1

Document for
_________________________________________________

INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS MALAYSIA

DESIGN REPORT

SEPTEMBER 2011

Prepared by:
Yusof Bin Ahmad
Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru,
Johor Darul Ta’zim.
Tel.: 07 – 5531592
Fax: 07 – 5566157
2

DECLARATION

I declare that all informations in this Design Report are the result
of my own writing based on the working experiences.

Ir. Azhar Bin Ahmad (MIEM 9312)

Perunding Amin
404 Bangunan Pusat Industri, Technovation Park UTM,
Km. 20, Jalan Pontian Lama, 81300 Skudai,
Johor Darul Ta’zim.

Signature & stamp

3

CONTENT

DECLARATION
CONTENT
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. DESIGN EXPERIENCES

2.1 Introduction of Project

2.2 Loading
2.3 Computer Analysis
2.4 Design Calculations
2.4.1 Calculations of member properties
2.4.2 Design of left columns: Member 11 and 12
2.4.3 Design of right columns: Member 13 and 14
2.4.4 Design of beams: Member 15, 22 and 28
2.4.5 Design of X-bracings: Member 16 to 32
2.4.6 Design of horizontal bracings: Member 16 and 33
2.4.7 Design of main beams: Member 1
2.4.8 Design of auxillary beams: Member 5, 7 and 8
2.4.9 Design of extra bracings
2.4.10 Output of computer analysis using QSE
2.5 Section Design
2.6 Conclusions of Computer Analysis
2.7 Specifications
2.8 Bill of Quantities
2.9 Taking Off
2.10 Drawings
4

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The design project submitted in this report was analysis and design checking and also a
forensic investigation of Larkin Stadium, Johor Bahru. The works involved in this project
were mainly focused on steel roof truss to sustain the designed load after experienced
corrosion to some of the members and failure at some of the joints. The scope of this project
was to investigate the truss through forensin point of view, reanalyse and redesign works
and finally make a decision whether the roof truss should be repaired or rebuilt.
Larkin Stadium was built in 1964 to serve and cater mainly for sport activities in Johor.
The stadium is managed by Stadium Board Authority and maintained by Public Work
Department (JKR). In 1992 the stadium was upgraded where a roof was installed on top of
the grandstand area. The roof is of space truss system. In July 2009, the stadium personnel
noticed that two members from the top-chords do not attached to the joints. They then alert
JKR for investigation.
JKR engaged consultant from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia to carry out structural
engineering assessment on the roof. This final report presents the structural engineering
assessment carried out by the team. The main objective of the structural assessment is to
determine the structural integrity and stability of the roof. The methodology of work
constitute of three categories namely visual inspection and condition survey, alignment
survey, and structural analysis and design check. The assessment was to look at the
condition of all of the members including joints and support plate. Any weakness such as
defect, deterioration, and buckled members were recorded. The alignment survey can
observe deflection of the roof truss and analysis and design check was to check the whole
system capacity at present condition with two defect members and compare with complete
system in responding to several loading combination.
Visual inspection found many roof structural members especially those located at the
top were not in good condition. This also applies to joints (ball). About 59% were found to
be corroded and the paint peeled off from the members. Purlins were the worst. There are
even members that lost their section. The bottom part of the roof is much better with around
8% corroded. Alignment survey show that the left-hand side of the roof was deflected 30.31
mm relative to the right-hand side. This finding is close to what being found from analysis
and design check. Interestingly, there are several members were found to be underdesigned
and slender for ultimate load situation. As a conclusion, the roof needs to be repair
immediately. The underdesigned members and the buckled members should be replaced
with suitable size. The corrosion product need to be clean and new paint be applied.
The design calculations were carried out for top, bottom chord and diagonal
members. The code and specifications used in this design were based on BS 5950: 1990
(Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Steel). The specifications include the
construction materials, quality control and testing requirements.
The preparation of Bill of Quantity (BQ) covers the structural works of the truss.
However, it can be used as a guideline to prepare for the document tender.
Typical calculation for quantity of material is shown in taking-off forms. This
taking-off was carried out for the designed members only. The repetitive works were
discarded from this calculation.
The whole design works were translated into three drawings and detailing as
attached in Appendix.

