EQUIVALENT BEAM METHOD
By Brian Giltner,1 P.E., and Aslam Kassimali,2 Members, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FOR TRUSSES
ABSTRACT: It is the goal of a computer model to accurately represent a structure mathematically. However,
limitations exist that inhibit the ability to achieve an ‘‘exact’’ mathematical model. One such limitation is the
number of nodes/members that the computer program can utilize. To help alleviate this problem for structures
with trusses, a method has been developed to replace trusses with beam elements thereby reducing the size of
the computer model required for analysis. An example structure is presented.
INTRODUCTION
The ‘‘equivalent beam’’ method for analysis of trusses is a
technique that has not been used for the past several years.
Most structural analysis books published in recent years do
not address this technique. The term equivalent beam is used
as a generic statement, and in reality, there is no beam that is
exactly equal to a truss (Maugh 1946).
With the advent of structural analysis programs for com-
puters and with the models for buildings becoming more in-
tricate (i.e., requiring a program with a large node and member
capacity), the equivalent beam method is coming into use
again. The advantage of the equivalent beam method for anal-
ysis involving trusses is that the computer model is simplified
by the reduction of nodes and members required to accurately
model the structure.
This paper will evaluate/compare the results obtained due
to various loading conditions of the ‘‘real’’ model to those
values obtained from the equivalent models. The real model
is defined as the mathematical representation that most accu-
rately reflects the structure.
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
The equivalent beam will be established based upon an
equivalent moment of inertia. The moment of inertia I of the
truss must be calculated so that Itruss = Ibeam. Two methods are
presented on the determination of I (DOE 1994):
1. The equivalent stiffness of the beam is calculated based
on the deflection of the loaded truss.
2. The equivalent stiffness I is calculated based on the truss
cross-sectional area using parallel axis theorem (I ⫹
Ad2).
Method 1
Fig. 1 shows the layout of the truss under consideration.
The truss is loaded with a single point load (Figs. 1 and 2).
The deflection that occurs will then be used with the beam
deflection equations from the Manual of Steel Construction
(1989) to derive an equivalent Ibeam.
Because the truss has four locations for support, two con-
cepts will be used to calculate the equivalent I based on de-
flection. The truss reactions are vertically separated; therefore,
a force-couple is created. Fig. 2 shows how the equivalent
1
Proj. Engr., Florence & Hutcheson, Inc., Paducah, KY 42003.
2
Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Southern Illinois University–Carbondale, Car-
bondale, IL 62901.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2000. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on April 20, 1999. This paper is part of the Practice
Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Vol. 5, No. 2, May,
2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/00/0002-0070–0077/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per
page. Paper No. 20800.
70 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / MAY 2000
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2000.5:70-77.
beam will be set up as either a simple span with applied end
moments or a fixed-end beam to model the force-couple of
the truss (DOE 1994).
The load value applied is an arbitrary value. The only lim-
iting factor on the load is that it must be below the loading
value that will limit stresses to the elastic range. The appli-
cation of the load should always be at a node and should be
located near midspan of the truss. For this paper, a load placed
at the three center nodes [nodes 16, 17, and 18 (Fig. 1)] will
give approximately the same moment of inertia (within 4% of
each other).
The equivalent moment of inertia for a theoretical beam is
