Graduate Thesis Or Dissertation
 

LimkatanyooPranueng2004.pdf

Public Deposited

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/z316q426p

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract
  • The objective of this research is to use a three-dimensional (3D) analysis method to include 'system effects' directly in the design of light-frame roof truss assemblies. The goal of this study is to develop an improved and practical method to determine the structural performance of 3D roof truss assemblies used in residential construction. In this study, three types of 3D truss assemblies (i.e., T-shaped, L-shaped, and a complex assembly) are investigated. T-shaped, L-shaped, and complex assemblies are composed of 4 (total of 37 trusses), 17 (total of 56 trusses), and 27 (total of 123 trusses) different types of individual trusses, respectively. The VIEW (Visually Integrated Engineering Window) program, used by a truss plate manufacturer to design truss assemblies, is used to layout assemblies and to design individual trusses. The program uses a conventional design procedure (CDP) by analyzing one truss at a time in two-dimensions. A commercially available structural analysis program, SAP2000, is then utilized to model 3D truss assemblies with a system design procedure (SDP). The structural responses including CSI, truss deflections, and reactions from both CDP and SDP are compared and the 'system effects' are evaluated. From this investigation, there are three system effects observed by the SDP, but not accounted for by CDP. These effects were observed in all three assemblies. The first is the reduced applied load effect. This effect occurs because the CDP assumes a 2-ft spacing for every truss in an assembly, whereas the SDP assumes the actual tributary area, with normally a lower total applied load. In most cases, the CDP overestimates the applied loads. For example, in the complex assembly model, the total applied load assumed by the CDP was 155000 pounds (assuming 2-ft spacing on center for every truss in the assembly) while the total load for the SDP was only 142000 pounds (based on the actual overall roof loading area in the assembly). The second system effect is deflection compatibility. Unlike the CDP, SDP provides deflection compatibility because it analyzes the entire 3D truss assembly as a whole. On the other hand, CDP analyzes one truss at a time and it assumes that truss supports have zero deflection. When trusses are supported by other trusses, the support at the connecting point will not have zero deflection. Thus, the CDP is not a good approach to examine this connection in the assembly. The last observation is the stiff-truss effect. As expected, stiffer trusses in the assembly attract more load. This effect can be observed by an increase in CSI values for the stiffer trusses and decrease in CSI values for the adjacent trusses that are less stiff. Based on this investigation, the maximum CSI for most trusses in all three assemblies reduces by 6% to 60% because of 'system effects.' SDP can help to improve the analysis of truss assemblies by directly including "system effects" that are not accounted for by the CDP.
Rights Statement
Peer Reviewed

Relationships

Parents:

Items

Thumbnail Title Date Uploaded Visibility Actions
file details LimkatanyooPranueng2004.pdf 2017-08-08 Public Download