Prepared by
Yusof Ahmad, November 2011
5

2. DESIGN EXPERIENCES

2.1 Introduction of Project

The whole roof truss structure was treated as a three dimensional roof truss
system. The coordinates of each joint of the truss were obtained from survey using an
equipment called Total Station. The survey was done on 17 Dec 2009. The roof sheeting
was made by zincalum which supported by a series of purlins from lipped channel section.
From the visual inspection, all purlins were badly attacked by corrosion and loose the
material almost more than 60% of its cross section. The size of the roof truss was 94.14 m
length, 21.26 m wide and 2.25 height as shown in Figure 1. The The structure was
symmetry at the mid length. The front portion of the roof truss was cantilever for 13 m
whereas the remaining were supported by reinforced concrete columns where the spacing
was between 3 – 10 meters. The roof truss was attached to the concrete columns by
means of plates and bolts. The truss members were made by tubular steel section where
the details mechanichal properties were unknown. This stucture was built in 1990. All
joints use ball and socket system where each member free to rotate. An engineering
software called STAADPro (Structural Analysis and Design for Professional) was used to
analyze and design this structure. This software was licensed to Department of Structures
and Materials, Faculty Civil Engineering, UTM, JB.

Figure 1 The layout of the roof truss

6

2.2 Loading
The loading used in this analysis was
a) Unfactored dead load (DL)

i) Selfweight of roof truss : automatically included in STAADPro

ii) Sheeting and insulation : 0.20 kN/m2
iii) Purlins : 0.07 kN/m2
Gk = 0.27×3.05×3.05 = 2.5 kN
b) Unfactored live load (LL)

i) Imposed loads : 0.30 kN/m2

Qk = 0.3×3.05×3.05 = 2.8 kN
c) Unfactored wind load (WL)

i) Wind load : q = 0.613K1K2K3K4V2

= 0.613×1.1×1.1×1.1×1.5×222
= 592 N/m2
= 0.6 kN/m2
Wk = 0.6×3.05×3.05 = 5.6 kN
d) Load combinations

i) Load combination 1 : 1.0LL

ii) Load combination 2 : 1.4DL + 1.6LL
iii) Load combination 3 : 1.2DL + 1.2LL + 1.2WL

2.3 Computer Analysis

Two models were considered in this analysis. The first model was the complete structure
without any defects. The second model was the structure with the defect where two
members were taken out from the model. The two members were identified at site during
first investigation where both members were detached from its ball and socket. Both
members were the main top chord of truss structure.
Since the structure is symmetry, half of the structure was modeled in the
computer. The isometric view of the first model of roof structure is shown in Figure 2. The
7

pin supports shown in the figure represent the column points. The supports at the right
part of the structure were roller support representing the restraint in X direction only
where the rest of degrees of freedom were released to simulate the symmetrical behavior
of the structure. Figure 3, 4 and 5 show the plan, front and side view, respectively. Total
number of nodes and members used to model this structure was 240 and 867,
respectively. The purlins were not modeled in this analysis as it was not a subject in this
computer analysis.
The member identification numbering systems for all bottom chord, top chord and
diagonal members were mapped in Figure 6, 7 and 8, respectively. When refer to the
results given by STAADPro, these figures would guide the reader about the exact location
of the truss members.
Figure 9, 10, 11, and 12 are the sections used for the truss structure (shown by the
highlighted members) using steel Circular Hollow Section (CHS) of D = 48 mm, T = 3.0 mm;
D = 60 mm, T = 3.0 mm; D = 76 mm, T = 3.0 mm; and D = 114 mm, T = 4.0 mm;
respectively. Since the material was steel, an assumption was made that the Young’s
modulus was 205 kN/mm2, the density was 7850 kg/m3 and the Poisson’s ratio was 0.3.
The second model was similar to first model except two members were removed
from the structure. The layout in Figure 13 shows the model without the two members.
The loads were directly applied to the top layer of all truss joints. Figure 14, 15 and
16 show the unfactored dead load, live load and wind load, respectively. Linear static
analysis was implemented using STAADPro to obtain the results.

