mm) or
greater, KLlr requirements govern for groups 3 and 5.
Based on the results shown in Fig. 6, a depth of 360 in. (9,144 mm) is
used for the truss design. This point on the curve represents a location
where increasing truss depth begins to have a diminishing effect on
producing a lighter truss. In addition, at this point the majority of truss
members are sized to satisfy stress requirements instead of KLlr require-
ments, resulting in lighter members, and tubular sections are available to
satisfy all member requirements. It should be noted that the results shown
2407

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 53.1.
-NO SECTION AVAILABLE
TO MEET STRESS REQUIRMENTS,
GROUP 10,11
50--
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NOTE'ARROWS REPRESENT SELECTION

OF SQUARE TUBULAR MEMBERS,
SEE TABLE I FOR MEANING OF
2 GROUP NUMBER.
* 45 -
KL/r CONTROLS
GROUP 12

NO SETION
40 AVAILABLE TO
V)
D MEET KL/r
H REQUIREMENTS
GROUP 3
35
NOTE
I KIP • 4.4S KN.
I IN. ' 25.4 mm.
-t- _4_ _j_ -4- -+- -f- -t
210 260 310 360 410 460 510 560 610 660 710 760
TRUSS DEPTH (IN.)

FIG. 6. Truss Weight Versus Depth

in Fig. 6 do not consider KL/r reductions in allowable stress for compres-

sion members. This topic is discussed later in this paper.

FINAL DESIGN ANALYSIS

When determining the truss configuration in the preliminary analysis,

the structure was isolated in a particular plane and the principal loads
which occurred in that plane were used for the analysis. Now that a final
configuration has been determined, all load types can be applied to the
truss simultaneously as required by AASHTO 3.22. Also, the effects of
both HS20 truck loading and lane loading can be applied in the remaining
computer analysis.
Square structural tubing is used for the design of truss members. Square
tubing is an efficient section for carrying compression and torsional forces
(Sherman 1976), having equal properties in both major directions. Weight
savings of up to 30% can be achieved for compression members using
square tubing rather than standard rolled shapes (Graham 1965). For equal
weight members, structural tubing has the largest radius of gyration value
among structural shapes [American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) 1974;
Graham 1965; Stelco 1981]. Rectangular tubing offers a 30-40% decrease in
exposed surface area over other shapes, resulting in reduced wind loads
(British Steel Corporation 1977). In general, structural tubing offers
modern, clean, aesthetically pleasing lines, and is versatile in its applica-
tion (Welded Steel Tube Institute 1974).
Recall from the preliminary analysis that to simplify calculations, an
allowable stress of F a l l o w = 27.0 ksi (186.0 MPa) was used for both tension
and compression members. But AASHTO sets a lower limit on the
allowable stress for compression members (columns). This reduced allow-
able stress is given by AASHTO table 10.32.1(A), and is dependent on the
radius of gyration of the member selected, r, and its length.
2408

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 TABLE 6. ResuSts of Computer Analysis of Truss: Truss Member Selection

Allowable Stress Final member

Group 3 Member * allow stress Controlling
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

number section (Ksi) (Ksi) loading

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 W33X130 ± 27.00 + 0.00 Truck
2 W33X201 ± 27.00 + 1.36 Truck
3 TS 10X10X1/2 - 11.46 - 9.60 Truck
4 W36X150 ± 27.00 + 1.45 Truck
5 TS12X12X1/4 ± 27.00 + 9.06 Truck
6 TS10X10X1/4 ± 27.00 + 0.89 Truck
7 TS 10X10X3/8 - 17.49 - 14.52 Lane
8 TS10X10X3/8 - 17.49 - 15.07 Lane
9 TS10X10X5/8 - 17.09 - 14.42 Lane
10 TS16X16X3/8 + 27.00 + 26.90 Lane
11 TS 16X16X1/2 + 27.00 + 23.51 Lane
12 TS8X8X1/2 + 27.00 + 24.99 Lane
13 TS12X12X1/2 - 11.12 - 9.50 Truck
14 TS10X10X1/2 -7.55 - 6.69 Truck
15 TS10X10X1/4 ±7.95 - 6.11 Truck
16 TS 10X10X1/4 ± 7.95 + 4.37 Truck
17 TS10X10X1/4 ± 7.95 - 2.25 Truck
a
See Table 1.
Note: " + " denotes tension.
1 Ksi = 6.89 MPa.

