Building Structure Fettuccine Bridge Analysis Report 5w4um

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ARC 2213]

FETTUCCINE TRUSS BRIDGE ANALYSIS REPORT CHOO AI LIN 0317253 ELAINE BONG 0310432 LAU EE TIAN 0309596 SOH YOH SHING 0308010 S U R AY Y N S E LVA N 0309818

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S 1 INTRODUCTION

01

2 METHODLOGY 2.1 PRECEDENT STUDY 2.2 MAKING OF FETTUCCINE BRIDGE 2.3 REQUIREMENT

02 02 03

3 PRECEDENT STUDY

04

4 A N A LY S I S 4 . 1 S T R E N G T H O F MAT E R I A L 4 . 2 A D H E S I V E A N A LY S I S

08 10

5 MODEL MAKING 5.1 METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION 5.2 T

11 13

6 TESTING 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

FIRST BRIDGE SECOND BRIDGE THIRD BRIDGE FINAL BRIDGE

14 16 18 20

7 D E S I G N M O D I F I C AT I O N 7 . 1 FA IL U R E R E A S O N IN G 7.2 SOLUTION

24 25

8 CONCLUSION

26

9 APPENDIX

27

10 REFERENCES

28

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

1 INTRODUCTION This project aims to develop our understanding of tensile and compressive strength of construction materials by understanding the distribution of force in a truss.

In order to do achieve that, we were required carry out a precedent study on a truss bridge of our choice, analyzing the connections, arrangements and orientations of the . Once that was completed, we were required to design and construct a truss bridge made out of fettuccine.

The requirements for this bridge include it having a 750mm clear span and a maximum weight of 200g. This bridge will then be tested to fail and we were required to analyze the reasons of its failure and calculate its efficiency.

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

01

2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 PRECEDENT STUDY

By looking through precedent studies to have a better understanding of the types of trusses available. Next, understanding the forces that would be exerted to the trusses; compression and tension, would allow us to make adjustment to our bridge, that would best

suit the given material; fettuccine.

2.2 MAKING OF FETTUCCINE BRIDGE

PHASE 01: STRENGTH OF MATERIAL Understanding the properties of the fettuccine is important in order to build one bridge that

can carry maximum load. For the tensile strength in the fettuccine is considerable low when compare to aluminium which has the same amount of stiffness to the fettuccine.

PHASE 02 : ADHESIVE Choosing the right type of adhesive is important as it plays a huge role in this assignment. As there are many types of adhesive in the market that each has their own function and characteristics. Not only the type of adhesive is important but the brand of adhesive is

important as well, for different brand has different quality and choosing one that suits constructing the fettuccine bridge is primary.

PHASE 03: MODEL MAKING To ensure precision in our model making, Autocad drawings are drawn in 1:1 scale and plotted out to ensure precision and ease our process. And in order to strengthen our bridge as much as possible, each pasta is marked individually as each has their own location of

placement and length, and are glued accordance.

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

02

2 METHODOLOGY PHASE 04 : MODEL TESTING Finished models are being tested after placing aside to allow the adhesive to sit on the model. By placing weight on the middle of intermediate member to ensure that load is evenly

distributed. All these are being recorded to allow us to fix and analysis our bridge.

2.3 REQUIREMENTS •

To have a clear span of 750mm

•

Not exceeding the weight of 200g

•

Only material allowed is fettuccine pasta and adhesive

•

Allowed to use any type of adhesive possible

•

Workmanship is put to consideration as part of aesthetic value

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

03

3 PRECEDENT STUDY HESHBON BRIDGE, INDIANA (1941)

The Heshbon Bridge, located at Indiana, Pennsylvania state in the United State of America, is one of the last state-standard truss bridges built. Many bridge were constructed across the Pennsylvania state from the late 1920's through 1941. This bridge was constructed in 1941 by Paul Construction Company and Pennsylvania State Highway Department which has a main span of 153ft(46.6m) with a total length of 158 ft(48.2m) and 26ft(7.9m) r o a d w a y w i d t h o v e r t h e B l a c k L i c k C r e e k . BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

04

3 PRECEDENT STUDY

The map above shows the bridge is located over Black Lick Creek In Heshbon, Indiana County, Pennsylvania. This bridge is a relatively small example of Pennsylvania's very attractive standard plan of 1930s to 1940s truss bridge design. As such, it features a shallower portal bracing design that other bridges built to this standard. In 2009, the government wanted to replaced the bridge but fortunately they decided to rehabilitate it instead of replacing it. This will include a deck replacement as well as structural steel repairs. So, the Heshbon bridge represents a good preservation project and it became one of the tourist attraction in Pennsylvania.

Heshbon Bridge Before Restore

Heshbon Bridge from 1941-2009 Old railroad bridge with wooden pathway.

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

Heshbon Bridge After Restore

Heshbon Bridge 2009 until today After rehabilitate, the bridge became a bike path

05

3 PRECEDENT STUDY

The 1941, skewed, 158ft long, riveted Parker truss bridge is ed on ashlar abutments with concrete caps. The trusses are traditionally composed with the upper and lower chords being built up box sections, and the verticals and diagonals rolled I sections. Lateral and sway bracing are laced channels. The deck is reinforced c o n cr e t e , a n d t h e s t e e l r a i l i n g s i n si d e t h e t r u s s l i n e s a r e o r i g i n a l .

TRUSS CONNECTIONS AND

Portal view on bridge

Top chord connections

Connections of truss web

Bottom chord connections.

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

06

3 PRECEDENT STUDY

Vertical member detail

Abutments

Railing

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

End Post

Ashlar abutment

Railing detail

07

4 A N A LY S I S 4 . 1 S T R E N G T H O F M AT E R I A L WEIGHT With the requirement of only 200G, we had to creative solution, to reinforce our bridge while making sure that the weight of bridge does not exceed the requirement. Thus we came our with solution by selecting parts that holds load and reinforce it by adding layers to it. But bearing in mind that the more layers added, the more weight it holds. Before we started our model making, we did a little experiment of the maximum weight the fettuccine can carry. We tried out with 4 different layers to carry out this experiment. Experiment (left to right): I. One Layer II. Two Layers III. Three Layers IV. Four Layers

Properties of spaghetti (dry) 1. Ultimate tensile strength ~2000 psi 2. Stiffness (Young’s modulus) E ~10,000,000 psi (E=stress/strain)

Experiment 01: One Layer starts to bend after load is applied with just one layer of fettuccine. Total weight being 0.56G.

Experiment 02: Two Layers In the two layer of fettuccine, a slight bend could be seen in the fettuccine, although it is not as extreme as Experiment 1. Total weight being 1.17G

Experiment 03: Three Layers When load is applied, could be seen slightly sturdier when compare to Experiment 2. But a slight bend in the middle could be seen. Total weight being 2.8G

Experiment 4: Four Layers With four layers, it has proven to be the most stable option among all experiments. Total weight being 2.05G.

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

08

4 A N A LY S I S 4 . 1 S T R E N G T H O F M AT E R I A L ORIENTATION

Horizontal were placed between trusses, to hold both pieces of the bridge together. They held no force besides balancing the whole truss bridge. Hence, we reduced the horizontal to one layer in our second and third bridge, for our bridge to fit the requirement in of the bridge’s weight.

V S

Method 01

Method 02

Method 01 was used in our case because the were fitted between the arch and the bottom chord. This can ensure that the load was distributed evenly to the arch. Comparing to Method 02, which the bracings were glued on the outside truss. Thus, Method 01 was a better choice of orientation. Where Method 02 is still able to distribute the load but the bracings were not secured onto arch and bottom chord, relying on the glue

The intermediate member is where the hook that held on load is placed. Making its role important. Where the orientation and its layers are vital. We found out the load can be transferred more efficiently when it was placed exactly in the middle in upright position, where the load can be distributed evenly to the sides. BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

09

4 A N A LY S I S 4 . 2 A D H E S I V E A N A LY S I S Three different kinds of glue used to ensure the ts are strong and thus strengthen the bridge.

Type of Adhesive

X’traseal’s Super Glue

Selleys’ Supa Glue

UHU Glue

Advantages • • • •

High efficiency Fast solidify time Easy to use Easy to bend fettuccine when applied

Disadvantages • Cracked t after dried for few days

• High efficiency • Fastest solidify time • Easy to use

• Cracked t after dried for few days

• Easy to use

• • • •

Low efficiency Causes flexible ts Longer solidify time Causes bridge to weigh more

Selleys’ Supa Glue was used the most while constructing our fettuccine bridge. It has high efficiency and it dried faster compared to the other adhesives, as it is more concentrated when compare to X’traseal’s Super Glue. To make sure the glue worked at its best, allow the glue to settle in the bridge to make sure it is dry before the testing it. This is to ensure the bridge perform at its best. The X’traseal super glue is only used on the arch where slower solidify of glue is needed in order to buy some time while constructing the arch, for better precision. UHU Glue is avoided if possible, as it causes the ts to be flexible. It also requires longer time to dry. Making it the worst option, for ts should be rigid.

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

10

5 MODEL MAKING 5.1METHODOFCONSTRUCTION

01. First, we printed out a copy of the design of our bridge so that it will be easier for us to bend the fettuccine to get the shape of the arc.

02. We started off by doing the bottom chord of the bridge by dividing the base of the bridge into 4 layers with different length.

t

03. Then we glued the it together using the method above to distribute the breaking point of the base evenly.

04. For the arc of the bridge, we also divided it into 4 layers. In order the get the shape of the arc, gluing it layer by layer and bend it accordingly.

05. We cut and glued the truss and the bracing of the After completing one side of we used the same method other side

06. Finally, we connected the 2 sides of the bridge by placing horizontal fettuccine in between.

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

vertical bridge. bridge, for the

11

5 MODEL MAKING 5.1METHODOFCONSTRUCTION

7. The middle piece of the horizontal truss is reinforced as it was the piece that holds the weight.

8. The top parts of the bridge are ed with double layers of fattucine.

9. The completed final model.

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

12

5 MODEL MAKING 5.2 T PLAIN BUTT T

1. Two fettuccine doubled-layer to make it stronger

3: Repeat this procedure.

2. one fettuccine to other the end of another fettuccine.

Final Product

OVERLAID T

1. Randomly choose 2 fettuccine.

2. Place a fettuccine horizontally in between of the 2 fettucine.

3. Trim the excess and repeat the procedure.

Final Product

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

13

6 TESTING 6.1 FIRST BRIDGE For our first bridge we used the precedent study as a guideline for our first bridge. By changing it to an arch to allow the bridge to increase the compression member. On our first trial we did not focus much on the weight of our bridge but more our reinforcing it and understanding the adhesive and the orientation of the trusses. Although our required clear span is just 750MM we added an additional 74MM on each sides of our bridge to allow it to rest on the table, in order to spread the load applied on bridge. Each segments having a total length of 80MM allowing us to produce total of an odd 11segments where we produce just one ‘X’ truss on the middle segments. This is part of our technique in order to produce as little weight than producing an even number of segments where we would be force to produce two ‘X’ truss in order to be centralized.

Model Testing

Middle of intermediate member broke off after 6KG

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

14

6 TESTING 6.1 FIRST BRIDGE Compression Tension

209MM

L O A D

908MM 90MM FAILURE

Length: Width: Height: Weight:

908MM 90MM 209MM 225G

Max. Load Efficiency

6KG 0.16

After a few trials, only the intermediate member would broke after applying force. Proving that our truss is stable. Thus, the only problem with our bridge is the weight of it. Resulting in the second bridge.

Two layers

Four layers

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

15

6 TESTING 6.2 SECOND BRIDGE

The second bridge also followed the design of the precedent study - Heshbon Bridge similar to the first bridge. The first bridge was too heavy as we have a weight limit stated by the brief which was 200g. We decided to maintain the height and the bottom chord chord because these two were the most important in a truss. So we reduced the layers of the zero force which were the horizontal holding both truss together. Two intermediate were place in the middle where the load would be hung. One, which had four layers, was placed in the centre of the whole truss to hold the both trusses together. The other, which had eight layers, was placed diagonally on the bottom chord intersecting with the middle member.

Intermediate member bending just before it breaks.

Broken intermediate

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

16

6 TESTING 6.2 SECOND BRIDGE Compression Tension

209MM

L O A D

900MM 90MM FAILURE

Length: Height: Width: Weight:

908MM 90MM 209MM 225G

Max. Load: Efficiency:

5KG 0.12

Only the intermediate of the second bridge broke off without damaging the truss which means that it had not achieved its maximum efficiency yet with the load of 5KG.

Two layers

Four layers

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

One layer

17

6 TESTING 6.3 THIRD BRIDGE

After considering from failure of the second b r i d ge d e sig n , we intended to reduce the height of the arch besides increasing stability, we also reduced 0.7G of weight which contributes into higher efficiency. Total height of the third bridge is 178MM. Proven that our proposal of reducing the height was a success. Conversely, when the height decreased, the center of gravity become lower hence the bridge become more stable., standing up straight raises the center of gravity above the base of and decreases stability. The amount of layer used in each location of the member is the same because we couldn’t afford to lessen the layers of the bottom chord or the arch, thus we choose to shorten the height instead.