2.4 Design Calculations

Transformer load
Transformer + oil = 152 ton
Factored dead load is
Gk = 152 × 9.81 × 1.4 = 2090 kN

Converting to uniformly distributed load to be applied on two main beams (L = 5 m)

2090 / 2
Wk = = 209 kN/m
5
Selfweight for all members will be calculated automatically by computer software
8

Since the transformer has four wheels, the load should be converted to point loads
and these loads become live load. Thus the factored live load is
152 × 9.81 × 1.6
Qk = = 597 kN
4
For maximum effect to the bending moment, the load is arranged as shown in the
following diagram

Member properties for right columns – column 13 and 14

A = 30.4 × 2 = 60.8 cm 2

I y = [152 + 30.4(10.362 )] × 2 = 68.3 × 106 mm 4

I z = 19.55 × 106 × 2 = 39.1 × 106 mm 4

Member properties for horizontal bracings – bracing 15 and 33

A = 2.28 × 2 × 103 = 4.56 × 103 mm 2

I y = [852 + 22.8(9.62 )] × 2 = 59.6 × 106 mm 4

I z = 1.14 × 106 × 2 = 2.28 × 106 mm 4

Member properties for main beams – beam 1

A = 2(300 × 25) + (15 × 650) = 24.75 × 103 mm 2

300 × 253 15 × 6503

I y =  + 300 × 25 × 337.52  2 + = 2052 × 106 mm 4
 12  12

25 × 3003  650 × 153

I z =   2+ = 112 × 106 mm 4
 12  12

Member properties for secondary beams – beam 5, 7 and 8

A = 300 × 20 + 400 × 20 + 10 × 500 = 19 × 103 mm 2

300 × 203 400 × 203 10 × 5003

I y =  + 300 × 20 × 2602  +  + 400 × 20 × 2602  +
 12   12  12

= 1051 × 106 mm 4

20 × 3003 20 × 4003 500 × 103

Iz = + + = 151 × 106 mm 4
12 12 12

Design of left columns – column 11 and 12

Results from computer analysis (QSE)
Maximum axial force, F = 548 kN
Maximum shear force, V = 7.5 kN
9

Maximum bending moment about x-axis, M x = 4.3 kNm

Maximum bending moment about y-axis, M y = 3.8 kNm
Try UC section of 200 × 200 × 56.2 kg/m , grade 43. The section properties are
Length of column, Lmax = 3.964 m
Cross sectional area, A = 7.15 × 103 mm 2
Moment of inertia about x-axis, I x = 49.8 × 106 mm 4
Moment of inertia about y-axis, I y = 17.0 × 106 mm 4
Plastic moment of inertia about x-axis, S x = (200 × 12 × 94) 2 + (12 × 88 × 44) 2 = 544 cm3
Plastic moment of inertia about y-axis, S y = (12 × 94 × 47) 4 = 212 cm3

Ix 49.8 × 106
Gyration radius about x-axis, rx = = = 83.4 mm
A 7.15 × 103

Iy 17 × 106
Gyration radius about y-axis, ry = = = 48.7 mm
A 7.15 × 103
I 49.8 × 106
Elastic moment of inertia about x-axis, Z x = yx = 100
= 498 cm3

I y 17 × 106
Elastic moment of inertia about y-axis, Z y = = = 170 cm3
y 100

For T = 12 mm < 16 mm; from Table 6; Py = 275 N/mm 2

b / T = 100 / 12 = 8.3 < 8.5ε

d / T = 176 / 12 = 14.7 < 39ε

From Table 7, section is classified as plastic

Check for axially loaded members with moments
Compression members should be checked for
a) Local capacity at point of maximum bending moment
b) Overal buckling

a) Local capacity check

The following equation should be satisfied (from 4.8.3.2b)
z1 z2
 Mx   My 
M  +  ≤ 1.0
 rx   M ry 
Where M x = 3.8 kNm
M y = 4.3 kNm
10

z1 = 2.0

z2 = 1.0

Mrx and Mry are reduced plastic moment capacities due to axial load.
F 548 × 103
n= = = 0.278
Ag p y 7.15 × 103 × 275

To find Srx,
K1 = S x = 544 cm 3

A2 (7.15 × 103 ) 2
K2 = = = 1065
4t 4 × 12
Srx = K1 − K 2 n 2 = 544 − 1065(0.278) 2 = 461.7 cm3

To find Sry,
K1 = S y = 212 cm3

A2 (7.15 × 103 ) 2
K2 = = = 64
4D 4 × 200
Sry = K1 − K 2 n 2 = 212 − 64(0.278) 2 = 207 cm3

