TWO-STOREY PUBLIC MARKET

COMMERCIAL BUILDING
Villa Libertad Church Rd., El Nido Palawan

PROGRESS REPORT 2

ALLANIGUE, ANDREA
BACLAAN, RIO KYLA NETZY
MATILLA, KYLA YVONNE
PERIAS, ALTHEA
ZAPANTA, SHAN KYLE

OCTOBER 12, 2024

ENGR. CAROL GRACE ALCID-GAVINO

I. Design Codes and References

• NSCP 2015: Chapter 2 - Table 205-3 Minimum Roof Live Loads

• NSCP 2015: Chapter 2 - Table 204-2 Minimum Design Dead Loads

• NSCP 2015: Chapter 5 – Structural Steel – Section 504 Design of Members for
Tension

• NSCP 2015: Chapter 5 – Structural Steel – Section 505 Design of Members for
Compression

• NSCP 2015: Chapter 5 – Structural Steel – Section 506 Design of Members for
Flexure

• NSCP 2015: Chapter 5 – Structural Steel – Section 506 Design of Connections

• Simplified Construction Estimate 3rd Edition by Max B. Fajardo: Chapter 6 –

Roofing Materials – Table 6-1, Table 6-2, Table 6-3, Table 6.4 Link:
https://pdfcoffee.com/simplified-construction-estimate-third-edition-max-
fajardo-jr-enhanced-pdf-pdf-free.html

• AISC Shapes Database v16.0 Link:

https://www.aisc.org/publications/steel-construction-manual-
resources/16th-ed-steel-construction-manual/aisc-shapes-database-
v16.0/

II. Materials Specifications

GI Sheet 80cmx240cm Gauge#20 (18.11kg/sheet)
GI Roof Nails (120pcs/kg)
GI Rivets (180pcs/kg)
GI Washers (128pcs/kg)
Lead Washers (75pcs/kg)
Umbrella Nails (120pcs/kg)
C75x7.4 ASTM A36 C-Channel Purlins (7.4kg/m)
8mm ASTM A36 Plain Steel Rebar for Sag Rods and Tie Rods
L51x51x4.8 ASTM A36 Single Angular Bar (3.6kg/m)
L51x51x3.2 ASTM A36 Single Angular Bar (2.4kg/m)
16mm A307 Bolts

Typical Connection Details

x

2-16mm A307 bolts (Threads within shear plane)

Structural Engineer Revision Note

Subject: Justification for Revised Structural Plan – Interior Columns at 2F and Truss Web Members
Configuration

Following the detailed structural calculations and analysis of the initially proposed architectural
design, several revisions have been made to improve the efficiency of the structure while
maintaining safety and adherence to engineering standards. This revision note aims to justify the
modifications in the current structural plan and how they align with preferable structural
principles.

1. Removal of Interior Columns at 2F:

The original architectural plan included interior columns at the 2nd floor to support the trusses.
However, after conducting a detailed structural analysis, the interior columns have been removed
based on several considerations.

The revised calculation demonstrates that the trusses (T1 for the interior and T2 for the exterior)
can be designed as statically determinate systems with simple supports at their ends, eliminating
the need for the mid-span support, which was initially planned as a third external support.

Key justifications for this revision:

Load Considerations: The removal of the interior columns is based on the structural assessment
that only dead loads and roof live loads need to be considered. The roof trusses will carry
lightweight roofing materials such as galvanized iron (GI) sheets and the minimum design roof live
load as specified by NSCP2015. No additional wind loads and other lateral or vertical loads were
factored into the design, as these are deemed non-critical for this specific structure.

Simplified Analysis: By designing the trusses as statically determinate systems, supported only at
their ends, the structural analysis becomes significantly simplified. This reduces the complexity of
the computations and ensures a straightforward approach for calculating internal forces, and
reactions using basic equilibrium equations.

Improved Load Distribution: The simple support system allows for better load distribution across
the truss span, reducing the need for a midspan column, which could create unnecessary
concentrated punching shear stress at 2F.

Enhanced Spatial Functionality: Removing the interior column at 2F opens up the interior space,
providing an unobstructed area that enhances the functionality of the floor plan.

2. Reduction of Vertical Web Members and Diagonals in the Truss:

The initial architectural plan specified 7 vertical web members with equally spaced diagonals
across the truss span (Howe Truss configuration). However, the structural revision reduces the
number of web members and diagonals, with a focus on material efficiency without compromising
structural integrity.

Key considerations:

The remaining web members have been optimized to still satisfy the slenderness ratio limits for
both tension and compression as specified by the code, ensuring they are stable under the applied
working or ultimate loads.
The material efficiency is maximized, reducing construction costs and material usage while still
providing adequate strength under the ultimate design loads.

Structural adequacy has been confirmed through the following calculations on the design of
tension and compression web members, ensuring that the reduced number of web members
performs satisfactorily against the ultimate loads.

3. Adequacy Against Ultimate Loads:

The revised truss design, with fewer web members and the removal of interior columns, has been
calculated to remain fully adequate against ultimate design loads. All structural components have
been verified for their strength and under the applied dead and live loads, while maintaining
compliance with the NSCP resistance factor/safety factors.

