Compression‐Member Models for Space Trusses: Review

Abstract

The computational models used for compression members in the nonlinear analysis of space trusses are classified by decreasing order of computational effort into finite‐segment, finite‐difference, and single‐member solutions. The common assumptions and derivations used with single‐member solutions are reviewed. A chronological review of the models is given indicating the contributions each has made. Single‐member solutions can often give results similar to those that use more computationally demanding methods. However, the success of a model at correlating with experimental behavior depends on the assumptions made. Single‐member solutions that include partial plasticity appear more accurate than those that assume full plasticity at midlength. It is observed that consideration also needs to be given to the relationship between the member and the structure to which the member is attached. Thus, internal snap‐through or dynamic jump can occur in the postbuckling regime of compression members in a relatively compliant adjacent structure.