Perspective view of third bridge. Placement of horizontal member is the same with previous bridge

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

Model testing.

18

6 TESTING 6.3 THIRD BRIDGE Compression Tension

FAILURE 178MM

L O A D 908MM 90MM FAILURE

Length Width Height Weight

908MM 90MM 178MM 200G

The reason third bridge failed is because the horizontal member was just one layer causing the t not to be strong enough to withstand the load exerted onto the bridge. And the intermediate member broke fall off, issuing a problem with workmanship.

Max. Load: 3.8KG Efficiency: 0.0.722

Two layers

Four layers

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

One layer

19

6 TESTING 6.4 FINAL BRIDGE

After the testing of our third bridge, our arch and trusses were still in tact and only the horizontal braces connecting the trusses were broken. We decided to rearrange our horizontal bracing. Instead of using one strip of fettuccine we decided to have two layers but reduce the number of horizontal bracing, thus we managed not to exceed much weight as stated in requirement. We mainly placed these bracings where the forces would act most upon.

By rearranging and adding the additional layer of to the horizontal fettuccine , it managed to increased the efficiency of our bridge. During the final testing of our bridge, the middle of the immediate member of our bridge broke under the force exerted by the load.

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

20

6 TESTING 6.4 FINAL BRIDGE Compression Tension

178MM

L O A D

908MM

90MM FAILURE

Two layers

Four layers

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

One layer

21

6 TESTING 6.4 FINAL BRIDGE MODEL TESTING

Weight: ~ 500g

Weight: ~ 1000g

Weight: ~ 1500g

Weight: ~ 2000g

Weight: ~ 2500g

Weight: ~ 3000g

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

22

6 TESTING 6.4 FINAL BRIDGE

Weight: ~ 3500g

Weight: ~ 4000g

Weight: ~ 4500g

Weight: ~ 4700g

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

Length: Width: Height: Weight:

908mm 90mm 178mm 202g

Max. Load: Efficiency:

4.7kg 0.109

23

7 D E S I G N M O D I F I C AT I O N 7.1 FAILURE REASONING Reason 01: The bottom chord of our bridges aren’t completely touching the base at both sides, as it is only partially touching the base. This is due to the lack of precision in our workmanship. This cause our bridge to be unbalance and not stable. Our models could have slipped off when load is being exerted towards bridge. Causing our bridge to be twisted.

Reason 02: As some of the is slanted and not 180˚ flat, for nothing is perfect. As it is crucial to use a flat fettuccine pasta for when layering the width of layered fettuccine would be uneven at slanted area. And with the slanted part the load distribution would be disturb and unstable

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

24

7 D E S I G N M O D I F I C AT I O N 7.2 SOLUTION Solution 01: Using masking tape on the onto the printed drawing, to ensure that does not slipped off. Thus member would remain constant and provide precision. But one would need to make take into consideration that masking tape is not as strong as we want t h e m t o , s o me mb e r s wo u l d s h i f t wh e n wo r k i n g on o t h e r me mb e r s .

Solution 02: Using UHU Glue to fill the gaps in between ts would help Reason 01, but bearing in mind that weight of bridge would increase and aesthetic value of the bridge would fall. By reinforcing both Super Glue and UHU Glue, structure seems to work just fine with it.

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

25

8 CONCLUSION From this assignment we were able to have a better grasp of understanding

the load and compressive strength of construction material. Teaching us methods as to constructing a building structurally stable. As forces and loads plays an important role in this assignment, aiding us to understand how it is

distributed in truss. Not forgetting that we were to be creative and maintain high level of aesthetic value while putting the minimizing the amount of m aterials used. Hence prom oting sustainable architecture.

Group photo along with final bridge BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

26

9 APPENDIX As for our individual part, we were assigned to further analyse total of 5 trusses. Each were distributed to following :

First Case:

Elaine Bong Poh Hui

Second Case:

Lau Ee Tian

Third Case:

Surayyn Selvan

Fourth Case:

Choo Ai Lin

Fifth Case:

Soh You Shing

The analysis and calculations of trusses are attached after this page.

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

27

10 REFERENCES Historic Bridges.org.(2012,January 11)..Retrived September 20,2014,from http://www.historicbridges.org/info/about.htm

BUILDING STRUCTURES [ ARC 2213 ]

28