FACULTY CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF STRUCTURAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING

SEM II 2020/2021

EXPERIMENT INDETERMINATE TRUSS

COURSE CODE BFC31901

COURSE NAME GEOTHECNIC AND STRUCTURE

LABORATORY

FACULTY FKAAB

PROGRAM BACHELOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

STUDENT’S NAME

1. NURUL ASYIQIN BINTI KAMARDIN CF190110

2. WOON KAE SIN AF180262
3. TENGKU MUQRI BINTI TENGKU MOHD SHAFFRY AF180200
4. YUS IQBAL BIN YUSERI AF180206
SECTION 12

GROUP 5

LECTURER’S NAME Ts. Dr. SHARIFAH SALWA BINTI MOHD ZAKI

SUBMIT DATE 30 April 2021

MARKS

1
 Table Content

Content Page Number

Abstract 3

1.0 Introduction 4-5

2.0 Literature Review 6-7

3.0 Methodology 8

4.0 Results and Data Analysis 9-24

5.0 Discussion 25

6.0 Conclusion 25

7.0 References 26

2
 Abstract

The laboratory of space truss is a three dimensional (3D) structure that

constructed and joined by truss members which subjected in order to loading to
test the forces of the loading in different manners. The laboratory was to use the
application of theoretical engineering knowledge in the practical knowledge. It
also enhances the technical competency of the civil structural engineering in
laboratory application. In this laboratory, the loading and the length of the truss
members were manipulated to determine the forces of the load at each truss
members. The entire design of the structure includes x, y and z axis which pointed
to different directions. The arrangement of the structure of the truss members
construct a typical square box. With different distance or length of the truss
members, the calculated values will be different as well. The dynamometer
readings recorded were then used to calculate the theoretical and experimental
forces of the laboratory. From the result obtained from the laboratory, it showed
that the values on dynamometer S1 and S3 increased when the loading increased.
However, the dynamometer readings of S2 decreased when the loading increased.
The dimensions (a) and (c) decreased, dimension (b) increased and dimension (d)
remained the same throughout the laboratory. At the end of the experiment, the
effective solutions were given to overcome the problems identified.

3
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The space frame in the laboratory involved several dimensions which constructed
from different truss members. The inclined dimensions of the truss members were
being resolved into a three dimensional cube shape as shown in Figure 1. The
resolution of each dimensions were used to determined the theoretical and
experimental forces of the loading in the laboratory. As the main purpose of this
laboratory was to verify the member forces obtained from the experiment by using
tension coefficient method. If the member of truss system is not situated in
between two dimensional plane, then the truss is then defined as a space frame
truss. In other words, space truss has components in three which are axis x, y and
z. The calculation steps included :

Consider a memeber with nodeA (XA , YA ) and B (XB , YB ).

Figure 1

Assume the force in the member is TAB (positive tension) and length LAB.
𝑇
Definition of the tension coefficient (t), =𝑡𝐴𝐵 = 𝐿 𝐴𝐵
𝐴𝐵

At A, the horizontal component 𝑇𝐴𝐵 is = TAB cos 𝜃

tAB LAB cos θ

: = LAB

tAB LAB (XB −XA )

: = LAB

: = t AB (XB − XA )

4
With the same method applied to the vertical component,

: = t AB (yB − yA )

At B, the horizontal component 𝑇𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 (𝑋𝐴 − 𝑋𝐵 )

Vertical component 𝑇𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 (𝑌𝐵 − 𝑋𝐵 )
Using statics write the equation for each joint using the coordinate value and
solve for t.
Convert it into force using:
: 𝑇𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 𝐿𝐴𝐵 = 𝑡𝐴𝐵 √(𝑥𝐵 − 𝑥𝐴 )2 + (𝑦𝐵 − 𝑦𝐴 )2

5
 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

The parametric analysis of long period industrial steel structures was carried out
by Patel B. and Jamani A. (2017). Industrial steel truss systems must be
specifically engineered in order to be cost-effective. The weight of steel in a large-
span industrial truss is governed by the industrial zone's planning. The finite
element software STAAD PRO was used to determine this structure. For the
comparative analysis, various parameters such as horizontal forces, axial forces,
Deflection, Stress, and Lateral Displacement are taken into account. The aim of
this article is to compare the cost and stability of various structural systems used
in large-span roof industrial steel structures. PED Structure, I-Section Rafter,
Simple truss, and Spaceframe were among the four structural structures
considered by the author. The conclusion shows that the space frame anf truss
member have minimum weigth compare to other structures. I-section Rafter has
minimum deflection that the other steel structure but the I-section rafter structure
is more expensive due to its more weight. Hence, spaceframe and truss members
are more economical than the other structure