based on the following equations, simply supported condition
or fixed end condition. At the point where the load is applied,
⌬truss = ⌬beam.
Simply supported method:
⌬beam = ⌬1 ⫺ ⌬2 ⫹ ⌬3
where
⌬1 =
Px
48EI 冉3l2 ⫺ 4x2 ⫺
8(l ⫺ x)
Pl 冊
[M1(2l ⫺ x) ⫹ M2(l ⫹ x)]
Px
⌬2 = (3l2 ⫺ 4x2)
48EI
Pa2b2
⌬3 =
3EIl
where ⌬1 = deflection of a simply supported beam with con-
centrated load at center of beam and variable end moments
applied; ⌬2 = deflection of simply supported beams with point
load at center of beam; ⌬3 = deflection of simply supported
beam with concentrated load at any point; P = applied load;
a = point load location from left end of beam or truss; l =
length of beam (which is the same as the horizontal distance
from support to support of truss); b = l ⫺ a; E = modulus of
elasticity for steel (199,949.2 MPa); I = equivalent beam mo-
ment of inertia; x = distance from right end of beam to point
load; and Mi = applied moment at the end of the beam.
Fixed end moment:
Pa3b3
⌬beam =
3EIl3
where ⌬beam = deflection of fixed end beam with concentrated
load at any point; P = applied load; a = point load location
from left end of beam or truss; l = length of beam (which is
the same as the horizontal distance from support to support of
truss); and b = l ⫺ a.
Method 2
Method 2 is the equivalent moment of inertia based on the
truss element’s cross-sectional area using parallel axis theorem
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 1. Equivalent Beam Model
FIG. 2. Loading of Truss and Equivalent Beam
(DOE 1994). The vertical and diagonal members will not be
used in the calculation of the moment of inertia for the system.
The vertical and diagonal members are considered as elements
for the connection to maintain stability of the truss.
The parallel axis theorem is the method used to calculate
the system moment of inertia. Therefore
(Ix = I0x ⫹ Ad2)
where I0x = moment on inertia about the local x-axis of the
member; Ix = moment on inertia about the local x-axis of the
truss (centroid); A = cross sectional area of the member or
element; and d = distance from local x-axis of the member
(element) to the local x-axis of the truss (centroid of the sys-
tem). The centroid for the system is computed where A =
cross-sectional area of the member or element; Y = distance
from local x-axis to the center of gravity of the double angles;
and Ybar = (兺 AY )/(兺 A)
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / MAY 2000 / 71
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2000.5:70-77.
To account for the weight of the truss in beam form, an
analysis of the truss under self-weight only is required. From
the support reactions, a distributed equivalent beam loading is
obtained from which an equivalent beam area can be calcu-
lated
w= 冉冘 冊冒
R L
where w = equivalent distributed load; 兺 R = summation of
support reactions in the vertical direction; L = length of equiv-
alent beam that is equal to the span of the truss; and knowing
the density of steel, an equivalent area can be found.
DESIGN EXAMPLE
An example problem is presented to compare the different
methods in determination of an acceptable approach for the
equivalent beam method. Figs. 3 and 4 show a typical indus-
trial steel framed building that has a roof truss system [U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC 1951)]. Fig. 3 is an end
view of the building, and Fig. 4 is a perspective view of the
structure.
First, the truss (Fig. 1) is analyzed by itself to determine the
equivalent moment of inertia based on the various methods
and its self-weight. Method 1 will be examined first. The truss
is loaded with a 4.4482-kN point load at node 18 (Fig. 1). The
vertical deflection of the truss at node 18 due to this loading
is 0.2784 mm down. Based on this deflection and the location
of the point load, the equivalent moment of inertia is calcu-
lated based on the simply supported method and the fixed-end
method
Isimply = 6,253 ⫻ 106 mm4
Ifixed = 2,198 ⫻ 106 mm4
Next, the equivalent moment of inertia is calculated based
on Method 2 (parallel axis thereom)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 3. Model A

