~ ~~ ~~~

AASHTO T I T L E S D T B - 1 85 m Ob39804 0012400 718 m

GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
for
STRENGTH DESIGN OF
TRUSS BRIDGES
(Load Factor Design)
1985

DEVELOPED BY THE AASHTO

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES

Published by
American Association
of
State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Inc.
 AASHTO T I T L E SDTB-L 85 m 0639804 0032403 654 m

GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
for
STRENGTH DESIGN OF
TRUSS BRIDGES
(Load Factor Design)
1985

Published by the American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials, Inc., Executive Off ice located at
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 225
Washington, D.C. 20001

O Copyright 1986, by the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United
States of America. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced
in any form without written permission of the publishers.
 AASHTO T I T L E SDTB-L 8 5 0639804 0012402 590

HIGHWAY SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES 1985

ROBERT C. CASSANO, CALIFORNIA, Chairman

VELD0 M. GOINS, OKLAHOMA, Vice Chairman
STANLEY GORDON, Federal Highway Administration, Secretary

ALABAMA, Charlie H. Cook, B. A. Riddle NORTH CAROLINA, James D. Lee, John L. Smith
ALASKA, Donald Halsted NORTH DAKOTA, Keith McLean
ARIZONA, Ron Brechler OHIO, Walter J. Jestings
ARKANSAS, Vera1 Pinkerton OKLAHOMA, Veldo M. Goins
CALIFORNIA, James E. Roberts, Robert C. Cassano OREGON, Walter J. Hart
COLORADO, Harold Henson PENNSYLVANIA, Stephen R. Simco
CONNECTICUT, John Cavanaugh, Milton Q.Johnson, PUERTO RICO, Jorge L. Acevedo
Earle R. Munroe RHODE ISLAND, Richard Kalunian
DELAWARE, Chao Hu SOUTH CAROLINA, W. A. Boleman, J. R. Coleman
D.C., Harry Moy, Gary Burch, Horace Jones SOUTH DAKOTA, K. C. Wilson
FLORIDA, Henry T. Bollmann TENNESSEE, R. L. Iddins, Jr., Clellon Loveall
GEORGIA, Charles Lewis TEXAS, Wayne Henneberger
HAWAII, Clarence R. Yamamoto U.S. DOT, Frank Sears (FHWA), Alfred T. Meschter
IDAHO, Richard Jobes (USCG)
ILLINOIS, James Raybum UTAH, Dave Christensen
INDIANA, William B. Abbott VERMONT, Warren B. Tipp
IOWA, William Lundquist VIRGINIA, Fred G. Sutherland
KANSAS, Kenneth F. Hurst WASHINGTON, C. S. Gloyd
KENTUCKY, Glen Kelly, Tom Layman WEST VIRGINIA, William D. Domico
LOUISIANA, Louis A. Garrido WISCONSIN, Stan Woods
MAINE, James Chandler WYOMING, Charles H. Wilson
MARYLAND, Earle S. Freedman, James K. Gatley ALBERTA, R. L. Foster
MASSACHUSETïS, Robert Costello GUAM, Casiano M. Bostre
MICHIGAN, Ho Lum Wong MANITOBA, G. A. DePauw
MINNESOTA, Keith V. Benthin MARIANA ISLANDS, David M. Sablan
MISSISSIPPI, Bennie D. Verell NEW BRUNSWICK, G. A. Rushton
MISSOURI, W. D. Carney NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, R. Ho
MONTANA, Norman Rognlie NOVA SCOTIA, R. Shaffelburg
NEBRASKA, James R. Holmes ONTARIO, R. A. Dorton
NEVADA, James Dodson, Ron Hill SASKATCHEWAN, L. J. Hamblin
NEW HAMPSHIRE, Andrew J. Lane MASS. METRO. DIST. COMM., David Lenhardt
NEW JERSEY, Jack Freidenrich, Warren J. Sunderland N.J. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Paul M. Weckesser
NEW MEXICO, Martin A. Gavurnick PORT AUTH. OF NY & NJ, Joseph Zitelli, Joseph Kelly
NEW YORK, E. V. Hourigan

ii
 AASHTO T I T L E S D T B - I I ô5 = Ob39ô04 0012403 427

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STRENGTH DESIGN OF TRUSS BRIDGES: SPECIFICATIONS

(Load Factor Design)

