Lateral Buckling Analysis of a Steel Pony Truss

by
Derek Matthies

A study submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Major: Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering)

Committee Members:
Fouad Fanous - Major Professor
Robert Abendroth - Committee Member
Vernon Schaefer - Committee Member

Iowa State University of Science and Technology

Ames, IA
2012

ii

Contents
List of Symbols and Abbreviations................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v
1.

2.

Introduction and Objective ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2

Background ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1

Buckling Behavior............................................................................................................ 3

2.2

Euler Buckling.................................................................................................................. 4

2.3

Buckling of Bars on Elastic Supports .............................................................................. 6

2.4

Buckling of Un-braced Top Chord Truss Members......................................................... 7

2.4.1

Analysis according to Engesser ................................................................................ 7

2.4.2

Buckling Load using the Energy Method ................................................................. 9

2.4.3

Buckling Solution with Variable Axial Load ......................................................... 10

2.4.4

Buckling of a Pony Truss Top Chord with Elastic Ends ........................................ 12

2.4.5

Analysis of a Pony Truss Top Chord According to Holt ....................................... 14

2.4.6

Buckling Load with Initial Out-of-plane Deformations ......................................... 16

2.5
3.

4.

Pony Truss Design according to AASHTO Specifications ............................................ 17

Finite Element Analysis ........................................................................................................ 18

3.1

Finite Element Model of the Compression Chord ......................................................... 18

3.2

Analysis of Top Chords as a Bar on Elastic Supports.................................................... 19

3.3

Finite Element Model of the Pony Truss ....................................................................... 20

Discussion and Results of the Analysis of a Pony Truss Top Chord .................................... 23
4.1

Effective Buckling Length Factor Lateral Support Stiffness Relationships ............... 23

4.2

Example Calculations for the Buckling Load of a Pony Truss ...................................... 24

4.2.1

Calculations following Engessers Procedure ........................................................ 25

4.2.2

Calculations following Bleichs Procedure ............................................................ 25

4.2.3

Calculations following Timoshenkos Procedure ................................................... 26

4.2.4

Calculations following Lutz and Fishers Procedure .............................................. 26

4.2.5

Calculations following Holts Procedure ................................................................ 26

4.2.6

Calculations using the Energy Method ................................................................... 27

4.3

Analysis of the Pony Truss using Finite Element .......................................................... 28

iii

5.

4.3.1

Two Dimensional Analysis .................................................................................... 28

4.3.2

Three Dimensional Analysis .................................................................................. 30

4.4

Effects of Compression Chord Moment of Inertia on the Stiffness of the Elastic

Supports ......................................................................................................................... 32

4.5

Analysis with Modified Elastic Stiffness ....................................................................... 35

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ................................................................... 38

5.1

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 38

5.2

Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 39

5.3

Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 40
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 47
References ..................................................................................................................................... 50

iv

List of Symbols and Abbreviations

A
b
C
Ce
CE
C0
c
d
E
Et
h
I
Ib
Ic
Id
K
k
ks
l
L
Ld
Le
M
m
n
P
Pcr
Pd
Q
q
qo
r
U
v
V
x
y

area of compression chord

length of floor beams
spring stiffness of interior supports
spring stiffness of end supports
Engessers spring stiffness
required spring stiffness with rigid end supports
ratio of C to C0
length of diagonal end members
modulus of elasticity
tangent modulus of elasticity
height of truss
moment of inertia
moment of inertia of floor beam
moment of inertia of vertical web member
moment of inertia of diagonal web member
column stiffness: K2 = P/EI
effective length coefficient
joint spring stiffness
distance between panels
total length of the truss
length of diagonal web member
effective length
bending moment
number of buckling modes
number of bays
compression load
critical buckling load
axial load on diagonal end members
virtual load
distributed compressive force
maximum compressive load with a varying load distribution
radius of gyration: r2 = I/A
internal energy
factor of safety
external work
distance from end support
displacement of chord at point x
elastic foundation constant
maximum displacement of compression chord
relative displacement of vertical web members
potential energy
angle of rotation at joints
stiffness of compression chord
Schwedas elastic end support coefficient

List of Figures
Figure 1.1

Pony Truss Bridge............1

Figure 2.1

Equilibrium Path for Initially Straight Column...........4

Figure 2.2

Equilibrium Path for Slightly Crooked Column..........4

Figure 2.3

Euler Buckling.........5

Figure 2.4

Buckling Modes for a Bar with Pin Ends........6

Figure 2.5

Elastically Supported Bar........7

Figure 2.6

Column on elastic supports......9

Figure 2.7

Varying Axial Load Distribution.......10

Figure 2.8

Compression Chord with Elastic Ends..........12

Figure 3.1

Finite Element Idealization of the Top Chord as a Bar on Elastic Supports.19

Figure 3.2

Finite Element Idealization of the Pony Truss...21

Figure 3.3

Stress-Strain Curve........22

Figure 4.1

Compression Chord Design Curve........23

Figure 4.2

Energy Method Design Curve ..........24

Figure 4.3

2-D Compression Chord Elements............29

Figure 4.4

3-D Compression Chord Elements........30

Figure 4.5

Nonlinear Load vs. Displacement Curve... .......30

Figure 4.6

Pony Truss Top Chord Analysis........31

Figure 4.7

Rigid Frame Boundary Conditions............33

Figure 4.8

Rigid Frame Displacements...........33

Figure 4.9

Load Application of Pony Truss Frames...........34

Figure 4.10

Pony Truss Lateral Displacement at Frame.......35

Figure 4.11

Compression Chord with New Stiffness........37

Figure 4.12

Compression Chord with Elastic Ends......37

1. Introduction and Objective

1.1 Introduction
Lateral stability of steel members under compression has been of interest to researchers for
years. Among these members: columns under axial compression load, unbraced compression
flange of steel girders, and the top chord of a pony truss for which vertical clearance
requirements prohibit direct lateral bracing. The pony truss, while no longer used in constructing
new bridges, may find applications in similar situations such as a walkway for a conveyer system
between grain elevators. The structural behavior of the previously listed members has been
studied by several researchers. In the following chapter, the behavior of an axially loaded bar
and the top chord of a pony truss are briefly summarized. The calculation of the critical load for
a pony truss top chord using published relations has been examined and compared to the results
obtained using an analytical method.
The compression chord of the pony truss structure, where vertical clearance prohibits lateral
bracing, is elastically supported in the horizontal plane by the truss vertical and diagonal web
members, which together with the floor beams form rigid frames as show in Fig. 1.1c.

n Panels

CL

Fig. 1.1a Pony Truss Elevation View

A

Fig. 1.1c Section A-A

A
Fig. 1.1b Pony Truss Plan View

To analyze the compression chord of a pony truss, the chord can be treated as a bar on
elastic supports (Ballio, 1983). This member with intermediate elastic restraints will buckle in
half-waves depending on the stiffness of the elastic restraints. The buckled shape of the bar will
fall somewhere between the extreme limits of a half-wave length of unity and the number of

spans between the end restraints. From the buckled shape, the effective length of the
compression chord can be used to determine the critical load. The method on how to determine
the effective length has long been the focus of compression chord buckling.
The failure of several pony truss bridges at the end of the nineteenth century prompted the
research of compression chord buckling. Engesser (sited in Galambos, 1988) was one of the first
researchers to investigate the problem and develop an approximate formula to determine the
required stiffness for the elastic restraints that corresponds to a specified effective wave length,
k. Engessers approach for determining the stiffness of the elastic restraints and its effects on
the compression chord was based off the assumption that the connection between the web
members and the floor beam is rigid. This theory used the frame consisting of the floor beam
and vertical and diagonal members at each panel point location to provide stiffness for the
compression chord. However, the theory in question is if the idealized structure is a conservative
approach of the actual frame stiffness. In other words, one may argue that investigating the
behavior of the bridge as a three dimensional system may result in a higher stiffness coefficient
of these lateral supports.
To the writers knowledge, all of the research for determining the critical buckling load on a
compression chord with elastic supports is based on Engessers assumption. From this
assumption, others, such as Timoshenko (1936), Bleich (1952) and Holt (1952), provided
methods of solving for the effective buckling length factor, k.

