There Is No Universal Winner: How Strong Trusses Are Actually Chosen

The direct answer: no truss design is always the strongest

No Pratt, Howe, Warren, K, or other truss pattern is inherently strongest under every set of conditions. The result changes with the span, truss depth, supports, load position, material, member dimensions, connections, bracing, and construction quality. It also changes with the meaning assigned to “strongest.”

A meaningful comparison must specify:

• Clear span and truss depth
• Number and length of panels
• Support conditions
• Load magnitude, type, and position
• Material and relevant material limits
• Cross-section of each member
• Connection or joint design
• Transverse and lateral bracing
• Deck and floor system
• Definition of failure
• Construction quality and consistency

Without those conditions, asking for the strongest bridge truss is like asking which vehicle is fastest without specifying whether the contest takes place on a racetrack, a muddy trail, or a steep hill.

Truss patterns were developed to route forces in ways suited to different materials, construction methods, and purposes. A layout that is efficient in structural steel may not be optimal in timber, toothpicks, craft sticks, or a mixed-material model. Likewise, a pattern that performs well under a centered laboratory load may be less attractive under a moving or asymmetric load. Model-bridge guidance therefore treats the answer as conditional rather than inherent to the pattern, as this comparison of common bridge and truss designs explains.

It is also important to separate two questions:

1. Which truss layout is preferable? This compares web arrangements such as Pratt, Howe, Warren, and K.
2. Which bridge type is appropriate? This compares larger structural families such as beam, arch, truss, cable-stayed, and suspension bridges.

A truss may be efficient for one project while an arch, beam, or suspension system is more suitable for another. Maximum span, low material use, low cost, and ease of fabrication are useful selection criteria, but none is automatically equivalent to strength.

The most useful qualified comparison is:

• Pratt: Often an efficient starting point for steel or model construction under ordinary downward loading because its longer principal diagonals generally work in tension.
• Howe: May perform better under a particular geometry, material system, load arrangement, or narrowly defined performance metric.
• Warren: Offers simple repeating triangular geometry but requires careful evaluation as concentrated or moving loads change position.
• K truss: Can shorten portions of the compression system, potentially helping with buckling, but adds members, joints, mass, and fabrication complexity.

For a classroom model, these observations can guide an experiment. For an actual pedestrian, highway, or railway bridge, they are not a design prescription. Full-scale selection requires project-specific analysis, applicable standards, detailed connection and foundation design, and qualified structural engineering.

Define “strongest” before comparing designs

“Strongest” can describe several different outcomes. Unless a competition or project defines the term, two people can examine the same bridges and reach different conclusions because they are measuring different characteristics.

Ultimate or collapse load

Depending on the test, failure might mean a broken member, separated joint, buckled member, lateral collapse, excessive deformation, or loss of the deck or loading system.

The bridge carrying the greatest destructive load can reasonably be called strongest for that particular test. The conclusion still depends on the loading fixture, load position, support arrangement, and failure rule. A centered point load does not represent every possible loading condition.

Stiffness

A bridge may carry a relatively high ultimate load but deflect too much at ordinary service loads. Another may initially be very stiff yet fail at a lower destructive load.

These results are not contradictory. Stiffness concerns the relationship between load and deformation, while ultimate capacity concerns the limit associated with a defined failure.

For a model competition, stiffness matters if the rules impose a maximum deflection. Without such a rule, the bridge that bends less is not automatically the bridge that will carry the greatest final load.

Strength-to-weight efficiency

Strength-to-weight performance compares capacity with bridge mass or material use. A common model-bridge score is conceptually similar to:

Efficiency = failure load ÷ bridge mass

A light bridge carrying 50 units of load could earn a better load-to-weight score than a much heavier bridge carrying 60. The heavier bridge has greater absolute capacity, while the lighter one is more efficient under that scoring method.

“Uses the least material” and “holds the most weight” are therefore separate goals. A competition can combine them in one formula, but one should not be silently substituted for the other.

Buckling resistance

The location and length of compression members consequently matter. A layout that places a large compressive force in a long, slender member may require a larger section or more restraint. Another layout might shorten that member but require more pieces, joints, and material.

Buckling resistance is a distinct design criterion rather than another name for material strength.

Fatigue and durability

A one-time static test does not establish how a bridge will behave under many cycles of changing load.