The truss member shapes are chosen from the steel manual (AISC 1980)
with a cross-sectional area A slightly larger than the required area given by
the FSD algorithm (Af) for each member group. When selecting member
shapes, the lightest square tube section possible to satisfy the required area
(Aj) is chosen. Consideration is also given to keeping member outside
dimensions uniform within a member type (i.e., main tension members,
etc.) If the member is in compression, a reduced allowable stress (FaUow) is
! calculated for the shape selected using the governing AASHTO criteria.
The resulting maximum allowable stress for the compression member is
later checked against the actual stress determined from the final TRUSS 1
analysis. The member shapes selected to satisfy the requirements are
shown in Table 6. Also shown is the maximum allowable stress for each
member group.
For corrosion protection, AASHTO gives no minimum thickness re-
quirement for tubular members, but for closed ribs in orthotropic decks
gives a thickness of tmin = 3/16 in. (4.76 mm) (AASHTO 10.8). All truss
member shapes selected will meet this requirement, as well as bit limits for
local buckling (AASHTO 10.35.2.5, 10.35.2.6).
The final design analysis is now performed for the member shapes
selected using the program TRUSS1. Table 6 gives the final maximum
member stress in each group for the structural shapes selected and also
shows the controlling loads which produced the maximum stresses. It can
2409

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 TABLE 7. Results of Computer Analysis of Truss: Maximum Live Load Deflections
- Deflection Controlling
Direction Joint number (in) loading
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

d) (2) (3) (4)

X 18, 19 - 0.27a Lane
Y 9, 10 - 0.82a Lane
Z 9, 10 0.20a Truck

"Maximum allowable live load deflection = 2.25 in. (AASHTO 10.6).

Note: 1 In. = 25.4 mm.

be seen that the maximum stress in each member group is less than the
allowable stress.
Note from Table 6 that in member group 7-12, HS20 lane load controls
in producing the maximum stress in these members. The increased stress
produced by HS20 lane load over HS20 truck load varies from 0.2% to
5.2%. With such a small increase, it is felt that the outcome of the
preliminary truss configuration results, based on HS20 truck loading only,
is not significantly affected.
Note also from Table 6 that all sway bracing members (member groups
15-17) are grossly understressed. This is because sway bracing resists
wind loads which are small, and member selection is controlled by
slenderness requirements which produced a large cross section. Since the
bridge deck stringers are continuous, and are composite in construction
with the bridge deck, stringers and deck act as a rigid unit and will be able
to accommodate these small stresses produced by wind loads. Thus, the
sway bracing members may be eliminated from the design as major
structural members. Lighter members such as angles may be used instead.
Delta members 6, 7, 12, and 13 (member group 5) and delta members 9
and 10 (member group 6) are also grossly understressed (see Table 6). The
large sections provided are to meet AASHTO slenderness requirements,
and to provide sufficient area to accommodate the large primary bracing
members and main compression members meeting at the delta member
joints.
All floorbeam members (member groups 1, 2, and 4), appear to be
grossly understressed. The member stresses shown in Table 6 for these
groups represent axial stress from the truss only. When the bending stress
from the stringer to floorbeam reactions are included, the combined total
stress from these members are less than the allowable stress.
Table 7 shows the maximum deflection occurring in the three principal
directions due to live loads plus impact loads as calculated by the program
TRUSS 1. It can be seen from Table 7 that all deflections that occur are less
than the AASHTO maximum allowable of 2.25 in. (57.15 mm).
Table 8 gives data on the final weight of the truss. Weight data from
several conventional trusses presently in use are also given. It can be seen
from Table 8 that the triangular cross-section truss compares favorably on
a weight basis with other rectangular trusses in the same span range.
2410