1.2 Objectives
The objective of the work presented herein was to verify the results of the published
solutions for determining the effective length factor using the finite element method. These
objectives were accomplished by performing the following tasks:
1. Conduct a literature search to review available information that is related to the
stability of the top chords in truss structures.
2. Verify the results of analyzing a top chord of a pony truss using the approaches given
in published literature and the results obtained using the finite element method.
3. Recommend the most applicable published analysis technique for determining the
critical load of an unbraced top chord of a truss system.

2. Background
2.1 Buckling Behavior
The failure of an axially loaded bar in compression is defined by limit states which are an
identifying condition of design criteria. Limit states for a structural member include strength
limit states, which may result in yielding or rupture, or serviceability limits states (i.e. deflection,
vibration, slenderness or clearance). Although not a limit state, buckling presents a failure mode
due to high compressive stresses which causes the member to no longer be in equilibrium.
Usually buckling occurs before the column reaches the full material strength. The buckling
strength of compression members has long been studied to relate the empirical methods of
analysis to the actual results. The elastic buckling of an axially loaded column in compression
occurs when a certain critical load is reached causing the member to suddenly bow out. The
deviation of the member axis will result in additional bending that gives rise to large
deformations, which in turn cause the member to collapse. The load at which collapse occurs is
referred to as the buckling load and is thus a design criterion for compression members.
In linear mechanics of deformable bodies, displacements are proportional to the applied
loads. The essence of buckling, however, is a disproportionate increase in displacement resulting
from a small increase in load. For example, Fig. 2.1, from Brush (1975), shows the loaddisplacement relation (referred to equilibrium path) for an axially loaded column. Each point of
this path represents an equilibrium configuration of the structure. However, as the applied load
reaches a critical value, i.e., Euler Load, the equilibrium path will follow the secondary path
shown in Fig. 2.1. Points along the primary (vertical) equilibrium path represent the
configuration of a compressed, perfectly straight column, but as the critical load is reached, a
secondary path is formed representing the bent equilibrium configurations. The critical load is
defined as the minimum load for which the structure remains in equilibrium before instability is
reached and failure occurs. Of course, no real column can be perfectly straight, and hence the
load displacement relation will not follow that shown in the Fig. 2.1 but rather a different load
displacement will be obtained. The load displacement relationship of an imperfect axially loaded
column is shown in Fig. 2.2. When comparing Fig 2.1 and 2.2 for the straight and crooked
columns, the figures show that the equilibrium paths generally converge as the lateral

displacements increase. Analyses for both columns, straight and slightly crooked, lead to large
lateral displacements at the critical load.
P





C1





Secondary
path
Primary
path
-

at x = L/2

Fig. 2.1 Equilibrium Paths for

Initially Straight Column

at x = L/2

Fig. 2.2 Equilibrium Paths for

Slightly Crooked Column

2.2 Euler Buckling

Buckling of axially loaded bars in compression was investigated by Leonhard Euler in 1744.
His work was based on a straight, prismatic, concentrically-loaded column with pin-ended
connections. In his work, Euler stated that if the applied load, P, was less than the critical value,
the bar remained straight and underwent only axial compression. By that definition all fibers
would remain elastic until buckling occurred. According to Salmon (2009), Eulers formula was
not widely accepted initially since the test results on columns did not agree with his theory. The
discrepancies, however, were due to the fact that the elastic limit was exceeded before the elastic
buckling was attained. Eulers formula was finally validated in 1889 when Considre and
Engesser independently published works showing that one must use the tangent elastic modulus,
Et, to account for the fibers beyond the proportional limit.
For the readers interest, the following summarizes the derivation of the Euler buckling
load. Figure 2.3 illustrates the deflected shape on an axially loaded bar. The bending moment,
M, at a distance, x, can be related to the curvature as follows:

   =  =

 

(2.1)

x
y
L/2

L/2

P
Fig. 2.3 Euler Buckling (Thandavamoorthy 2005)

The solution for the linear differential equation above can be written as
 =  sin  +  cos 

(2.3)

where, K, is equal to

/
. The constants A and B in Eq. 2.3 can be calculated utilizing the
support conditions at both ends of the bar. For a pinned-end column, the boundary conditions
can be set as y = 0 at x = 0 and y = 0 at x = L. These conditions will result in:
B=0
Equation 2.4 can then be written as

and

0 =  sin 

(2.4)

0 = sin    = 

(2.5)

 =

(2.6)

By substituting K = 
/
 into equation 2.5 and solving for P, Euler buckling equation yields

the critical buckling load.

! "  #$
%

where m = 0, 1, 2 is referred to as the number of buckling modes. The deformed shapes for
the first three buckling modes are shown in Fig. 2.4.

Pcr

4Pcr

m=1

9Pcr

m=2

m=3

Fig. 2.4 Buckling Modes for a Bar with Pin Ends

2.3 Buckling of Bars on Elastic Supports

A bar supported by rigid supports at the ends with equally spaced elastic restraints between
the ends can have several modes of buckling depending on the stiffness of the supports. If the
stiffness of the elastic support is sufficiently large, the bar will buckle in half-waves of a length
equal to the distance between supports as shown by Fig. 2.5a. The bar will then behave similar
to a bar on rigid supports. However, if the elastic supports are very flexible, then bar will behave
similar to a bar not supported by restraints and deflect in one-half wave as shown by Fig. 2.5b.
As the elastic stiffness varies between the two extreme limits, the bar will buckle somewhere
between one half wave and the number of spans between the rigidly supported ends such as Fig.
2.5c. Therefore, the stiffness of the elastic supports that are provided by the vertical and
diagonal members of a pony truss is vital in controlling the buckling load and the buckling length
of the top chord.

(a)

(c) P

(b)

Figure 2.5 Elastically Supported Bar (Bleich, 1952)

2.4 Buckling of Un-braced Top Chord Truss Members

As mentioned above, the compression chord from the unbraced top chord in a steel truss,
such as a pony truss, can be idealized for buckling analysis as a continuous beam that is braced
by elastic springs, which correspond to the stiffness of the transverse frames at each panel point.
Therefore, design of the transverse frames formed by the web members and floor beams will
have a direct effect of the critical buckling load of the chord members. AASHTO section
6.14.2.9 (2007) addresses these issues and gives recommendations on the design of the vertical
web as well as the connection to the floor beam. However, unless one considers the effect of
imperfections of the compression chord, the calculated critical load is an upper limit. The
following sections summarize some of the published work that is related to the analysis of the
unbraced top chord of steel trusses.
2.4.1 Analysis according to Engesser

The analysis proposed by Engesser in the late 1800s can be applied with some reasonable
accuracy to analyze a bar that is pinned at its ends and is supported on equally spaced
intermediate elastic springs provided that the half-wavelength of the buckled shape is at least
1.8 times the spring spacing (See Galambos 1988). However, one must realize that Engessers
solution can only be used as a preliminary design tool and more comprehensive analysis is
needed.
Engesser examined the top-chord buckling problem of pony trusses and summarized his
findings in a paper that was published in 1884. In the following years, he used his work to
explain the failures of pony truss bridges and provide a rational method of design for similar
structures. Engesser developed a simple formula to calculate the required stiffness, Creq, of the

elastic support to reach the desired critical load that is based on a specific buckling length. In
his work, Engesser suggested that one needs to assume an effective length factor, k, of 1.3. The
top chord, including the end posts, is straight and of uniform cross section. Engesser also
provided the following assumptions:
1. Its ends are taken as pin-connected and rigidly supported.
2. The equally spaced elastic supports have the same stiffness and can be replaced by a
continuous elastic medium.
3. The axial compressive force is constant through the chord length.
Engessers solution for the required stiffness of a pony-truss transverse frame which is derived
in Appendix C is

&

'(

)*+  ,
-#$

(2.7)

If Creq is met at each frame location, the chord with the length between panels, l, will
achieve the specified design load, Pcr. Several researchers suggest that one needs to assume a
factor of safety, v, of two when calculating the design load. In other words, the load Pcr, can be
taken as vP, where P is the calculated top chord member load. In addition, once the calculations
show that the stress induced in the member exceeds the limit specified in the design
specifications, the flexural rigidity EI should be modified using the tangent modulus, EtI. By
combining Eulers buckling equation and Eq. 2.7, the required spring constant is
&

'(

= -.*+
,
")

(2.8)

The use of Engessers original approach in design is summarized as follows:

1. Carry out a structural analysis to calculate the maximum load in the top chord
members.
2. Introduce a factor of safety not less than 2.0 and calculate the design load, P = v*load
from step one above.
3. Use an admissible structural analysis technique to calculate the elastic constant, C, of
the provided lateral restraint.

4. Utilize the information calculated above to estimate the ratio, Cl/P. One approach that
can be used to calculate the provided lateral supports stiffness, C, is detailed in
Appendix A.
5. Use the above calculated ratio and the number of panels, n, to calculate the effective
length factor, k, using Table 2.2 from Holt (1956) or Fig. 4.1 citing other authors.
6. Apply k, found in step five, to the equations found in Chapter E of the AISC (2011)
manual to determine the nominal compression capacity of the compression chord.

2.4.2 Buckling Load using the Energy Method

Similar to the approach for a simply supported column, a column simply supported at both
ends with equally spaced interior elastic supports, as shown in Fig. 2.6, can be defined by an
equation which represents the buckled shape. The total length, L, is the number of bays, n,
multiplied by each bay length, l. Using the energy method, the deflected shape can be defined
by the equation

 = / sin

!"
%

(2.9)

where m is the mode number, and the number of modes can be related to n-1. Using the sin
curve, the boundary conditions are y = 0 at x = 0 and y = 0 at x = L.

(a)

L = nl
(b)

Figure 2.6 Column on Elastic Supports

To solve for the external work and internal energy of the member, the first and second differential
equations for the line can be solved as

1!"
%

cos

!"
%

(2.10)

10

1! " 
%

sin

!"
%

(2.11)

With P as the axial load, the potential energy of the system can be set equal to the external
work, V, plus the internal energy, U to find the critical buckling load. A full derivation of a bar
on two elastic springs using the energy method is presented in Appendix B. Since the energy
method uses an assumed buckled shape for the chord, the solution is obtained by some degree
of approximation. If the assumed shape is properly chosen to satisfy the boundary conditions,
the energy method provides a satisfactory approximation. For the case presented in Fig. 2.6, the
potential energy can be represented as
2 = 3 + 4 =

5)

68  7 + 68  + & 
%

#$

(2.12)

The final term in equation 2.12 represents the energy of the elastic supports as a function of the
spring constant C. By solving for P, the critical buckling can be found as a function of the
mode number.

2.4.3 Buckling Solution with Variable Axial Load

Timoshenko (1936) extended the work of Engessers to include the effects of a varying
the axial load along the top chord of a truss structure. He assumed the compression load varies
parabolically along the length of the chord with the load equal to zero at the ends then reaching
a maximum value at the center (see Fig. 2.7). In addition, Timoshenkos solution assumed that
the ends were pin connections.

L
P

Figure 2.7 Varying Axial Load Distribution (Timoshenko, 1936)

11

Similar to Engesser, Timoshenko assumed an equivalent elastic foundation, , is related to the

lateral support spring constant, C, and the distance between each lateral support, l, as
; =

<

4 =

" = #$

(2.13)

The strain for the chord energy can be represented as

-,

-
?@A
?@9 > / +

B,
-

?@A
?@9 /

(2.14)

In his solution, Timoshenko also stated that if the bridge is uniformly loaded, the compressive
forces that are transmitted to the chord by the diagonals are proportional to the distance from the
middle of the bridge span as

C = C8 D1 , G


(2.15)

where x is the distance from the left support in the figure and qo is the maximum force of the
axial load represented by

C8 = H
)

(2.16)

The external work, V, can then be calculated using the information given above as follows


3 = ,I 68 JK L D G 7
,

(2.17)

Substituting the information given in Eqs. 2.14 and 2.17 into the total potential energy
relationship, one can then obtain the following:
D

(M ,
-

"  #$
%

(2.18)

Finally, since the elastic supports are treated as a continuous elastic medium, Eq. 2.19 can be
developed to relate the critical buckling load to the effective length factor by combining Eqs.
2.8, 2.16 and 2.18.

<,

)*

" % 9

= N H D.G

(2.19)

12
2.4.4 Buckling of a Pony Truss Top Chord with Elastic Ends
2.4.4.1 Analysis According to Bleich (1952)

Bleich obtained his solution by using finite difference as an exact approach to quantify
the buckling load of the chord. His solution was based on the ends being pin connections and
equally spaced intermediate supports of equal rigidity. Bleich also assumed the chord had a
constant moment of inertia and constant axial compressive force over the entire length. Later,
Schweda extended Bleichs results to include chords with elastic ends.

vPd Ce
vPd -n

C
vP
l

C
-r

Ce vPd
+r

+n

2nl

Figure 2.8 Compression Chord with Elastic Ends (Bleich, 1952)

The theoretical exact solution proposed by Bleich for a chord supported on rigid ends
was

where vP = Pc and

&=

ST

O) D95 PQR U G1 5 V
,

95

W
ST
XY Z[\ ]U

/ = ^5 R_` ^ />7 a =
^

(2.20)
^J95PQR^L
^5R_`^

The stiffness of the chord is represented by which is equal to

= K c# *$
)

(2.21)

To eliminate the tangent modulus, Et, which varies per the axial load, Eulers buckling
equation is substituted into equation 2.21, simplifying the stiffness to
=.

"

(2.22)

For a chord with n spans in equation 2.20, there are n -1 different half-wave buckling
configurations. As n increases, the spring constant required for an infinite number of spans,
C, increases to a limiting value. Bleich (1952) showed that Cn can be replaced by C for any

13

span where n is greater than six which corresponds to an error less than 1%. So, for trusses
with more than six spans, equation 2.16 simplifies to
&

'(

)*

^J95PQR^L

, e^ f R_` ^g

)*
,

(2.23)

where is given in Table 2.1 from Bleich (1952) and is valid for the elastic and plastic range
of buckling.
Table 2.1 Values of in Eq. 2.23 (Bleich, 1952)