FIG. 4. 3D Model

Isupport = 8,447 ⫻ 106 mm4

Imidspan = 10,585 ⫻ 106 mm4
w= 冉冘 冊冒
R L

For computational ease, an average moment of inertia will be

used
Iaverage = 9,516 ⫻ 106 mm4
The weight of the truss is calculated. From the support re-
action, a distributed equivalent beam loading is obtained
72 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / MAY 2000
where w = equivalent distributed load; 兺 R = 16.59 kN; L =
18.319 m; and knowing the density of steel, the equivalent
area is found to be 11,774 mm2.
With these calculated (the equivalent beam moment of in-
ertia, equivalent cross-sectional area, and the original structure

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2000.5:70-77.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 5. Equivalent Models 1, 2, and 3

FIG. 6. Equivalent 3D Model

configuration), four 2D and four 3D models are created for
evaluation. Model A (Fig. 3) is the real 2D model, and Model
3D (Fig. 4) is the real 3D model. Model 1 (Fig. 5) is the
equivalent 2D model, and Model 1-3D (Fig. 6) is the equiv-
alent 3D model based on deflection using Method 1 simply
supported. Model 2 (Fig. 5) and Model 2-3D (Fig. 6) are the
equivalent 2D and 3D models, respectively, based on deflec-
tion using Method 1 fixed ends. Model 3 (Fig. 5) and Model
3-3D (Fig. 6) are the equivalent 2D and 3D models, respec-
tively, using Method 2.
The loading conditions that the models are subjected to are
similar to those found in most building codes. The loads ap-
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / MAY 2000 / 73
plied to the various models for this paper are based on the
requirements listed in most building codes [ASCE7-94 (‘‘Min-
imum’’ 1994); AISC LRFD Manual (Manual 1986)]. All load
combinations are factored assuming LRFD design criteria
would be used for the design. The following are the load com-
binations (cases) to be used for analysis:
• Case 1 = 1.4(dead load)
• Case 2 = 1.2(dead load) ⫹ 0.5(roof live)
• Case 3 = 1.2(dead load) ⫹ 1.6(roof live) ⫹ 0.8(wind-
perpendicular)

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2000.5:70-77.

 • Case 4 = 1.2(dead load) ⫹ 1.6(roof live) ⫹ 0.8(wind-
parallel)
• Case 5 = 1.2(dead load) ⫹ 0.5(roof live) ⫹ 1.3(wind-
perpendicular)
• Case 6 = 1.2(dead load) ⫹ 0.5(roof live) ⫹ 1.3(wind-
parallel)
• Case 7 = 1.2(dead load) ⫹ 1.5(seismic) ⫹ 0.5(snow)
• Case 8 = 0.9(dead load) ⫺ 1.3(wind-perpendicular)
• Case 9 = 0.9(dead load) ⫺ 1.3(wind-parallel)
• Case 10 = 0.9(dead load) ⫺ 1.5(seismic)
All models were evaluated (analyzed) through the use of a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
approximately 21% higher for Model 2 (Load case 5) to ap-
proximately 256% higher for Model 2 (Load case 1). The only
exception to this is for Load case 3 for all the equivalent mod-
els. For this particular load case, the horizontal deflections are
less than Model A.
The higher horizontal deflections for the equivalent models
can be partially attributed to the actual modeling of the struc-
ture. The equivalent beams are a fixed-end connection to the
columns. As stated previously, this can create a moment at the
beam-column connection similar to the force-couple action of
the reactions for the truss. However, the truss’ lower chord,
which is approximately 2.210 m (7.25 ft) below the top chord