These concerns are especially important when assessing existing infrastructure rather than newly constructed classroom models.

Damage tolerance and robustness

Robustness asks what happens after a part of the structure has already been damaged. Can the remaining structure redistribute forces if a diagonal, connection, cross beam, or brace loses capacity, or does local damage lead to a much larger failure?

That question differs from undamaged static capacity. One bridge might have a high initial capacity but little ability to redistribute forces. Another might have a lower initial capacity yet possess alternative load paths after localized damage.

A peer-reviewed study by Ana Sánchez-Rodríguez and colleagues discusses failure propagation in ageing steel trusses and reports prior full-scale work in which particular riveted systems developed alternative load paths after key diagonal failures. The authors also make clear that this behavior depended on the systems and joints examined and should not be generalized to every truss or ideal pin-jointed model; see their paper on failure propagation and robustness in steel truss bridges.

Before comparing designs, ask:

• What load is being applied?
• Where and how is it applied?
• Is it static, repeated, distributed, or moving?
• Which material or member limit is relevant?
• What counts as failure?
• Is deflection limited?
• Is total capacity or load-to-weight ratio being scored?
• Must the structure remain stable after localized damage?

One configuration may minimize peak compression while another is stiffer, lighter, easier to fabricate, less sensitive to imperfect joints, or capable of carrying a greater destructive load. Those outcomes answer different questions.

Why triangles make truss bridges efficient

A truss is a framework of connected, usually straight members. In bridge trusses, the members commonly form triangular units between an upper chord and a lower chord, with vertical and diagonal web members connecting the two.

A four-sided frame with simple corner joints can distort into a slanted parallelogram. Adding a diagonal divides the frame into triangles and establishes a clearer force path.

In an idealized pin-jointed truss, loads are introduced at joints and members carry axial force:

• Tension pulls along a member’s length.
• Compression pushes along a member’s length.

This idealization permits efficient analysis because members are not intended to act primarily as bending beams. It is not a complete description of every real bridge. Actual joints may be rigid, partly rigid, eccentric, imperfectly aligned, or loaded away from their nodes. These conditions can introduce bending and secondary stresses beyond the ideal axial-force model, as summarized in this overview of truss construction and analysis.

A simplified bridge load path is:

1. A person, vehicle, test fixture, or other load acts on the deck.
2. The deck and stringers distribute that load to floor beams or panel points.
3. The floor system delivers force into the main trusses.
4. Chord and web members carry combinations of tension and compression.
5. End regions deliver reactions to bearings and supports.
6. Abutments, piers, and foundations transfer the forces into the ground.

Separating the upper and lower chords creates a system much deeper than a single shallow member over the same span. That depth helps the bridge resist overall bending: one chord can develop substantial compression while the other develops tension, with the triangulated web transferring forces between them.

Depth is therefore an important comparison variable. If one model has a much deeper truss than another, a test may reveal the benefit of depth rather than the benefit of its named web arrangement. Panel length matters for the same reason.

A complete bridge also includes more than the visible two-dimensional web:

• Top and bottom chords
• End posts
• Diagonals and verticals
• Decking and stringers
• Floor beams
• Bearings and supports
• Connections
• Transverse frames
• Top and bottom lateral bracing

Two strong side trusses can still lean, twist, or buckle out of their planes if they are not connected and braced as a three-dimensional structure. Triangulation improves force routing, but it does not guarantee protection against buckling, joint failure, fatigue, deck failure, or lateral instability.

Pratt, Howe, Warren, and K trusses compared

The patterns below assume a simply supported bridge under ordinary downward gravity loading, with loads introduced in a way consistent with truss action. Actual member forces can change with geometry, support conditions, load position, load reversal, and connection behavior. The commonly described Pratt, Howe, and Warren arrangements are summarized in this civil-engineering comparison of the three layouts.