1/k

1/k

1/k

1/k

0.3

0.111

0.5

0.309

0.70

0.614

0.90

1.102

0.32

0.126

0.52

0.335

0.72

0.652

0.91

1.138

0.34

0.142

0.54

0.361

0.74

0.692

0.92

1.177

0.36

0.160

0.56

0.388

0.76

0.734

0.93

1.219

0.38

0.179

0.58

0.417

0.78

0.777

0.94

1.264

0.40

0.198

0.60

0.447

0.80

0.822

0.95

1.316

0.42

0.218

0.62

0.478

0.82

0.870

0.96

1.375

0.44

0.239

0.64

0.510

0.84

0.921

0.97

1.444

0.46

0.261

0.66

0.544

0.86

0.976

0.98

1.530

0.48

0.285

0.68

0.578

0.88

1.036

0.99

1.652

1.00

2.000

Since Bleichs theory assumes a constant axial force, which is rarely the case in practice,
the center bay of the chord should be designed with the appropriate k value for the maximum
load and then used for the remaining bays. Although the previous assumption of designing
the bridge for the center span only would yield conservative results, the assumption of rigid
ends can result in unsafe buckling loads when using Bleichs theory. Thus, in order to
continue on Bleichs exact buckling theory, Schweda provides results to determine the
required stiffness for a chord supported elastically on the ends.
The spring constant of the end supports is denoted by Ce and the intermediate supports
by C. Schweda assumed the load was a constant axial force throughout the length of the

14

chord with equally spaced elastic supports similar to Bleichs theory. Figure 2.8 shows the
compression chord with the diagonals extended a length, d, subjected to the compressive force
vPd and pinned at points n and +n. The spring constant must be larger the spring constant of
the chord with rigid end, C0. Thus, the value of C = cC0 where c > 1.1. The required spring
constant with the axial load in the diagonal is
&' =

O)i


+ j&#

(2.24)

where CE is Engessers equation (Eq. 2.8). Schweda calculated as a function of the number
of bays with respect to c and k. These values are listed in Appendix D. If all of the crossframes are identical, Ce in equation 2.24 is equal to C and the equation becomes
i
& = J9 5 kL

O)

(2.25)

2.4.5 Analysis of a Pony Truss Top Chord According to Holt

Holts research in the 1950s tested pony truss bridges in an attempt to compare the actual
buckling load of the compression chord with the design equations. His research not only tested
the primary constraints mentioned above but also the effects of secondary factors. The
following secondary factors were considered in his research (Holt, 1956):
1. Torsional stiffness of the chord and web members.
2. Lateral support given to the chord by the diagonals.
3. Effect of web-member axial stresses on the restraint provided by them.
4. Effect of non-parallel-chord trusses.
5. Error introduced by considering the chord and end post to be a single straight
member.
The results of Holts analysis proved that the error in determining the critically buckling load by
neglecting the above factors was relatively small. His conclusion stated that the load capacity
of a pony truss bridge would be satisfactorily predicted by previous buckling analyses
mentioned. As shown by Bleich (1952), if the truss has at least ten panels, then the effective
length factor depends only on the stiffness of the transverse frames. Thus, the appropriate

15

effective length factor is a function of Cl/Pc which is shown in the results section. Holt noted
that Bleichs analysis showed adequate results for the entire range of effective length values
where Timoshenkos results show adequate results for k > 2. A summary of Holts results can
be seen in Table 2.2. Based on the results of his research, Holt (1957) also recommended the
following on the design of the end posts
The end post should be designed as a cantilever to carry, in addition to its axial load, a
transverse force of 0.3% of its axial load at its upper end.

1/k
1.00
0.980
0.960
0.950
0.940
0.920
0.900
0.850
0.800
0.750
0.700
0.650
0.600
0.550
0.500
0.450
0.400
0.350
0.300
0.293
0.259
0.250
0.200
0.180
0.150
0.139
0.114
0.100
0.097
0.085

4
3.686

3.352
2.961
2.448
2.035
1.750
1.232
0.121
0

Table 2.2 (Galambos, 1988)

1/k for Various Values of Cl/Pc and n
n
6
8
10
12
3.616
3.660
3.714
3.754
3.284
2.944
2.806
2.787
3.000
2.665
2.542
2.456
2.595
2.754
2.303
2.252
2.643
2.146
2.094
2.593
2.263
2.045
1.951
2.460
2.013
1.794
1.709
2.313
1.889
1.629
1.480
2.147
1.750
1.501
1.344
1.955
1.595
1.359
1.200
1.739
1.442
1.236
1.087
1.639
1.338
1.133
0.985
1.517
1.211
1.007
0.860
1.362
1.047
0.847
0.750
1.158
0.829
0.714
0.624
0.886
0.627
0.555
0.454
0.530
0.434
0.352
0.323
0.187
0.249
0.170
0.203

14
3.785
2.771
2.454

16
3.809
2.774
2.479

2.254
2.101
1.968
1.681
1.456
1.273
1.111
0.988
0.878
0.768
0.668
0.537
0.428
0.292
0.183

2.282
2.121
1.981
1.694
1.465
1.262
1.088
0.940
0.808
0.708
0.600
0.500
0.383
0.280
0.187

0
0.135
0.045
0

0.107
0.068

0.103
0.055

0.121
0.053

0.112
0.070

0.017
0

0.031

0.029

0.025

0.003
0

0.010

16
2.4.6 Buckling Load with Initial Out-of-plane Deformations

Initial out-of-plane deformations of the compression chord can reduce the critical buckling
load determined by the previously mentioned methods. There are two primary causes of out-ofplane deformations that need to be taken into consideration. A vehicle load on the floor beams
would cause a displacement of the chord at the location of the load creating initial lateral
displacements in the chord. The chord could also have initial crookedness and unintentional
eccentricities due to manufacturing. Such lateral deflections would reduce the maximum load
capacity of the chord. Lutz and Fisher (1985) addressed this issue in their publication to the
Structural Stability Research Council in 1985. Their work was similar to the stiffness criteria
George Winter proposed in 1960.
Winter (1960) proposed the ideal stiffness, C, needed to fully brace the compression
member over the length, l, is equal to
ideal stiffness

l)*+
,

-)*+
,

where the stiffness required, Creq, is usually twice the

. Lutz and Fisher used Engessers formula for a perfectly straight

compression chord and developed a factor of safety to account for the out-of-plane stiffness.
The stiffness equation by Engesser was
&

'(

= 2.5 %*+

) ,
p

(2.26)

where Le = kl and 2/4 2.5. For trusses with a small l relative to Le equation 2.26 provides an
accurate bracing stiffness for the solution. However, as l increases relative to Le, then equation

2.26 will result in unsafe errors. Thus, Lutz and Fisher proposed the following empirical
equation to determine the required stiffness

- ) ,

& = r2.5 + 1.5 D% G s %*+

,

(2.27)

Then they extended the applicability of k factors to less than 1.3 going as low as 1.0. The fully
braced case where k = 1 corresponds to Winters stiffness of

-)*+
,

. Equation 2.27 provides a

minimum value of stiffness for the compression chord to reach the required critical load
however; there are currently no design procedures available to account for initial imperfections.
Design recommendations by AASHTO only make a note of the design vertical truss members
and the connection to the floor beam.

17

2.5 Pony Truss Design according to AASHTO Specifications

AASHTO Specifications (2007) for the LRFD design of half-through trusses recommends
design loads for both the top chord of the truss and the web verticals. AASHTO states in section
6.14.2.9 that
The top chord shall be considered as a column with elastic lateral supports at the panel
points.
The vertical truss members and the floor beams and their connections in half-through
truss spans shall be proportioned to resist a lateral force of not less than 300 pounds per
linear foot applied at the top-chord panel points of each truss considered as a permanent
load for Strength 1 Load Combination and factored accordingly.
By applying the appropriate vehicle or other live load cases to the truss, the floor beam can be
designed. The floor beams, in addition to the vertical truss members designed with the 300 plf
applied load, provide the elastic lateral supports at the panel points.