Conclusion:

The current structural revision, which justifies the removal of interior columns and the reduction
of web members, provides a more efficient and practical solution. The revised design is based on
the consideration of only dead and roof live loads, with the roof trusses carrying lightweight
materials like GI sheets and adhering to the minimum roof live load requirements from the code.
The exclusion of wind and other lateral or vertical loads simplifies the design further. Additionally,
simplifying the truss to a statically determinate system results in easier structural analysis and
reduced material usage. This revised plan should be adopted in place of the initial architectural
design.

Should you require any further clarification or additional documentation regarding the revised
calculations, feel free to reach out.

Sincerely,

BuildPro, Inc.

Structural Engineering Firm

III. Design Loads

Structural Loads for Purlins, Sag Rods, and Tie Rods (Roofing System)
Note: Dead Load & Roof Live Load Considerations only
Formatted: English (United States)

Horizontal Dimensions of Roofing System = 24.5 𝑚 × 10 𝑚 (based on plan)

1.1 Dead Load:
𝑘𝑔
GI Sheet 80 𝑐𝑚 × 240 𝑐𝑚 Gauge #20 Weight = 18.11 ⁄𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑡
𝑝𝑐𝑠
GI roof nails Typical Weight = 120 ⁄𝑘𝑔
𝑝𝑐𝑠
GI rivets Typical Weight = 180 ⁄𝑘𝑔
𝑝𝑐𝑠
GI washes Typical Weight = 128 ⁄𝑘𝑔
𝑝𝑐𝑠
Lead washers Typical Weight = 75 ⁄𝑘𝑔
𝑝𝑐𝑠
Umbrella Nails Typical Weight = 120 ⁄𝑘𝑔

Reference: Simplified Construction Estimate 3rd Edition by Max Fajardo (Table 6-1 to 6-4)
Gutter Length 24.5
GI Sheet: nrow = Eff. Covering
= 0.7
= 35 sheets in a row

Inclined length of GI Sheet Req’d. = 5.485 m ≈ 5.6 m on both sides (based on plan)
Inclined Length 5.6
ninclined length = = ≈ 3 sheets on both sides
L per sheet 2.4

ntotal = 35 × 6 ; ∴ Use 210 pcs. of Gauge #20 GI Sheet Formatted: Font: (Default) Cambria Math, Not Bold

18.11 kg
GI Sheet W = 210 sheets × = 3, 803.1 kg
sheet
18 pcs. 3780 pcs.
Rivets: n = 210 sheets × = 3, 780 pcs ; W= pcs. = 21 kg
sheets 180 ⁄kg

7,560 pcs.
GI Washer: n = 2 × 3, 780 pcs = 7, 560 pcs ; W= pcs. = 21 kg
128 ⁄kg

3780 pcs.
Lead Washer: n = 3, 780 pcs. ; W= pcs. = 50.4 kg
75 ⁄kg

Total mass of Dead Loads = 3, 803.1 + 21 + 59 + 50.4 = 3, 933.5 kg

38.5876 kN
Converting to uniform pressure ⟶ q SDL = 24.5 m × 2(5.485 m)

q SDL = 0.1435739029 kPa = 𝟏𝟒𝟑. 𝟓𝟕𝟑𝟗 𝐏𝐚

IV. Load Combinations
LRFD Load Combinations: U1 = 1.4D
U2 = 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5Lr
U3 = 1.2D + 1.6Lr + 1.0L
U4 = 1.2D + 1.0W + 1.0L + 0. 5Lr
U5 = 1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0L
U6 = 0.9D + 1.0W
U7= 0.9𝐷 + 1.0𝐸

At critical purlin members (interior purlins)

𝑘𝑔 81𝑚 𝑁
wsw = 7.40 (9. 2 ) = 72.594
𝑚 𝑠 𝑚
w N
SDL=213.89254
m

w N
llr=999.9975
m

𝑁
wDL= wSDL + wSW = 213.89254 + 72.594 = 286.48654
𝑚

U1 = 1.4 (286.48654) = 401.08116 𝑁/𝑚

U2 = 1.2 (286.48654) + 0.5(999.9975) = 843.7826N/m
U3 = 1.2( 286.48654) + 1.6(999.9975) = 1943.77985 𝑁/𝑚
𝒘𝑼 = 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟑. 𝟕𝟕𝟗𝟖𝟓 𝑵/𝒎
At heavier loaded truss T2,
𝑁
𝑤𝑈 𝐿 (1943.77985 𝑚) (3.75𝑚)
𝑅1 = = = 3.64459𝑘𝑁
2 2
𝑷𝑼 = 𝑹𝟏 = 𝟑. 𝟔𝟒𝟒𝟓𝟗𝒌𝑵 @ joint A,L (joint of support) of T2
𝑷𝑼 = 𝟐𝑹𝟏 = 𝟕. 𝟐𝟖𝟗𝟏𝟖𝒌𝑵 @ joint B,D,H,J of T2
𝑷𝑼 = 𝟒𝑹𝟏 = 𝟏𝟒. 𝟓𝟕𝟖𝟑𝟔𝒌𝑵 @ joint F (apex) of T2
At lighter loaded truss T1. PU from T2 was halved due to tributary area of exterior
truss,
𝑷𝑼 = 𝟏. 𝟖𝟐𝟐𝟑𝒌𝑵 @ joint A,L (joint of support) of T1
𝑷𝑼 = 𝟑. 𝟔𝟒𝟒𝟓𝟗𝒌𝑵 @ joint B,D,H,J of T1
𝑷𝑼 = 𝟕. 𝟐𝟖𝟗𝟏𝟖𝒌𝑵 @ joint F (apex) of T1
1.2 Live Load (Roof Live Load):
2
Roof Slope = × 100% = 50% > 83% , Case 2 applies in (Table 205-3)
4