The reduced plastic moment capacities about both axes are

M rx = Srx p y = (461.7 × 103 )(275 × 10− 6 ) = 127 kNm

1.2Z x p y = 1.2(498)(265 × 10− 3 ) = 158 kNm

⇒ Srx p y < 1.2 Z x p y

Thus, M rx = 127 kNm

M ry = S ry p y = (207 × 103 )(275 × 10− 6 ) = 57 kNm

1.2Z y p y = 1.2(170)(275 × 10− 3 ) = 56 kNm

⇒ 1.2 Z y p y < Sry p y

Thus, M ry = 56 kNm
From 4.8.3.2b
z1 z2
 Mx   My 
M  +  ≤ 1.0
 rx   M ry 
2 2
 3.8  +  4.3  = 0.077 ≤ 1.0
 127   56 
   
Therefore the local capacity check is satisfied

b) Overall buckling check

11

The following condition should be satisfied

F mM my M y
+ x x+ ≤ 1.0
Ag pc Mb py Z y

For both axes, β = 0 , thus mx = my = 0.57

Determining Mb from 4.3.7.3:
M b = S x pb

λ LT = nuvλ where n = 1.0, u = 0.848 and x = 15.8 (from section table)

Effective length, Lex = Ley = 1.0 L . Thus Le = 1.0 × 3.964 = 3.964 m Cl. 4.3.5

λ = Le / ry = 3964 / 48.7 = 81.4 Cl. 4.3.7.5

λ / x = 81.4 / 15.8 = 5.15
N = 0.5 , thus v = 0.81 Table 14
λ LT = nuvλ = 1.0 × 0.848 × 0.81 × 81.4 = 56

For λ LT = 56 and p y = 275 N/mm 2 ; pb = 225 N/mm 2 Table 11

M b = S x pb = (544 × 103 )(225 × 10− 6 ) = 122 kNm

Determining pc:
For λ = 81.4 and p y = 275 N/mm 2 , pcy = 160 N/mm 2 Table 25

Thus Table27(c)
548 × 103 (0.57)(3.8 × 106 ) (0.57)(4.3 × 106 )
+ + = 0.55 ≤ 1.0
(71.5 × 102 )(160) 122 × 106 (275)(170 × 103 )

Section has sufficient resistance against overall buckling

Adopt UC 200 × 200 × 56.2 kg/m .

Design of right columns – column 13 and 14

Results from computer analysis (QSE)
Maximum axial force, F = 547 kN
Maximum shear force, V = 7.5 kN
Maximum bending moment about x-axis, M x = 3.8 kNm
Maximum bending moment about y-axis, M y = 9.4 kNm
Try double structural C-section of 203 × 76 × 23.82 kg/m , grade 43. The section
properties are
Length of column, Lmax = 3.964 m
12

Cross sectional area, A = 60.8 cm 2

Moment of inertia about x-axis, I x = 68.3 × 106 mm 4
Moment of inertia about y-axis, I y = 39.1 × 106 mm 4
Plastic moment of inertia about x-axis,
S x = [203 × 7.1 × 121.1 + (69 × 11.2 × 80.5) 2]2 = 599 cm3

Plastic moment of inertia about y-axis, S y = 226 × 2 = 452 cm3

Ix 68.3 × 106
Gyration radius about x-axis, rx = = = 106 mm
A 60.8 × 102

Iy 39.1 × 106
Gyration radius about y-axis, ry = = = 80 mm
A 60.8 × 102
I 68.3 × 106
Elastic moment of inertia about x-axis, Z x = yx = 122
= 560 cm3

I y 39.1 × 106
Elastic moment of inertia about y-axis, Z y = = = 385 cm3
y 101.5

For T = 12 mm < 16 mm; from Table 6; Py = 275 N/mm 2

b / T = 76 / 11.2 = 6.8 < 8.5ε

d / T = 203 / 7.1 = 28.6 < 39ε

From Table 7, section is classified as plastic

Check for axially loaded members with moments
Compression members should be checked for
a) Local capacity at point of maximum bending moment
b) Overal buckling

a) Local capacity check

The following equation should be satisfied (from 4.8.3.2b)
z1 z2
 Mx   My 
M  +  ≤ 1.0
 rx   M ry 
Where M x = 3.8 kNm
M y = 9.4 kNm

z1 = z2 = 1.0

Mrx and Mry are reduced plastic moment capacities due to axial load.
13

F 547 × 103
n= = = 0.327
Ag p y 60.8 × 102 × 275

To find Srx,
A2 n 2
Srx = S x − (assume hollow section)
8t
60.82 × 0.327 2
= 599 −
8 × 0.71
= 529 cm3