1.1 General .............................................................. 1

1.2 Load Factors ......................................................... 1
1.3 Truss Members ...................................................... 1
1.4 Secondary Stresses ................................................... 1
1.5 Perforated Cover Plates and Lacing Bars ............................ 1
1.6 Half Through Spans .................................................. 2
1.7 Net Section of Tension Members .................................... 2
1.8 Computation of Member Capacity ................................... 2
1.9 Compression Members-Thickness of Metal ........................ 3
1.10 Eyebar Pins .......................................................... 4
1.11 Gusset Plates ......................................................... 4

STRENGTH DESIGN OF TRUSS BRIDGES: COMMENTARY

(Load Factor Design)

1.2 Load Factors .........................................................

1.8 Computation of Member Capacity ...................................
1.9 Compression Members-Thickness of Metal ........................
1.10 Eyebar Pins ..........................................................

iii
 ~~

AASHTO T I T L E SDTB-11 8 5 W 0637804 00112404 3 6 3

STRENGTH DESIGN OF TRUSS BRIDGES:

SPECIFICATIONS
(Load Factor Design)

1.1 GE"UL W k

ïñese Guide Specifidom shail apply to truss spans

R = (Live Load Force + ImpactMToral Force)
F, = Pewissible S m s From Tables 10.323B and
over 500 feet long. Unless amended herein, ttic existing
provisions of the M S H T O SIMdQTd Speci@c&ns for
Highway Bridges shall apply to t & s bridge supasauc-
wes &signed by the Sata@ Design Method.
M - 10.32.3c
Number of Bolts
A = A m Per Boit

. 1.3 TRUSSMEMBERS
1.2 LOADFACïORS
The provisions of Artide 10.16.2 shaU apply, encqt
th?t the i0,ûW pound aüowaace for adjustable counien
s&aübe trrated as a dead load and factored accordingly.

C h q FacaMd~Combiaatioa 1.4 sEcoNDARYsTREssEs

1.3 [D + (5/3)(L + I)] ForD S .77T 1
Ill I

U
1.5 [ D + L + I ] F o r D > . t r r
1.46[D + w] /-
.
The provisions of Articie 10.16.3 shail apply, except
that the 3,000 psi and 4,000 psi allowances snail Se
converted to f a c t d aiiowances. Factored ailowances
IIA 1.6ow shall be computed as:
111 ïïï 1.46p + L+I + 0.3W + W L +
M 1.14[D + Hw]
Notes:
or
( i ) D, L, I, W, WL, LFaomcnciatureis rhcsaaicas
Secria 3 of Division 1 of ttse Sm&u¿Spec@c&w
for Highway Bridges. T denotes the tocai force
(D + L + I). The HW norncncianuc smds for MaePi ia ttse percent of member servicc load attributed
"Hirrric;irw Wind".
to dead 1006 live load or wind load. and LF, is the
(2) G r o u p I I A i s f o r t h e ~ m m k n d e s i ~ o n l y apprapriate load factor for each type of load.
for wind foticcs.
nie number of fastcnen in a fiction splice or coa-
. baJed on the following over-
nectionshaìibedernrmned 1.5 PERFORATED COVER PLATES .UD
Id provision for Group I Load Combinarion, ami by LACING BARS
xrvi# loxi pnxxduns for ortier load combinations.
The provisions of Amcles 10.16.8. 10.16.10 and
D + f 5 1 3 X L + D s C l +(2n)R]FvMA F o r D 5 . m 10.35.1 shall apply, cxccpt tfiat the addiaonai s h w force.
V, shall be computed using the allowable compressive
D+L+ISF,MA ForD>.m axial load computed by strength design prcrcedurcs.