Using Method 2 for Live Load reduction consideration, Lr = 0.75 kPa, r = 0.06, R = 25%
 Tributary Area: wt = 1.33 m, Lt = 3.75 m
AT = 4.9875 m2 < 15 m2 ∴Reduction of Lr is not allowed
𝐪𝐋𝐋𝐫 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟓 𝐤𝐏𝐚 = 𝟕𝟓𝟎 𝐏𝐚

2000
8000

Design of Purlins: ASTM A36 Steel, Fy = 250 Mpa, Fu = 400 Mpa

1333.33
Based on plan Dimension:
s = 1.4904 𝑚 (inclined spacing of purlins) tributary
d = 1.3333 𝑚 (horizontal spacing of purlins) widths

0.4
27°

149 q SDL = 143.5739 Pa , q LL = 750 Pa

27°

2
𝚹 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (4) = 26.56505° wSDL = 143.5739 N⁄m2 (1.4904 m) = 213.98254 N⁄m

wLLr = 750 N⁄m2 (1.3333 m) = 𝟗𝟗𝟗. 𝟗𝟗𝟕𝟓 𝐍⁄𝐦

Getting the design Sxmin without the selfweight of the purlin to have an initial basis of cross-section
to be used, 𝑤𝐿𝐿 = 0

𝑤𝑈′1 = 1.4(213.98254 𝑁⁄𝑚) = 𝑤𝑈′1 = 299.57556 𝑁⁄𝑚

𝑤𝑈′2 = 1.2(213.98254 𝑁⁄𝑚) + 1.0(999.9975 𝑁⁄𝑚) = 1256.77655 𝑁/𝑚

𝑤𝑈′3 = 1.2(213.98254 𝑁⁄𝑚) + 1.6(999.9975 𝑁⁄𝑚)

𝑤𝑈′3 = 1, 856.77505 𝑁⁄𝑚 ⟶ ok! = 𝑤𝑈′

Resolving to Normal and Tangential component,

𝑤𝑢𝑡′ = (1, 856.77505 𝑁⁄𝑚) 𝑠𝑖𝑛(26.56505°) = 830.37501 𝑁⁄𝑚

𝑤𝑢𝑛′ = (1, 856.77505 𝑁⁄𝑚) 𝑐𝑜𝑠(26.56505°) = 1, 660.75011 𝑁⁄𝑚

𝑤𝑢𝑥′ = 1, 660.75011 𝑁⁄𝑚

Check for an initial section using 𝑤𝑢𝑥′ , uniform load acting normal on the major axis of bending, Also,
the designers assumed purlins as simply supported at each bay distance to simplify the analysis.

′
𝑤𝑢𝑥 ′L2 1, 660.75011(3.75)2 Formatted: Font: +Body (Aptos), Not Bold, Not Italic
Mmax = =
8 8
= 2, 919.287303 𝑁 ∙ 𝑚 = 2.91929 𝑘𝑁 ∙ 𝑚
27°

Assuming compact section, 𝐹𝑏 = 0.66𝐹𝑦 = 0.66(248) , 𝐹𝑏 = 163.68 𝑀𝑃𝑎 (Allowable bending stress)
Note: Allowable stress concept is just used to approximate Sxmin
Mmax 2,919.287303×103 N∙mm
Sxmin = = ⟶ Sxmin = 17, 835.33298 mm3 ≈ 17.83533 × 103 mm3
Fb 163.68 N⁄
mm2

From AISC Database, try using 𝑪𝟕𝟓 × 𝟔. 𝟏 / 𝑪𝟑 × 𝟒. 𝟏

Properties of 𝐶75 × 6.1
kg⁄
M = 6.10 m Zx = 1.32 in3 = 21.6 × 103 mm3
AS = 774 mm Zy = 0.399 in3 = 6.54 × 103 mm3
d = 76.2 mm J = 0.0269 in6 = 11.2 × 103 mm4
bf = 35.8 mm Cw = 0.307 in = 0.0824 × 104 mm6
t f = 6.93 mm rts = 0.469 in = 11.9 mm
t w = 44.32 mm ho = 2.73 in = 69.3 mm
6 4
Ix = 0.687 × 10 mm
Sx = 18.0 × 103 mm3
rx = 29.7 mm
Iy = 0.0795 × 106 mm4
Sy = 3.21 × 103 mm3
ry = 10.1 mm
x = 11.1 mm

Shape Category:
35.8
𝜆𝑓 = = 16.595
6.93
76.2 − 2(6.93)
𝜆𝑤 = = 14.43056
4.32
 𝐸 200 000
For Flange: 𝜆𝑝 = 0.38√𝐹𝑦 = 0.38√ 250
= 10.79127