To find Sry,
A2 n 2
Sry = S y − (assume hollow section)
8t
60.82 × 0.327 2
= 452 −
8 × 0.71
= 382 cm3

The reduced plastic moment capacities about both axes are

M rx = Srx p y = (529 × 103 )(275 × 10− 6 ) = 145 kNm

1.2Z x p y = 1.2(560)(275 × 10− 3 ) = 185 kNm

⇒ Srx p y < 1.2 Z x p y

Thus, M rx = 145 kNm

M ry = S ry p y = (382 × 103 )(275 × 10− 6 ) = 105 kNm

1.2Z y p y = 1.2(385)(275 × 10− 3 ) = 127 kNm

⇒ Sry p y < 1.2Z y p y

Thus, M ry = 105 kNm

From 4.8.3.2b
z1 z2
 Mx   My 
M  +  ≤ 1.0
 rx   M ry 
2 2
 3.8  +  9.4  = 0.116 ≤ 1.0
 145   105 
   
Therefore the local capacity check is satisfied

b) Overall buckling check

The following condition should be satisfied
14

F mM my M y
+ x x+ ≤ 1.0
Ag pc Mb py Z y

For critical case, thus mx = my = 1.0

Determining Mb from 4.3.7.3:
M b = S x pb

λ LT = nuvλ where n = 1.0, u = 0.911 and x = 16.5 (from section table for single C)

Effective length, Lex = Ley = 1.0 L . Thus Le = 1.0 × 3.964 = 3.964 m Cl. 4.3.5

λ = Le / ry = 3964 / 80 = 49 Cl. 4.3.7.5

λ / x = 49 / 16.5 = 3.0
N = 0.5 , thus v = 0.91 Table 14
λ LT = nuvλ = 1.0 × 0.911 × 0.91 × 49 = 41

For λ LT = 41 and p y = 275 N/mm 2 ; pb = 238 N/mm 2 Table 12

M b = S x pb = (599 × 103 )(238 × 10− 6 ) = 142 kNm

Determining pc:
For λ = 49 and p y = 275 N/mm 2 , pcy = 220 N/mm 2 Table 25
Thus Table27(c)
547 × 103 (1.0)(3.8 × 106 ) (1.0)(9.4 × 106 )
+ + = 0.53 ≤ 1.0
(60.8 × 10 )(220)
2 142 × 106 (275)(385 × 103 )

Section has sufficient resistance against overall buckling

Adopt UC 203 × 76 × 23.82 kg/m double channel .

Design of beams – member 15, 22 and 28

Results from computer analysis (QSE)
Maximum axial force, F = 109 kN (tension)
Since both ends are pinned, there ini no moment induced. Therefore the beams
will be designed as axially loaded tension members.
Try UC section of 152 × 152 × 23 kg/m , grade 43.
Tension capacity , Pt should be taken from Pt = Ae p y

From section properties, Ag = 2.92 × 103 mm 2

The effective area, Ae = 2.92 × 103 − 20 × 5.8 = 2804 mm 2
Thus, the tension capacity is
15

Pt = Ae p y = 2804 × 275 × 10− 3 = 771 kN > 109 kN

Tension capacity is satisfied.

Design of bracing – bracing member 16 – 21, 23 – 27, and 29 – 32

All these members will be designed as axially loaded column with pinned ends.
Results from computer analysis (QSE)
Maximum axial force, F = 94.8 kN (compression)
Try C-section of 152 × 76 × 17.88 kg/m , grade 43.
b / T = 8.47 < 8.5ε

d / T = 16.5 < 39ε

Section is plastic
From section properties, A = 22.8 cm 2 ; rx = 6.11 cm; ry = 2.23 cm

Member length, L = 6.4 m

Compressive resistance of member:
Effective length, Lex = Ley = 1.0 L . Thus Le = 1.0 × 6.4 = 6.4 m

λ y = Le / ry = 6400 / 22.3 = 287 > 180 Cl. 3.6

Section is slender
Thus the design strength should be reduced
Stress reduction factor is given by Table 8, i.e.
31 31
= = 70
(b / T ε ) − 8 [76 / (9 × 1)] − 8