commercially marketed structural analysis computer program. along with vertical and diagonal truss members, helps brace
The natural period of vibration for each structure is calcu- Model A against side sway, whereas the equivalent models
lated from the natural frequency only have a beam located at the same elevation as the top
chord of the truss.
T = 1/ f Support reactions for node 3 (same node location for all
models) are listed in Table 4. Again, it can be seen that Model
where T = period of vibration in seconds; and f = natural
A’s and Model 1’s reactions are very close to each other,
frequency of the model in cycles per second. The natural fre-
quency is determined from the basic equation of motion for a
multidegree of freedom structure, not considering damping ef- TABLE 1. Model’s Natural Period of Vibration
fects
Period T
[M ]{ y⬙} ⫹ [K ]{ y} = {F } Model (s)
(1) (2)
where [M ] = mass matrix of the structure; [K ] = stiffness A 0.13
matrix of the structure; { y⬙} = acceleration vector; { y} = dis- 1 0.13
placement vector; and {F } = force vector. Free vibration is 2 0.22
based on {F } = {0} (Paz 1991). Therefore, in the calculation 3 0.11
of the natural frequency for each model, only the mass of the 3D 0.37
1-3D 0.27
structure shall be considered.
2-3D 0.29
3-3D 0.27
RESULTS
Tables 1–4 contain the results of the analysis of the four
TABLE 2. Vertical Deflection of 2D Models
different 2D models. Table 1 gives each model’s natural period
of vibration T. From Table 1, note that Model A (real model) Load Model A Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
and Model 1 have the same natural period of vibration, case (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
whereas Model 2’s period is higher and Model 3’s period is (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
slightly lower. Model 2’s higher natural period of vibration 1 ⫺8.84 ⫺9.40 ⫺23.25 ⫺6.44
can be accounted for by the equivalent beam’s smaller moment 2 ⫺10.78 ⫺11.39 ⫺28.21 ⫺7.79
of inertia I when compared to Model 1’s moment of inertia. 3 ⫺16.55 ⫺17.41 ⫺43.16 ⫺11.90
In the same respect, Model 3’s lower natural period of vibra- 4 ⫺16.67 ⫺17.67 ⫺43.81 ⫺12.70
tion can be attributed to its higher moment of inertia of the 5 ⫺8.73 ⫺9.26 ⫺22.90 ⫺6.34
6 ⫺8.94 ⫺9.68 ⫺23.96 ⫺6.63
equivalent beam when compared to Model 1. As the moment 7 ⫺9.08 ⫺9.60 ⫺23.70 ⫺6.59
of inertia value increases, so does the stiffness of the models, 8 ⫺7.73 ⫺8.17 ⫺20.26 ⫺5.59
thereby causing a lower period of vibration. 9 ⫺7.52 ⫺7.75 ⫺19.19 ⫺5.31
The vertical deflections of the various 2D models are listed 10 ⫺5.84 ⫺6.26 ⫺15.49 ⫺4.28
in Table 2. Model A’s and Model 1’s vertical deflections are Note: Minus sign means downward deflection. Model A deflection
close to one another for the 10 different load conditions. The measured at node 26, which corresponds to node 7 of Models 1, 2, and
difference in Model 1’s deflection as compared to Model A 3.
varies from 3.06% higher for Load case 9 to 9.68% higher for
Load case 6. By inspection, it can be readily determined that
Model 2’s deflections are excessively higher than Model A. TABLE 3. Horizontal Deflection of 2D Models
The difference in Model 2’s deflections as compared to Model
Load Model A Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
A varies from 155.19% higher for Load case 9 to 168.01% case (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
higher for Load case 6. Model 3’s deflections are all lower (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
than Model A. Model 3’s deflections are lower by 23.81% for
Load case 4 and 29.39% for Load case 9. 1 ⫺1.65 ⫺5.08 ⫺5.88 ⫺4.91
2 ⫺2.15 ⫺6.48 ⫺7.47 ⫺6.27
The variation in the deflections of the equivalent models is 3 6.42 3.80 2.56 4.07
directly related to the stiffness of the equivalent beam. Thus, 4 ⫺3.79 ⫺11.19 ⫺12.78 ⫺10.86
the higher the moment of inertia of the equivalent beam, the 5 14.42 17.83 17.51 17.91
lower the vertical deflection. Conversely, the lower the mo- 6 ⫺2.17 ⫺6.54 ⫺7.42 ⫺6.36
ment of inertia of the equivalent beam, the higher the vertical 7 23.41 31.90 31.99 31.89
8 ⫺17.64 ⫺27.57 ⫺28.75 ⫺27.33
deflection.
9 ⫺1.05 ⫺3.19 ⫺3.82 ⫺3.06
Horizontal deflections for the 2D models are listed in Table 10 ⫺27.26 ⫺42.67 ⫺44.20 ⫺42.37
3. One major conclusion can be observed. All of the equivalent
Note: Model A’s deflection measured at node 21, which corresponds
2D model’s horizontal deflections are higher than Model A. to node 6 of Models 1, 2, and 3.
The range of differences in horizontal deflection varies from
74 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / MAY 2000

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2000.5:70-77.