𝐸 200 000
For Web: 𝜆𝑝 = 3.76√𝐹𝑦 = 3.76√ 250
= 106.77682

Since 𝜆𝑓 < 𝜆𝑝 & 𝜆𝑤 < 𝜆𝑝 ∴ Section is compact. Assumption is correct for this shape.
Assuming sag rods @ Midspan, Lb= 3.75/2 = 1875mm

Cb= 1.30 (for simple span with lateral support at midspan under UDL)
Lb= 1875mm
Fy= 248 MPa
E= 200, 000 MPa

*Flexural Strength at x-axis (Major Axis)

For Channel Sections,

Iy
Cw

Unbraced length limits:

Since Lp = 504.80mm < Lb = 1.875mm < Lr = 3741.50mm.

Therefore, Section fails @zone 2: Inelastic Lateral Torsional Buckling (Partially Supported)
Getting Mux, consider SW of M= 6.10 kg/m

kN-m

Since (ØMnx = 1.55kNm) < (Mux 3.03kNm), C75 x 6.1 is inadequate section against ultimate loads.

*Try C75X7.4 Checking the plastic moment capacity first

Getting Mux,

*C75 x 7.4 might be an adequate section, Check compactness and lateral torsional buckling.

Since, (Lb = 1875mm) < (Lr = 4704.35613mm), Section fails @zone 2. Inelastic Lateral Torsional
Buckling.

Therefore,
*Flexural Strength of y-axix (minor axis bending)

Since shape is compact: Mny=Mpy 1.6FySy

Trial#2
Using the Interaction expression for Biaxial Flexural Members,

*Try using 2 sag rods per bay distance (Middle thirds)

Adjusted Cb=1.45 &1.01; Critical Cb=1. 01
New Lb= 3.75/3mm= 1.25m= 1250mm
Since (Lp = 514.8006mm) < (Lb = 1250) < (Lr = 4704.35613mm)
Since section fails @ zone 2: Inelastic Lateral Torsional Buckling (Partially Supported)

Trial#3

Using three-moment equation method, we found that,

Since loads doesn't directly pass on the section’s shear center where torsion is minimized, torsion
affects the nominal flexural strength of the minor weak axis. Mny reduced to half.

Therefore, C75X 7.4 is adequate and the most economical sections against ultimate loads based
on flexural strength while using 2 sag rods per bay distance @ middle third points.
Design of Sag Rod and Tie Rod
Using A36 Plain Steel Bar, Fy = 250 MPa Note: Sag Rod and Tie Rod only fails due to yielding

Sag Rods:
11𝑤𝑡 𝐿 11(1,738.56957×10−3 )(3.75)
𝑇𝑠𝑎𝑔 = 𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 30
= 30
= 2.39053 𝑘𝑁

𝑇𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2.39053 𝑘𝑁 × 4 = 9.56212 𝑘𝑁

Pu = 9.56212 kN ; Pu ≤ ∅Pn = ∅FyAg

𝜋
= 9.56212 kN = (0.9)(250 MPa) ( 𝐷2 ) × 10−3 ⟶ 𝐷𝑠𝑎𝑔 = 7.38559 𝑚𝑚 ≈ 8 𝑚𝑚
4
∴ Use 8mm A36 Plain Steel Bar
Tie Rods:
Tsag max 9.56212 kN
Ttie = =
cosϴx cos(26.56505°)
π
Pu = Ttie = 10.69078 kN ⟶ 10.69078 kN = (0.9)(250)( D2 ) × 10−3
4
note:
→ 𝐷𝑡𝑖𝑒 = 7.80931 𝑚𝑚 ≈ 𝟖 𝒎𝒎 Slenderness Ratio
∴ Use 8 mm A36 Plain Steel Rebar (for tension member):
𝐿
Design Summary: ≤ 300
𝑟
For Purlins: Use 𝑪𝟕𝟓 × 𝟕. 𝟒 w/ 2 Sag Rods @ middle third pts. 1490.71
= 150.12
9.93
For Sag Rods: Use 8 mm ASTM A36 Plain Steel Rebar as Sag Rods
For Tie Rods: Use 8mm ASTM A36 Plain Steel Rebar as Tie Rods
V. Truss Design
Planar Truss Analysis for T2:
*Truss Determinacy
I = m + r – 2j ; I = 0 , Truss is statically determinate
m = 21
r=3
j = 12

↑ ∑𝐹𝑌 = 0 = 2𝐴𝑌 − 4(7.28918) − 14.57836 − 2(3.364459); 𝐴𝑌 = 𝟐𝟓. 𝟓𝟏𝟐𝟏𝟑 𝑲𝑵

@Joint A
2
↑ ∑𝐹𝑌 = 0 = 25.51213 − 3.64459 − 2 5 𝐹𝐴𝐵 ; 𝑭𝑨𝑩/𝑱𝑳 = 𝟒𝟖. 𝟖𝟗𝟕𝟑 𝑲𝑵 (𝑻)
√
4
→ ∑𝐹𝑋 = 0 = 𝐹𝐴𝐶 − 48.8973 ( ) ; 𝑭𝑨𝑪/𝑲𝑳 = 𝟒𝟑. 𝟕𝟑𝟓𝟏 𝑲𝑵 (𝑻)
2√5
0 Force members by inspection: 𝐹𝐵𝑐 = 𝐹𝐽𝐾 = 0