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 TABLE 8. Truss Weight Comparison

" Weight per

Bridge truss Curb to sq ft of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

type and Span length curb width Total weight 3 deck slab
location (ft) (ft) (Kips) (Ibs/sq ft)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Triangular cross sec- 150.00 30.0 777.0 172.7
tion (theoretical)
Rectangular through 168.75 24.0 829.5 204.8
truss, Route 3 over
Merrimack River,
Concord, New
Hampshire
Rectangular through 168.00 24.0 776.4 192.6
truss, Routes 16 and
302 over Rocky
Branch River, Bart-
lett, New Hampshire
Rectangular through 134.75 24.0 588.2 181.9
truss, Route 16 and
302 over Ellis River,
Bartlett, New
Hampshire
"Weight shown is for superstructure only.
Note: 1 ft = 0.305 m.
1 Kip = 4.45 kN.
1 lb = 0.454 kg.

DESIGN OF CONNECTIONS

Up to this point, the design of the truss has adhered to the Bridge
Specifications (American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials 1985). For the design of tubular connections, AASHTO offers
little aid. A review of the literature indicates that sufficient material has
been published abroad on this subject, but the use of tubes as structural
members is relatively new in the United States, thus subject matter is
limited.
The Structural Welding Code for Steel of the American Welding Society
(AWS) (American Welding Society 1984) is the most appropriate domestic
source which provides an in-depth procedure and the specifications needed
to design connections for rectangular tubing. Thus, the AWS code will be
used to design the tubular truss joints along with design aides (Blodgett
1966, 1982) based on this code. In general, welds are designed in accor-
dance with the AWS code, with the exception of complying with AASHTO
sections 10.3, 10.19.1.1, and 10.32.2, which specify fatigue requirements,
minimum required weld strength, and allowable weld stress respectively.
Fig. 7 gives details of some of the truss connections. Those joints not
shown are similar in configuration and weld requirements. The main
concern in designing the joints is to prevent local failure due to punching
shear stress. If the wall thickness is not sufficient to provide the necessary
2411

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 J3/8T ENDt \|?l^RBiAM' S| ?«_.J
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5/tf* ST1FFENER
(TYPJUSE l / T
FILLET ONE SIDE

BEARING
MEMBER

l—_„7

7/8" COVER
PLATES

• t \ COMBINED ENDPOSTS
"—COMBINED tNDPUS>l3
| _ 1 T72T7" JOINT 5 WITH I/2" fc ST1FFENER

1/2 1/ JOINT 7
O " MEMBER NO. NOTE' I t i •> 25.4 mm

FIG. 7. Typical Joint Details

allowable shear stress, a cover plate is provided to increase capacity or

internal stiffeners are used to provide transfer of shear stresses. Where
access can be made to the interior of the joint during fabrication, stiffeners
are inserted and held in place by one-sided fillet welds; otherwise cover
plates are used. An additional section, a TS 14x 14x5/16 bearing member,
has been added at each of the four support joints to provide a vertical
reaction to the bearings (see Fig. 7, joint number 2). These bearing
members have a resulting maximum stress (P/A) of -17.35 ksi (-119.54
MPa).
Note from Fig. 7 that the floorbeam joints are designed as a single lower
flange connection. It is assumed that this connection acts as a pin (i.e., no
moment develops). Also, note that this type of joint creates a small
eccentricity between the floorbeam joint and truss tube joint, creating a
torsional stress in the main compressive members. Every attempt has been
made to avoid eccentric joints when designing the connections. Where this
2412

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 is not possible, the calculated torsional shear stress is checked and found
to be within allowable stresses. [AASHTO Table 10.32.1(A)].

