IMPROVED RESISTANCE CALCULATION FOR STEEL TRUSS GUSSET PLATES – THE TRUNCATED WHITMORE SECTION METHOD “Method 2” in Appendix I of NCHRP 12-84 Report by Ocel (2013) Don White Georgia Tech
IMPROVED RESISTANCE CALCULATION
FOR STEEL TRUSS GUSSET PLATES –
THE TRUNCATED WHITMORE SECTION
METHOD
“Method 2” in Appendix I of NCHRP 12-84 Report by Ocel (2013)
Don White
Georgia Tech
Method 2 Concepts, Non-Truncated Sections
WWhitmore = 24.4
Lmid = 13.2Fcr
30o30o
30o
Wconn = 10 Lconn = 12.5
345 kips
716 kips
141 kips
507 kips
520 kips
E1-U-307SS(3/8)-WV
• “Standard” application of the traditional Whitmore section
• No Partial Shear Plane check
• Professional factor (Test strength / predicted strength) of 1.12, versus 1.30
using “Method 1”, the AASHTO Whitmore Section/Partial Shear Plane Method
Method 2 Concepts, Truncated Sections
Method 2 Concepts, Truncated Sections
Method 2 Truncated Section Parameters
Method 1 Professional Factors
No-Chamfer cases governed by DB or PSPY
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Pro
fess
ion
al F
acto
r R
test
/R
n
0.35(Fy/E)0.5 (Lmid/tg)
Diagonal Buckling, No Chamfer Cases
P14-U(0.3125)-W-INFP14-U(0.25)-W-INF
Rtest/Rn > 2.0 for 3 tests
Method 2 Professional Factors
No-Chamfer cases governed by DB
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Pro
fess
ion
al F
acto
r R
test
/Rn
0.35(Fy/E)0.5 (Lmid/tg)
Diagonal Buckling, No Chamfer Cases
Method 2 Professional Factors
No-Chamfer cases governed by DB-TWS
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Pro
fess
ion
al F
acto
r R
test
/Rn
0.35(Fy/E)0.5 (LM/t)
Diagonal Buckling - Truncated Whitmore Section, No Chamfer Cases
Method 1 Professional Factors
Chamfered cases governed by DB or PSPY
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Pro
fess
ion
al F
acto
r R
test
/Rn
0.35 (Fy/E)0.5 (Lmid/tg)
DB, Chamfer Cases
P14-C(0.25)-W-INF
Method 2 Professional Factors
Chamfered cases governed by DB-TWS
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Pro
fess
ion
al F
acto
r R
test
/Rn
0.35(Fy/E)0.5 (LM/tg)
DB-TWS, Chamfer Cases
P5-C-HS(0.2)-WV-NP
T-14 Gusset Plates:
Comparison of Gusset Plate Analysis
Methods using TDOT’s SR56 over
Caney Fork River
Todd J. Stephens, PE
John M. Kulicki, PhD, PE, SE
New Gusset Plate Provisions
• Gusset plates OK for all but partial plane shear yielding
(PPSY)
• Gusset Plate
U8 Capacities:
Methodology Factored
Capacity (k)
MBE (PPSY) 630
FHWA FEA+ 1,175*
WJE Corner
Check+ 1,064*
Method 2 1,135
*Includes a 10% refined analysis reduction +Courtesy FHWA
Big Picture – Critical Diagonals
• Case summarized: 2 striped lanes of HL-93 w/o FWS
– Showing only joints with failing inventory ratings for MBE
– 23 total joints with compression diagonals after symmetry
Methodology Inventory RF
Range
Operating RF
Range
# of Failing
Joints (Inv.)*
MBE 0.23 – 0.90 0.30 – 1.16 14
Method 2 1.02 – 1.83 1.32 – 2.38 0
*Times 4 for total bridge
Big Picture – Critical Diagonals
• Case summarized: 3 lanes of HL-93 w/o FWS
• Case summarized: 3 lanes of HL-93 w/ FWS
Methodology Inventory RF
Range
Operating RF
Range
# of Failing
Joints (Opr.)*
MBE 0.23 – 0.90 0.30 – 1.17 13
Method 2 0.87 – 1.68 1.13 – 2.18 0
*Times 4 for total bridge
Methodology Inventory RF
Range
Operating RF
Range
# of Failing
Joints (Opr.)*
MBE 0.10 – 0.92 0.13 – 1.20 14
Method 2 0.73 – 1.58 0.95 – 2.05 1
Ratio of Strengths, Method 2 vs Method 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Rn
(Me
tho
d 2
) /
Rn
(Me
tho
d 1
)
0.35(Fy/E)0.5 (Lmid/t)
P14-U(0.25)-W-INF
P8-C(0.25)-WV-INF-HS
P14-C(0.25)-W-INF
P5-U(0.25)-WV-NP
Summary
• The Truncated Whitmore Section Method (Method 2)
provides somewhat better accuracy than the Partial Shear
Plane Check Method (Method 1) at the cost of relatively
minor additional calculation effort in some cases
• The calculation effort is actually less when the Whitmore
section is not truncated by the adjacent geometry lines