@Joint C
𝐹𝐴𝐶 = 𝐹𝐶𝐸 ; 𝑭𝑪𝑬/𝑰𝑲 = 𝟒𝟑. 𝟕𝟑𝟓𝟏 𝑲𝑵 (𝑻)

@Joint B
4 4 1.33333
→ ∑𝐹𝑋 = 0 = 48.89731 ( ) − 𝐹𝐵𝐷 ( ) − 𝐹𝐵𝐸 ( )
2 √5 2 √5 1.49074
2 2 0.66666
↑ ∑𝐹𝑌 = 0 = −7.28918 + 48.8973 ( )− ( )+ ( )
2√5 2 √5 1.49071
2 eq., 2 unknown : 𝐹𝐵𝐷/𝐽𝐻 = 40.7477 𝐾𝑁 (𝐶); 𝑭𝑩𝑬/𝑱𝑰 = 𝟖. 𝟏𝟒𝟗𝟒𝟏 𝑲𝑵 (𝑪)

@Joint E
0.66666
↑ ∑𝐹𝑌 = 0 = 𝐹𝐷𝐸 − 8.14941 ( ) ; 𝑭𝑫𝑬 = 𝑭𝑯𝑰 = 𝟑. 𝟔𝟒𝟒𝟓𝟑 𝑲𝑵 (𝑻)
1.49071
1.333
→ ∑𝐹𝑋 = 0 = 𝐹𝐸𝐺 − 43.7351 + 8.14941 ( )
1.4907

@Joint D
4 4 1.333
→ ∑𝐹𝑋 = 0 = 40.7477 ( ) − 𝐹𝐷𝐹 ( ) − 𝐹𝐷𝐺 ( )
2√5 2√5 1.88562
 2 1.333 2
↑ ∑𝐹𝑌 = 0 = −7.28918 − 3.64453 + 40.7477 ( ) + 𝐹𝐷𝐺 ( ) − 𝐹𝐷𝐹 ( )
2√5 1.8856 2√5
𝐹𝐷𝐺 = 𝐹𝐻𝐺 = 10.3085 𝐾𝑁 (𝐶) ; 𝑭𝑫𝑭 = 𝑭𝑯𝑭 = 𝟑𝟐. 𝟓𝟗𝟖𝟐 𝑲𝑵 (𝑪)
@Joint F
2
↑ ∑𝐹𝑌 = 0 = −14.57836 − 𝐹𝐺𝐹 + 2(32.5982) ( ) ; 𝑭𝑮𝑭 = 𝟏𝟒. 𝟓𝟕𝟖𝟒 𝒌𝑲𝑵 (𝑻)
2 √5

Structural Analysis for T2 (Internal Truss)

D H

B J

A L
A
C E G I K

Performing Method of Joints for T1,

Structural Analysis for T1 (External Truss)

D H

B J

A L
C E G I K
Design of Roof Truss
Structural Loads: Factored Load carried by the purlins based on the analysis of purlins,

𝑤𝑢 = 1, 943.77985 𝑁⁄𝑚 (include purlins self weight)

Note: The designers assumed that the purlin loads are acting directly downward to the truss joints of
the top chord.

Design of Truss 2 (Interior Truss)

Most Critical Member in compression for top chord FAB = 48.8972 kN (C)
Most Critical Member in tension for top chord FAC = 43.7351 kN (T)
Most Critical Member in compression for web members FDG = 10.3085 kN (C)
Most Critical Member in tension for web members FGF = 14.5784 kN (T)

Bottom Chord (Tension): Pu ≤ ∅Pn = ∅FyAg , A36: Fy = 250 MPa ; Fu = 400 MPa

FAC = Pu = 43.7351 kN = (0.9)(250)Ag × 10−3 → ∴ Ag = 194.37778 mm2

From AISC Database, try using L51 × 51 × 3.2
Properties:
Ag = 317 mm b = 50.8 mm Ix = 0.0787 × 106 mm4 rx = 15.7 mm
6 4
d = 50.8 mm 𝑡 = 3.18 mm Iy = 0.0787 × 10 mm ry = 15.7 mm
rz = 9.93 mm

Note: The designer assumes a typical bolted connection of 4 rows 3-16 mm of 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑠⁄𝑟𝑜𝑤 from
Table 504.3.1, Case 8 applies ⟶ U = 0.60
where,
An = Ag − An = 317 − 4(16 + 4)(3.18); ∴ An = 62.6 mm2
Ae = U × An = 0.60(62.6) = 37.56 𝑚𝑚2
∅Pn = ∅FuAe = (0.75)(400)(37.56) × 10−3 = 11.268 kN < Pu = 43.7351 kN
∴ L51×51×3.2 is inadequate per rupture limit state using typical connection detail

- Considering Shear Strength of bolts, try using 16 mm A307 bolts.