I
2
A A S H T O T I T L E S D T B - 1 85 W 063980Y 0012Y05 Z T T
SïìUiNGïH DESIGN OF TRUSS BRIBGES
= 1.6
:
8

1.6 HALF THROUGH SPANS

The piovisim of Article 10.16.12 shali apply, except
hat the minimum lareal force of 300 pounds per linear
foot shail be convertai to a factorrd toad using the pro=
c t d u n dcsaibed in Section 1.4.

1.7 NET SECTION OP TENSXON MEMBEXS

The pvisions of Artick 10.18 and 10.16.14 shaiì

P

Fix built-up members, thc detamrooti'onofthaeiount

of arrsr to be deducfai shall be mode on & clxqmme
part separately, and the rlc!secrion of fhew h o k member
w be the s u l of the r e t sectionsoft& sepyate pans,
so calculated.
Hand holes and perforations shall be dcdrictcd h m (A) For Box-Shaped Memberx
the gross &cm in their en- before applying tf#
provisions of Apticles 10.18 and 10.16.14or this section.
U, = FyS, [-
1 0.0641

1.8 CC3MPü"A'X'ION OF MEMBER CAPAClTY

Wttere:
The capcity of ee&n members W be evaiuatcd A = A m Enciosaj Within Centerillies of Plates of
using the two interaction equnbioru givea below:
dt
4
- BOX Member5
h g t b of a SIde Divided by its Thickness
Momeat O f I#rci;i About ttre Axis P ~ d i c -
UktotbeBeadingAxis
L =LgthofMcmbcT
,S = Gross Effcctivc scctioa Modulus About Btnd-
ing Axis
when:
(B) For H-Shcrpcd Members Betu About Their Minor
P = Factorcd~AxiaiLoad Axis:
Fy = Yield Point
A,, = Ne Arra-peP Section 1.7 Herein M, = 1.5 FyS,
M = Factoml Dead Load Moment
S, = Nef Section Modulus-Per Section 1.7 Hmin (C) For H-Shclped Members, and Members with Chun-
f = Plastic Shape Factor Computed on thc basis of

-
nei FIanges and a Web Plate. Bent Abou Their
Gioss or G m Effective Properaes Major Axis:
Fu UltimatcStru~gthofStal
A, = NetAnzwithAUHolesRemoved
Si Ntt S ~ O Moctulu
U wth AU H d e s Rwioved
The capacity of compression mcmbcts shall be mai-
uatd using the two interaction equations given below:

MC
p + s 1.0
0.85 A, ,F
- &] where:
P
0.85 A, F,
M
+% -
s 1.0 S, = Gross Effective Section Modulus About Bend-
ing Axis
 AASHTO TITLE SDTB-3 85 m Ob39804 0032406 336 m

