Final Design Report

Lecture Section A3, Professor Elise Morgan

Group Members:

Devin Bidstrup (U19115995),

​Charles Liang (U78904796),

Emanuel Perez (U74196797),

Shihao Xing (Eric) (U66709138)

 2

Table Of Contents

Introduction:……………………………………………………………………….………………3

Procedure………………………………………………………………………….……………....4

Analysis:……………………………………………………………………….………………….5

Data:…………………………………………………………………………….………………....6

Results:…………………………………………………………………………..……………..….7

Discussion:……………………………………………………………………………………..….9

Appendix:…………………………………………………………………………..…………….12
 3

Introduction:

The motivation behind the design was increasing max load and load-cost ratio. As such,

almost every proposed design utilized as much of the 320$ budget as possible. This is because

higher budgets tended to allow many different potential designs that fulfilled the constraints

(span, load application distance) whereas lower budget trusses were much more constrained and

difficult to design. In fact, most of the groups from the A3 load ranking utilized around 300$ in

their designs (found by dividing the max load by the load-cost ratio). Of course, this meant that

achieving a high load-cost ratio was more difficult since a considerably higher max load would

be needed.

To design and construct the final truss, the group has to use MATLAB code to test and

analyze the truss designed with matrices which contain the position of each joint and straw, and

the direction of each straw. Thus, the theoretical maximum load magnitude of each straw can be

calculated which is very helpful to predict the maximum load magnitude of the whole truss.

Several designs of truss from members will be analyzed with the MATLAB code. The design

with the theoretical maximum load magnitude will be constructed.

 4

Procedure:

Design Restrictions:

1. The simple trusses can only be composed in the triangle.

2. The relation between the number of joints (J) and members (M): M = 2J - 3.

3. The total cost ( cost = $10J + $1L) must be less than $320.

4. The span of the truss: 54.5 cm ± 1 cm.

5. The truss must support a minimum load of 4.91N for 60 seconds.

6. The distance between adjacent joints must be at least 10 cm and no longer than 15 cm

7. The distance between the load and the pin joint must be 21 cm ± 0.5 cm.

8. Each straw should be surrounded between two gusset plates and double pinned in their

center. (outer pin 5 mm from the straw end and the inner pin another 5 mm from the outer

pin)

9. The center axes of the straws should intersect in a single point.

Detailed Procedure:

1. Choose one design of truss with the maximum theoretical load capacity.

2. Decide the actual straw length and joint-to-joint length, according to the restrictions.

3. Cut and pin all straws with the decisive length.

4. Place straws on the gusset plates. Restructure the shape of gussets plates, according to the

position of straws.

5. Assemble each pin joint with related straws separately.

6. Combine all separated parts to construct the truss.

 5

Analysis:
I jj
a) F actual = ( I )α F theoretical
actual

b) F f it (l) = Cl−α

1384
Equation b) is a match to our previous Euler fitted equation of F (l) = l2
. As a result,

the 𝛼 is 2. We can use the 𝛼 to be able to use equation a). However, we must take notice that the

Euler fit has a total fit uncertainty of 1.02 N.

We are still using the same formulas and MATLAB program from the previous report to

calculate the theoretical force and its uncertainty.

Figure 1: Final Design

 6

Data:

Theoretic Theoretic Theoretic Force Force

al al al Applied at Actual Actual Actual Applied at
Member Buckling Buckling Theoretical Straw Buckling Buckling Actual Engineering
Member Length(c Tension/Co Strength Uncertain Max Load Length( Strength Uncertainty Max Load Intuition
# m) mpression (N) ty +/- (N) (N) cm) (N) +/- (N) (N) (IQ)
1 11 Compression 11.4 0.531 17 10.5 12.6 0.611 18.6 17.8
2 14.9 Tension -6.90 14.4 -7.57 -7.3
3 10 Compression 13.8 0.707 22.7 9.5 15.3 0.824 25.1 24.1
4 14.1 Tension -8.01 13.6 -8.87 -8.5
5 10 Tension -20.6 9.5 -22.7 -21.8
6 10 Compression 13.8 0.707 10.8 9.5 15.3 0.824 11.9 11.4
7 10 Tension -35.6 9.5 -39.5 -37.9
8 11 Compression 11.4 0.531 13.4 10.5 12.6 0.611 14.6 14.0
9 14.9 Compression 6.24 0.214 10.8 14.4 6.68 0.237 11.9 11.5
10 11 Tension -8.92 10.5 -9.75 -9.4
11 10 Zero 0 9.5 0.00 0.0
12 11 Compression 11.4 0.531 13.4 10.5 12.6 0.611 14.6 14.0
13 14.9 Tension -10.8 14.4 -11.9 -11.5
14 11 Tension -26.7 10.5 -29.3 -28.1
15 11 Compression 11.4 0.531 26.7 10.5 12.6 0.611 29.3 28.1
16 10 Compression 13.8 0.707 35.6 10 13.8 0.707 39.5 37.9
17 14.9 Tension -10.8 14.4 -11.9 -11.5
Figure 2: Table of Theoretical and Actual Truss Design using MATLAB

*Tension members do not have buckling force so they are marked as blank
 7

Results:

Theoretical Calculations:

Internal
Theoretical Theoretical Buckling Force for
Member Member Tension/ Theoretical Buckling Uncertainty Each Member
Number Length (cm) Compression Strength (N) +/- (N) (N)
1 11 Compression 11.4 0.531 17.0
2 14.9 Tension -6.90
3 10 Compression 13.8 0.707 22.7
4 14.1 Tension -8.00
5 10 Tension -20.6
6 10 Compression 13.8 0.707 10.8
7 10 Tension -35.6
8 11 Compression 11.4 0.531 13.4
9 14.9 Compression 6.24 0.214 10.8
10 11 Tension -8.92
11 10 Zero 0.00
12 11 Compression 11.4 0.531 13.4
13 14.9 Tension -10.8
14 11 Tension -26.7
15 11 Compression 11.4 0.531 26.7
16 10 Compression 13.8 0.707 35.6
17 14.9 Tension -10.8
Figure 3: Table of Theoretical and Actual Truss Design

Maximum Theoretical Load of N: 10.8 N

Truss Cost: $299.61

Load-Cost Ratio: 0.0360 N/$

Actual Calculations (Straw .5cm less than before):

 8

The maximum load for the actual length is: ​11.9 N

The Truss Cost is: $290.07

Load- Cost Ratio: 0.04106

Joint to Joint Calculations:

Joint to Joint
Member # Length
F Adjusted Actual U Adjusted Actual

1 11.90 21.8 0.773

2 15.45
3 11.50 33.3 1.25
4 15.95
5 10.35
6 10.38 12.9 0.922
7 10.27
8 11.05 14.8 0.619
9 15.25 12.1 0.254
10 11.53
11 10.67
12 11.21 15.3 0.646
13 15.40
14 11.09
15 11.6 32.6 0.716
16 10.38 38.4 0.791
17 15.65
Figure 4: Joint to Joint Calculations Adjusted

The resulting max load is 12.1N +/- 0.254

 9

This also reveals that the critical member is member 9 when corrected using the joint to

joint ratio. Previously the value for member 6 was about .02 less than member 9 theoretically,

but with the correction member, 9 is the clear winner. Therefore we will predict that member 9

will fail, though there is a remote possibility that member 6 will fail as shown by the high

uncertainty of member 6 relative to member 9.

Discussion:

Unfortunately, almost all of the designs that were made after the preliminary report were

inferior in every way to the preliminary designs. Certain factors were adjusted in an attempt to

reduce cost. Some features included fewer joints, shorter straw lengths (or at least as short as

geometry allowed for), and using shorter span (53.5 cm). Different types of geometry were

tested: right, equilateral, isosceles, and scalene. The right triangles (in square shaped pairs)

resulted in the highest max load. This was most likely because the right triangles allowed us to

use smaller lengths and stay within the constraint of having 21cm from joint A to the load joint.