𝑃𝑢 ≤ ∅𝐹𝑛𝑣 𝐴𝑏 𝑃𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ∅𝐹𝑛𝑣 𝐴𝑏
𝜋
𝐹𝑛𝑣 = 165 𝑀𝑃𝑎 48.8973 × 103 𝑁 = (0.75)(165)𝑛( × 162 )
4

𝑛 = 1.96521 𝑝𝑐𝑠. ≈ 2 𝑝𝑐𝑠.

∴ use 2 pcs. – 16 mm A307 bolts for the bottom chord of truss
An = 317 − (16 + 4)(3.18); ∴ An = 253.4 mm2
Assume U = 0.60 , Ae = U × An = 0.60(253.4) = 152.04 mm2
∅Pn = (0.75)(400)(152.04) × 10−3 kN
∅𝐏𝐧 = 𝟒𝟓. 𝟔𝟏𝟐 𝐤𝐍 > 𝑃𝑢 = 43.7351 𝑘𝑁
∴ L51×51×3.2 is adequate section for the bottom chord of T2 (Interior) w/ bolted
connection of 2 – 16 mm A307 bolts

Top Chord (Compression): Pu ≤ ∅Pn = ∅FcrAg FAB = Pu = 48.8972 kN

𝑘𝐿 𝜋2𝐸 𝜋 2 (200.000)
Assume initially that 𝑆𝑅 = = 80.0 𝐹𝑒 = 𝑘𝐿 2
= 𝑀𝑝𝑎; ∴ Fe = 789.56835 MPa
𝑟 (50)2
(𝑟)

0.44Fy = 0.44 (250) = 110 MPa ˃ (Fe = 789.568 MPa)

Fy
Fcr = (0.658 ⁄Fe) Fy = (0.658 250⁄789.57)(250); ∴ Fcr = 218.97031 MPa
𝑃𝑢 48.8972×102
Pu ≤ ∅FcrAg ⟶𝐴𝑔 = ∅𝐹𝑐𝑟 = (0.9)(218.97) 𝑚𝑚2 ; ∴Ag = 248.1172 mm2
Try using L51×51×3.2, rx = 15.7 mm Ag = 317 mm2 L = 1490.7 mm (based on plan)
L 1490.71
For single angle compression bar w/ equal legs, = = 94.94968
𝑟𝑋 15.7

L kL L 1490.71
Since, rx = 94.95 > 80 ∴ r
= 32 + 1.25 rx = 32 + 1.25 ( 15.7
)
kL π2 (200,000)
= 150.6871 → Fe = = 86.93158 MPa
r (150.6871)2

Fe= 86.93158Mpa 0.44Fy=0.44(250) =110Mpa > (Fe=86.93158Mpa)

∴ Fcr = 0.877Fe = 0.877(86.93158Mpa) = 76.239Mpa
∅Pn = 21.75kN < (Pu = 48.8972kN)
∴ 𝐋𝟓𝟏𝐱𝐋𝟓𝟏𝐱𝟑. 𝟐 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞

Trial#2
Try using L51x51x4.8 (Single angle compression)
Properties:
Ag = 581mm2 rx = 19.6mm *Width-to-thickness ratio
b 63.5 𝐸 200000
d = 63. mm ry = 19.6 mm λ= = ; λr = 0.45 √ = 0.45 √
t 4.76 𝐹𝑦 250

b = 63.5 mm rz = 12.2 mm (λ = 13.34034) > (λr = 12.72792)

t = 4.76 mm L = 1490.71 mm ∴ Section is slender . Calculate Pn based on 505.7
x = 17.4 mm k = 1.0

Modified kL/r to take e=0 for single angle compression member (505.5)
𝐿 1490.71
𝑟𝑥
= 19.6 = 76.05663 < 80 case A applies
𝐾𝐿 𝐿 1490.71
= 72 + 0.75 = 72 x 0.75 x = 129.04247 < 200 ; OK !
𝑟 𝑟𝑥 19.6

Members with Slender Elements (505.7)

Angular bar has unstiffened element only, Qa=1. For Qs, case 3 applies for single angles

b 200000
Qs, = 13.34034 0.91√ =25. 73864 λr = 12.72792
t 250

b 𝐸
(λr =12.72792)< ( t = 13.34034) < (0.91√𝐸𝑓 = 25.73869)

b 𝐹𝑦
∴ Case B applies, QS = 1.34 − 0.76( )√
t 𝐸

250
Qs = 1.34 − 0.76(13.34034)√ → Qs = Q = 0.98154
2000000
 𝜋 2 200000
Fe = = 118.52986 𝑀𝑃𝑎 < (107.9694MPa=0.44QFy) ∴ Case A applies
(129.04247)2

0.44 QFy = 0.44(0.98154)(250) = 107.9694MPa

QFy [0.98154(250)
Fcr = Q [0.658 Fe ] Fy = 0.98154 [0.658 118.53986]
] (250) = 103.17254Mpa

∅Pn = ∅FcrAs = (0.9)(103.17254)(581)x10−3 kN = 53.94892 kN > (Pu = 48.8972kN)

∴ 𝐋𝟓𝟏𝐗𝟓𝟏𝐗𝟒. 𝟖 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡 𝐓𝐨𝐩 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝟐 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧.