Layout	Geometry	Typical force pattern under the stated assumption	Potential advantage	Important limitation	Suitable comparison scenario
Pratt	Diagonals generally slope downward toward the center and are usually paired with verticals	Longer principal diagonals generally carry tension; shorter verticals generally carry compression	Assigns longer web members to tension, which can be efficient in steel and useful in some models	Does not eliminate compression, connection demands, or lateral-instability concerns	Steel or model layouts under typical downward loading, especially when long compression members are undesirable
Howe	Principal diagonal orientation generally reverses the Pratt pattern	Longer diagonals generally carry compression; verticals generally carry tension	May suit a particular geometry, material system, or load arrangement	Long compression diagonals require careful buckling evaluation	Controlled comparisons in which geometry, material, or load position may favor the reversed arrangement
Warren	Repeating triangular panels, ordinarily without verticals	Diagonals alternate between compression and tension in the general arrangement; force demand changes with load position	Simple geometry, repeated pieces, and relatively few web members	Concentrated or moving loads can substantially change which members govern; compression members may be long	Tests emphasizing simple construction, low joint count, or several load positions
K truss	Web members form K-shaped subdivisions within panels	Detailed force pattern depends on geometry; subdivisions can shorten parts of the compression system	Shorter compression segments may reduce exposure to buckling	More members and joints add mass, fabrication effort, and opportunities for imperfection	Designs in which compression length is critical and added complexity can be justified

Pratt truss

A Pratt truss normally has diagonals that slope downward toward the center of the span. Under the stated loading assumption, its longer principal diagonals generally carry tension while its shorter verticals carry compression.

This distribution can be attractive in structural steel because a long tension member does not face the same elastic buckling concern as a long compression member. Shorter compression verticals may be easier to stabilize than longer compression diagonals in an otherwise comparable layout.

That advantage remains conditional. Chords, connections, floor beams, and lateral bracing can govern. Different loading can also alter the force pattern, and poor fabrication can cause a Pratt bridge to fail below a carefully made bridge using another layout.

Howe truss

The Howe arrangement reverses the principal Pratt diagonal orientation. Under the same general loading assumption, the longer diagonals carry compression while the verticals carry tension.

Long compression members may need larger sections or better restraint to avoid buckling. This can make a Howe layout less economical than a Pratt in some steel applications, but it does not create a universal ranking.

A Howe configuration may still be preferable when its dimensions, materials, joints, loading pattern, or optimization criterion suit that force distribution. It can also produce lower peak compression under a particular model geometry even though broad qualitative comparisons often favor Pratt for structural steel.

Warren truss

A Warren truss uses a repeated sequence of triangles and ordinarily omits vertical web members. Its repetition can simplify layout, reduce the number of distinct pieces, and limit joint count.

The simple appearance does not eliminate the need to consider several load positions. As a concentrated load moves from one panel to another, the demands on individual members can change substantially. A member sized or tested only for a centered load may not represent the governing off-center position.

A fair Warren comparison should therefore calculate or test several equivalent load locations and identify the envelope of governing results rather than relying on the most favorable position.

K truss

A K truss subdivides portions of the web. One possible benefit is a reduction in the unsupported length of some compression segments. Because buckling behavior is sensitive to member length and restraint, that subdivision may be useful in a suitable design.

The benefit carries costs. At model scale, a theoretically helpful subdivision can become counterproductive if it is difficult to construct consistently.

The K truss is therefore best understood as a trade-off: shortening a critical compression length may improve one failure mode while added mass, joints, and complexity worsen others.

These descriptions are starting points for comparison, not substitutes for analyzing the actual bridge with its real supports, member sizes, connections, bracing, and load cases.

What the Pratt-versus-Howe model experiment really found

A student project by William Berry, Kaleb Dyer, Dustin Schultz, and Shen Liu at West Kentucky Community and Technical College compared one Pratt model with one Howe model. It was a narrow model study rather than a comprehensive test of truss strength.

Both models spanned 78.5 centimetres, used the same amount of material, and were assessed with a movable 1-kilogram static load. The project used load cells, hand calculations, and ANSYS finite-element simulations to compare internal member forces. Its optimization target was the largest compression force in any member, not destructive failure load or total bridge capacity, according to the project’s Model Truss Bridge Design poster.

The reported maximum compression values were:

• Pratt model: 7.21 newtons, with the load at position three
• Howe model: 5.73 newtons, with the load at position two
• Difference: 1.48 newtons

The Howe model achieved the lower reported peak compression by reversing the diagonal arrangement without adding material. That is a useful result for the project’s stated optimization problem: under its geometry and load positions, changing web orientation reduced the governing compression force.

The project did not report:

• Destructive collapse tests
• Repeated specimens
• Statistical uncertainty
• A stiffness comparison
• Fatigue testing
• Controlled buckling tests
• Joint-failure assessment
• Lateral-instability testing
• Damage-tolerance testing

Lower peak compression may be beneficial if a compression member or buckling controls the result. It does not prove that the bridge can carry a greater total load. Capacity also depends on the other members, joints, braces, deck, floor system, loading fixture, and three-dimensional stability.