CONCLUSIONS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

From the review of the literature, it is evident that a triangular

cross-section truss is an efficient structural alternate to a rectangular truss
of four main chord members. Generally speaking, a triangular truss
provides for a lighter structure when used in place of other structural
configurations.
For the span length under investigation, HS20 lane load controlled in
producing maximum stress in the main truss chord tension and compres-
sion members and in the endpost members. HS20 truck load controlled in
producing maximum stress in the other truss members, as well as the
bridge deck slab, stringers, and floorbeams.
Slenderness requirements controlled in the selection of structural shapes
for the delta members. Stress requirements controlled in the selection of
the remaining truss members.
Torsional moment in the main compressive members caused by floor-
beam end connection eccentricity is small and can be neglected.
On a weight basis, a triangular cross section truss compares favorably
with conventional rectangular bridge trusses in the same span range.
Finally, a triangular cross-section truss of modest span can be designed
to carry HS20 vehicle traffic loading and conform to the AASHTO Bridge
Specifications.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper was based in part on the writer's Masters thesis. The writer
wishes to acknowledge, with thanks, the helpful and significant contribu-
tions to this topic by Dr. J. H. Moore and Professor D. A. Garst at the
Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia, and Dr. A. E. Somers at the Department
of Civil Engineering, Valdosta State College, Valdosta, Georgia.

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1985).

Standard specifications for highway bridges. 13th ed., Association General
Offices, Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1985).
Interim specifications—bridges. Association General Offices, Washington,
D.C.
American Institute of Steel Construction. (1980). Manual of steel construction.
8th ed., Institute General Offices, Chicago, 111.
American Iron and Steel Institute Committee of Steel Pipe Producers. (1974).
Design manual for structural tubing and pipe. Institute General Offices, New
York, N.Y.
American Welding Society. (1984). Structural welding code—steel, ANSI/AWS
Dl.1-84. 8th ed., Society General Offices, Miami, Fla.
Blodgett, O. W. (1966). Design of welded structures. James F. Lincoln Arc
Welding Foundation. Cleveland, Ohio.
Blodgett, O. W. (1982). "New AWS code specifies the design of tubular
structures." No. D413, Lincoln Electric Company.
2413

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414

 British Steel Corporation, Tubes Division. (1977). RHS guide to fabrication and
design. Corporation Sales Office, Corby, England.
Durfee, R. H. (1986). "Review of triangular cross section truss systems." J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 112(5), 1088-1096.
Graham, R. R. (1965). "Manufacture and use of structural tubing." J. Met.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College on 11/08/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

AIME, 17(9), 975-980.

Kirsch, U. (1981). Optimum structural design. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, N.Y.
Kuzmanovic, B. O., Willems, N., and Thomas, F. M. (1977). "Automated
design of three-legged steel transmission towers." Computers & Structures,
7(2), 171-175.
"Lattice towers have low visual impact." (1971). Electrical World, Feb. 1, 56-58.
McCormack, J. C. (1971). Structural steel design. 2nd ed., International
Textbook Co., New York, N.Y.
Sherman, D. R. (1976). Tentative criteria for structural applications of steel
tubing and pipe. American Iron and Steel Institute, New York, N.Y.
Stelco, Inc. (1981). Hollow structural sections design manual for connections.
2nd ed., Stelco General Offices, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
U.S. Steel Corporation (1973). Highway structures design handbook. U.S. Steel
Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Welded Steel Tube Institute. (1974). Manual of cold formed welded structural
steel tubing. Institute Structural Tube Division, Cleveland, Ohio.
"Wind Effects—A synopsis of CIDECT research." (1981). CIDECT, 5, 2-5.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A = cross-sectional area;
AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials;
Af = cross-sectional area from F S D solution;
Ar = cross-sectional area for KLlr requirements;
AWS = American Welding Society;
b = compression flange width;
C = compression;
D = dead load;
d = truss depth;
^aiiow = maximum allowable stress;
FSD = fully stressed design algorithm;
Fy = material yield strength;
/ = impact load;
K = effective length factor;
L = live load, or member length;
P = load or reaction;
r = radius of gyration;
T = tension;
TS = tubular steel section;
/ = wall thickness of tubular member;
? min = minimum required wall thickness;
W = wind load;
WL = wind load on live load;
X, Y, Z = global coordinate axis; and
a = internal angle.

2414

J. Struct. Eng., 1987, 113(12): 2399-2414