WEB MEMBER
Most Critical Compression Web Member: FDG = 10.3085 KN (C)
Most Critical Tension Web Member: FGF =14.5784 (T)
K=1.0
L=1885.62 mm
L=2000 mm

For Tension Member FGF:

Pu = FGF = 14.5784 KN ≤ ∅FyAg (Yielding)
= 14.5784 KN ≤ ∅FyAe (Rupture)

Slenderness Ratio:
𝐿 2000
= = 201.41 < 300 ok!
𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 9.93

14.5784 𝑥 103
Ag= (0.9)(250)
= 64.79289 𝑚𝑚2

Try using L51 x L51 x 3.2, Previously for this section, the capacity has already been computed.
Yielding: ∅𝑃𝑛 = 71.325 KN
Rupture: ∅𝑃𝑛 = 45.612 KN
Therefore, use L51 x L51 x 3.2 for tension web members of T2 (Interior Truss)

For Compression Member FDG:

Pu = FDG = 10.3085 KN ≤ ∅FcrAg
L=1885.62 mm
 𝐾𝐿
Take initial SR = 50.0 =
𝑟

Therefore;
𝜋 2 (200,000)
Fe = = 789.56835 MPa
(50)2

𝐹𝑦 250
⁄𝐹𝑒
Fcr= (0.658 )Fy = (0.658 ⁄789.56835)(250) = 218.97025 MPa
𝑃𝑢 10.3085 𝑥 103
Ag = ∅𝐹𝑐𝑟
= 𝑁 = 52.30797 𝑚𝑚2
(0.9)(2018.97025
𝑚𝑚2

Try using L51 x L51 x 3.2

Ag= 312 𝑚𝑚2
b = d = 50.8 mm
t = 3.18 mm
rx = 15.7 mm
ry = 9.93 mm

Width to thickness ratio

𝑏 50.8
𝑒
= 13.18
= 15.9784

𝐸 200,000
𝜆𝑟 = 0.45√𝐹𝑦 = 0.45√ 250
= 12.72792

𝜆𝑟 = 12.72792 < (𝑏⁄𝑡 = 15.97484)

Therefore, the Section is slender.

𝐾𝐿
Modified to take e = 0 for single compression member (505.5)
𝑟
𝐿 1885.62
𝑟𝑥
= 15.7
= 120.10318 > 80.0 (case b applies)
𝐾𝐿
= 32 + 1.25 (120.103018) = 182.12898 <200 ok!
𝑟

Members with slender elements (505.7)

Qa= 1.0 for Qs, Case 3 applies for a single compression angular bar

200,000 200,000
0.45√ 250
= 12.72792 0.91√ 250
= 25.73869

𝑏
= 15.9784, between the limits for case b, therefore case b applies
𝑒
 250
Qs = 1.34 – 0.76 (15.97484) √200,000

Qs = Q = 0.910755

𝜋 2 (200,000)
Fe = 182.128982
= 59.50749 MPa < (0.44QFy=100.18305MPa)

0.44QFy= 0.44(250)(0.910755) = 100.18305 MPa

Therefore, Case b applies:

Fcr = 0.877Fe = 0.877(59.50749 MPa)
Fcr = 52.18807 MPa
∅𝑃𝑛 = ∅𝐹𝑐𝑟𝐴𝑔 = (0.9)(52.18807 MPa)(312𝑚𝑚2 )
∅𝑃𝑛= 14.65441 KN > Pu=10.3085 KN; Section adequate for compression

Therefore, use L51 x 51 x 3.2 for compression web members of T2 (Interior Truss)

Design of Truss 1(Exterior Truss)

Most Critical Member in compression for the top chord FAB = 24.4486 KN (C)
Most Critical Member in tension for the bottom chord FAC = 21.8675 KN (T)
Most Critical Member in compression for the web members FDG = 5.1542 KN (C)
Most Critical Member in tension for the web members FGF = 7.2892 KN (T)

Bottom Chord (Tension):

A36:
Fy = 250 MPa
Fu= 400 MPa

𝑃𝑢 ≤ ∅𝑃𝑛 = ∅𝐹𝑦𝐴𝑔
FAC = Pu = 21.8675 KN = 0.9 (250)Ag x 10−3
Ag = 97.19 𝑚𝑚2
Try L51x51x3.2 since no angle section is smaller/lighter than this section. Also previously, This angle
bar section has a tensile capacity of ∅𝑃𝑛 =45.612KN governed by the rupture limit state using LRFD
considering a typical connection of 2-16 mm A307 bolts parallel to the line of loading of each
member’s end.
Yielding: ∅𝑃𝑛 = 71.325 KN >Pu =21.8675 KN
Yielding: ∅𝑃𝑛 = 45.612 KN >Pu =21.8675 KN
Preferred Slenderness Ratio Limit:
K = 1.0
L= 1333.33mm
𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑟𝑧 = 9.93mm
𝐾𝐿
≤ 300
𝑟
1333.33
= 134.27 < 300 ok!
9.93

Therefore, the section has a desirable slenderness ratio

(Use L51 x 51 3.2 for members of the bottom chord of T1 (Exterior Truss)

Top Chord (Compression)