1.8 STRENGTH DESIGN OF TRUSS BRIDGES 3

J = St. Venant Torsional Constant, Approximately of main plates, rolled sections, or made up component
Z bt3/3 segments, with cover plates, the b/t ratio of the main
h = Depth of Web Plate Plus Flange Thickness plates or webs of the segments, when used in compres-
G = Shear Modulus sion shall not be greater than the value obtained by use
K = Effective Length Factor for Column Buckling of the formula:
About Weak Axis
I, = Moment of Inertia About the Axis Perpendic-
ular to the Bending Axis
bt - 5700 or
fia fia
(
473.1
(in m a ) )
E = Young’s Modulus
u
, = Critical Elastic Lateral-Torsional Buckling but in no case shall b/t be greater than 45.
stress
(Note: b is the distance between points of support for
the plate and between roots of flanges for the
1.9 COMPRESSION MEMBERS-THICKNESS webs of rolled segments.)
OF METAL
When the compressive stresses equal the limiting fac-
The center of gravity of a built-up section shall co- tor 0.85Fy,the b/t ratio of the plates and segments in-
incide as nearly as practicable with the center of the dicated above shall not be greater than the ratios shown
section. Preferably, segments shall be connected by solid for the following grades of steel:
webs or perforated cover plates.
Plates supported on one side, outstanding legs of an- 36,000 psi (248.211 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t=32
gles and perforated plates-For outstanding plates, the 50,000 psi (344.737 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t = 27
outstanding legs of angles and perforated plates at the 90,000 psi (620.527 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t=20
perforations, the b/t ratio of the plates or angle segments, 100,000 psi (689.470 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t= 19
when used in compression, shall not be greater than the
value obtained by use of the formula: Solid cover plates supported on two edges or webs
connecting main members or segments-For members
_b -- -
2200 / 182.6 \ of H or box shape consisting of solid cover plates or
or solid webs connecting main plates or segments, the b/t
t fia
ratio of the solid cover plates or webs when used in
where: compression shall not be greater than the value obtained
by use of the formula:
fa = The Calculated Compressive Stress
b = The Width (Defined as Indicated for Each
Expression)
t = The Plate or Web Thickness
bt -- EOr (
560.3
fia fl(in MPa) )
but in no case shall b/t be greater than 12 for main but in no case shail b/t be greater than 50.
members and 16 for secondary members.
(Nore: b is the unsupported distance between points of
(Note: b is the distance from the edge of the plate or support.)
edge of perforation to the point of support by
When the compressive stresses equal the limiting fac-
weld or line of connections.)
tor 0.85Fy, the b/t ratio of the cover plate and webs
When the compressive stress equals the limiting factor indicated above shall not be greater than the ratios shown
0.85Fy,the b/t ratio of the segments indicated above shall for the following grades of steel:
not be greater than the ratios shown for the following
grades of steel: 36,000 psi (248.211 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t=38
50,000 psi (344.737 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t=32
36,000 psi (248.211 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t= 12 90,000 psi (620.527 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t=24
50,000 psi (344.737 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t= 10 100,000 psi (689.470 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t=23
90,000 psi (620.527 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t = 8.0
100,000 psi (689.470 MPa) Y .P. Min. b/t= 7.5 Perforated cover plates supported on two edges-For
members of box shape consisting of perforated cover
Plates supported on two edges or webs of main com- plates connecting main plates or segments, the b/t ratio
ponent segments-For members of box shape, consisting of the perforated cover plates when used in compression
 A A S H T O T I T L E SDTB-L ô 5 m 0639804 0032407 0 7 2 m