 TABLE 4. Support Reactions at Node 3 for 2D Models

Model A Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Load X Y X Y X Y X Y
case (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 ⫺1.47 102.53 ⫺1.47 103.02 ⫺5.12 103.02 ⫺0.67 103.02
2 ⫺1.69 115.43 ⫺1.73 116.05 ⫺6.14 116.01 ⫺0.76 116.05
3 ⫺8.05 167.70 ⫺7.25 168.19 ⫺13.97 168.14 ⫺5.74 168.19
4 ⫺4.40 165.38 ⫺5.07 166.36 ⫺11.97 166.32 ⫺3.51 166.36
5 ⫺10.41 101.95 ⫺9.03 101.60 ⫺12.59 101.51 ⫺8.27 101.60
6 ⫺4.54 98.13 ⫺5.52 98.62 ⫺9.34 98.62 ⫺4.67 98.62
7 ⫺12.28 109.07 ⫺9.39 108.14 ⫺12.94 108.00 ⫺8.59 108.14
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8 7.78 79.40 6.41 80.69 3.11 80.73 7.12 80.69

9 1.91 83.23 2.85 83.67 ⫺0.13 83.63 3.51 83.67
10 10.28 58.63 7.34 60.54 4.76 60.67 7.92 60.54

TABLE 5. Vertical Deflection (Global Y ) of 3D Models at Col- TABLE 7. Horizontal Deflection for (Global X ) 3D Models at
umn Line 3 Column Line 2
Load Model 3D Model 1-3D Model 2-3D Model 3-3D Load Model 3D Model 1-3D Model 2-3D Model 3-3D
case (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) case (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 ⫺7.65 ⫺8.69 ⫺22.78 ⫺6.14 1 ⫺2.80 ⫺2.70 ⫺6.12 ⫺2.07
2 ⫺9.38 ⫺10.44 ⫺27.20 ⫺7.28 2 ⫺3.33 ⫺3.28 ⫺7.37 ⫺2.48
3 ⫺14.32 ⫺15.58 ⫺40.51 ⫺10.70 3 ⫺4.72 ⫺4.05 ⫺10.13 ⫺2.66
4 ⫺15.20 ⫺16.07 ⫺41.64 ⫺11.08 4 ⫺5.10 ⫺5.47 ⫺11.82 ⫺4.21
5 ⫺7.31 ⫺8.11 ⫺21.39 ⫺5.62 5 ⫺2.28 ⫺1.10 ⫺4.23 ⫺0.24
6 ⫺8.74 ⫺8.90 ⫺23.23 ⫺6.25 6 ⫺2.88 ⫺3.92 ⫺6.99 ⫺2.76
7 ⫺6.98 ⫺7.80 ⫺20.59 ⫺5.41 7 ⫺2.16 ⫺1.61 ⫺4.06 ⫺0.18
8 ⫺6.98 ⫺7.91 ⫺20.45 ⫺5.61 8 ⫺2.85 ⫺3.92 ⫺7.07 ⫺3.57
9 ⫺5.55 ⫺7.12 ⫺18.61 ⫺4.97 9 ⫺2.24 ⫺1.61 ⫺4.32 ⫺1.05
10 ⫺5.35 ⫺6.35 ⫺16.37 ⫺4.57 10 ⫺2.92 ⫺5.59 ⫺8.27 ⫺5.42
Note: Minus sign means downward deflection. Model 3D deflection Note: Model 3D deflection measured at node 78, which corresponds
measured at node 125, which corresponds to node 101 of Models 1-3D, to node 64 of Models 1-3D, 2-3D, and 3-3D.
2-3D, and 3-3D.