18

3. Finite Element Analysis

The following investigation focused on validating the published results for calculating the
effective buckling length factor, k, that can be determined by the methods mentioned in the
previous chapter. The example used for the analysis was studied by Galambos 1988 (see Fig.
3.2) in his book. The top chord of the truss consisted of a 10x10x5/8 box section that was
designed for a maximum compressive force of 360 kips. The vertical and web members were
composed of a W10x33 sections in addition to the floor beams for the rigid frame, which were
W27x84 sections. The Youngs modulus for the members was assumed to be 29,000 ksi. The
investigation by Galambos was carried out assuming a factor of safety of 2.

3.1 Finite Element Model of the Compression Chord

The buckling analysis that is presented in this paper was conducted using the ANSYS 12.1
general purpose finite element program. ANSYS is a commercial engineering software that is
capable of analyzing different engineering properties on the structure very quickly with a host of
different elements available. Using ANSYS, the nonlinear material properties of the
compression chord can also be investigated. In the following paragraphs, the element type and
why it was used will be explained in more detail.
A beam3 element was used in the compressions chord model and is a uniaxial element with
tension, compression, and bending capabilities. Each node has three degrees of freedom:
translations in the x and y axes and rotation about the z axis. This element is a 2-D element,
which provided the analysis for the basic compression chord case. These results were compared
to the results for a 3-D element, beam4, to show the adequacy of model. The beam4 element is
similar to the beam3 element except the beam4 element has six degrees of freedom: translations
in the x, y and z axes and rotations about the x, y and z axes. Stress stiffening and large
deflection capabilities are also included. When using the beam4 element, the translations in the z
direction must be restrained to simulate the actual buckling properties of the compression chord
since the chord has considerably more stiffness against buckling in the z direction. The
combin14 element is an element with no mass and was used as the spring in all of the analysis.
This combination element has longitudinal or torsional capabilities in 1-D, 2-D or 3-D
applications. The longitudinal spring-damper option, which was used in this analysis, is a

19

uniaxial tension-compression element with up to three degrees of freedom at each node:

translations in the nodal x, y and z directions.
When analyzing the nonlinear properties of the compression chord, the beam23 element was
used. The beam23 element is a uniaxial element with tension-compression and bending
capabilities which also has plastic, creep, and swelling capabilities. This element has three
degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the x and y directions and rotation in the z
direction. The element is defined by the area, moment of inertia, and height. A more in-depth
description of each element is available from ANSYS 12.1 (SAP Inc., 2009).

3.2 Analysis of Top Chords as a Bar on Elastic Supports

Figure 3.1 shows the boundary conditions of the 2-D model, which is supported in the x and
y directions at the base and only in the x direction at the top to simulate the pin and roller
connections. A beam3 element was used in the compressions chord model and is a uniaxial
element with tension, compression, and bending capabilities.

Fig. 3.1 Finite Element Idealization of the Top Chord as a Bar on Elastic Supports

20

3.3 Finite Element Model of the Pony Truss

The pony truss described above was also modeled, as shown in Fig. 3.2. The model was
composed of beam4 (3-D beam elements) and 3-D link8 elements. Link8 is a 3-D truss element
with three translation degrees of freedom at each node. The diagonal members were modeled
using these 3-D truss elements. This was done in order to compare the loads with the analysis
mentioned above in chapter 2 since those authors neglected the effects of the diagonal web
members. The truss was restrained in the x, y and z directions on one end and only the y and z
directions on the other end for pin and roller connections as seen in the Fig 3.2.
3-D beam elements were used to model the top and bottom chords of the truss structure.
The moment of inertia for the 10x10 box section was calculated to be 418.3 in4. By rearranging
Eq. 2.7, the tangent modulus of elasticity can be calculated as 7344 ksi for the chord. This
tangent modulus is used in the nonlinear model.
The ANSYS program allows the user to carry out a nonlinear buckling analysis. In the
work presented herein, the analysis was carried out considering the effects of the nonlinear
material behavior only. For this purpose, the user needs to provide the stress-strain relationship
of the material. In the nonlinear model of the compression chord, the material nonlinearity was
modeled using a multilinear isotropic hardening option (MISO) for the material with the stressstrain profile as shown in Fig. 3.3. The proportional limit was specified as per the AISC manual
as 0.4Fy, and the yield value for this model was 36 ksi. The tangent modulus was found above
using Engessers equation and varies as the critical load changes. Notice that in Fig. 3.3, the
portion as the material reaches yield was defined using very small slope. This was necessary to
avoid overshooting and any problems that may cause non-convergence to the solution.

21

Fig. 3.2 Finite Element Idealization of the Pony Truss

The nonlinear solution of the compression chord in ANSYS used the Newton-Raphson
option to converge on the displacements of the solution. An initial load larger than the predicted
buckling load was applied to the chord and ANSYS then uses load steps to continuously apply
the load in small increments to iterate the solution. For each iteration, the program calculates a
new element stiffness matrix based on the element strains in the stress-strain profile provided.
For the nonlinear model in this research, it was assumed that a converged solution was reached
when the difference in displacements between load steps was equal to or less than 0.1%. The
results of analyzing the truss described above using the different available analyses techniques
are summarized in the following chapter.

22

Stress-Strain Curve
40
35

Stress (ksi)

30
25

Et = 7344 ksi
20
15
10
5

E = 29000 ksi

0
0

0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
Strain (in/in)

Fig. 3.3 Stress-Strain Curve

23

4. Discussion and Results of the Analysis of a Pony Truss Top Chord

4.1 Effective Buckling Length Factor Lateral Support Stiffness
Relationships
For the comparison of the equations in chapter two with the FEM, the equations needed to
be rearranged for the calculation of the effective length factor, k. This factor is required to check
the capacity of the top chord member following the recommendation used in AISC compression
calculations. The relationships of the suggested procedures that can be used in calculating the
effective length factor are shown in the Figures 4.1 and 4.2 below. Figure 4.1 relates the inverse
of the effective length factor to the stiffness of the lateral support, and Fig. 4.2 depicts the energy
relation between the stiffness of the lateral elastic support and Eulers load, Pe, to the critical
compressive load, Pcr, of the member.

Effective Length Factors

1.200

1.000

0.800

1/k

Engesser
0.600

Bleich
Timoshenko

0.400

Lutz-Fisher

0.200

0.000
0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

Cl/P

Fig. 4.1 Compression Chord Design Curves

4.500

24

Critical Buckling Load

120

100

Pcr/Pe

80

60

40

20

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

(CL/Pe)

Fig. 4.2 Energy Method Design Curve

4.2 Example Calculations for the Buckling Load of a Pony Truss

Given below are the calculations that were used to develop the buckling load of the truss
structure that was examined by Galambos (1988). The dimensions of the truss structure were
previously listed in chapter three of this document. In this example, a structural analysis of the
truss system illustrated that the top chord member being investigated was subjected to a
compression force of 360 kips. A factor of safety of 2, as suggested in the literature, was used in
the analysis. From the specified truss geometry, the provided lateral spring stiffness, C, was
calculated using Eq. A1.1 as
C =

w
z
f s
xyZ
yz

v r

{888

XM
xM
f

xX~M M

9 8 |

= 6.75 kip/in

25

Then, the ratio of Cl/P was determined as

=

= 1.50

.98
8

Using the calculated ratio Cl/P in conjunction with Fig 4.1, one can calculate the value of 1/k
according to the different analysis techniques that were previously summarized.
4.2.1 Calculations following Engessers Procedure
1/k = 0.78 (From Fig. 4.1)
k = 1.28

= 50.3

9. l98
-.8l

Following the design steps that are given in the AISC (2011) manual, one can calculate
the critical buckling stress, Fe, and the nominal buckling load, Pn, using the ASD and
LRFD approaches, respectively as
F =

 u


D G

FP = 0.658

 {888
J8.NL

]
F

= 113.2 ksi

= D0.658

N]
99N. G 36

= 31.5 ksi

Hence, the critical buckling load is:

P` = FP A = 31.5 25.0 =

This procedure is then repeated using the other methods mentioned in chapter two.
4.2.2 Calculations following Bleichs Procedure
1/k = 0.768 (From Fig. 4.1)
k = 1.30

9.N898
-.8l

F =

 u


D G

= 51.1

FP = 0.658

 {888
J9.9L

]
F

= 109.8 ksi

= D0.658

N]
98{.l G 36

= 31.4 ksi

26
P` = FP A = 31.4 25.0 =

4.2.3 Calculations following Timoshenkos Procedure

1/k = 0.604 (From Fig. 4.1)
k = 1.66

9.98
-.8l

F =

 u


D G

= 64.9

FP = 0.658

 {888
J-.{L

]
F

= 67.9 ksi

= D0.658

N]
.{ G 36

= 28.8 ksi

P` = FP A = 28.8 25.0 =

4.2.4 Calculations following Lutz and Fishers Procedure

1/k = 0.719 (From Fig. 4.1)
k = 1.39

9.N{98
-.8l

F =

 u


D G

= 54.5

FP = 0.658

 {888
J-.L

]
F

= 96.2 ksi

= D0.658

N]
{. G 36

= 30.8 ksi

P` = FP A = 30.8 25.0 =

4.2.5 Calculations following Holts Procedure

1/k = 0.75 (From Table 2.2)
k = 1.33

9.NN98
-.8l

F =

 u


D G

= 52.3

FP = 0.658

 {888
J .NL

]
F

= 104.7 ksi

= D0.658

N]
98-. G 36

= 31.2 ksi

P` = FP A = 31.2 25.0 =

27
4.2.6 Calculations using the Energy Method
P = JL =

 u

 N---9l.N
J988L

.988
99.l-

= 912.2

= 11.84 kips

= 61.67 (From Fig. 4.2)

PP = P R = 11.84 61.67 =

A summary of these results is shown in Table 4.1. As noted in Galambos (1988) the factor of
safety for the compression chord on elastic supports was 2.0 when determining the Cl/P ratio.
However, it was later addressed that the compression chord in Galambos example was designed
for the maximum panel load using AASHTOs 1983 formula which uses a factor of safety of
2.12 (Ziemian, 2010). In essence, the results should be compared to the design load of
P=360*2.12 = 763 kips. The factor of safety listed in this table was calculated as the ratio
between the estimated critical buckling load and the applied member load of 360 kips.

Table 4.1 Critical Load Results

Method
Engesser
Bleich
Timoshenko
Lutz & Fisher
Holt
Energy Method

k
1.28
1.30
1.66
1.39
1.33
-

Pn
788
785
721
770
779
730

F.S
2.19
2.18
2.00
2.14
2.16
2.03

The results above show the methods of analysis in chapter two reasonably predict the critical
load of the compression chord for the pony truss example. However, it may be noted that using
the energy method underestimates the critical buckling load since it is based on an assumed
deformed buckling shape.

28

4.3 Analysis of the Pony Truss using Finite Element

4.3.1 Two Dimensional Analysis

To verify the critical load calculations of the compression chord, the truss was analyzed in
ANSYS to solve for the critical buckling load. As mentioned in chapter three, the validity of
these tests was checked with both a 2-D and 3-D element model. Using a 2-D beam3 element
with the tangent modulus, Et = 7344 ksi, the critical buckling load was calculated to be 719.213
kips as shown in Fig. 4.3. The 3-D element analysis of the compression yielded the exact same
buckling load of 719.213 kips (Fig. 4.4) validating the model.
The compression chord buckling load was also determined using a nonlinear approach. This
buckling load was found by plotting the Load vs. Displacement in the vertical direction and then
noting the load at which large displacements occur with only a small increase in load. Using Fig.
4.5 the buckling load in the nonlinear model was equal to 720 kips. As seen in the graph, there
are two changes in slope which account for the change in modulus at the proportion limit and the
yielding limit. All of the FEM solutions prove the reasonability of the calculations determined in
the previous section with C = 6.75 and Et = 7344 since the three compression chords analysis all
had approximately the same buckling load of 720 kips. The next step of the analysis was to
check the critical load on the compression chord when the entire truss was modeled.

29

Fig. 4.3 2-D Compression Chord Elements

Fig. 4.4 3-D Compression Chord Elements

30

Fig. 4.5 Nonlinear Load vs. Displacement Curve

4.3.2 Three Dimensional Analysis

The pony truss model was analyzed similar to the compression chords in that a
compression load was applied to the top chord on each side of the truss. In order to only focus
on the lateral displacements of the compression chord, the truss was restrained in a manner to
create two symmetrical sides of the truss. To accomplish this symmetrical model, the truss was
restrained against translation in the z direction and rotations in the x and y directions at the center
of the floor beams. By applying these boundary conditions, the resultant load could be compared
to the compression chord models. The critical buckling load, when modeling the entire pony
truss, increased dramatically to a load of 1121 kips on the compression chord which can be seen
in Fig. 4.6.
It is the opinion of this author that the increase in critical buckling load is due to the effect
of inertia from the compression chord. The spring stiffness, when analyzing the compression

31

chord by previous work, was composed only of the frame stiffness as calculated in Appendix A.
However, the lateral stiffness of the chord itself provides an addition stiffness which explains the
significant increase in load when modeling the entire truss. The goal in the preceding paragraphs
is to analyze this theory using finite element models.

Fig. 4.6 Pony Truss Top Chord Analysis

32

4.4 Effects of Compression Chord Moment of Inertia on the Stiffness of the

Elastic Supports
When calculating the elastic stiffness restraining the compression chord from buckling in
Appendix A, the stiffness is a product of the rigid frame only and ignores the contributions of the
stiffness from the top chord. This discrepancy was examined using the finite element method.
To analyze this theory, several models of the truss structure considering different moments of
inertia of the top chord were analyzed by applying two lateral loads at the panel points as seen in
Fig 4.9. The results of this analysis were then used to calculate the stiffness of the lateral
supports.
In order to determine if the inertia of the compression chord has an effect on the stiffness of
the compression chord, the frame itself was analyzed as a control procedure before examining
the entire truss. The frame was analyzed as a simply supported structure with a load of 1 kip
placed on each vertical web as seen in Fig. 4.7. The load causes a displacement of 0.148014
(Fig. 4.8) which can be used to find the stiffness of the frame by taking the load divided by the
displacement. Using the displacement of the frame to calculate the stiffness, a value of C =
1/0.148014 = 6.576 k/in is determined. This is the same stiffness that the equation from
Appendix A yielded.
The same procedure was then repeated except with entire pony truss modeled as a simply
supported structure, which can be seen in Fig. 4.9. The load was applied at each frame location
individually to get the stiffness at each restraint point. A summary of these results can be found
in Table 4.2 which references the panel locations in Fig 4.9. The results in Table 4.2 were
determined using a compression chord tangent modulus of 7344 ksi and the moment of inertia of
418.3 in4. From this table, the compression chord seems to have an effect on the overall lateral
stiffness against buckling. To prove this point, a transverse load was applied to the center panel,
similar to before, and the inertia of the compression chord was varied from 425 in4 to 0.001 in4.
The results of this process can be seen in Table 4.3. This table shows that the moment of inertia
for the compression chord should be accounted for when determining the lateral stiffness at the
frames locations and that the current determination used for the frame stiffness is an
underestimation. In order to compare the procedures from the published works, the new stiffness
should be used.