4 STRENGTH DESIGN OF TRUSS BRIDGES 1.9

shall not be greater than the value obtained by use of the

formula: D3 Fy + (E) 3
4 0.95

b=80000r(
- 664.3
t fia fia(in MPa) ) where:
D = Diameter of Pin
but in no case shall b/t be greater than 55. M = Factored Moment
V = Factored Shear
(Note: b is the distance between points of support. At-
tention is directed to requirements for plate thick- The applied bending moment and shear shall act si-
ness at perforations, namely plate supported on multaneously on the design section of the pin.
one side, which also shall be satisfied.)
When the compressive stresses equal the limiting fac- 1.11 GUSSET PLATES
tor 0.85Fy, the b/t ratio of the perforated cover plates
shall not be greater than the ratios shown for the following Gusset plates shall be designed for shear, bending and
grades of steel: axial load by the conventional “Method-of-Section” pro-
cedures used for service load design.
36,000 psi (248.211 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t=45 The maximum stress from combined factored bending
50,000 psi (344.737 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t = 38 and axial loads shall be the yield stress based on the
90,000 psi (620.527 MPa) Y .P. Min. b/t = 29 actual area, Le., no “plastic shape factors” or other
100,000 psi (689.470 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t=27 parameters which imply plastification of the cross-section
The point of support shall be the linear line of fasteners shall be used.
or fillet welds connecting the plate to the main segment. The maximum shear stress on a section shall be
For plates butt welded to the flange edge of rolled seg- F y / f l for uniform shear and 0.74 F,/fi for bending
ments, the point of support may be taken as the weld shear computed as shear force divided by area.
whenever the ratio of outstanding flange-width-to-flange- Design checks of gusset edges (stiffened and unstif-
thickness of the rolled segment is less than seven. Oth- fenedj shall be performed on the same idealized column
erwise, point of support shall be the root of flange of section as currently used in service load design. The load
rolled segment. Terminations of the butt welds are to be factor capacity of the column is evaluated using the strenth
ground smooth. design procedures described herein.
If the length of unsupported edge of a gusset plate
exceeds the value of the expression 11,OOO/fl or
(913/* (in MPa)) times its thickness, the edge shall
be stiffened.
1.10 EYEBAR PINS Listed below are the values of the expression 11,OW/
fl or (913/* (in MPa)) for the following grades of
The maximum bearing stress on eyebar pins shall be steel:
1.35 F,,.
Eyebar pins shall be proportioned for shear and bend- 36,000 psi (248.211 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t=58
ing to satisfy the following interaction equation and all 50,000 psi (344.737 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t=49
other provisions of the Standard Specijìcations for High- 90,000 psi (620.527 MPa) Y.P: Min. b/t = 37
way Bridges not related to shear, bending and bearing. 100,000 psi (689.470 MPa) Y.P. Min. b/t = 35
 ~

A A S H T O T I T L E SDTB-3 85 m 0639804 0032408 TO9 m

.. e
STRENGTH DESIGN OF TRUSS MEMBERS:
COMMENTARY
(Load Factor Design)

1.2 LOAD FACTORS 1.8 COMPUTATION OF MEMBER CAPACITY

The Group I load factors currently in the AASHTO The interaction equation for tension members contains
Specifications are: two simplifying assumptions. The first is that the shape

-.
of the interaction equation is a straight line joining the
Maximum Design Load = 1.3[D + (513) (L + i)] points (P = P,, M = O) and (P = O, M = Mp). This
is known to be a conservative assumption for wide flange
This is shown as Curve “A” on Figure 1 which relates shapes bent about their major axis and rectangular shapes.
factor of safety for bending and tension members to the All shapes under consideration can be considered in this
percent of total load which is either dead load (upper range. The second assumption is that the plastic shape
scale), or live load plus impact (lower scale). The con- factor for net section is the same as the plastic shape
ventional factor of safety against first yield in the service factor for gross effective sections. These are reasonable
load method is 1.82 and this is shown as Curve “B”. assumptions, especially considering that the moment por-
It has not been uncommon in long span bridge design to tion of the interaction curve is usually less than 5 percent
ailow 10 percent overstress in members carrying mostly of the total.
dead load. This corresponds to a factor of safety of 1.65. Two interaction equations for compression members
The transition to the 10 percent allowable overstress has are basically as discussed in AASHTO Article 10.54.2.1.
often occurred when the dead load is more than 75 percent Typical box-shaped truss members have such high lat-
of the total load. This is shown as Curve “C”. The eral-torsional stiffness that the reduction in bending strength
Group I load factors originally proposed herein were de- arising from lack of lateral support is minimal. The re-
veloped by starting with a line which would intercept, duction in bending capacity computed by the recom-
(1) the point corresponding to a factor of safety of 1.65 mended equation is usually small for truss box members
at 75 percent dead load and, (2) the point at which the of usual proportions.
AASHTO service load and load factor design methods The recommended equations for H-shaped members
have the same factor of safety, i.e., 40 percent dead bent about their major axis are the equations from which
load. the bending allowable stresses in Table 10.32.1A were
However, in lieu of the proceeding discussion, the load developed. The more rigorous solution is required for
factor relation for Group I, as determined by Committee truss members because of their long unbraced lengths.
action will be:

1.3 [D + (513) (L + 111 $. 1.5 [D +L+ 11 1.9 COMPRESSION MEMBERS-THICKNESS

OF METAL
The second relationship provides a minimum factor of
Critical elastic buckling stress for plates can be written
. safety of 1.5. It will control for those members where
dead constitutes 77 percent or more of the total load.
These load factors are shown as the heavy curve on
as:

Figure 1. K IT^ E
The proposed load factors for groups other than Group I = 12(1 - p2) (b/t)2
have been selected to yield essentially the same results
as service load design. Group UA is specifically intended Substituting E = 29,000,000 psi and p = 0.3, and
.c for lateral truss members. solving for b/t yields:

5
 AASHTO T I T L E S D T B - 1 ô 5 W 0639804 0012409 945

6 STRENGTH DESIGN OF TRUSS BRIDGES 1.9

2.5

FAASHTO
I
SERVICE LOAD O
MODIFIED SERVICE LOAD
2.o
I

'+
1.82 m I .e2
1.65
I
1.5

t
.-
PROPOSED LOAD FACTOR
1.5

1.3

I .o

0.5

I
DEAD 0% 50 % I' %
(LtI) 100% 5O % 0%
PERCENT OF TOTAL LOAD
Figure 1

For load factor design, the maximum compressive stress

fa = 0 . 8 5 which
~ ~ ~ leads to:
O
b - 5660
AASHTO shifts the curve defined by this equation to
account for the observed behavior of plates, which in- t f i a

dicates that residual stresses and out-of-flatness reduce

the strength of plates of intermediate slenderness below The exact values of K, to be used for plate components
that which would be indicated by simple elastic stability of members for other conditions of support, are functions
analysis. This shift is accomplished by multiplying the of the degree of support, which will vary from member- 9

equation above by 0.6, resulting in: to-member. Actually, the plate strength of a fabricated
member is a characteristic of the whole cross-section,
not an individual plate. The existing coefficients for b/t
ratios for truss members are the product of theory, tem-
pered by experience and allowances for many non-ideal
characteristics of plates in members, Therefore, the fol-
For the case of a simply supported plate, the minimum lowing procedure has been used in developing b/t re-
value of K is 4.0. This value of K and the introduction quirements.
of a factor of safety such that the working stress is fa = The service load width-thickness provisions in AASHTO
.55uc,/l.25 yields: can be written as:
b - 4073 b
t f i a
E

For main plates of truss members, the AASHTO Spec-

ifications utilize: or
1.25 NSL2
ucr =
.
0.55 (;)* O

_-__ _ _ -- __-_- -
PROBLEM HARD COPY
 =
A A S H T O T I T L E S D T B - 1 85 0639804 00124LO 667 =
1.9 SiRE" DESIGN OF TRUSS BRIDGES-COMME?~"ARY 7

For I& facm Qign wich a maximm compressive daamine a suitabie interaction w e . The following
stlcsf. f,. of o.wu, coasidcrations arc notai:
1. Poino e"O" -t lower bound SO~U-
tioas.obtliaed for a cimukir shape by assuming
som porcion of ttre cross-&on to be yielded in
k#liag and to cay Po shear. nie remainder of
tbc cmss-saxioa was assumai to k elastic in bend-
ingands&ar. The maximumshearsa#s was equal
00 tbe &ear yieid suus. When plotttd as a nor-
mzlitrri iwiacrion m e , lower bound pointa com-
putai as d#aibd above plot in the same location,
it&ardleJsof the choice of yield criterion. The m g -
aitude of the s&ar foire is, of course, a function
of tbe yield criterion.
Z Poino myircd "D' npresnit Iowa b o n d SO~U-
tim, ohahai as described above, for a squan
aws-sectiOn. A square section was also anaiyzed
because avaüaòle pubiished solutions applied to
-gular . comparison of lower
~ s c c t i o a sA
bound resuits fot both shapes provides a basis for
evrluating PreviOuJiy proposed interaction mes
for w in tbe design of eyebar pins.
3. Poinu markai '* Q" were ob&& by a com-
pnrrpogiam w&i& aaaiyzcd a circular cross-sec-
tiOa, kokezi into 2û Layas, by tracing the spnad
dphifkmm * ttwugil tile o o s s - ~ o ncom-
spoadine io hcmsing, but pmportionai, moment
aad sku. The progrcssioa of yield for cacti of
diese points was from the top and bottom towards
the mttttc in ader of layer position. ïk vou Mhs
yield aiterioa was used in thcse computations be-
cause it is incorporared into the existing .USHTO
lo9d fr#K provisions for girder design. The 4-
cuiatioas were repeated with the Tnsca yie!d ci-
taion with littic difference obsmred.
The voa Mises and Tresca yield criteria arc shown
below:
u2 +3 F = urzvon Mises
u2 + 4 F = CqrresCa
4. Poims rntrked '* + ** wen obtained for a circular
sh;rpc using the same computer pro- for ratios
1.10 EYEBAR ms of sbar and moment which caused the pro-ssion
of plasticity to proceed either from the middle !ayer