In China, Dong. S. et al. (2012) investigated the various long-span space

structures. These spatial structures are made of lightweight and high-strength
materials and were created using cutting-edge technology. Space structures are
divided into three categories in this study: ancient space structures, pre-modern
space structures, and modern space structures. The research also includes
practical applications of modern Chinese spatial structures, various shapes and
features. The modern space structures are classified into rigid space structure,
flexible space structure and rigid-flexible combined space structure. There are
five types of modern rigid space structures namely composite space truss,
openweb latticed shell, partial double-layer lattice shell, tree type and polyhedron
space frame structures. Modern flexible space structures are mainly referred to as
membrane structures with supports and air-supported membrane structures.
Rigid-flexible combined space structures are classified into ten types as the cable-
stayed grid, cable truss structures, composite structures ofthedome andsinglelayer
lattice shell, truss string, pre-stressed grid, beam string, prestressedsegmental

6
steel andtensairity structures.The author concludes that there are three basic
elements4 rigid element consists of beam, plate/shell and bar elements and
flexible element includes membrane and cable elements. China Stands first in
developing the long span space structures in the world. Also, this country won
many awards for developing long-span structures. In addition,the author also
mentions that there is a need for future work in the design and construction
technology of space structures

By considering various parameters of the double-layer grid,

Lakshmikandhan K. N. and Senthil R. et al (2010) analysed the performance of
steel structures and composite space structures. Concrete slab on top, various
support arrangements, and an experimental investigation on a fullscale space grid
are the parameters studied. The main focus of this study was on the effect of
concrete slab at the top side in both composite and non-composite space truss
structures. An analytical study was carried with the help of STADD Pro and
ANSYS. It is observed that, the top members of composite space trusses show
better performance in transferring compressive forces and have no buckling
failure compared with non-composite space trusses. In addition, it was found that
20% of steel was saved due to the use of the middle side support system.

7
 3.0 METHODOLOGY

PROCEDURE
Part 1 :
1. Weight of load with 21 N is selected.
2. The distance a = 500 mm was measured and the load was hangered on D.
3. The distance b, c , d was measured and recorded it Table 1.
4. The dynamometer readings was recorded for member S1, S2 and S3 for
unloaded.
5. The load was hangered at D and the readings of dynamometer in member for
S1, S2 and S3 was recorded for loaded.
6. Step 2 to 5 was repeated with different value of a = 400 mm, 300 mm, and 200
mm. Calculate the theoretical member forces and record it in Table 1.

Part 2 :
1. The distance of a = 350 mm was selected and be fixed.
2. The hanger was placed on D.
3. The distance b,c and d was measured and be fixed. The readings of
dynamometer for member for S1, S2 And S3 was recorded for unloaded.
4. The load of 5 N was hangered on D the dynamometer readings was recorded
for loaded.
5. Step 2 to 5 was repeated by using different load, 10 N, 15 N, 20 N, and 25 N.
6. Table 2 was completed by calculating the theoretical member value.
7. The graph of force against load for the theoretical and experiment result was
plotted.

8
 4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Result and Calculation Experimental

member forces:
S = Loaded – Unloaded

Let take Part 1 for example,

For a = 500 mm,
S1 = 7.0 – 1.0
= 6.0 N
S2 = 5.5 – 1.0
= 4.5 N
S3 = 11.0 – 0.35
= 10.65 N

Theoretical member forces:

Lx =b
Ly = d/2 (for S1 and S2)
= 0 (for S3)
Lz = a – c (for S1 and S2)
= c (for S3)

2 2 2
L + +
=
F =L×t
where L = length
t = tension coefficient
Part 1
Load = 10 N (constant)
When a = 500 mm, b = 480 mm, c = 260 mm, d = 360 mm
Lx Ly Lz
Member L (mm) t F (N) Remarks
(mm) (mm) (mm)
S1 480 180 240 566.36 0.25 141.59 Tension
S2 480 – 180 240 566.36 0.25 141.59 Tension
–
S3 480 0 260 545.89 – 0.50 Compression
272.95

9
 Load
0 0 – 10 - - - -
(N)
∑ = 0, 4801 + 4802 + 4803 = 0

∑ = 0, 1801 − 1802 + 03 = 0

∑ = 0, 2401 + 2402 + 2603 =− 10

By solving the simultaneous equation,
t1 = 0.25 t2 = 0.25

t3 = – 0.50

Therefore,
FS1 = 566.36 × 0.25 = 141.59 N
FS2 = 566.36 × 0.25 = 141.59 N
FS3 = 545.89 × (– 0.50) = – 272.95 N