33

Fig. 4.7 Rigid Frame Boundary Conditions

Fig. 4.8 Rigid Frame Displacements

34

1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Fig. 4.9 Load Application of Pony Truss Frames

Table 4.2 Resultant Stiffness at Each Bay

Panel Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Displacement, (in)
0.10612
0.07518
0.07249
0.07227
0.07226
0.07226
0.07226
0.07227
0.07249
0.07518
0.10612

Stiffness, C (k/in)
9.426
13.301
13.795
13.837
13.839
13.839
13.839
13.837
13.795
13.301
9.423

35

Fig. 4.10 Pony Truss Lateral Displacement at Frame Location

Table 4.3 Effects of Top Chord Inertia on the Lateral Stiffness

Moment of Inertia (in4)
425
325
225
125
25
0.001
418.3

Displacement, (in)
0.048816
0.052882
0.058840
0.069192
0.100502
0.141938

Stiffness, C (k/in)
13.89
12.98
11.87
10.45
8.08
7.04
6.75 (using Eq. A1.1)

4.5 Analysis with Modified Elastic Stiffness

The calculation for each of the methods in chapter 2 was redone using the new stiffness
value, C = 13.8 found in the previous section, by completing the same procedure mentioned in
section 4.2. Table 4.4 summaries the critical buckling loads of these calculations. Engessers
approach was not valid for new analysis since his theory is based off a minimum k value of 1.3.
With the new stiffness value, all of the methods underestimate the critical load of the

36

compression chord when analyzing the entire truss since the formulas do not account for the
inertia stiffness of the compression chord and the increase in stiffness with respect to k is not a
linear response.
Table 4.4 Critical Load Results with New Stiffness, C
Method
Engesser
Bleich
Timoshenko
Lutz & Fisher
Holt
Energy Method

K
NA
1.02
1.16
1.08
1.01
-

Pn
NA
827
807
819
828
1032

F.S
NA
2.30
2.24
2.28
2.30
2.87

Using ANSYS, the compression chord modeled with the new stiffness provided a large
increase in the compression capacity. Figure 4.11 shows the compression chord modeled with
rigid supports and the interior restraints having a stiffness of 13.8. The buckling load was found
to be 979.03 kips. Although this load is closer to the pony truss analysis of 1121 kips, the end
supports in this model were rigid which does not accurately account for the elasticity at these
supports. The next figure, Fig. 4.12, shows the buckling shape with the elastic supports having
the new stiffness values determined in Table 4.2. This buckled shape essentially shows the
exact buckling load and shape of the compression chord treated as a single member.

37

Fig. 4.11 Compression Chord Analysis with New Stiffness

Fig. 4.12 Compression Chord Analysis with Elastic Ends

38

5. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

5.1 Summary
Previously published work closely relates the critical buckling load of the compression
chord to the actual load when the chord is taken as a single member with the stiffness provided
according to Appendix A. However, the formulas in Appendix A ignore the contributions of the
moment of inertia of the top chord. This discrepancy was examined using the finite element
method. From the FEM, a new stiffness was calculated and used to calculate the new buckling
load. A summary of these results can be seen in Table 5.1, which is compared to full pony truss
model load of P = 1121 kips. This analysis shows that the omission of the top chord inertia
when calculating the frame stiffness will cause an underestimation of the critical buckling load.
It is evident that the capacity of the compression chord can be affected by including the inertia
effects of the chord.

Table 5.1: Buckling Load Analysis Results

C = 6.75
C = 13.8
Method
k
Pn
k
Pn
Engesser
1.28
788
NA
NA
Bleich
1.30
785
1.02
827
Timoshenko
1.66
721
1.16
807
Lutz & Fisher
1.39
770
1.08
819
Holt
1.33
779
1.01
828
Energy Method
730
1032
FEM Chord - Rigid Ends
719
979
FEM Chord Elastic Ends
644
886
FEM Pony Truss
Pcr = 1121 kips

39

5.2 Conclusions
The following are the conclusions that can be attained from the study presented herein:

Current design of a compression chord for a pony truss bridge would be best
accomplished by using the effective length factor, k, provided by Holt to determine
the critical load from Chapter E in the AISC manual. However, such an effective
length factor is dependent on the stiffness of the elastic lateral supports.

The energy method provides a close answer for calculating the critical buckling load
for the truss top chords with rigid supports. However, its application depends on the
number of the provided elastic supports.

The finite element method will provide satisfactory results when using the
appropriate member rigidity, i.e., using the correct tangent modulus of elasticity.

All available procedures require the knowledge of the provided elastic stiffness.
Hence, it is important to be able to calculate this stiffness factor. This means that one
must consider the type of connection between the floor beams and the vertical as well
as with diagonal members when calculating the lateral spring stiffness.

5.3 Recommendations
Past testing on pony truss bridges is limited to Holts work (1957) which focused on the
effective length factor on the compression chord and not the stiffness supplied by the frames.
Empirical testing of a pony truss model could reveal a better understanding of the actual stiffness
supplied by the compression chord inertia. Due to the complexity of a full pony truss and the
necessity of empirical confirmation of any design model, testing of physical models is required
before determining any definitive conclusions.

Test a model to verify the effect of inertia on the compression chord stiffness.

Determine a method to verify the rigidity of the frame connection.

40

Appendix A
Calculations of the stiffness of the lateral support to a pony truss

Ic
Ib

b
The calculation of the stiffness for the lateral supports to the top chord of an unbraced truss can
be calculated using the energy method. This can be accomplished by calculating the force, C,
that is required to induce a unit displacement in the lateral direction at the panel point. For this
purpose, the virtual work method was utilized. The following is the derivation of the spring
constants of the lateral supports if:
1. The connection between the vertical and the floor beam is assumed rigid.

Ch
Ch

Ch

Moment due to applied real load, C

= 6

!
#$

Moment due to virtual loads, Q,

(Q was assumed = 1)

7 = #$ D & N G + #$ J& a L

41

where, Q, is a virtual load that is applied in the horizontal direction at the points where the
displacement is to be calculated. In these in calculations, a virtual load, Q, of unity was
assumed. Notice that, , is the relative displacement between points A and B. Therefore, to
calculate the elastic constants, C, of the lateral spring, one needs to substitute a value of 2 for the
displacement, , in the equation above. This yields to:
1 2 =
Or;

<Hx
N#$*

& =

<H V
#$W

x
 W
s
r f
x*
W

(A1.1)

2. To account for truss diagonals, a term of Ld3/3Id is added in the denominator where the
additional stiffness is an addition to the vertical web.
& =

(A1.2)

 W
f

W
x
x* xi
i

3. The effect if joints C & D are not rigid

1

ks
B

ks
C

Where;
ks is the joint rotational stiffness. The moment, M, at the vertical-floor beam connection is:
 = = &  = & /

Following the analysis that was summarized in the section above, the relative displacement
between points A and D can be calculated as:

42

= 2 =
1 =
1 =
1 =
& =

<H
#

<H
#

<H
#

<H
#

| +
H

N$*

| +
|

N$*
H

N$*

N$*

<H V
#$W

$W

#$W

+2

+|

+|

$W

<H V
<H
.

<H
.

+
#

H r f f s
x* W

(A1.3)

if ks = , then it is a completely rigid connection

Notice that the above equations did not take into account the actual shape of the cross section of
the top chord members. However, in most cases, the cross section of the chord consists of open,
thin-walled sections having only one axis of symmetry, and hence the bending of the chord will
be accompanied by twisting. Thus, the problem of bucking of the chord will be a caused by
flexural and torsion. Therefore, the above relations for calculating the spring constant must be
modified to account for such effects. This problem was studied in detail by Bleich (1952).
Bleich determined that disregarding the torsion on the compression chord would lead to an
unsafe design for members with only one axis of symmetry. Conversely, box sections, which
have a high torsional rigidity, would underestimate the capacity of the chord.