11 Thcpfopc#cdallowabkbearing~oapins~sub-
jea @ rotaha is 1.35 F,. This value is basai on the
Chari0 Highway Bridge Design Code, *whichutilizei a
out to both edges in order of layer position. or :o
s t a ~at the middle and then p r o ~ c t dto total pl=-
tiilcation in an orderwhich did not bear any =!ation
V J U e of 1.5 8, in which a = 0.9 for steel. to the oder of the fay- position. This impiies a
Thc pmblem of pin capacity in combincd st#y and discontinuous strain field. a phenomenon w i c h
kndiag is tmt appmdmí with an intaaction m e . can exist ia plastic flow. These points arc no(ar&d
Figurc2~thar#ultsOfthrrcapproximatiOnsto as informative, but Ias diable than the .points
 =
AASHTO T I T L E S D T B - 1 8 5 Ob39804 0012411 5 T 3
a sIRp(GTH DESXGGN OF TRUSS BRIDGE3 1.10 ’
L

1.8
O

O
a,. LU
V I vp

aimion, although Hodgc noted hat th6 von ,Mises

aitexion could a h have been used. Neither paper
mtaintd expcRmental verification.
8. An intcraction curve similar to Drucker’s, but uti-
lipng a~ exponent of 3 instead of 4 is also shown.
That curve is somewhat mure conservative hari
eitha Dnidcet’s CUNC or Hodge’s c w e and is
suggested as the baais for eyebar pin design.

nedisamm ’ above indicam that ic would be rea-

sodk to @y D r u c k ’ s intaaction curve to the design
of- pins. However, since neither ù r u c h nor Hodgc
pubiishcâ cxp#imcntal verification in their respesave
papers, and considering the importarace of eyebae pins.
the m m conscrvacive interaction c u v e marked “pm-
posed” in Figure 2 involving the c u m of the ratio or’
shear was used as the basic interaction equation. In o d e r
that a consemative result be obtained for hcse ven, cru-
cial tmss componentsI the limit of the interaction equa-
tion was reduced to 0.95. The design quation in
“Guide Specuications” was obtained by substituting t
 AASHTO T I T L E S D T B - 1 85 W 0639804 0 0 1 2 4 1 2 4 3 T

1.10 STRENGTH DESIGN OF TRUSS BRIDGES-COMMENTARY 9

appropriate equations for plastic shear and moment ca- 3. Drucker, D. C., “The Effect of Shear on the Plas-
pacities in terms of pin diameter into the proposed in- tic Bending of Beams”, Journal of Applied Mechanics,
teraction equation. ASME, December, 1956.

REFERENCES 4. Hodge, P. G., Jr., “Interaction Curves for Shear

and Bending of Plastic Beams”, Journal of Applied Me-
chanics, ASME, September, 1957.
1. Highway and Structures Design Handbook, U.S.
Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Fisher, J. W.and Struik, J. H. A., Guide to De-
2 . Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, Ontario sign Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints, John Wiley
Ministry of Transporation and Communication, 1979. and Sons, New York, 1974.