University of Maryland, College Park

Final Design Report

ENES102: Thomas Beigel

Section: 0701

May 13, 2019

In Beigel We Truss: Yvonne Fernandez, Michael Kuziora,

Parth Oza, Ezra Trost, Temitope Williams

 Table of Contents

Section Page # Student Responsible

Introduction 2 Temitope Williams

Experimental Material Property Data and Calculations 2 Michael Kuziora

Technical Engineering Drawings 3 Michael Kuziora

Support Reactions 4 Parth Oza

Internal Force, Normal Stress, and Safety Factor in Each Member 4 Parth Oza

Buckling and Safety Factor in Each Compressive Members 6 Michael Kuziora

Shear Forces, Shear Stresses, and Safety Factors at Each Joint 6 Parth Oza

Predictions 8 Michael Kuziora

Test Results 9 Ezra Trost

Discussion of Results 9 Ezra Trost

Conclusion and Recommendations 10 Yvonne Fernandez

1
 Introduction

The purpose of the Truss Design Project was to analyze, design, build, and test an

engineering structure. The truss had to be built within the parameters given and designed to

withstand a nominal applied load of 1500 lb. Each team worked together to calculate their

predicted load based on the design of their truss with the goal of attaining the highest

strength-to-weight ratio. On the specified test date, each team brought their truss to the testing

area for the design competition where it was loaded in bending until it broke. The following is

the final design report for In Beigel We Truss. It will include all calculations, technical drawings,

results, and analysis to show how we were able to get the highest strength-to-weight ratio for

Beigel’s 0701 ENES102 section.

Experimental Material Property Data and Calculations

The Titebond glue failed at 658 pounds with 0.7630 x 0.3620 in​2​ of contact area on both
658
sides. This means that the shear strength of the glue is (0.7630 * 0.3620) * 2
lb/in​2​ = 1,191 psi.

Compared to the results of previous classes, this number is a little high, therefore, the class

average of 980 psi was used in calculations. The pine wood sheared at 870 lbs with a

cross-sectional area of 1.22 x 0.7435 in​2​, therefore, the tensile strength of the wood is
3 * 870 * 5
1.2295 * 0.74352
= 19,200 psi. This number was also higher than the class average, but well beyond

any force that our truss would experience.

2
 Technical Engineering Drawings

● Materials used
○ Pine Wood
■ 1 Top Member: 0.6 x 0.6 x 11.25 in
■ 2 Bottom Members: 0.6 x 0.7 x 11.125 in
■ 2 Side Members: 0.6 x 0.7 x 7.38 in
■ 2 Zero Force Members: 0.25 x 0.7 x 7.22 in
■ 8 Gusset Plates: 1.5 x 2 in
■ 2 Gusset Plates: 2 x 3 in
○ Gorilla Glue

3
 Support Reactions

Since the truss is symmetrical, the weight and normal forces will be distributed equally.
750(5.625) + 750(16.875)
The moment equation about the right roller is 22.5
= 750 lbs and about the left

750(5.625) + 750(16.875)
roller is 22.5
= 750 lbs. The Free Body Diagram of the truss is displayed below.

Internal Force, Normal Stress, and Safety Factor in Each Member

4
 Truss internal forces were calculated by hand and later verified by a computer program

written by our team (​https://github.com/plato2000/enes102_truss_calc/​). In order to meet the

minimum number of members requirement, two zero force members were included in the center

of the truss. Since the truss is symmetrical, the internal loads on members are the same as their

equivalent on the other side.

For the purposes of these calculations, the truss was calculated to be 6.5” tall, 22.5” wide,

and the members assumed to be one-dimensional lines.

The top member had a cross-sectional area of 0.6 * 0.6 = 0.36 in​2​. The normal stress

649
encountered by this beam is then the force divided by the area, so .36
= 1802 psi. Given the

tensile strength of pine wood was earlier determined to be 19,200 psi, this results in a safety
19200
factor of 1802
= 10.6 .

5
 The outside diagonals had a cross-sectional area of 0.6 * 0.7 = 0.42 in. Therefore, the

992 19200
normal stress encountered by this beam is .42
= 2361 psi, and the safety factor is 2361
= 8.1 .

The bottom beams had a cross-sectional area of 0.6 * 0.7 = 0.42 in. The normal stress

649 19200
encountered by this beam is .42
= 1545 psi, and the safety factor is 1545
= 12.4 .

The inside diagonals do not need calculations to determine forces or stress because they

are zero force members, meaning they experience no force or normal stress and have an

infinitely high safety factor as a result.

Buckling and Safety Factor in Each Compressive Member

For the horizontal members at the bottom of the truss, the maximum tension they can be
2 3 2 3
subjected to is π * 0.6 * 0.7 * 1,200,000
12 * (11.252 )
= 1,179 lbs for x-x buckling and π * 0.7 * 0.6 * 1,200,000
12 * (11.252 )
= 1,604

1179
lbs for y-y buckling. This means they have a safety factor of 649
= 1.82. For the top member, the

2 3
maximum tension is π * 0.6 * 1,200,000
12 * (11.52 )
= 967.1 lbs for x-x and y-y buckling. This means it has a

967.1 π 2 * 0.63 * 0.7 * 1,200,000

safety factor of 649
= 1.49. For the side members, the maximum tension is 12 * (7.52 )

π 2 * 0.73 * 0.6 * 1,200,000

= 2653 lbs for x-x bucking and 12 * (7.52 )
= 3610 lbs for y-y bucking. This means they

2653
have a safety factor of 991.8
= 2.67. For the internal members, the maximum tension is

π 2 * 0.253 * 0.6 * 1,200,000 2 3

12 * (7.52 )
= 164.4 lbs for x-x buckling and 3.14 *.612*.25*1,200,000
(7.52 )
= 421.1 lbs for the y-y
*

buckling. Since they are zero force members, they have a very large safety factor.