43

Appendix B
Energy Method to determine the buckling load for a bar with 2 springs
1. Initial conditions

EI

L/3

L/3

L/3

2. Displaced shape
x
1

y = a sin
y =

y =

cos

 


sin

Where: y9 = 9 = a sin

and

3. External Work
V =

V =

5  

V =

68 y dx

|68 cos

| +

dx

  

sin
-

y = = a sin

44

V =

5 
-

4. Internal Energy
U = C9 + C + 68  dx



9

U = C9 + C + 68



9

Ca |sin

U=

U=

+ sin

|sin

 = =

+ sin

sin

dx

 = = u

sin
-

 = = u

-x

5. Combine external work and internal energy and solve for Pcr
= V+U
=

5 
-

|sin

+ sin

 = = u
-x

= 0.0

0.0 =


5

+ Ca |sin

= C |sin

+ sin

P =   |sin

+ sin

+ sin

= = u
x

= = u
x

  u


(B1.1)

45

Appendix C
Engessers Method to determine the buckling load for a bar with 2 springs
1. Initial conditions

EI

L/3

L/3

L/3

2. Displaced shape with continuous elastic medium

x
1

y = a sin

y =
y=

cos

 


sin

3. External Work
V =

V =

5  

V =

68 y dx

|68 cos

V =

| +

  

sin
-

5 
-

dx

46

4. Internal Energy
U = 68 y dx + 68

U=

sin

U=

 = =
=

sin

dx

 = = u

where: = C/(L/3)

sin

 = = u

-x

5. Combine external work and internal energy and solve for P

= V+U
=

5 


-

 = = u
-x

= 0.0
5

0.0 =

P =

= = u
x

  u

+

 

(C1.1)

6. Solve for required stiffness coefficient

P =

 ud 
+  ,


where: = C/L and v = L/m (wavelength)

Note that Pcr will be at a minimum when

0 =

 ud
+  ,
x

v = c
=

'(

#d $,
<

)*+  ,
-#d ,

)*
O

=0

Substituting wavelength, v, back into the equation above:

(C1.2)

47

Appendix D
Schwedas extension of Bleichs analysis
j=

-. 
D1
" 

9
sinh ;J2>
H B?PQR ?

1L   J2> 1L cosh ;G

1L sin sinh ; sin J2> 1L + 2 ;J2>

Where:
 = 2J 2L +

"
-. 

= |1 + cos . l. D. > . G
9

"

"

"

"

= D1 l.  G  . + l > .
"

"

"

"

2 cosh ; = J + 1L + + J 1L +
2 cos = J + 1L + + J 1L +

(D1.1)

48

Tables of Factor :
c

2n=6

1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

1.2
1.00
1.25
1.41
1.39
1.35
1.65
2.01
2.41
2.79
2.98
2.93
2.69
2.27
1.99

1.3
0.78
0.93
1.04
1.06
1.10
1.30
1.54
1.77
1.97
2.12
2.10
1.97
1.76
1.71

1.4
0.65
0.75
0.84
0.87
0.94
1.09
1.25
1.40
1.55
1.64
1.66
1.60
1.48
1.48

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

0.82
0.94
1.06
1.18
1.29
1.36
1.38
1.35
1.27
1.32

0.94
1.03
1.11
1.17
1.19
1.17
1.12
1.17

0.90
0.97
1.02
1.04
1.04
1.00
1.06

0.85
0.90
0.94
0.94
0.91
0.96

0.85
0.83
0.89

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

0.81
0.90
0.99
1.06
1.08
1.08
1.20
1.32
1.46
1.58

0.87
0.92
0.95
0.96
1.05
1.16
1.26
1.36

0.85
0.87
0.94
1.03
1.11
1.20

0.85
0.92
1.00
1.07

0.90
0.97

2n=8

1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

1.2
0.93
1.12
1.27
1.32
1.42
1.69
1.96
2.07
2.04
1.85
2.08
2.43
2.83
3.25

1.3
0.74
0.86
0.96
1.01
1.12
1.28
1.44
1.54
1.54
1.47
1.66
1.89
2.13
2.37

1.4
0.62
0.71
0.80
0.85
0.94
1.06
1.17
1.24
1.26
1.25
1.39
1.55
1.73
1.90

49

2n=10

1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

1.2
0.99
1.06
1.21
1.26
1.43
1.64
1.74
1.72
1.85
2.14
2.42
2.66
2.74
2.65

1.3
0.75
0.83
0.93
1.00
1.11
1.24
1.32
1.34
1.46
1.63
1.80
1.92
1.99
2.00

1.4
0.63
0.70
0.78
0.84
0.93
1.03
1.09
1.13
1.22
1.34
1.45
1.55
1.61
1.63

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

0.81
0.88
0.94
0.98
1.05
1.14
1.23
1.34
1.36
1.39

0.83
0.87
0.93
1.00
1.07
1.14
1.18
1.21

0.83
0.89
0.95
1.01
1.05
1.08

0.86
0.91
0.94
0.97

0.86
0.89

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

0.80
0.87
0.92
0.98
1.05
1.12
1.17
1.20
1.27
1.36

0.82
0.87
0.93
0.99
1.03
1.06
1.12
1.19

0.83
0.88
0.92
0.95
1.00
1.06

0.84
0.87
0.91
0.96

0.82
0.87

2n=12

1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

1.2
0.97
1.06
1.17
1.25
1.41
1.54
1.60
1.73
1.96
2.12
2.17
2.12
2.28
2.57

1.3
0.74
0.82
0.92
0.99
1.10
1.19
1.26
1.35
1.49
1.60
1.65
1.66
1.78
1.94

1.4
0.62
0.69
0.77
0.84
0.93
1.00
1.06
1.12
1.22
1.30
1.37
1.40
1.48
1.60

50

References
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 2011. Steel Construction Manual. American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO). 2007.
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
Ballio, G. and Mazzolani, F. 1983. Theory and Design of Steel Structures. Chapman and Hall.
New York.
Bleich, F. 1952. Buckling Strength of Metal Structures. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
New York.
Brush, D.O. & Almroth, B.O. 1975. Buckling of Bars, Plates, and Shells. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc. New York.
Galambos, T. 1988. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures 4th Ed. John Wiley
& Sons. New York.
Holt, E. 1951. Buckling of a Continuous Beam-Column on Elastic Supports. Stability of Bridge
Chords without Lateral Bracing, Column Res. Council Rep. No. 1.
Holt, E. 1952. Buckling of a Pony Truss Bridge. Stability of Bridge Chords without Lateral
Bracing, Column Res. Council Rep. No. 2.
Holt, E. 1956. The Analysis and Design of Single Span Pony Truss Bridges. Stability of Bridge
Chords without Lateral Bracing, Column Res. Council Rep. No. 3.
Holt, E. 1957. Tests on Pony Truss Models and Recommendations for Design. Stability of
Bridge Chords without Lateral Bracing, Column Res. Council Rep. No. 4.
Lutz, L., and Fisher, J.M. 1985. A Unified Approach for Stability Bracing Requirements. AISC
Eng. J. Vol. 22, No. 4.
Salmon, C., Johnson, J. and Malhas, F. 2009. Steel Structures Design and Behavior 5 Ed.
Pearson Prentice Hall. New Jersey.
SAP Inc. 2009. ANSYS User's Manual for Release 12.1.
Timoshenko, S. 1936. Theory of Elastic Stability. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New
York
Thandavamoorthy, T.S. 2005. Analysis of Structures: Strength & Behavior. Oxford University
Press. New York.

51

Winter, G. 1960. Lateral Bracing of Columns and Beams. Trans. ASCE, Vol. 125, pp. 807-845.
Ziemian, R.D. 2010. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures 6th Ed. John Wiley
& Sons. New York.