The defensible conclusion is narrow: under the student project’s geometry, equal material allocation, and movable static-load setup, the Howe arrangement produced a lower maximum member-compression force than the Pratt arrangement. The study did not establish that Howe had a higher collapse capacity, that Howe is generally preferable for steel, or that Howe is the strongest truss pattern.

If the project had instead optimized destructive load, deflection, joint count, bridge mass, fabrication time, or residual capacity after damage, it might have produced a different comparison.

The failure modes that often decide which bridge wins

A truss can look efficient in a force diagram and still fail early because its analytical model does not capture the governing weakness. The named web pattern matters, but failure often begins in one member, connection, brace, or floor-system component.

A useful failure-mode checklist includes:

• Compression-member buckling: A slender member bows out of line and loses capacity.
• Joint or glue separation: A connection peels, shears, splits, or pulls apart.
• Tension-member rupture: A member fractures or tears at a weak section.
• Excessive deflection: The bridge deforms beyond the applicable limit.
• Lateral instability: A side truss leans, twists, or buckles out of plane.
• Deck or floor-system failure: The load-delivery system fails before the main web reaches its limit.
• Fatigue: Repeated loading initiates and extends damage.
• Corrosion or deterioration: Material loss or degradation reduces member or connection capacity.
• Support or bearing problems: The intended boundary condition is not maintained.
• Progressive failure: Local damage leads to a wider loss of load-carrying ability.

Buckling can precede crushing

A compression member does not need to be crushed to fail. A long, slender piece can become unstable and deflect sideways first.

For a model, simply doubling every member may therefore be wasteful. A more informative approach is to identify which pieces are expected to carry the greatest compression and then examine their length, cross-section, alignment, and restraint.

Connections can override the ideal force path

An ideal truss diagram assumes forces pass cleanly through its joints. Real model connections may have limited overlap, uneven adhesive, gaps, or members meeting away from the intended panel point. Full-scale connections likewise have plates, fasteners, geometry, stiffness, and local effects that require design.

In a model, a member with almost no bonded overlap may separate before the material’s capacity is used. Construction variability can therefore obscure the difference between two web layouts.

A bridge must be stable in three dimensions

Two strong side trusses do not automatically make a stable bridge. They must be connected so that they remain upright, share loads as intended, and resist twisting. Transverse frames and lateral bracing help control movement outside the main truss planes.

This issue is especially important in narrow or tall models. A side truss can be strong in its own plane yet vulnerable sideways, where its members and joints may have much less restraint. The bridge can then fail laterally before its two-dimensional web reaches the predicted load.

Local damage is not the same as complete failure

Damage can impair performance without causing immediate collapse. Redundancy describes the availability of other paths through which forces can travel after a local component loses capacity.

Research on particular ageing riveted steel trusses has reported redistribution after the failure of important diagonals, with joint bending resistance contributing to alternative structural behavior. That observation is system-specific. It should not be applied automatically to a lightly connected classroom model or an ideal truss whose joints are assumed to act as pins.

Robustness after damage is therefore separate from initial static capacity. A test that ends at the first cracked joint measures a different outcome from a study of whether the bridge remains stable and develops an alternative force path.

Choosing a truss for a toothpick or classroom model

The guidance in this section applies only to educational models. It is not full-scale bridge-design advice.

No model-bridge recommendation is reliable without knowing:

• Required span and dimensional limits
• Permitted materials
• Whether pieces may be cut, laminated, or bundled
• Maximum bridge mass
• Loading fixture and contact area
• Load position or moving-load procedure
• Required deck opening or clearance
• Deflection limit, if any
• Definition of failure
• Scoring formula

If the bridge is judged by absolute failure load, additional material may help until a mass or dimensional restriction intervenes. If the score is failure load divided by bridge mass, every reinforcement must justify its weight. An off-center loading fixture may also punish a model optimized only for a centered load.

Why Pratt is often a practical candidate

A Pratt truss can be a reasonable starting candidate when typical downward loading, full-length model pieces, and straightforward construction are priorities. Informal model-building recommendations sometimes favor it because many pieces can remain full length and the longer principal diagonals work in tension under the usual loading assumption.