Shear Forces, Shear Stresses, and Safety Factors at Each Joint

The shear forces at each joint are the same as the internal forces in each member -- that

is, the shear force at each joint is caused by the transfer of these forces through the gusset plates.

6
 To calculate the shear stresses, we must calculate the contact area between each gusset

plate and the member. For the joint connecting the top member to the inside and outside

diagonals, there are two shear forces to consider: between the top member and the gusset plates,

and between the outside diagonal and the gusset plates.

For the top member to the gusset plate, the force being transferred is 649 lbs. The gusset

plate was expected to cover 1 in of the member, resulting in 0.6 * 1 = 0.6 in​2​ of contact area.

However, there were two gusset plates supporting each joint, so the total contact area is 1.2 in​2​.
649
This leads to a shear stress of 1.2
= 541 psi. The shear strength of gorilla glue on pine was

1191
determined to be 1191 psi. This leads to a factor of safety of 541
= 2.2 .

For the outside diagonal to the gusset plate, the force being transferred is 992 lbs. The

contact area was calculated to be 0.7 * 0.6 * 2 = 0.84 in​2​ of contact area, in order for the truss to

992
fail at this joint. This leads to a shear stress of .84
= 1180 psi. This leads to a factor of safety of

1191
1180
≈ 1.

No shear force must be calculated for the inside diagonal to the top gusset plate because

the zero force member does not transfer any force through the joint, and experiences no shear

stress there.

The next joint to calculate shear force for is the joint connecting the outside diagonal to

the bottom member. The first force to calculate is the force of the outside diagonal transferring

force to the gusset plate. The force being transferred is 992 lbs. However, compared to the top

joint, this joint has more contact area, at 0.7 * 1 * 0.2 = 1.4 in​2​ of contact area. This leads to a

992 1191
shear stress of 1.4
= 708 psi. This leads to a factor of safety of 708
= 1.7 .

7
 The next force to calculate is the force of the bottom member transferring force through

the gusset plate. The force being transferred is 649 lbs. The contact area is 0.7 * 1 * 0.2 = 1.4 in​2

649
of contact area. This leads to a shear stress of 1.4
= 463 psi. This leads to a factor of safety of

1191
463
= 2.57 .

The final joint to calculate forces for is the center of the bottom beam. However, this joint

has the same contact area between the gusset plate and the bottom member as the previous joint,

so it has the same shear stress (463 psi) and safety factor (2.57).

No shear stress must be calculated for the inside diagonal to this joint, as no force is

transferred to it.

Predictions

Our predicted failure was 1500 lbs of force. The failure was predicted to be on one of the

top joints due to glue shear, as those joints had the lowest safety factor. Our wood’s volume was

(2 * 0.6 * 0.7 * 11.125) + (2 * 0.6 * 0.7 * 7.38) + (0.6 * 0.6 * 11.25) + (2 * 0.6 * 0.25 * 7.38) =

21.81 in​3​ and the density of pine wood is 0.25 oz/in​3​, therefore, the members weighed (0.25 *

21.81) = 5.46 oz. The volume of the gusset plates was (1.5 in * 2 in * 0.125 in) * 8 = 3 in​3​ for

the small ones, and (2 in * 3 in * 0.125 in) * 2 = 1.5 in​3​, for a total of 4.5 in​3​. The density of

plywood is 0.314 oz/in​3​, therefore, the gusset plates weighed (4.5 * 0.314) = 1.413 oz.

Thus the total weight of the truss was predicted to be approximately 6.873 oz, assuming glue

weight is negligible. The predicted strength-to-weight ratio was 3496:1.

8
 Test Results

The truss weighed 7 ounces and failed at 1162 lbs of force. It failed due to joint failure at

the top right corner. The wood of the top member split because there was not enough space

between the top member and the side member. The strength to weight ratio of the truss was

2656:1.

Discussion of Results

We predicted that the glue in the top joint of the truss would fail. However, when

calculating the points of failure, failure due to shearing and buckling was considered primarily.

We calculated that it took less force to shear the glue than it did to buckle the members or for the

members to fail due to normal stress, so we predicted that the truss would fail as a result of glue

9
shearing. The failure due to the splitting of the wood was not something that we anticipated. It is

still possible that our calculations were correct but the build quality did not allow us to reach the

predicted load. Had the wood not split at 1162 pounds of pressure, the glue may have sheared

closer to 1500 pounds as predicted.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The main issues encountered during this project were errors in calculations, adhering to

restrictions, and time management. In order to get better results, the build phase should be started

earlier in order to allow room for error. Allocating more time towards building would allow

teams to better anticipate where and how failure will occur. A truss design can be perfected but if

the build quality is subpar then it will not fail as predicted. During testing one of the top joints of

the truss failed for reasons we are unsure of. We believe it could be due to the direction of the

grain of the wood, the space between connecting members, an unexpected flaw in the wood, or a

combination of the three. It is possible that if the top member was rotated by 90 degrees such that

the grain of the wood was aligned differently, it would not have split in the way that it did.

Additionally, we believe that if we slowed down during assembly that we would have left the

appropriate space between the members connected at the joint that failed, potentially reducing

the risk of failure there. However, the universe is stochastic, therefore, some failure modes

cannot be accurately predicted, such as a flaw in the wood. In order to maximize the amount of

load that the truss can handle, higher safety factors could be used to account for these random

failure modes. Overall the truss was a success because it failed close to the predicted value and

had the best strength to weight ratio in section 0701.

10