Beam and Trusses: Substitution
Beam and Trusses: Substitution
(OP)
Hello everyone!
I recently looked at the Burrard bridge here in Vancouver and noticed that some sections the road are supported by beams and some sections by trusses (I should have taken pictures myself, since none of the pictures on the Internet show the section supported by beams). As a future structural engineer, I became curious on structural purposes of beams and trusses. As I know so far, the only purpose of beams and trusses is to carry vertical loads by means of using shear and axial strength of steel or some other material.
So, by knowing that, is it any reasonable to assume that beams can always be substituted by trusses as long as constructibility requirements are met?
If yes, why don't we substitute beams by trusses all the time?
Wouldn't truss substitution make structures lighter?
Plus, how does a structural engineer decide whether to use a truss or beam in a given problem? Or it is the architect who decides that?
Please, let me know if I am thinking in a wrong direction. I am surprised I haven't asked that question to professors during school term....
Kind regards,
Denis
I recently looked at the Burrard bridge here in Vancouver and noticed that some sections the road are supported by beams and some sections by trusses (I should have taken pictures myself, since none of the pictures on the Internet show the section supported by beams). As a future structural engineer, I became curious on structural purposes of beams and trusses. As I know so far, the only purpose of beams and trusses is to carry vertical loads by means of using shear and axial strength of steel or some other material.
So, by knowing that, is it any reasonable to assume that beams can always be substituted by trusses as long as constructibility requirements are met?
If yes, why don't we substitute beams by trusses all the time?
Wouldn't truss substitution make structures lighter?
Plus, how does a structural engineer decide whether to use a truss or beam in a given problem? Or it is the architect who decides that?
Please, let me know if I am thinking in a wrong direction. I am surprised I haven't asked that question to professors during school term....
Kind regards,
Denis






RE: Beam and Trusses: Substitution
Long heavily loaded spans may suit trusses more than beams because the weight saving is considerable and long span beams may not be readily available.
The structural engineer has a pretty good idea of whether to use a beam or a truss by doing a few quick calculations and determining which he thinks is more economical. When the decision is close, he may wish to check with local fabricators to get their input. Alternatively, if he doesn't care which of the two is used, he can design beams and allow trusses to be substituted at the option of the contractor subject to his approval of the design. Sometimes, the architect may wish to create a special effect and detail a special type of truss which the structural engineer has to ensure carries the loads safely.
When the project is far away from structural steel fabricators, transportation costs can become a deciding factor.
BA
RE: Beam and Trusses: Substitution
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Beam and Trusses: Substitution
The decision to switch to trusses is partially preference, partially math and partially "feel" or experience. It depends on a combination of span, load, clear depth, labour costs, material costs and erection constraints.
RE: Beam and Trusses: Substitution
Another issue is maintenance. Beams withstand physical damage (e.g. impact from mobile equipment) better than trusses.
Also, in industry you probably will never have to work with an architect.
www.SlideRuleEra.net
www.VacuumTubeEra.net
RE: Beam and Trusses: Substitution
BAretired - Absolutely great post. I am now actually curious how to analyse castellated beams... thanks for throwing newer things into my vision!
TLHS - thanks for clarifying their reasoning!
SlideRuleEra - I always thought that beams are more suitable for distributed loads...And for trusses, are they ever loaded with distributed weights? I always thought that only point loads should be applied to trusses. Also why is it so that beams are better at withstanding impact loads? Is it because trusses have lots of connections?
Kind regards,
Denis
RE: Beam and Trusses: Substitution
To analyze a truss with the "method of joints" you assume that the loads are applied at the truss nodes, but in reality the load are often distributed. A common example is a typical residential roof truss - the dead load of the roof deck / shingles are distributed loads. So are many live loads, wind load and snow load.
If you want to place heavy point loads on a truss, you have to not only consider where it is on the overall truss, but where it is in relation to the truss nodes. On a beam, the point load can go wherever necessary as long as the beam in not overloaded in shear, moment, or deflection (for moment, be sure to take into account the beam's unbraced length).
I agree with your conclusion about beams being better at resisting impact than trusses. A typical rolled beam is, of course, one piece. A reasonable impact is going to be distributed, in some fashion, throughout the member. If it is dented or bent, it will still work... just not quite as well. A truss depends on every member contributing to load carrying (otherwise, the member would not have been included in the truss). If one member gets significant damage it can jeopardize the entire truss.
www.SlideRuleEra.net
www.VacuumTubeEra.net