COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF SEISMIC RESPONSE AND STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR OF INDUSTRIAL STEEL TRUSS GEOMETRIES
The review evaluates the seismic performance of different truss geometries in terms of ductility, stiffness degradation, redundancy, load redistribution capability, hysteretic energy dissipation, and buckling susceptibility. Furthermore, the paper examines the role of computational modeling techniques such as SAP2000, STAAD.Pro, OpenSees, and nonlinear finite element approaches in predicting the structural response of steel truss systems subjected to seismic excitation. Current seismic codal provisions and design approaches, including AISC 341, ASCE 7, Eurocode 8, and IS 800:2007, are also critically reviewed with respect to industrial steel truss applications.
The collected literature indicates that Warren truss configurations generally exhibit superior seismic redundancy and more stable energy dissipation characteristics due to their balanced force distribution and reduced stress concentration. In contrast, Vierendeel systems demonstrate comparatively lower seismic efficiency because of their bending-dominated behavior and reduced geometric stability. The review further identifies significant research gaps associated with semi-rigid connection modeling, nonlinear cyclic behavior, soil–structure interaction effects, and performance-based seismic assessment of industrial truss systems.
This paper provides a consolidated technical framework for understanding the relationship between truss geometry and seismic behavior, thereby supporting future research and aiding engineers in the selection and seismic evaluation of industrial steel truss configurations.
Pankaj, (2026). Comparative Review of Seismic Response and Structural Behavior of Industrial Steel Truss Geometries. International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology, 02(6). https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i6.036
Pankaj, . "Comparative Review of Seismic Response and Structural Behavior of Industrial Steel Truss Geometries." International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology, vol. 02, no. 6, 2026, pp. . doi:https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i6.036.
Pankaj, . "Comparative Review of Seismic Response and Structural Behavior of Industrial Steel Truss Geometries." International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology 02, no. 6 (2026). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i6.036.
- ARISOY, H., & YAVUZ, G. (2023). Evaluation of Different Mesh Types of Steel Roof Trusses According to AISC360-16 Code. Gazi Journal of Engineering Sciences, 9(2), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.30855/gmbd.0705070
- Karayel, O., & Ozay, G. (2026). Seismic Performance Assessment of Special Truss Moment Frames Retrofitted with Fluid Viscous Dampers: A FEMA P695-Based Approach. International Journal of Steel Structures. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-026-01038-x
- Liu, H.-J., Zhang, X.-Y., Zhao, Y.-G., & Bao, E.-H. (2025). Seismic performance of steel staggered truss framing structure under strong seismic effects. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.25.00068
- Naathan, S., A1, B., A2, K. B. K., A3, M. R., & A4, S. B. (2023a). CRITICAL REVIEW OF COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN FOR STEEL INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES (Vol. 10). www.jetir.org
- Naathan, S., A1, B., A2, K. B. K., A3, M. R., & A4, S. B. (2023b). CRITICAL REVIEW OF COMPUTER-AIDED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN FOR STEEL INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES (Vol. 10). www.jetir.org
- Patil, A. P., Sapate, P., Khandekar, S., Mhoprekar, K., Patil, S., Peth, N., & university Kolhapur, S. (2020). Comparative Analysis of Different Types of Industrial Roof Truss by Using STAAD Pro V8i Department of Civil Engineering. In IJSRD-International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| (Vol. 8). www.ijsrd.com
- Rodríguez, C. A., Rodríguez Pérez, Á. M., López, R., & Caparrós Mancera, J. J. (2024). Comparative Analysis and Evaluation of Seismic Response in Structures: Perspectives from Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis to Pushover Analysis. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 14(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/app14062504
- Stevenson, S. A., Kopp, G. A., El Ansary, A. M., & Morrison, M. J. (2026). Investigation of the uplift load path within the gable roof of a wood-frame residential building using a full-scale wind tunnel and non-linear finite element modelling. Engineering Structures, 349, 121894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2025.121894
- Tang, Q., Cui, Y., Wang, H., & Wang, T. (2026). Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of Hybrid Coupled Wall Systems With Friction Steel Truss Coupling Beams. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.70131
- Wu, H., Dong, Z.-Q., Chai, Y.-Z., Meng, Q.-T., Liu, H.-D., & Zhao, Y. (2025). Seismic Performance of High-rise Segmented Rocking Truss Steel Frame with Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers. Lifeline Emergency and Safety. https://doi.org/10.26599/lles.2025.9660009
- AISC (2016). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-16.
- American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.