Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Building Structure Project 1: Fettuccine Truss Bridge
Building Structure Project 1: Fettuccine Truss Bridge
PROJECT 1:
FETTUCCINE TRUSS
BRIDGE
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING AND DESIGN, TAYLORS
UNIVERSITY LAKESIDE CAMPUS
0315301
0316294
0316230
0316366
0316283
CONTENT
Page
1.0 Introduction
1.1Project Intention
1.2Report Overview
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Aim of Study
2.2 Learning Outcomes
2.3 Precedent Study
2.4 Materials and Equipment Testing
2.5 Model Making
2.6 Structural Analysis
2.7 Bridge Efficiency Calculation
14
26
7.0 Conclusion
8.0 Appendix
9.0 References
10.0 Exercise: Truss Analysis
38
39
40
41
1|P a g e
1.0 Introduction
2|P a g e
2.0 Methodology
3|P a g e
Efficiency, E
Maximum Load 2
Weight of bridge
4|P a g e
Cicero Avenue Cal-Sag Bridge is a truss bridge through Calumet Sag Channel at Cicero Avenue,
Illinois. It was built in the year 1938 and was rehabilitated on year 1963. It is one of the oldest
existing metal truss bridges among the truss bridges on Calumet Sag Channel and Little Calumet
River. According to the bit letting in November 2011, the bridge is planned to be rehabilitated
again of which the works include painting, repair of gusset plate connections, joints repair, etc.
The truss bridge function as a four lane vehicular bridge with 2 pedestrian passage at each side.
are added to increase the span of the bridge. The total length of this bridge is 115.2m with the
span of 82.3m, deck width of 13.3m and vertical member of 5.3m. Besides, top chord and end
post is also riveted with an additional plate as shown in box A in figure 2 to strengthen the its
box beam.
Figure 3.2: Connections of Top Chord, Bottom Chord, Vertical Member and Diagonal Member
6|Page
8|Page
4.1 Materials
Type of Adhesives
Advantages
Disadvantages
-Efficient
-Easy to use
-Highest efficiency
-Firm and stiff connection
- Easy to use
UHU Glue
UHU Superglue
Initially, we use both UHU and 3 seconds glue as we think that both are able to counter the
compression and tension we might need flexibility in certain members and used 3 seconds
glue on horizontal members at the base to have the best strength to hold the whole bridge
together. Then we switch to UHU super glue as flexibility in using UHU is unnecessary and is
less efficient. Finally, we have chosen to use only 3 second glue as it dries faster which could
save up a lot of time in model making as this project need us to test on multiple bridge
design before finalizing on the selection of design.
9|Page
We had selected two different brands of fettucine to carry out the material load testing
before selecting one of it for the bridge construction later. The difference between San
Remo brand fettucine and Kimball brand fettucine is the width. Sam Remo fettucine is
measured at 5mm whereas Kimball fettucine is measured at 4mm. Load testing is then
carried out to determine the tension and compressive strength of each brand.
Weight
I-beam
Laminated truss
Kimball Fettucine
Weight
I-beam
One pail
Load testing results proved that San Remos fettuccini is stronger than Kimballs fettuccini. It
is compared in the condition where the glue used and the way of lamination is the same.
San Remo brand is selected in the end.
10 | P a g e
4.2 Equipment
Penknife is able to cut precisely and accurately compared to using scissors. Fettucine are
prone to breakage as it is very brittle. Therefore, penknife is a better choice for cutting
Nylon string is chosen to hang the pail of water from the bridge rather than raffia because it
is more durable.
12 | P a g e
Pail is used to fill the water which act as load pulling downwards from the bridge with an Shook connecting to the bridge.
5.1 Process
1.
2.
3.
4.
Figure 5.1.2
14 | P a g e
Figure 5.1.3
Figure 5.1.4
15 | P a g e
Figure 5.1.5
9. Continue by fixing horizontal components on top to hold both sides of the bridge.
Figure 5.1.6
16 | P a g e
Figure 5.1.7
Figure 5.1.8
17 | P a g e
Figure 5.1.9
Figure 5.1.10
18 | P a g e
Model 1
Figure 5.1.11
Model 2
Figure 5.1.12
19 | P a g e
Model 3
Figure 5.1.13
Model 4
Figure 5.1.14
20 | P a g e
Model 5
Figure 5.1.15
21 | P a g e
5.2 Precautions
Overall aspects:
1. Quality controls is needed for fettucine. There are twisted and bended fettucine which
will affect the stability and strength of the bridge.
2. In order to make sure the bridge functions as how we plan, we need to build the model
as perfect as the drawing. We can use setsquares to make sure the fettucine are joined
perpendicular to one another.
3. Place cardboard on the table when using 3 seconds glue in order to prevent the glue
from staining the table.
4. When using 3 seconds glue, make sure the position of joint and stick it quick and
accurately. Remember try not to readjust the position because when there is a layer of
glue on the fettucine, it will be tricky to stick them precisely again.
5. Make sure the finger is not near to the place where u apply glue because when
removing the finger after holding the fettucine in its position might cause destruction of
the joints of the fettucine itself.
22 | P a g e
(a)
(b)
Joint (a) will sustain the weight solely based on the glue whereas joint (b) will transfer the load
through the connection. Therefore, joint (b) is a better choice.
23 | P a g e
Example 2:
(a)
(b)
Joint (a) has larger contact surface area compares to joint (b) which make it a better choice for
making the bridge.