∴ p y = 275 − 70 = 205 N / mm 2

From Table 27(c), λ y = 287 and p y = 205 N / mm 2

∴ pcy = 21 N/mm 2

Compression capacity is
P = Ag pcy = 2280 × 21 × 10− 3 = 48 kN < F = 94.8 kN

Section fail against compression. Extra bracings are required or increase the member size.
If the former is adopted,
Le = 3200 mm; λ y = 3200 / 22.3 = 144 < 180

∴ pcy = 72 N/mm 2
16

Compression capacity is
P = Ag pcy = 2280 × 72 × 10− 3 = 164 kN > F = 94.8 kN

Compression capacity is sufficient.

Design of horizontal bracings – member 15 and 33

Since these members act as strut, its design is similar to axially loaded column.
Results from computer analysis (QSE)
Maximum axial force, F = 6.4 kN (tension)
These members use double channels 152 × 76 × 17.88 kg/m . No design checking is
required because the axial force is small.

Design of main beams – member 1

Results from computer analysis (QSE)
Maximum axial force, F = 26.3 kN (tension)
Maximum shear force, V = 530 kN
Maximum bending moment, M = 662 kNm
Try UB section of 700 × 300 , grade 43. The section properties are
Cross sectional area, A = 24.75 × 103 mm 2
Moment of inertia about x-axis, I x = 2052 × 106 mm 4
Moment of inertia about y-axis, I y = 112 × 106 mm 4
u = 0.864; x = 38.1

Plastic moment of inertia about x-axis,

S x = (300 × 25 × 337.5 + 15 × 325 × 162.5) 2 = 6647 cm3

Elastic moment of inertia about x-axis, Z x = 2052 × 106 / 350 = 5863 cm3

Iy 112 × 106
Gyration radius about y-axis, ry = = = 67.3 mm
A 24.75 × 103

For T < 16 mm; from Table 6; Py = 275 N/mm 2

b / T = 150 / 25 = 6 < 8.5ε
17

d / T = 650 / 15 = 43.3 < 79ε

From Table 7, section is classified as plastic

Shear capacity check

Shear capacity of section is given by
Pv = 0.6 Py Av where Av = tD

= 0.6 × 275 × (15 × 700 × 10− 3 )

= 1732 kN

0.6 Pv = 1039 kN

V = 530 kN < Pv = 1732 kN

Shear capacity is ok
Moment capacity check
Moment capacity is given by
M c = Py S x ≤ 1.2 Py Z

M c = 265 × 6647 × 10− 3 = 1761 kNm

1.2 Py Z = 1.2 × 265 × 5863 × 10− 3 = 1864 kNm

∴ M c = 1761 kNm

Since M = 662 kNm < M c = 1761 kNm ; section is ok

Lateral torsional buckling check
The condition that must be satisfied is
M ≤ Mb where M = mM A

For β = 0; ∴ m = 0.57 (from Table 18)

M = 0.57 × 662 = 377 kNm

Buckling resistance is given by M b = pb S x

The effective length is Le = 1.0 L = 1.0 × 5000 = 5000 mm

The slenderness ratio is λ y = Le / ry = 5000 / 67.3 = 74.3

λ / x = 74.3 / 38.1 = 1.95 and N = 0.5
From Table 14, v = 0.96
From Table 13, n = 1.0
λ LT = nuvλ = 1.0 × 0.864 × 0.96 × 74.3 = 61.6

From Table 11, pb = 200 N/mm 2

M b = pb S x = 200 × 6647 × 10− 3 = 1329 kNm
18

Since M = 377 < M b = 1329 , section is sufficient against lateral torsional buckling

Design of secondary beams – member 5, 7, 8

Results from computer analysis (QSE)
Maximum axial force, F = 51.2 kN (tension)
Maximum shear force, V = 532 kN
Maximum bending moment, M = 280 kNm
Try built-up section as shown from steel grade 43. The section properties are
Cross sectional area, A = 19 × 103 mm 2
Moment of inertia about x-axis, I x = 1051 × 106 mm 4
Moment of inertia about y-axis, I y = 151 × 106 mm 4
u = 0.87; x = 34.1