That is a practical opinion, not controlled proof. Model-building discussions contain conflicting recommendations, including preferences for modified Warren arrangements, and their reported load results are generally anecdotal. A Howe, Warren, K, or modified pattern may perform better under different rules, materials, joints, or loading fixtures.

Build accurately before adding complexity

At model scale, construction quality can dominate pattern choice. Prioritize:

• Mirror-image side trusses
• A flat, repeatable building jig
• Accurate panel-point locations
• Straight chords
• Consistent member lengths
• Close contact between mating surfaces
• Adequate joint overlap
• Consistent adhesive application and curing
• Careful alignment of the two side trusses

A complex web that is difficult to reproduce may perform less consistently than a simpler layout. Added subdivisions can shorten members, but every additional piece creates another joint and another opportunity for excess mass or misalignment.

Reinforce predicted weaknesses, not everything

Begin with a force model or a reasoned estimate of which members are likely to be in compression. Then inspect the longest and least restrained compression pieces. Targeted reinforcement may improve performance more efficiently than adding material throughout the bridge.

Indiscriminate reinforcement can:

• Increase mass
• Create abrupt stiffness changes
• Add difficult joints
• Move failure to another component
• Reduce a load-to-weight score
• Make the two sides less symmetrical

The objective is a balanced model in which no avoidable weakness fails far earlier than the rest of the structure.

Treat the model as a three-dimensional bridge

Cross-bracing between the side trusses can help limit lateral movement and twisting. Consider bracing near the chords and load-introduction region when the rules permit it. The arrangement should suit the model’s geometry rather than being copied automatically from a two-dimensional sketch.

Reports of bridges holding particular numbers of bricks and recommendations for individual glues are anecdotes, not standardized comparative evidence. Use a rule-compliant adhesive that is compatible with the model material, prepare joints consistently, provide sufficient overlap, and use a repeatable curing process. The supplied evidence does not establish one optimal adhesive or joint formula.

How to test truss designs fairly—and when an engineer is required

A fair comparison changes the intended design variable while controlling as many other factors as possible. If one bridge is deeper, heavier, better braced, more carefully constructed, or tested at an easier load position, the experiment cannot isolate the effect of the truss pattern.

1. Select one primary performance metric

Choose the primary result before building:

• Maximum failure load
• Deflection at a specified load
• Load-to-weight ratio
• Peak compression in any member
• Material cost
• Residual capacity after defined damage

Secondary measurements can still be collected, but a stated primary metric prevents the conclusion from being changed after the results are known.

2. Establish controlled geometry and materials

Keep the following consistent between layouts:

• Span
• Truss depth
• Bridge width
• Panel count, where feasible
• Material type and batch
• Total material quantity or bridge-mass limit
• Deck and floor system
• Support conditions
• Joint method
• Lateral bracing
• Loading fixture

Perfect equality may be impossible because different layouts use different numbers or orientations of members. Document every unavoidable difference rather than describing unlike bridges as identical.

3. Vary only the intended design feature

To compare Pratt and Howe web action, reverse the diagonal orientation while retaining the same overall envelope, supports, material allocation, and loading process.

If the objective is instead to compare fully optimized bridges, allow each pattern to be optimized—but identify that as a different experiment. These questions should not be mixed:

• Which web layout performs better when other variables are controlled?
• Which fully optimized bridge performs better under the competition rules?

The first isolates pattern effects. The second evaluates competition strategy.

4. Use multiple load positions

Test a centered point load, selected off-center positions, and a moving-load sequence when relevant. Introduce loads at equivalent panel points or through an identical floor system.

This is particularly important for a Warren truss because member demands can change substantially with load position. It also matters for Pratt and Howe layouts: the critical position may not be at midspan.

5. Build repeated specimens

Build multiple specimens with the same jig, material-selection process, assembly sequence, and curing time.

Report every result rather than only the best specimen.

6. Measure more than final load

For each model, record:

• Finished bridge mass
• Load at each stage
• Deflection at selected locations
• First visible or audible damage
• Ultimate or rule-defined failure load
• Load position
• Failure location
• Failure mode
• Any unusual construction defect

Calculate load-to-weight performance only if it is an intended metric. Do not use it as a substitute for absolute capacity when the competition scores total load.