10
Load = 10 N (constant)
When a = mm, b = mm, c = mm, d = 360 mm
400 508 225
Lx Ly Lz
Member L (mm) t F (N) Remarks
(mm) (mm) (mm)
S1 508 180 175 566.65 0.10 56.67 Tension
S2 508 – 180 175 566.65 0.10 56.67 Tension
–
S3 508 0 225 555.60 – 0.20 Compression
111.12
Load
0 0 – 10 - - - -
(N)
∑ = 0, 5081 + 5082 + 5083 = 0

∑ = 0, 1801 − 1802 + 03 = 0

∑ = 0, 1751 + 1752 + 2253 =− 10

By solving the simultaneous equation,

t1 = 0.10

t2 = 0.10

t3 = – 0.20

1
1
Load = 10 N (constant)
a= mm, b = mm, c = mm, d = 360 mm
Therefore,
FS1 = 566.65 × 0.10 = 56.67 N
FS2 = 566.65 × 0.10 = 56.67 N
FS3 = 555.60 × (– 0.20) = – 111.12 N When
300 530 185
Lx Ly Lz
Member L (mm) t F (N) Remarks
(mm) (mm) (mm)
S1 530 180 115 571.42 0.071 40.58 Tension
S2 530 – 180 115 571.42 0.071 40.58 Tension
S3 530 0 185 561.36 – 0.143 – 80.28 Compression
Load
0 0 – 10 - - - -
(N)
∑ = 0, 5301 + 5302 + 5303 = 0

∑ = 0, 1801 − 1802 + 03 = 0

∑ = 0, 1151 + 1152 + 1853 =− 10

By solving the simultaneous equation,
t1 = 0.071 t2 = 0.071 t3 = – 0.143

Therefore,
FS1 = 571.42 × 0.071 = 40.58 N

1
2
Load = 10 N (constant)
When a = mm, b = mm, c = mm, d = 360 mm
FS2 = 571.42 × 0.071 = 40.58 N
FS3 = 561.36 × (– 0.143) = – 80.28 N
200 534 150
Lx Ly Lz
Member L (mm) t F (N) Remarks
(mm) (mm) (mm)
S1 534 180 50 565.73 0.05 28.29 Tension
S2 534 – 180 50 565.73 0.05 28.29 Tension
S3 534 0 150 554.67 – 0.10 – 55.47 Compression
Load
0 0 – 10 - - - -
(N)
∑ = 0, 5341 + 5342 + 5343 = 0

∑ = 0, 1801 − 1802 + 03 = 0

∑ = 0, 501 + 502 + 1503 =− 10

By solving the simultaneous equation,
t1 = 0.05 t2 = 0.05 t3 = – 0.10

Therefore,
FS1 = 565.73 × 0.05 = 28.29 N
FS2 = 565.73 × 0.05 = 28.29 N

1
3
Load = 10 N (constant)
a= mm, b = mm, c = mm, d = 360 mm
FS3 = 554.67 × (– 0.10) = – 55.47 N

1
4
Part 2
a = 350 mm, b = 502 mm, c = 200 mm, d = 360 mm (constant)
When load = 5 N
Lx Ly Lz
Member L (mm) t F (N) Remarks
(mm) (mm) (mm)
S1 502 180 150 553.99 0.05 27.70 Tension
S2 502 – 180 150 553.99 0.05 27.70 Tension
S3 502 0 200 540.37 – 0.10 – 54.04 Compression
Load
0 0 –5 - - - -
(N)
∑ = 0, 5021 + 5022 + 5023 = 0

∑ = 0, 1801 − 1802 + 03 = 0

∑ = 0, 1501 + 1502 + 2003 =− 5

By solving the simultaneous equation,
t1 = 0.05 t2 = 0.05 t3 = – 0.10

Therefore,
FS1 = 553.99 × 0.05 = 27.70 N
FS2 = 553.99 × 0.05 = 27.70 N
FS3 = 540.37 × (– 0.10) = – 54.04 N
10

15
a = 350 mm, b = 502 mm, c = 200 mm, d = 360 mm
(constant)
When load = N
Lx Ly Lz
Member L (mm) t F (N) Remarks
(mm) (mm) (mm)
S1 502 180 150 553.99 0.10 55.40 Tension
S2 502 – 180 150 553.99 0.10 55.40 Tension
–
S3 502 0 200 540.37 – 0.20 Compression
108.08
Load
0 0 – 10 - - - -
(N)
∑ = 0, 5021 + 5022 + 5023 = 0