Example 3:
(a)
(b)
Joint (b) has larger contact surface area compares to join (a) which enable it to hold both of the
bottom strip together firmer than join (a).
24 | P a g e
Example 4:
(a)
(b)
Joint (a) has more contact surface area and a more flat contact surface compare to joint (b)
which mean it can be join much more firmly. Therefore, it is better to choose joint (a) over joint
(b) as this is an important joint for bracing which is an important member in supporting the
bridge.
25 | P a g e
Weight
300 g
Broken
500 g
-
Bent
Bent
Bent
Bent
Bent
Broken
Broken
Bent
Broken
Bent
Bent
Bent
Broken
Bent
Bent
Bent
Broken
Broken
Bent
Bent
Bent
Broken
Laminated
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
I- beam
d
D
D
z
z
d
D
d
D
L- beamd
d
d
d
d
d
d
Triangular
d
Table 6.1.1
In conclusion, the double layered I-beam is the most stable although it contributes
the most weight.
26 | P a g e
Further experiments are then carried out to test how different choice of adhesive
affect the performance of the truss. Double layered I-beam of 160mm clear span is
used in this experiment.
Adhesive
3 seconds glue
800g
Bent
900g
Bent
UHU + 3 seconds
glue
Bent
Bent
1000g
Bent+ broken
(18s)
Bent
1100g
Bent+ broken
(7s)
Table 6.1.2
The test is carried out further with double layered I-beam with clear span of 160mm
placing vertically on both side of the desks. The adhesive used to construct the Ibeam is 3 seconds glue
800g
Not bent
900g
Not bent
1000g
Bent
1100g
Bent
1200g
Broken
Table 6.1.3
27 | P a g e
Total Length:
950mm
750mm
Load Sustain:
< 1400g
Efficiency:
< 8.522
28 | P a g e
Figures 6.2.2
Problems encountered:
1) Too many members at one joint does not help to transfer load.
2) The bridge is overweight with low efficiency.
3) The upper members are not strong enough to overcome compression.
Solutions:
1) Change the connection of slanted members with vertical members.
2) Reduce the length of connecting beams to reduce weight of the bridge which does
not exceed 200g.
3) Replace two-layer laminated with I-beam for upper members and vertical members
to increase the strength.
29 | P a g e
Total Length:
950mm
750mm
Load Sustain:
< 1000g
30 | P a g e
Efficiency:
< 4.292
Figure 6.2.4
Problems Encountered:
1) The internal bracings are too long and weak to resist force.
2) Failure on joints.
3) Horizontal members broken. The surface in contact with vertical member is low
therefore load cannot be transferred.
4) Upper members are too weak to sustain load.
Solutions:
1)
2)
3)
4)
31 | P a g e
*Assumption Made
Total Length:
950mm
750mm
Load Sustain:
3860g
Efficiency:
43.822
32 | P a g e
Figure 6.2.6
Problems Encountered:
1) Connecting beams could not sustain higher load.
2) Weight of the structure exceeds 140g.
3) The efficiency is still not satisfying.
Solutions:
1) Replace some of the members with two-layer laminated to reduce the weight.
2) Increase the spacing of the internal members to reduce material used.
3) Add horizontal beams onto connecting beams to sustain higher load.
33 | P a g e
Total Length:
950mm
750mm
Load Sustain:
5200g
Efficiency:
76.384
Figure 6.2.8
Problems encountered:
1) Failure on joints.
2) The structure has sustain its maximum load but efficiency still not satisfying.
3) Weight of the structure still exceeds 154g.
Solutions:
1) Have all the connecting beams join directly perpendicular to the vertical members to
improve load distribution.
2) Reduce the number of layers in less critical members.
3) Reduce the height and length of connecting beams.
35 | P a g e
*Assumption Made
Total Length:
950mm
750mm
Load Sustain:
5750g
Efficiency:
146.944
36 | P a g e
Figure 6.2.10
Apparently, the efficiency of our last design is the highest among the previous truss bridges.
37 | P a g e
7.0 Conclusion
By the end of this project, we had constructed a total of 5 fettucine bridges to achieve the
highest efficiency possible. The precedent study of Cicero Avenue Cal-Sag Bridge had help us
to understand how load is distributed in a truss bridge system.
Our final model of the bridge is constructed in perfect frame system and achieved the
highest efficiency among the 5 bridges. The efficiency calculated for our final bridge testing
is 146.944. This project has made us understand more about load distribution in a structure.
We also learned to calculate the efficiency and type of force applied in each structural
member.
We had also experimented with various truss and beam deigns in order to select the best
one for our bridge construction. We understood the importance of the diagonal bracing
member. Therefore, these members are heavily strengthen using double layered I-beams.
The precision of each connecting joints were achieved as we had built the bridge based on
the computer aided drawing we had prepare. Each connecting point were milled evenly
using sand paper to prevent imperfect connecting joints.
This project required quite a period of time as we had to go through a couple of trial-error.
The bridge building process was long and tedious and required lots of patience putting the
whole thing together. But it never fail to amaze us how a non-construction material like the
fettucine is able to withstand load after proper designing and structural analysis. All in all, it
was a great learning process, regardless of how tedious the building process might be. We
learnt a great deal in proper structural design and it will definitely us in creating a building
with proper building structure for future projects.
38 | P a g e
8.0 Appendix
39 | P a g e
9.0 References
40 | P a g e