7. Classify the failure

Determine where failure began:

• Joint
• Compression member
• Tension member
• Chord
• Deck
• Floor beam
• Support region
• Lateral brace
• Global out-of-plane instability

This diagnosis can be more informative than the winning load alone. If every model fails at the loading fixture, the experiment may be testing that local region rather than the web layout. If all failures are lateral, three-dimensional bracing may matter more than changing from Pratt to Howe.

8. Compare calculations with physical behavior

A hand analysis or structural model can estimate axial forces and identify likely critical members. Compare those predictions with measured deflection and observed failure.

Treat software output as a model rather than certainty. An idealized analysis may assume:

• Perfectly straight members
• Exact material properties
• Ideal pin-jointed or rigid connections
• Loads applied precisely at nodes
• No construction defects
• No joint slip
• No secondary bending
• Complete lateral restraint

9. Separate model testing from real bridge design

An educational bridge test can demonstrate force paths, variability, and failure modes. Its results cannot be scaled directly into a pedestrian, highway, or railway bridge.

Full-scale bridge work may need to consider dead, live, wind, snow, dynamic, seismic, environmental, support, material, and connection effects as applicable. A basic industry orientation describes structural modeling, application of live, dead, snow, and wind loads, and member and connection selection under established design methods while expressly warning that it is not a structural design guide; see this introduction to truss-bridge design.

An actual bridge requires a qualified structural engineer, applicable standards, site-specific analysis, foundation information, detailed member and connection design, construction documentation, and appropriate review. A classroom test or general article cannot replace those tasks.

Conclusion

The strongest truss is not a name. It is a complete system whose layout, depth, members, joints, deck, supports, and bracing work together under the actual loads and governing performance limits.

A Pratt is often an efficient starting point when long diagonals can work in tension. A Howe may produce a better result under a particular geometry and metric. A Warren offers simple triangulation but should be checked at changing load positions. A K layout can shorten parts of the compression system at the cost of additional material, joints, and fabrication complexity.

For an educational model, define the score, control the variables, test repeated specimens, and document how each one fails. For a full-scale bridge, qualified engineers must design and review the complete structure for its actual materials, environment, loads, connections, supports, foundations, and governing standards.

Frequently asked questions

Is a Pratt truss stronger than a Howe truss?

Not inherently. Under typical downward loading, a Pratt can be efficient in some steel applications because its longer principal diagonals generally work in tension while its shorter verticals work in compression. A Howe reverses that arrangement, placing its longer diagonals in compression.

The student model project discussed above reported lower peak member compression for its Howe configuration, but that finding concerned one geometry and one performance metric. It did not measure destructive capacity. Material, member dimensions, joints, buckling, load position, bracing, and workmanship can change the outcome.

Which truss design is best for a toothpick bridge?

There is no reliable answer without the rules, span, permitted materials, mass limit, loading method, and scoring formula. A Pratt is often a practical candidate when straightforward construction and full-length pieces are useful, but it is not universally optimal.

Regardless of pattern, symmetry, accurate alignment, adequate joint overlap, straight compression members, targeted reinforcement, and three-dimensional bracing are important variables to test. Use repeated specimens rather than relying on one model or an anecdotal brick-load result.

Why are Pratt trusses often considered efficient for steel?

Under the usual gravity-loading description, the longer Pratt diagonals generally carry tension while the shorter verticals carry compression. Long steel tension members do not face the same member-buckling problem as long compression members, so the arrangement can reduce the stabilization demands placed on the web.

That is a conditional efficiency argument, not proof that Pratt is always strongest. Chords, connections, floor beams, lateral bracing, fabrication quality, and other load cases may govern.

Does a lower maximum compression force mean a bridge can hold more weight?

Not necessarily. Lower peak compression may reduce demand on a critical compression member, but another member, joint, brace, deck component, or stability mode may still control failure.

Establishing that one bridge holds more weight requires an overall-capacity evaluation under a defined, comparable test. Peak member compression, stiffness, collapse load, and load-to-weight efficiency are different measurements.

How should Warren trusses be evaluated under a moving load?

Analyze or test multiple load positions rather than only the center of the span. Track how demand changes in the relevant members as the load moves from panel to panel, and identify the governing result for each member and failure mode.

The design should be evaluated against the envelope of those results. A member that appears lightly loaded at one position may become important at another, so one favorable load location is not an adequate Warren-truss comparison.