Engineering Studies

Analysis Report

11ES5
Research
The aim of this project was to construct a truss that could support a load at the centre supported
by two pins 270mm apart that offer no horizontal resistance, simulating a roller joint. This project
would be marked primarily based on its strength to weight ratio, which meant that my design
would have to minimise the amount of material used.

Based on the high tensile strength of balsa and its tendency to buckle, as well as the lower
tensile strength of PVA joints and their strength in compression, my truss design focused on
distributing more tensile forces onto members while maximising the number of joints in
compression. As well as to increase its strength to weight ratio, I aimed to maximise my design’s
simplicity to reduce the number of ways it could fail.

Types of truss
The two main basic types of truss are the pitched truss and the parallel chord truss. The
pitched truss consists of a generally triangular shape and is commonly used in the construction
of pitched roofs. Parallel trusses feature parallel top and bottom chords and are used in the
construction of bridges and floor trusses.
Warren/Neville Truss

The Warren Truss is a parallel chord design that can be very commonly found in use on bridges,
named after an 1848 patent by James Warren. It is one of the simplest truss designs for
bridges, comprising a set of often equilateral triangles, alternating between pointing up and
down. A design related to the Warren truss that utilises isosceles as opposed to equilateral
triangles is also known as a Neville truss. The use of equilateral triangles minimise the forces to
only axial compression and tension. The Warren truss is significantly stronger under a
distributed load than equivalent point loads, as the forces in some individual members are
greater under point loads. As point loads move across a Warren truss, such as in the case of
vehicles crossing a bridge, the nature of forces in the diagonal members can change between
compression and tension. Because this design handles uniformly distributed loads well, it is
often used in floor trusses, or in construction cranes, where the main load is its self weight with
few live loads.
A truss analysis of a Warren truss subjected to a point load (above) and a distributed load
(below). The forces in each member are greatly reduced in a distributed load.

Pratt Truss

The Pratt truss design is another very common parallel chord truss design named after an 1844
patent by Caleb and Thomas Pratt. This design features diagonal members as well as vertical
members. The orientation of the diagonal members, sloping down towards the centre, places
them in tension, while the vertical members are in compression. The Pratt truss places the top
horizontal members and the outer diagonals in compression while the bottom chords are in
tension. By placing the longer diagonal members in tension, the Pratt truss is suited to the
construction of bridges out of commonly used materials such as timber or steel, as these tend to
perform better under tension, while the compressive members are generally shorter, reducing
buckling under compression. This design sees common use in bridges worldwide because of its
simple and effective design.

An analysis of a Pratt truss under a point load, demonstrating its even distribution of forces
Scissor Truss

The scissor truss is a design most commonly

used as a roof truss. This design often supports
a dead load between two points such as load
bearing walls. Below the two outer diagonal
members are two chords that intersect at the
centre before connecting with the outer member
on the other side. Because of these
intersections at which members can be
secured, the scissor truss braces against the
buckling of members without increasing the
amount of members. The design is more
susceptible to flexing outwards when loaded on
roller joints, due to the lack of a tie to resist this
horizontal force.
Fink Truss

The Fink truss, patented by Albert Fink in 1854, is one of

the most commonly used designs of roof trusses.Within the
triangle formed by the diagonal members and the horizontal
tie is a W shaped web, which connect the outer diagonal
members with the lower horizontal member, reinforcing
them against buckling. The inner diagonals may project at a
variety of different angles and alternate between
compression and tension. The outer diagonals are in
compression, while the horizontal member is in tension.
Types of Joint
Butt Joint

This is the simplest type of timber joint, in which two flat surfaces
are joined together without any shaping. My truss design heavily
utilised this type of joint, in joints which experience a primarily
compressive force. Because of the flat surfaces, which create the
minimal amount of glueing area, butt joints are weak in shear and
tension.

Mitre Joint

Similar to the butt joint, this joint involves cutting the members at an
angle, increasing the surface area between the two members. This
increases its strength compared to a butt joint in the same situation. I
used this joint at the apex of my truss, which would be placed under
compression by the angled loading block.

Notched Joint
A notched joint is composed of a trench cut into one
or more members, into which the other member is
glued. This type of joint is often used in roof trusses
to secure the rafters to the tie.
My truss design utilised a simplified version of the
angled notched joint to secure the two diagonal
members to the lower horizontal member. I chose
this type of joint as the two diagonal members would
each apply a force with a considerable horizontal
component outwards from the centre. By creating a
notch in the horizontal member in which the
diagonals would sit, my design would turn some of
the forces in the joint from shear to compression.
This further increased the tensile forces in the
horizontal member. The increased gluing surface
area also improved the strength of the joint.
Properties of Balsa
Online research into the properties of balsa indicated that its tensile strength is considerably
higher than its compressive strength. Most sources list the tensile strength of balsa to be
approximately twice its compressive strength, with one source listing a compressive strength of
12.1 MPa and a tensile strength of 19.9 MPa for balsa with medium density. This amounts to my
6x6 balsa members being able to withstand 435.6N in compression and 716.4N in tension. This
indicated that I should focus on distributing compressive loads.

Evaluation of Structure
My final truss design consisted of a
combination of a simple triangular
truss and two Neville trusses. I
focused on maximising the simplicity
of my design, to reduce the chance of
unforeseen failures. The concept of a
single triangle was strengthened by
incorporating a Neville truss to resist
buckling in each of the diagonal
members. I chose the Neville truss
design because it was effective under
uniformly distributed loads, and I
expected the force exerted by buckling
to be closer to uniformly distributed
than to a point load. Using a Neville
truss as opposed to a Pratt truss for A scaled computer model of my final truss design
example, would also reduce the amount of material used.

With the two diagonal members reinforced against the compressive forces caused by the load, I
could focus the rest of my design to transmitting these forces into a tensile force along the
horizontal member. I used a simplified version of the angled notched joint in connecting the
diagonal members to the horizontal member, with a deep notch in the horizontal member to
accommodate the diagonal balsa members without having to trim them. To compensate for this
significant loss of cross sectional area at these points, I glued an additional member along the
horizontal member below the joint.

During construction of the truss, I was not able to effectively clamp many joints due to the
angles at which they had to be joined. Due to this, the PVA adhesive did not penetrate the balsa
as much as it would have under more optimal compression. However, because my design
placed all its joints primarily under compression, I decided that this would not be a major
setback in the performance of my truss. A minimal amount of gusseting was used, as I believe
that the use of gussets would not have significantly improved my truss’s performance.
Analysis of Failure

My truss withstood 64.5kg or 632.1N before experiencing a catastrophic failure. This failure was
due solely to the tensile failure of the horizontal tie member, which resulted in one side of the
truss leaving a support pin of the testing rig due to the horizontal component of the force exerted
by the outer diagonal member. The resulting impact with the bottom of the test rig resulted in the
failure of many other joints.

As the truss underwent loading, the

vertical reactions at the support pins
caused compressive deformations in
the members reinforcing the notched
joints. This indicated that the truss
was successfully remaining in
equilibrium at a significant load. The
circular indentations also provided a
small amount of horizontal resistance
against the pins by allowing the timber
to brace against the pins, which may
have reduced the tensile forces on the
horizontal member.
The truss as it underwent testing, showing where it
rested on the support pins
The diagonal members showed no visible sign of buckling, which suggested that the Neville
truss design was effective in bracing against buckling. With the compressive forces in the
diagonal members effectively handled, the failure of the truss could be attributed primarily to the
tensile strength limitations of the balsa material itself. In order to better withstand the tensile
force in the horizontal tie, I could have glued another member along it, doubling the cross
sectional area at the expense of an increase in weight.

Because my truss sustained a relatively large load before failure, the failure of the horizontal
member resulted in an immediate catastrophic failure of the entire truss, with much of the
additional damage due to the truss impacting the bottom of the test rig. Because of the large
forces acting upon the truss in unexpected ways, I believe that there was no was for the truss to
remain intact once the horizontal member failed under tension.

With the tensile failure at the horizontal member, where I had intended to focus the load, I
consider my truss design a success. Improvements I could have made in retrospect include the
strengthening of the horizontal member or the inclusion of additional horizontal members to
distribute the tensile forces.
Design Sketches
Analysis of Forces