Also, with right triangles, the load is unevenly distributed between the x and y directions, so

having uneven lengths (and thus buckling loads) is the best method of maximizing the possible

load. This would explain why the equilateral and scalene triangle trusses seemed to fail at a

much lower load (as similar lengths would have similar buckling loads and thus one would be

more stressed than the other). Other classifications of trusses were tested such as the warren,

parker, and gambrel trusses (the major differences being the height of the truss and the general

ratios of the lengths).

 10

Another approach was to adjust the preliminary design by changing lengths, connections,

and orientation of members. Ultimately, the best design was simply the preliminary design with

one member’s (member 9 in Figure 1) joint connections mirrored. This moved the zero force

member from member 7 to member 11, allowing the load force to be distributed over the truss

properly, and reduce the amount of force on member 8. This is the truss that we have chosen for

our final design, and which theoretically has the best load to cost ratio of all of our designs.

The intended building technique is to cut the straws shorter than the theoretical joint

length. How much shorter was determined by finding the radius of the straw, in this case, r =

0.25 cm. Thus, the straws will be cut 0.5 cm shorter than the theoretical length. This is because

when the straws are pinned as close as possible, they will be about 1 radius length away from the

center since the straws cannot touch or overlap. Next, the pinning jigs will be used on both sides

of the straws to find the ideal 0.5 cm distance between holes. To find the proper locations of the

straws on the gusset plates, the center of the plate will be found and the corresponding length of

straw will be pinned as closely as possible around the center without touching. Then, the general

shape of the straws will be traced and the gusset plate will be cut to reduce weight. Once all the

plates and straws are pinned together, identical (or as close to identical as possible) gusset plates

will be cut to cover the exposed pins.

A 4% decrease was the final adjustment to the max loads. This is because the

construction was not perfect. Some straws were mildly bent from handling and some gusset

plates were cracked from incorrect cutting (in fact only 2 extra plates remain). Also, the angles of

the members were not perfectly perpendicular or parallel. As such, some joints have a slightly

different location on the plane. The biggest construction concern was the distance between the
 11

actual joint center and the straw itself. Especially with the diagonal members, the straw was

sometimes up to 0.25 cm away from the center. These issues will most likely decrease the actual

max load. Something interesting for the actual testing will be gusset plate contact with the

straws. If the plates are pushed into contact with the straws, a moment will most likely result

from friction and thus reduce the max load. Something to note is that the Hartford study showed

that engineers can be negligent despite easily seen physical evidence of potential failure. Seeing

the final truss construction has definitely lowered team expectations of the maximum load the

truss will actually support.

 12

Appendix:

Group Teamwork

Sunday, April 21st, 2019

CAS Room 222

Commenced at 1:30 pm

Recorder: Emanuel Perez

Acting Chair: Charles Liang

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Planned Agenda:

● Discuss Technical, Ethical, and Procedural concerns.

● How does the case affect our truss?

● The effect of computer programs to quantify the success of our truss

Important Points:

● Charles: What were the major reasons for the Hartford Arena to fall?

○ Devin: The engineers depended too much on a flawed computer program. If the

program was more well adjusted to the situation, the arena would not have fallen.

○ Eric: The teams in charge of designing, constructing, and inspecting the project

were not organized resulting in lack of responsibility and the collapse of the

building.
 13

● Charles: Okay, what can we learn about this case?

○ Emanuel: If we were to make our truss in reality, we should make the stated max

load 80% of the one we calculated for safety measure.

○ Eric: I think we should make it 60% to allow even more possible error in our

calculations.

○ Devin: Stick to your guns! We should use 70% to still be conservative.

● Charles: How much trust should we have our program considering what we just read?

○ Eric: We shouldn’t trust it too much considering we can have different factors that

we did not consider like moments on the joints, quality of materials, etc.

○ Devin: I agree.

○ Charles: Especially since we’re probably going to accidentally bend straws and

cut the plates unevenly without realizing it.

We discussed everything we wanted about the case study, so we will not have a second meeting

for it.

*End meeting at 3:35 PM.

Project Timeline:

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesda Thursday Friday

(4/21) (4/22) (4/23) y (4/24) (4/25) (4/26)

Final ✔
 14

Report (FINISH)

Group ✔

Meeting

Construct ✔

Truss

Choose a ✔

final

design

Figure 5: Project Timeline