∑ = 0, 1801 − 1802 + 03 = 0

∑ = 0, 1501 + 1502 + 2003 =− 10

By solving the simultaneous equation,
t1 = 0.10 t2 = 0.10 t3 = – 0.20

Therefore,
FS1 = 553.99 × 0.10 = 55.40 N
FS2 = 553.99 × 0.10 = 55.40 N
FS3 = 540.37 × (– 0.20) = – 108.08 N
15
Lx Ly Lz
Member L (mm) t F (N) Remarks
(mm) (mm) (mm)
S1 502 180 150 553.99 0.15 83.10 Tension

16
a = 350 mm, b = 502 mm, c = 200 mm, d = 360 mm
(constant)
When load = N
S2 502 – 180 150 553.99 0.15 83.10 Tension
–
S3 502 0 200 540.37 – 0.30 Compression
162.12
Load
0 0 – 15 - - - -
(N)
∑ = 0, 5021 + 5022 + 5023 = 0

∑ = 0, 1801 − 1802 + 03 = 0

∑ = 0, 1501 + 1502 + 2003 =− 15

By solving the simultaneous equation,
t1 = 0.15 t2 = 0.15

t3 = – 0.30

Therefore,
FS1 = 553.99 × 0.15 = 83.10 N
FS2 = 553.99 × 0.15 = 83.10 N
FS3 = 540.37 × (– 0.30) = – 162.12 N
20
Lx Ly Lz
Member L (mm) t F (N) Remarks
(mm) (mm) (mm)
S1 502 180 150 553.99 0.20 110.80 Tension

17
a = 350 mm, b = 502 mm, c = 200 mm, d = 360 mm
(constant)
When load = N
S2 502 – 180 150 553.99 0.20 110.80 Tension
–
S3 502 0 200 540.37 – 0.40 Compression
216.15
Load
0 0 – 20 - - - -
(N)
∑ = 0, 5021 + 5022 + 5023 = 0

∑ = 0, 1801 − 1802 + 03 = 0

∑ = 0, 1501 + 1502 + 2003 =− 20

By solving the simultaneous equation,

t1 = 0.20

t2 = 0.20

t3 = – 0.40

Therefore,
FS1 = 553.99 × 0.20 = 110.80 N
FS2 = 553.99 × 0.20 = 110.80 N
FS3 = 540.37 × (– 0.40) = – 216.15 N
25

18
a = 350 mm, b = 502 mm, c = 200 mm, d = 360 mm
(constant)
When load = N
Lx Ly Lz
Member L (mm) t F (N) Remarks
(mm) (mm) (mm)
S1 502 180 150 553.99 0.25 138.50 Tension
S2 502 – 180 150 553.99 0.25 138.50 Tension
–
S3 502 0 200 540.37 – 0.50 Compression
270.19
Load
0 0 – 25 - - - -
(N)
∑ = 0, 5021 + 5022 + 5023 = 0

∑ = 0, 1801 − 1802 + 03 = 0

∑ = 0, 1501 + 1502 + 2003 =− 25

By solving the simultaneous equation,
t1 = 0.25 t2 = 0.25 t3 = – 0.50

Therefore,
FS1 = 553.99 × 0.25 = 138.50 N
FS2 = 553.99 × 0.25 = 138.50 N
FS3 = 540.37 × (– 0.50) = – 270.19 N

19
 Table 1
Dimension (mm) Dynamometer Reading Force (N)

S1 S2 S3 Experimental Theory
a b c d
Unloaded Loaded Unloaded Loaded Unloaded Loaded S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3

500 480 260 360 1.0 7.0 1.0 5.5 0.35 11.0 6.0 4.5 10.65 141.59 141.59 – 272.95

400 508 225 360 2.0 9.5 1.0 7.0 4.0 13.0 7.5 6.0 9.0 56.67 56.67 – 111.12

300 530 185 360 3.0 12.5 1.5 10.0 5.0 18.0 9.5 8.5 13.0 40.58 40.58 – 80.28

200 534 150 360 4.5 20.0 2.5 16.0 8.0 27.0 15.5 13.5 19.0 28.29 28.29 – 55.47
Load : 10 N

Table 2
Dynamometer Reading Force (N)
Load S1 S2 S3 Experimental Theory
(N)
Unloaded Loaded Unloaded Loaded Unloaded Loaded S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3

5 2.5 6.5 1.3 4.5 5.0 9.0 4.0 3.2 4.0 27.70 27.70 – 54.04

10 2.5 10.5 1.3 8.2 5.0 9.5 8.0 6.9 4.5 55.40 55.40 – 108.08

15 2.5 15.5 1.3 12.5 5.0 22.0 13.0 11.2 17.0 83.10 83.10 – 162.12

20 2.5 20.0 1.3 17.0 5.0 27.0 17.5 15.7 22.0 110.80 110.80 – 216.15

25 2.5 25.0 1.3 21.5 5.0 33.0 22.5 20.2 28.0 138.50 138.50 – 270.19
Dimension a = 350 mm Dimension b = 502 mm Dimension c = 200 mm Dimension d = 360 mm
4.1.1 Graph of force against dimension for the theoretical and experimental
results (Part 1)
1. Load = 10 N (constant)
Dimension a = 500 mm, b = 480 mm, c = 260 mm, d = 360 mm
Force (N)
Member
Experimental Theory

S1 6.0 141.59

S2 4.5 141.59

S3 10.65 272.95

2. Load = 10 N (constant)
Dimension a = 400 mm, b = 508 mm, c = 225 mm, d = 360 mm
Force (N)
Member
Experimental Theory

S1 7.5 56.67

S2 6.0 56.67

S3 9.0 111.12

21
3. Load = 10 N (constant)
Dimension a = 300 mm, b = 530 mm, c = 185 mm, d = 360 mm
Force (N)
Member
Experimental Theory

S1 9.5 40.58

S2 8.5 40.58

S3 13.0 80.28

4. Load = 10 N (constant)
Dimension a = 200 mm, b = 534 mm, c = 150 mm, d = 360 mm
Force (N)
Member
Experimental Theory

S1 15.5 28.29

S2 13.5 28.29

S3 19.0 55.47

22
4.1.2 Graph of force against load for the theoretical and experimental results
(Part 2)
1. Dimension a = 350 mm, b = 502 mm, c = 200 mm, d = 360 mm (constant)
Member S1
Load (N) 5 10 15 20 25

Experimental 4.0 8.0 13.0 17.5 22.5

Force
(N) Theoretical 27.70 55.40 83.10 110.80 138.50

2. Dimension a = 350 mm, b = 502 mm, c = 200 mm, d = 360 mm (constant)

Member S2
Load (N) 5 10 15 20 25

Experimental 3.2 6.9 11.2 15.7 20.2

Force
(N) Theoretical 27.70 55.40 83.10 110.80 138.50

23
3. Dimension a = 350 mm, b = 502 mm, c = 200 mm, d = 360 mm (constant) Member
S3
Load (N) 5 10 15 20 25

Experimental 4.0 4.5 17.0 22.0 28.0

Force
(N) Theoretical 54.04 108.08 162.12 216.15 270.19

24
 5.0 DISCUSSION

From the result that we obtained, the theoretical forces for S3 are in negative values.
However, the negative sign is ignored when plotting the graph because it just indicates
that the forces are compression force. Based on the graph that we plotted in Part 1, we
found that although the load was constant for every tries, but it will deliver different
results. The greater the distance a, the greater the tension force and thus it can resist
larger loads. On the other hand, the graph that we plotted in Part 2 shows that the force
is directly proportional to the applied load.

There are some discrepancies between experimental and theoretical results. It might be
due to mistakes when conducting the experiment and error such as parallax error.
Besides that, the dynamometer is not well calibrated before we conduct the experiment.
This may affect the accuracy of the data obtained.

6.0 CONCLUSION

From the results we obtained, we are able to identify the member forces with tension
coefficient method and can conclude that the force in all members is directly
proportional to the applied load. Besides, the suggested way to improve the accuracy
and precision of the results is to use equipment in good conditions. From this
experiment, we know that the theoretical values are calculated to show the accuracy of
the experimental results. According to the data, there is bit different between the
experimental and theoretical results due to some errors when conducting the
experiment. In addition, we were able to verify member forces obtain from experiment
with tension coefficient method. In this case, the goals and objectives was achieved.

25
References

1. Space Frame: Definition, Structures & Design (n.d.) Retrieved at May 9, 2020
from https://study.com/academy/lesson/space-frame-definition-structures-design.html

2. Facilitator, C. (2019) Space Frame Structure; an analysis fits benefit. Retrieved

at May 9, 2020 at https://www.constrofacilitator.com/space-frame-structure-an-
analysis-of-its-benefit/

3. Erochko, J. (2016). 2.4 Internal Indeterminacy. Retrieved from Learn about

Structures: http://www.learnaboutstructures.com/Internal-Indeterminacy

4. Ramaswamy, G. S., Eekhout, M., & Suresh, G. (2002). Steel Space Frames.
London: Thomas Telford.

5. Rangasami, K. S., & Mallick, S. K. (1996). Degrees of freedom of plane and

space frames. In The Structural Engineer (p. Volume 44).

26