TABLE 8. Horizontal Deflection (Global X ) for 3D Models at

TABLE 6. Vertical Deflection (Global Y ) of 3D Models at Col- Column Line 4
umn Line 5
Load Model 3D Model 1-3D Model 2-3D Model 3-3D
Load Model 3D Model 1-3D Model 2-3D Model 3-3D
case (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
case (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 ⫺2.31 ⫺0.37 2.08 ⫺2.19
1 ⫺12.49 ⫺13.06 ⫺31.41 ⫺9.47 2 ⫺2.76 ⫺0.41 2.49 ⫺2.60
2 ⫺14.95 ⫺15.80 ⫺37.60 ⫺11.33 3 3.05 4.87 9.35 6.31
3 ⫺22.62 ⫺24.29 ⫺57.31 ⫺17.13 4 ⫺4.67 ⫺0.73 3.63 ⫺4.65
4 ⫺23.30 ⫺24.33 ⫺57.43 ⫺17.28 5 9.48 8.49 11.12 14.47
5 ⫺12.27 ⫺13.15 ⫺31.47 ⫺9.28 6 ⫺3.05 ⫺0.60 1.82 ⫺3.33
6 ⫺13.36 ⫺13.22 ⫺31.65 ⫺9.54 7 10.49 8.36 10.90 15.49
7 ⫺11.82 ⫺12.73 ⫺30.46 ⫺8.97 8 ⫺13.73 ⫺9.13 ⫺7.29 ⫺18.47
8 ⫺10.71 ⫺11.04 ⫺26.32 ⫺8.13 9 ⫺1.20 ⫺0.04 1.98 ⫺0.67
9 ⫺9.62 ⫺10.98 ⫺26.14 ⫺7.88 10 ⫺16.68 ⫺11.35 ⫺10.17 ⫺21.93
10 ⫺8.08 ⫺8.09 ⫺19.45 ⫺6.11
Note: Model 3D deflection measured at node 165, which corresponds
Note: Minus sign means downward deflection. Model 3D deflection to node 131 of Models 1-3D, 2-3D, and 3-3D.
measured at node 191, which corresponds to node 147 of Models 1-3D,
2-3D, and 3-3D.

tion) measured at two different node locations. Table 5 is the

whereas Model 2’s reactions are higher and Model 3’s reac-
tions are lower than Model A’s.
The results for the analysis of the 3D models are listed in
Table 1 and Tabels 5–11. The 3D equivalent models (Models
1-3D, 2-3D, and 3-3D) are compared to the real model (Model
3D).
Table 1 shows that the natural period of vibration for Model
3D is 0.37 s. The equivalent models all have periods of vi-
bration that are lower than Model 3D. Models 1-3D and 3-3D
have natural periods of vibration equal to 0.27 s. Model 2-3D
has a natural period of vibration of 0.29 s. It is interesting to
note that the equivalent 3D models’ natural period of vibration
are close to one another in comparison with the natural period
of vibrations of the equivalent 2D models.
Tables 5 and 6 are the vertical deflections (global Y-direc-
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / MAY 2000 / 75
vertical deflection measured at node 125 of Model 3D (Fig.
4), which corresponds to node 101 of the equivalent models
(Fig. 6). Table 6 is the vertical deflection measured at node
191 of Model 3D (Fig. 4), which corresponds to node 147 of
the equivalent models (Fig. 6). Again as with the 2D equiva-
lent models, Model 1-3D’s deflections are slightly higher than
Model 3D’s (0.12% for Load case 9 of Table 6 to 28.29% for
Load case 9 of Table 5). Model 1-3D’s deflections are closer
to Model 3D’s deflections than either Model 2-3D or Model
3-3D. The only exception is in Table 5 for Load cases 9 and
10 in which Model 3-3D’s deflections are closer to Model
3D’s deflections as compared to Model 1-3D or 2-3D. Model
2-3D’s deflections at both node locations are 136.90% for
Load case 6 to 235.32% for Load case 9 higher than Model
3D’s deflection.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2000.5:70-77.

 Horizontal deflections (global X-direction) for the 3D mod-
els are measured at two locations on each model. For Model
3D, the horizontal deflection is measured at node 78 (Table 7)
and at node 165 (Table 8), which corresponds to node 64 and
node 131, respectively, for the equivalent 3D models. It is
apparent by looking at Tables 7 and 8 that the 3D equivalent
models’ horizontal deflections are closer to the real model’s
(Model 3D) deflection as compared to the 2D models.
The results of Table 7 show that Model 1-3D’s horizontal
deflections are fairly close to Model 3D. Model 1-3D’s de-
flections vary from slightly lower to somewhat higher than
Model 3D’s, from 51.75% less for Load case 5 to 91.44% for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for Load case 6 to 91.67% for Load case 7 than Model 3D’s
horizontal deflections.
The results of Table 8 show that Model 1-3D’s and Model
3-3D’s horizontal deflections are higher or lower, respectively,
when compared to Model 3D. The amount over or under is
approximately the same as the results contained in Table 7.
Model 2-3D’s horizontal deflection is higher than Model 3D
by 3.91%–206.56%.
Table 9 is the horizontal deflection measured in the global
Z-direction at node 78 for Model 3D, which corresponds to
node 64 for the equivalent beam models. The real model and
the equivalent beam models’ horizontal deflections in the

Load case 10. Although Model 2-3D’s horizontal deflections global Z-direction for the various load cases are approximately
are higher by 85.53% for Load case 5 to 183.22% for Load equal. The only exception is for Load case 10 in which the
case 10, Model 3-3D’s horizontal deflection is lower by 4.17% equivalent beam models’ deflections are 5 mm (3/16 in.) more
than Model 3D’s deflection. This slight difference in deflection
TABLE 9. Horizontal Deflection (Global Z ) for 3D Models at can be ignored.
Column Line 2 Support reactions for global X- and Y-directions were cal-
culated for the 3D models. Tables 10 and 11 list the support
Load Model 3D Model 1-3D Model 2-3D Model 3-3D
reactions with respect to the global coordinate system. Table
case (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
10 lists the support reactions for node 43 of Model 3D, which
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
corresponds to node 39 for the equivalent 3D models. Table
1 0 0 0 0 11 lists the support reactions at node 168 for Model 3D, which
2 1 0 1 0
3 1 1 1 1
corresponds to node 134 for the equivalent 3D models. Global
4 1 1 1 1 Z-direction reactions are not listed in Tables 10 or 11, because
5 0 0 1 1 all of the models’ reactions in the global Z-direction are the
6 1 1 1 1 same. This is a reasonable result as all of the 3D models are
7 0 0 1 1 modeled the same in the global Y-Z-plane.
8 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0
10 0 ⫺5 ⫺5 ⫺6 CONCLUSIONS
Note: Model 3D deflection measured at node 78, which corresponds
to node 64 of Models 1-3D, 2-3D, and 3-3D.
None of the equivalent models’ results exactly match the
real models. This is a reasonable conclusion, because the

TABLE 10. Support Reactions for 3D Models at Column Line 2

Model 3D Model 1-3D Model 2-3D Model 3-3D
Load X Y X Y X Y X Y
case (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 ⫺2.45 156.98 ⫺1.69 148.70 ⫺3.65 147.95 ⫺1.38 151.95
2 ⫺2.94 177.35 ⫺2.05 170.12 ⫺4.36 169.12 ⫺1.65 174.06
3 ⫺4.09 255.42 ⫺1.87 251.50 ⫺5.25 247.01 ⫺1.07 256.35
4 ⫺4.45 261.69 ⫺3.60 257.59 ⫺7.21 247.05 ⫺3.02 260.31
5 ⫺1.91 151.28 0.31 145.55 ⫺1.47 144.48 0.93 151.33
6 ⫺2.49 161.38 ⫺2.54 155.46 ⫺4.54 144.52 ⫺2.27 157.73
7 ⫺1.82 151.11 0.31 142.92 ⫺1.38 142.25 0.93 147.86
8 ⫺2.58 127.00 ⫺3.43 121.17 ⫺5.25 119.74 ⫺3.47 120.41
9 ⫺2.00 116.85 ⫺0.58 111.25 ⫺2.05 119.65 ⫺0.31 114.01
10 ⫺2.58 94.97 ⫺5.74 92.75 ⫺7.29 93.01 ⫺5.92 92.97
Note: Model 3D deflection measured at node 43, which corresponds to node 39 of Models 1-3D, 2-3D, and 3-3D.