𝑃𝑢 ≤ ∅𝑃𝑛 = ∅𝐹𝑦𝐴𝑔
𝑃𝑢 = 24.4486 𝐾𝑁 (𝐶)
𝐾𝐿
Assume initially that SR= =60.0
𝑟

𝜋2𝐸 𝜋 2 (200,000)
Fe = 𝐾𝐿 2 == (60)2
( )
𝑟

Fe = 548.31 MPa
0.44Fy = 0.44(250) = 110 MPa < (Fe= 548.31 MPa)
Therefore;
𝐹𝑦 250
⁄𝐹𝑒
Fcr = (0.658 )Fy = (0.658 ⁄548.31)(250) = 206.5669 MPa
𝑃𝑢 10.3085 𝑥 103
Ag = ∅𝐹𝑐𝑟
= 𝑁 = 131.5076 𝑚𝑚2
(0.9)(2018.97025
𝑚𝑚2

Therefore;
Try L51 x 51 x 3.2
Ag =317 𝑚𝑚2
L=1490.71 mm
K = 1.0
Previously for L51 x 51 x 3.2, Analysis as a compression member of the designer found out that

𝜆𝑟 = 12.72792 < (𝑏⁄𝑡 = 15.97484)

Therefore, the section is slender
𝐿 1490.71
= = 94.94968 > 80.0 (case b applies)
𝑟𝑥 15.7

250
Qs = 1.34 – 0.76 (15.97484) √200,000

Qs = Q = 0.910755
𝐾𝐿
= 32 + 1.25 (94.94968) = 150.6871 <200 ok!
𝑟

Members with Slender Element

Qa= 1.0, for Q, case 3 applies for the single compression angle section
200,000 200,000
0.45√ = 12.72792 0.91√ = 25.73869
250 250

𝑏
= 15.9784, between the limits for case b, therefore case b applies
𝑒

250
Qs = 1.34 – 0.76 (15.97484) √200,000

Qs = Q = 0.910755

𝜋 2 (200,000)
Fe = = 86.93158 MPa < (0.44QFy=91.0755MPa)
150.68702

0.44QFy=0.4(0.910755)(250) =91.0755MPa
Therefore, case b applies
Fcr = 0.877Fe = 0.877(86.93158 MPa)
Fcr = 76.2390 MPa
∅𝑃𝑛 = ∅𝐹𝑐𝑟𝐴𝑔 = (0.9)( 76.2390 MPa)(312 x 10−3 )
∅𝑃𝑛= 21.751 KN > Pu=24.4486 KN
Therefore, L51 x 51 x 3.2 is an inadequate section as a top chord member for T1

Trial 2; Try L51 x 51 x 4.8, L = 1490.71mm

Previously on the analysis of this section as a compression member,

𝜆𝑟 = 12.72792 < (𝑏⁄𝑒 = 13.34034); the section is slender

𝐾𝐿 𝐿
Modified 𝑟
: 𝑟 = 76.05663<80
𝑥

-Since all parameters including member length are identical in the previous analysis of L51 x 51 x 4.8
as compression member.
 𝐾𝐿
Therefore, modified = 129.04247<200 ok!
𝑟

Qa = 1.0
Qs = Q = 0.98154
Fe = 118.53986 MPa
Fcr = 103.17254 MPa
∅𝑃𝑛= 53.94892 KN

(∅𝑃𝑛 = 53.94892 KN) > (Pu= 24.4486 KN)

Therefore, L51 x 51 x 4.8 is an adequate section as the top chord in compression of T1 (External Truss)

For Web Members (Compression): PU=FDG=5.1542kN (C) L=1,885.62mm

Try using L51x51x3.2 Ag=317mm2 b/t=15.97484>(λR=12.72792)
∴section is slender rx=15.7mm
𝐿 1885.62
= = 120.1032 > 80 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑏 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠
𝑟𝑥 15.7
𝐾𝐿
= 32 + 1.25(120.1032) = 182.129 < 200.0 𝑜𝑘!
𝑟
For members with slender element: Qa=1.0 for Qs, case 3 applies for single angle
compression member
λlimits=12.72792, 25.73869 b/t=15.97484 is in between the limits for case b, so case b applies.

𝑄𝑆 = 1.34 − 0.76(15.97484)√250/2000.000=0.91076
𝜋 2 (200,000)
𝐹𝑒 = = 59.50748𝑀𝑃𝑎 < (0.44𝑄𝐹𝑦 = 100.183)
182.129
0.44QFy=0.44(0.91076)(250)=100.183 ∴Fcr=0.877Fe=0.877(59.50748)
Fcr=52.18806MPa φPn= φFcrAg=0.9(52.18806)(317x10-3)
φPn=14.88915kN > (PU=5.1542kN) ,section is adequate

∴Use L51x51x4.2 for web members of T1(Ext Truss) in compression

For Web Members (Tension): PU=FGH=7.2892kN (T)
Try using L51x51x3.2, φPn=φFyAg & φPn=FUAe
From previous analysis of this section as tension member, Yielding: φPn=71.325kN
Rupture: φPn=45.612kN
(φPn=45.612kN) > (PU=7.2892kN)
∴Use L51x51x3.2 for web members of T1(Ext Truss) in tension
VII. Design Summary of Truss