Plastic moment of inertia about x-axis,

S x = (300 × 20 × 260 + 10 × 250 × 125) 2 = 3745 cm3

Elastic moment of inertia about x-axis, Z x = 1051 × 106 / 270 = 3892 cm3

Iy 151 × 106
Gyration radius about y-axis, ry = = = 89 mm
A 19 × 103

For T < 16 mm; from Table 6; Py = 275 N/mm 2

b / T = 150 / 20 = 7.5 < 8.5ε

d / T = 500 / 10 = 50 < 79ε

From Table 7, section is classified as plastic

Shear capacity check
Shear capacity of section is given by
Pv = 0.6 Py Av where Av = td

= 0.6 × 265 × (10 × 500 × 10− 3 )

= 859 kN

0.6 Pv = 0.6 × 859 = 515 kN

V = 532 kN < Pv = 859 kN , shear capacity is ok

Since V = 532 kN > 0.6 Pv = 515 kN , thus the section is subjected to high shear load
Moment capacity check
19

Moment capacity should be calculated from

M c = Py ( S − Sv ρ 1 ) ≤ 1.2 Py Z

2.5Fv 2.5 × 532

ρ1 = − 1.5 = − 1.5 = 0.048
Pv 859

Sv = 10 × 250 × 125 × 2 = 625

M c = 265(3745 − 625 × 0.048) × 10− 3 = 984 kNm

1.2 Py Z x = 1.2 × 265 × 3892 × 10− 3 = 1237 kNm

∴ M c = 984 kNm

Since M = 280 kNm < M c = 984 kNm ; section is ok

Lateral torsional buckling check
The condition that must be satisfied is
M ≤ Mb where M = mM A

For β = 0; ∴ m = 0.57 (from Table 18)

M = 0.57 × 280 = 160 kNm

Buckling resistance is given by M b = pb S x

The effective length is Le = 1.0 L = 1.0 × 2800 = 2800 mm

The slenderness ratio is λ y = Le / ry = 2800 / 89 = 31.5

λ / x = 31.5 / 34.1 = 0.92 and N = 0.5
From Table 14, v = 0.99
From Table 13, n = 1.0
λ LT = nuvλ = 1.0 × 0.87 × 0.99 × 31.5 = 27.1

From Table 12, pb = 265 N/mm 2

M b = pb S x = 265 × 3745 × 10− 3 = 992 kNm

Since M = 160 < M b = 992 , section is sufficient against lateral torsional buckling
20

2.5 Section Design

The results from computer analysis software were divided into two part. Part 1 was
the results for the complete roof truss structure without defects whereas Part 2 was the
results for the roof truss with defects.

Part 1: Roof truss without defects (model 1)

i) Results of Load Combination 1

Load Combination 1 was the case for unfactored live load (1.0LL) aiming for
the determination of deflection under service load. The deformed shape of
the truss from isometric view and side view is shown in Figure 17 and 18,
respectively. Figure 19 shows the summary of the deflection and the
maximum deflection in vertical direction was 17.5 mm which occurred at
corner of the overhanging part. This value is not critical to the structure for
serviceability limit state even though a value of L/300 is taken for the
limiting value. Thus, this structure was satisfactory for deflection due to this
load.

ii) Results of Load Combination 2 and 3

Load combination 2 and 3 was the case of 1.4DL + 1.6LL and 1.2DL + 1.2LL +
1.2WL, respectively, for the determination of member capacity under
ultimate limit state. Figure 20 shows the typical axial force diagram for load
combination where the blue and red color indicate the tension and
compression members, respectively. The capacity of each member were
checked against axial force either tension or compression. The new member
sizes were proposed during design stage where the STAADPro would search
the most optimum section of British Section from the library. BS 5950: 1990
was used for design works. All truss members were treated as having
21

unrestrained conditions. Appendix A reported the details of the results for

all truss members. From the results, it was found that 7 members were
failed in the ultimate limit state point of view. All the members that failed
were diagonal members which attached to the column. These members are
shown in Figure 21. In general, the size of the members were small i.e CHS:
D = 60 mm and T = 3.0 mm. This section was insufficient to take the design
loads as the axial forces were considerably high for these diagonal
members.

