CYNTHIA LEE SIAW WUN 0306112

DEIDRE ZHANG SHU-WEI 0304619

GAN SUE JING 0307957
LEE JIA XIN 0308389
WONG YOKE LIN 0308254
BSc (HONS) ARCHITECTURE
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 2
[ARC 2513]
PROJECT 1
UNDERSTANDING FORCES IN SKELETAL
STRUCTURE
CONTENT PAGE
EXPLORING PROCESS 1
LOAD TEST 1 2
LOAD TEST 2 3
FINAL LOAD TEST 4
load distribution 5
orthographic drawings 6
design improvement 7
conclusion 8
references 9
l
A bracings, also known as chevron brace
Chevron bracings require a high level of accuracy and consistency in construc-
tion, and also the transfer point of the load on the bracing is very concentrated.
Thus, we cannot full the requirement due to the inconsistency in tying and
joining of the popsicle sticks, causing a high possibility for the tower to break at a
light weight.
EXPLORING PROCESS
BRACING
JOINING
For the rst experimentation, popsicle sticks were tied together and small slits were cut to better hold
the thread. Later on, it was discovered that this method was ineffective as the structure had no proper
intersections at the joints and was not secure enough.
For the second experimentation, interlocking joints were used. This new structure was more stable
than the rst as there were proper holds to support loads as well as keep the model together.
For the nal experimentation, popsicle sticks were cut and holes were drilled for further reinforcement
of joints. The cut popsicle sticks were layered and joined to serve as columns. The interlocking pop-
sicle sticks served as frames. Bracings were added as well. Toothpicks were used as a joint system.
For the nal reinforcement measure, the joints were bound by thread.
X bracings, combining with channel bracing
With this kind of bracing, our rst testing model did not last a lot of weight load.
One of the reasons is due to the horizontal force leading to topple of the tower.
Other than that, joining point of columns, beams and bracings were not tied
together thus the components of the tower scattered in a short period of time.
X bracings
With X bracings all around the tower, the second testing model withstood more load,
up to 85kgs. With x bracings all around with thread bringing the joints together, it was
denitely mode rigid. The second testing model toppled due to failure of load transfer
directly from column to column.
2
LOAD TEST 1
For the rst trial load test, the model withstood 20kg at the height of only 20cm.
The reason why the mockup model did not reach the height requirement was
because we wanted to test the strength of the skeletal structure and the joining
systems. The model collapsed due to the inappropriateness of bracing. The
model was only supported by pinning and interlocking systems with no rein-
forcements of tying with thread.
Height: 20cm
Mass: 45g
Number of sticks: 52
Maximum load: 20kg
Efciency: 8.89
progress
2.5KG 10.0KG 14.0KG 20.0KG

LOAD TEST 2
progress
For the second load test, the model withstood 85kg at the height of 20cm as
well. The model collapsed because the columns did not connect with one an-
other therefore load does not directly transfer to the ground, separating at the
point where both meet.
Height: 20cm
Mass: 70g
Number of sticks: 56
Maximum load: 85kg
Efciency: 24.2857
20.0KG 55.0KG 70.0KG 85.0KG
=
FINAL LOAD TEST
Final load test The nal model withstood 125kg. It collapsed due to one weak point
of the columns where the layering was not strong enough and lacked reinforce-
ment. The second reason is because the loads were slightly shifted as they were
being stacked on the model. It is believed that the models load-bearing ability was
not tested to its full potential.
Height: 30.2cm
Mass: 120g
Number of sticks: 92
Maximum load: 125kg
Efciency: 31.46
progress
20.0KG 65.0KG 95.0KG 125.0KG
5
Once the load is applied on top of the structure, it is evenly distributed onto the top surface.
The load is directly transferred down to the columns. The load is also transferred to the brac-
ings which connect the columns and the girders together.
Bracings are a form of reinforcement applied in the construction technique. Cross bracing
allows diagonal supports to intersect to resist tension and compression forces. When cross
bracing is used, lateral force from one direction induces tension in one brace while the other
brace is in tension when the force is reversed.
Therefore, if two diagonals are used in the form of cross-bracing, they only need to resist ten-
sion. When one brace is in tension, compression will be applied to the other. However, the
slender compressive brace immediately sheds this compression by buckling out of plane to
avoid the force. Thus, the other brace then has to take 100% of the lateral force in tension.
Therefore, the compressive brace may be ignored.
The diagonal supports also intersect with the girders, which serve as the horizontal support,
connecting all the layers of the whole structure together with the columns. Thus, the force is
transferred diagonally down the structure through the bracings and to the girders, then to the
columns and down to the ground.
LOAD
LOAD TRANSFER
LOAD DISTRIBUTION

orthographic drawings
PLAN
LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION
7
design improvement
After nal load test, we tried to gure out ways to improve the
model design. Firstly, the problem with the model is that the
columns did not erect 90* vertically. When constructing model,
bracings and horizontal members were secured together rst,
then adjusting the columns in accordingly. This caused the col-
umns to conform to the order of the bracings and vertical struc-
ture, causing it to twist slightly. Thus, the whole structure of the
tower was slightly imbalanced and twisted; load could not be
transferred directly to the ground. To solve this problem, col-
umns have to be erected rst, and then bracings and horizontal
members should be xed accordingly after.
Other than that, X bracings are only added at the rst, third and
fth layer of the tower. In addition to the slightly twisted columns,
bracings were not sufcient, causing it to twist further and col-
lapse. X bracings perhaps should be applied to every layer of the
tower.
Columns were constructing by combining three layers of pop-
sicle sticks together. They were sandwiched together and are
joined with toothpicks in a sequence. At a point of the columns,
it has only one popsicle stick that is transferring the load. Thus
it became a weak point to the column structure. During the -
nal load test, the main reason the tower collapse was due to
breakage of columns. To solve the problem, columns should be
stacked in a way that none of the point of the column has only
one layer of popsicle stick transferring the load.
8
This project was a test of critical and logical thinking whilst bearing in
mind the creative aspect as the project required not only functionality
but aesthetic value as well.
Throughout the model making process, we researched skeletal struc-
tures and studied the relationship between forms and load-bearing
capacities. Through such research and studies, we were able to apply
construction methods and mechanisms in design and understand the
implications of such methods to the structure.
After conducting several experiments and analysis of causes of fail-
ures, we were able to identify the methods to achieve higher capabili-
ties of strength, stiffness and stability in the structure. We also studied
how load is transferred down the structure as well as how forces and
stresses affect the structure. We identied the weak points and aws
in our design and construction methods and modied the structure
until a strong enough skeletal structure was achieved.
This assignment has taught us plenty and allowed us to gain a better
understanding of skeletal construction methods and their importance
in construction and/or design.
conclusion
9
Ching, Francis D.K. 2008. Building Construction Illustrate. 4th Edition. New Jersey. John
Wiley & Soons, Inc.
Bsci Capstone. 2014. Auburn, Alabama. Lateral Stability of Structures. Retrieved from
https://fp.auburn.edu/heinmic/StructuralStability/bracing.htm
references