A Simple Truss Project

Date of Lab
December 3rd 2014

Date of Report
December 10th 2014

MET-1050-P70

By
Chris Brewer
Brianna vanderVeen
Laura Xanders

Instructor
Olga Malkina

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Statement of Intent

Background

Procedure

Data and Analysis

Conclusions

10

Work Cited

11

Appendix

12

Drawings

13

Statement of Intent:
A truss in architecture and engineering is a timber or metal structural member that
is formed of one triangle or a series of triangles in a single plane. A truss requires
less material than a solid beam in attaining long spans for carrying heavy loads,
making it especially useful in constructing bridges and roofs. Reason behind the
Trusses Design and test project lab is to understand how the design and material
used will impact the strength of the truss. Each team was given the same
parameters to follow in designing and choosing materials for their truss. The trusses
would then be loaded until they they failed and compared to each other
Background:

Trusses are triangulated frameworks used as spanning or bracing elements in

buildings, bridges, transmission towers, and other structures. What distinguishes
the truss from other structural forms is precisely its triangulation, from which two
benefits accrue: first, the triangular geometry is inherently stable; second, all
internal stresses The Hellenistic builders invented the truss in the 3 rd century B.C.
The theory behind the invention is that by Greek geometers the triangle is the only
rigid figure. The Greeks then passed their knowledge of the truss to the Romans.
The earliest known description of a truss is in Vitruvins De Archetectura. In the
1570s Andrea Palladia described truss in his four books which was used for bridges.
in the nineteenth century that industrial expansion, in particular the need for longspan exhibition and market halls, railroad terminals, and bridges, together with the
development of engineering theory and improvements in the production of cast and
wrought iron, and later steel, provide the motive and means for most of the
advances in truss design that are exploited within early twentieth-century
architecture.

Procedure:
On line research regarding truss design suggested that the Warren truss was one of
the most efficient designs. A rough sketch was made for a truss that met all of the
size restrictions, and from that an estimate of 72 cubic inches of material was
derived.

After discussing this design further, the Warren truss seemed to be better suited for
a distributed load rather than the concentrated load this truss would be subjected
to. There was no vertical support under the center chord where the load was to be
applied. Additionally, since most of the internal members were zero-force and
efficiency was a crucial consideration, simple roof trusses seemed to be a better
option. Because the upper and lower cords had to built from 9" segments, the Howe
truss would provide stability at each of the joints. The final design was completed
according to the specifications provided.

The next consideration was material, i.e., the type of wood. From the Federal
government's Wood Handbook, properties of different woods were compared:

Wood type
to grain

Density

Modulus of Rupture Modulus of Elasticity

Tension perp

Balsa

Red Oak

6.86-12.49 lb/cf

41.02

10.02

1274

6.26

898

2100

6.52

1058

3700

.0237 lb/ci

White Pine

23.29
.0135 lb/ci

Yellow Poplar

26.66
.0154 lb/ci

Pounds per cubic foot, converted to pounds per cubic inches, and considering the
estimate of the amount of material needed revealed that oak's density was too
great to meet the weight restriction:

Material

Total weight (est. 72 ci)

Oak

1.71

Pine

0.972

Poplar

1.11

Because Yellow Poplar is somewhat stronger than White Pine, it was chosen as the
material for the truss.

Construction-specific details were also decided by discussing the project with an

experienced construction design engineer. To maximize strength, the type of
adhesive used and joint design were critical choices. Titebond III Ultimate Wood

Glue was chosen. Finger joints would increase the adhesive surfaces by 230% over
a simple 45 or 90 degree cut surface. Lastly, gusset wedges rather than plates were
chosen to increase the stability of each joint.
Data & Analysis:
The original project parameters called for a truss able to withstand a 500 lb load as
shown in Figure A.

Fig. A
The calculations for analyzing this load are:
Fy = 0

Av + Bv - 500 lb = 0
Av + Bv = 500 lb

MA = 0

(ccw)Bv(32 ft) (cw)500lb(16 ft) = 0

(ccw)Bv(32ft) = (cw)500lb(16ft)
(ccw)Bv = (cw)500lb(16ft) / 32ft
Bv = (ccw)250lb

Therefore from above: Av + 250lb = 500lb

Av = 250lb
This can now be shown as follows in Figure B:

Fig. B

In the project experiment, the load was significantly more than anticipated. See Figure C:

Fig. C
The calculations for this extra load can be shown as follows:
Fy = 0

Av + Bv 942.4 lb = 0
Av + Bv = 942.4lb

MA = 0

(ccw)Bv(32 ft) (cw)942.4lb(16 ft) = 0

(ccw)Bv(32ft) = (cw)942.4lb(16ft)
(ccw)Bv = (cw)942.4lb(16ft) / 32ft
Bv = (ccw)471.2lb

Therefore from above:

Av+471.2lb =942.4lb
Av=471.2lb
The resulting figures can be shown in Figure D:

Fig. D
Three trusses were tested each with a different design.
Truss #
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3

Group 1

Group 2

Weight
.88 lb
1.36lb
.68lb

Load
50psi = 942.4lb
8psi = 150.8lb
15psi = 282.7lb

Efficiency
1071
111
415

Group 3
500 lb

250 lb.

250 lb.
C

= ZERO FORCE MEMBER

This truss design worked well, although most commonly it supports a distributed
load rather than a concentrated one. The finger joints used were the key in adding
tensile strength in the bottom cord to outperform the other trusses. Based on the

results of this experiment, re-design would consist of increasing the thickness of the
bottom cord to 1 x 0.75".

Conclusion:
There were three different trusses designed and tested in this lab as shown above
each with varying results. The truss strength depends on the design of the truss but
also on the material used. The truss that had the best results was a Howe design
and used poplar which is the softest of the hardwoods.

Work Citied
Memphis University (2014) Analysis of Truss Structures. Retrieved from
www.ce.memphis.edu/3121/notes/notes_03a.pdf
Twentieth Century Architecture (2003) Truss Systems in the 20 th-Century
Architecture. Retrieved from
http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/truss.html
Early Evolution of Trusses (2004) Retrieved from
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/truss.htm
Encyclopaedia Britannic, Truss bridge. Retrieved from
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/607336/truss-bridge
Trusses, Trusses Everywhere Some Truss History (2013) retrieved from
https://goulddesigninc.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/trusses-trusseseverywhere-some-truss-history/

Appendix A:
Tools used:
Table saw
Router and finger tool
Planer
Rubber mallet
Measuring tape
Bevel protractor
Pin nailer
Bar clamps
Mechanical pencil

APPENDIX B:
Materials Used:
Yellow Poplar
Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue
Epoxy
23 gauge pin nails
APPENDIX C:
Brianna
CAD Drawings, Inventor stress analysis, Statement of Intent, Background, and
Conclusion

Laura
Make the Truss, Procedure, Analysis, Appendix A, & Appendix B
Chris
Data and Calculations