Part 2: Roof truss with defects (model 2)

i) Results of Load Combination 1

The deformed shape of the truss from isometric view and the summary of
the deflection under unfactored live load and the maximum deflection in
vertical direction was 20.9 mm which occurred at a point of the
overhanging part close to the defect area. This is shown in Figure 22. This
value is not critical to the structure for serviceability limit state even though
a value of L/300 is taken for the limiting value. Thus, this structure was
satisfactory for deflection due to this load.

ii) Results of Load Combination 2 and 3

Load combination 2 and 3 was the case of 1.4DL + 1.6LL and 1.2DL + 1.2LL +
1.2WL, respectively, for the determination of member capacity under
ultimate limit state. Appendix A reported the summary of the results for
member sizes of all truss members. From the analysis, 9 diagonal members
failed and the details locations of these members are shown in Figure 23.
The size for the members was CHS: D = 60 mm and T = 3.0 mm. From this
figure it was found that almost the same members failed for truss without
22

defects (model 1) and truss with defect (model 2) except two members.
Other members were considered critical in which the slenderness criterion
was not satisfied. Figure 24, 25 and 26 show the slender members at
bottom chord, top chord and diagonal.

Design checking due to unfactored dead load

The maximum deflection due to unfactored dead load for model 1 and 2
was 21.3 mm and 26.4 mm, respectively as shown in Figure 27 and 28. No
member failed for both models due to this load. The details are shown in
Appendix A. However, some members failed due to slenderness problem.

2.6 Conclusions of Computer Analysis

The conclusions that can be drawn from the computer analysis are:-

i) Generally, some of the members were underdesigned especially the diagonal

members and as a result the impending failure tends to occur in future if
further action is not taken.
ii) The two damage members need to be repaired as soon as possible to prevent
over stress to other members as the axial forces would be transferred when the
members were removed until the force equilbrium is achieved.
iii) The members that are marked failed either due to insufficient capacity or
slenderness problem should be stiffened or replaced by bigger section
proposed in Appendix A.
iv) The statements given in i), ii) and iii) above are based on ultimate limit state
design. With the current situation, the structure can still withstand because the
23

actual load was unfactored dead load (1.0DL) which is much lesser compared to
design load.
v) The deflection was not critical and the value was small which has been proved
by survey works at site.
24

Figure 2 Isometric view of model 1 (without defects)

25

Figure 3 Plan view of model 1 (without defects)

26

Figure 4 Front view of model 1 (without defects)

Figure 5 Side view of model 1 (without defects)

27

Figure 6 Member numbering system for bottom chord of model 1 (without defects)
28

Figure 7 Member numbering system for top chord of model 1 (without defects)
29

Figure 8 Member numbering system for diagonal members of model 1 (without defects)
30

Figure 9 Members having CHS: D = 48 mm; T = 3.0 mm

31

Figure 10 Members having CHS: D = 60 mm; T = 3.0 mm

32

Figure 11 Members having CHS: D = 76 mm; T = 3.0 mm

33

Figure 12 Members having CHS: D = 114 mm; T = 4.0 mm

34

Figure 13 Layout of model 2: the two members were removed

35

Figure 14 Unfactored dead load (DL)

36

Figure 15 Unfactored live load (LL)

37

Figure 16 Unfactored wind load (WL)

38

Figure 17 Deformed shape of the truss due to load combination 1 for model 1 (isometric view)
39

Figure 18 Deformed shape of the truss due to load combination 1 for model 1 (side view)
40
41

Figure 19 Maximum deflection of the truss due to load combination 1 for model 1

Figure 20 Axial force diagram of part of the roof truss due to load combination 2
42

Figure 21 The expected diagonal members to be failed due to insufficient design capacity for model 1
43

Figure 22 Maximum deflection of the truss due to load combination 1 for model 2
44

Figure 23 The expected diagonal members to be failed due to insufficient design capacity when the two top chord
members were taken out from the structure (model 2)
45

Figure 24 The expected bottom chord members to be failed due to slenderness when the two top chord members were
taken out from the structure (model 2)
46

Figure 25 The expected top chord members to be failed due to slenderness when the two top chord members were
taken out from the structure (model 2)
47

Figure 26 The expected diagonal members to be failed due to slenderness when the two top chord members were
taken out from the structure (model 2)
48

Figure 27 Maximum deflection of the truss due to unfactored dead load for model 1
49

Figure 28 Maximum deflection of the truss due to unfactored dead load for model 2
50

Terima kasih.

Disediakan oleh: Disahkan oleh:

Yusof bin Ahmad Ir. Azhar Bin Ahmad

Grad IEM 21497 MIEM 9312