TABLE 11. Support Reactions for 3D Models at Column Line 5

Model 3D Model 1-3D Model 2-3D Model 3-3D
Load X Y X Y X Y X Y
case (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 ⫺2.98 136.56 ⫺3.34 124.10 ⫺8.54 120.95 ⫺1.96 128.82
2 ⫺3.56 153.60 ⫺4.05 146.52 ⫺10.23 141.76 ⫺2.36 151.11
3 ⫺9.88 222.41 ⫺9.07 221.39 ⫺18.50 212.85 ⫺7.47 227.17
4 ⫺7.38 224.06 ⫺8.81 219.34 ⫺18.28 210.58 ⫺6.05 224.95
5 ⫺10.28 134.60 ⫺8.01 124.68 ⫺13.21 121.21 ⫺8.32 129.22
6 ⫺6.23 137.27 ⫺7.56 121.30 ⫺12.90 117.52 ⫺6.01 125.53
7 ⫺10.90 129.67 ⫺8.32 119.61 ⫺13.34 116.36 ⫺8.85 124.19
8 4.76 106.80 1.82 101.60 ⫺2.54 98.31 4.67 104.71
9 0.71 104.13 1.38 105.02 ⫺2.85 102.00 2.36 108.36
10 4.98 82.25 0.58 77.84 ⫺2.71 75.75 3.47 80.38
Note: Model 3D deflection measured at node 168, which corresponds to node 134 of Models 1-3D, 2-3D, and 3-3D.

76 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / MAY 2000

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2000.5:70-77.

 equivalent models are a simplified version of the real models.
However, accurate results for design purposes can be obtained
from the use of an equivalent beam model.
Based on this paper’s research findings, the preferred equiv-
alent beam method to use for analysis is the equivalent mo-
ment of inertia based on deflection using a equivalent simple
span beam with applied end moment (Models 1 and 1-3D).
The equivalent moment of inertia based on parallel axis the-
orem (Models 3 and 3-3D) could also be used, because the
results obtained for this method were fairly close to the real
model. In most cases, however, the equivalent moment of in-
ertia based on deflection using an equivalent simple span beam
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Maugh, L. C. (1946). Statically indeterminate structures. Wiley, New
York.
‘‘Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.’’ (1994).
ASCE 7-94. ASCE, New York.
Paz, M. (1991). Structural dynamics theory and computation. Van Nos-
trand Reinhold, New York.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). (1951). ‘‘Design drawings for
C-750 garage.’’ Sheets E5-1-5 through E5-3-5, Paducah, Ky.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (1994). ‘‘Natural phenomena evalu-
ation: Portsmouth building X-705—DAC-M0848401-SAR-28.’’ Ports-
mouth, Ohio.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION

with applied end moments provides slightly higher values than The following symbols are used in this paper:
a real model, therefore leading to a more conservative design.
The following simplified procedure can be used for analysis A = cross-sectional area of element;
using an equivalent beam: a = distance to load from left support;
b = distance from load to right support;
1. Develop a computer model of the truss only (Fig. 1). d = distance from centroidal to new axes;
2. Apply a vertical load P at any node location with the E = modulus of elasticity;
middle quarter of the truss (Fig. 2). The only limitation {F } = force vector;
on the value of P is that it must be below the loading f = natural frequency;
value that will limit stresses to the elastic range. I = moment of inertia of element;
[K ] = stiffness matrix;
3. Calculate the deflection of the truss based on the load P.
L = length of equivalent beam;
4. Using the deflection calculated in Step 3, calculate the
l = length of beam;
moment of inertia of an equivalent beam based on a sim- M = applied moment;
ply supported beam (same length as the truss) with ap- [M ] = mass matrix;
plied end movements (Fig. 2). P = applied load;
5. Create an equivalent 2D or 3D model of the structure R = support reaction;
replacing the trusses with equivalent beams. T = period of vibration;
w = equivalent distributed load;
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES x = distance from load to right support;
Manual of steel construction—allowable stress design. (1989). 9th Ed., Y = distance from x-axis to center of gravity;
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago. { y} = displacement vector;
Manual of steel construction—load and resistance factor design (LRFD). { y⬙} = acceleration vector; and
(1986). 1st Ed., American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago. ⌬ = deflection of element or beam.

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION / MAY 2000 / 77

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2000.5:70-77.