Influence of Design Parameters on Composite and Noncomposite Space Truss Structure Analysed Using ANSYS

  • P. SangeethaEmail author
  • R. Senthil
  • P. Naveen Kumar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


A space frame is a skeleton structural system assembled using linear elements so arranged that forces are transferred in a three-dimensional manner. Architects and engineers aim for new structural forms to accommodate large unobstructed areas. Space frames satisfy the objectives, and it provides lightness, economy, and speedy construction. Previous research investigation in the composite space truss, proved that using concrete slab acting compositely with the top chord member is to reduce the buckling of the compression chord members and also improve the overall behaviour of the space truss sturctures. The advantages of the composite space truss, gives confidence to use as floor system in the multistorey buildings. The composite space truss is influenced by various design parameters like cross-sectional area of the tubular member, support condition, module size and their depth, concrete strength and concrete slab thickness. The analysis of composite and noncomposite space truss as roof as well as floor for the building of size 30 m × 30 m was carried out using ANSYS software for varying design parameters. The overall maximum central deflection for the models was observed and compared with the codal provision. The load–deflection behaviour of the models was plotted, and the optimal solution for the noncomposite and composite space truss was arrived.


Composite space truss Finite element analysis Support condition Optimization 


  1. 1.
    El-sheikh, A., McConnel, R.E.: Experimental study on behaviour of composite space trusses. J. Struct. Eng. 119, 747–766 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fulop, A., Ivanyi, M.: Experimentally analysed stability and ductility behaviour of a space-truss roof system. Thin Walled Struct. 42, 309–320 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sebastian, W.M., McConnel, R.E.: Nonlinear FE analysis of steel concrete composite structures. J. Struct. Eng. 126, 662–674 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim, J.W., Kim, J.J., Rhew, H.J.: Analysis and experiment for the formation and ultimate load testing of a Hypar space truss. J. Constr. Steel Res. 62, 189–193 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lakshmikandhan, K.N., Senthil, R., Arul Jayachandran, S., Sivakumar, P., Ravichandran, R.: Parametric studies on the behaviour of steel and composite space structures. Int. J. Space Struct. 25, 169–183 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gupta, L.M., Harde, P.R.: Nonlinear analysis of double layer grid structures. J. Struct. Eng. 38, 230–237 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wendell, W.D., Battista, R.C.: Control of vibrations induced by people walking on large span composite floor decks. Eng. Struct. 33, 2485–2494 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sangeetha, P., Senthil, R.: A study on ultimate behaviour of composite space trusses. KSCE J. Civil Eng. 21, 950–954 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sangeetha, P.: Parametric study on the stiffness and energy absorption capacity of composite space truss. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 4, 1–5 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IS 11384—1985.: Code of practice for composite construction in structural steel and concreteGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringSSN College of EngineeringChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Division of Structural EngineeringCEG, Anna UniversityChennaiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Structural EngineeringAnna UniversityChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations