BUILDING STRUCTURES ARC2523 PROJECT 1 FETUCCINE TRUSS BRIDGE ANALYSIS AND REPORT
TEAM MEMBERS KAN JIA WEI ADRIAN 0319384 SHALINN TAN JIAWEN 0318714 MARK ENG SHANG 0324187 PRASHOBH NAIR 0320432 JASON LIM CHEE SHEN 0316791
TUTOR MR MOHD ADIB RAMLI
DECLARATION OF SUBMISSION This is to certify that: 1) The report comprises our original work towards the course work on Building Structures (ARC2523). 2) Due acknowledgements have been made in the text to all other materials used.
Signed by: KAN JIA WEI ADRIAN
SHALINN TAN JIAWEN
MARK ENG SHANG
PRASHOBH NAIR
JASON LIM CHEE SHEN
12 MAY 2016
SIGNATURE
ABSTRACT In a group of 5, we the students were given the task of conduct a full and thorough analysis of the construction methods and force of a fettucine bridge focusing on tension and compressive strength as part of the semester module. This report is meant to provide the findings and conclusions that were conducted and provide a greater understanding of the truss and the forces as well as implications of the said forces placed on the truss and the other components on the bridge. Besides the aforementioned items before, a certain amount of understanding is also given to the use and application of materials such as fettucine and 3 second glue, allowing for greater understanding of the usage and its properties. From the project, we hope to cover a gap of knowledge of truss bridges and forces.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Ms. Ann See Peng, the head coordinator for the module Building Structures, for providing leadership and guidance towards the execution and application of the project from start to finish.
We would also like to extend our sincere thanks to Mr. Mohd Adib Ramli, whom as our tutor provided us personal guidance and comments on a weekly basis that lead us to the right path and direction in the completion of this project.
Lastly, we would also like to provide our thanks to our fellow course mates that, whom if were not around throughout the duration of this project, would not have resulted in the completion of this project as comprehensive as the results today as they provided useful information and assistance when called upon.
LIST OF FIGURES, PLATES, ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE
Figure 2.01 Table showing the list of materials used with picture illustrations. Figure 3.01 File picture of the Linn Branch Creed Bridge. Figure 3.02 Picture and diagram showing the bridge and its components. Figure 3.03 Diagram showing the location of the joints on the bridge. Figure 4.01 The difference between a straight and bent fettucine. Figure 4.02 A u-beam built and tested. Figure 4.03 An example of a 4-layer stack beam that was tested. Figure 4.04 Table of the different variations of beams tested. Figure 4.05 UHU Glue. Figure 4.06 3 Second Super Glue. Figure 4.07 Table of adhesive comparison. Figure 5.01 Mark draws out the plan for the truss. Figure 5.02 The plan of the truss. Figure 5.03 The beams of the base. Figure 5.04 The base is assembled. Figure 5.05 The truss is then assembled on the base. Figure 5.06 The truss components before assembly. Figure 5.07 Strengthening of the vertical members of the truss. Figure 5.08 Horizontal members are added to the top. Figure 5.09 The H-shaped base is added in last. Figure 5.10 The completed model. Figure 6.01 Test Model at 400g weight. Figure 6.02 Test Model at 400g weight.
Figure 6.03 Test Model at 800g weight. Figure 6.04 Test Model at 800g weight. Figure 6.05 Test Model at 1200g. Figure 6.06 Test Model at 1200g. Figure 6.07 Test Model at 1600g. Figure 6.08 Test Model at 1600g. Figure 6.09 The truss at its initial failure location(highlighted). Figure 6.10 The bridge after breaking. Figure 6.11 The test model BEFORE adding weight. Figure 6.12 The test model BEFORE adding weight. Figure 6.13 The model at 800g weight. Figure 6.14 The model at 800g weight. Figure 6.15 The model at 1600g weight. Figure 6.16 The model at 1600g weight. Figure 6.17 The model’s breaking points. Figure 6.18 The model’s breaking points. Figure 6.19 Test model 3 undergoing weight testing. Figure 6.20 Test model 3 undergoing weight testing. Figure 6.21 Pictures of the connection points of the truss. Figure 6.22 Pictures of the connection points of the truss. Figure 6.23 Test Model 4 picture and testing. Figure 6.24 Test Model 4 picture and testing. Figure 6.25 The breaking points of the model (highlighted). Figure 6.26 The breaking points of the model (highlighted). Figure 6.27 Picture of truss and the construction details. Figure 6.28 Picture of truss and the construction details. Figure 6.29 Details of truss and full model.
Figure 6.30 Details of truss and full model. Figure 6.31 H-shape support and picture of bridge. Figure 6.32 H-shape support and picture of bridge. Figure 6.33 Aftermath of model testing. Figure 6.34 The model breaking point (highlighted). Figure 6.35 Picture of the truss and its membranes. Figure 6.36 The truss detail. Figure 6.37 The model undergoing final testing. Figure 6.38 Close-up of the bridge. Figure 6.39 The M-Shaped centre membrane (highlighted). Figure 6.40 Detail of the H-Shape carrying the rope. Figure 6.41 Membranes of the truss. Figure 6.42 Breaking point of the final model (highlighted). Figure 6.43 Assumptions of the tension and compression. Figure 6.44 Structural analysis of bridge. Figure 7.01 Group picture.
TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT Cover page Declaration of Submission Abstract Acknowledgement List of Figures, Plates, Illustrations Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 METHADOLOGY 3.0 PRECEDENT STUDIES 4.0 ANALYSIS OF MATERIAL STRENGTH 5.0 CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE 6.0 BRIDGE TESTING 7.0 CONCLUSION APPENDIX 1 (CASE1) [ PRASHOBH ] APPENDIX 2 (CASE 2) [ ADRIAN ] APPENDIX 3 (CASE 3) [ JASON ] APPENDIX 4 (CASE 4) [ SHALINN ] APPENDIX 5 (CASE 5) [ MARK ] REFERENCES
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is an outcome of 7 weeks of data gathering, model making, analysis and calculations that has been undertaken by our group. Mandatory is to attend lectures about the calculations of force, truss and many other aspects crucial to this project, and to conduct an individual analysis on the most suitable type of perfect truss based on a selection of designs provided in the project brief. After that all activity comprises of constructing trusses using fettucine and 3 second glue. It has to be stressed that to accomplish the goal of achieving high/maximum efficiency, with trial and error being the best method, hence the building of many bridges with different variations to select the strongest among them all.
Given the dimension of a 350mm clear span and a maximum weight of 70g for the entire bridge, the team sought out to achieve the maximum possible load the bridge could carry whilst trying to bring down the weight of the bridge to achieve a very high or maximum efficiency.
Thus, this report will encompass everything from the individual calculations on the various trusses (located in APPENDIX), to the material used and construction methods as well as testing results and explanations from what has been learnt from testing the models.
2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Module The task that was provided to us was simple; to achieve high/maximum efficiency on a perfect truss/bridge design carrying a load of water in a pail. As mentioned before the expected action steps that are to be conducted to achieve this ultimate result include attending lectures to attain vital information on analysis and calculations, obtaining materials such as fettucine and super glue, understanding the usage and applications of such materials in the real world, conducting a trial and error approach to testing that will result in new information and improvement over the last model, and finally using all said knowledge to construct a final bridge and providing the whole experience in a comprehensively written report.
2.2 Objectives The objectives of the project include providing students with the understanding of tension and compressive strength of construction materials, developing an understanding of force distribution in a truss, and to design a perfect truss bridge that is of high/maximum efficiency at the expense of as little construction material as possible.
2.3 Requirements i) To have a clear span of 250mm ii) The bridge must be/not exceed a weight of 70g iii) Usage of materials is limited strictly to fettucine and adhesive iv) Workmanship levels is taken into consideration
2.4 Instruments and Materials
Brief requirement To build the components of the bridge San Remo Fettucine
To connect the parts of the bridge
3 second OK Glue
To carry load
Pail
Acts as the load
Water
To measure the amount of load carried
Digital Weighing Scale
To join small and unreachable parts Forceps
To hold the load from center of bridge S Hook
To cut the components of the bridge
Pen Knife
To take pictures and videos
Camera
To smoothen parts out
Sandpaper
To hold the pail so that it is closer to the ground
Rope Figure 2.01 Table showing the list of materials used with picture illustrations.
2.5 Method of Research i) Analysis Analysis comprises of the case studies provided to us on the brief as well as self-analysis based on research, as well as the trial and errors of test models. ii) Internet The internet has been used as a resource and information site for research. iii) Books Some library books have been used to further understand the truss forces.
2.6 Limitations i) Weight As the weight of the bridge is limited to just 70g, the weight deficit as compared to previous semesters would prove a challenge to produce a bridge and truss that is able to carry substantial weight. This lead to the creative use of the limited reinforcement on the members of the truss. ii) Materials The materials that were used (fettucine and 3 second super glue) came with much limitations, such as the fettucine being very fragile and brittle after glue application as well as not fully straight which affects workmanship. the super glue, once applied, would be near impossible to remove without affecting workmanship or the overall structure of the bridge/truss. iii) Joints The joints that were tested and used had a limited function with little to no flexibility beyond its intended use. Therefore, thorough analysis on the properties of the joints before it was used for the test model. iv) Fettucine straightness As mentioned briefly above, some fettucine that came in the packaging was not straight and some were bent beyond usage. To compensate for this, as each packet of fettucine was opened a quality control session was conducted, separating the “good” fettucine and “bad” ones from usage. v) Angle of fettucine As the fettucine is very brittle and fragile, proper care and professionalism must be made to ensure it does not break, especially on angle cutting. vi) Human error Standard human error in constructing is avoided where possible.
3.0 PRECEDENT STUDIES LINN BRANCH CREED BRIDGE
Figure 3.01 File picture of the Linn Branch Creed Bridge.
3.1 Details 1) A former railway bridge in United States 2) Located in Parkville, Missouri 3) Built in: 1898 4) Type of Truss: Waddell “A� bridge 5) Engineer: John Alexander Low Waddell Significance: As a type of late 19th century short span railroad bridge. Construction: It uses pin-connections to join the major structural members and has great rigidity in all directions due to its greatness in height. Advantages: 1) Easy to erect 2) Economic (since it uses metal) 3) Easy to maintain 4) Uses less materials, and on top of that has equal strength and rigidity as other types of trusses
3.2 Components of Bridge
Figure 3.02 Picture and diagram showing the bridge and its components.
In the picture above showing the components of the bridge, it can be clearly seen of the important components of the bridge that is in place such as the end post, hip vertical and the middle chord, all of which are massively important in our research and model as it provides the main structural support of the bridge. 3.3 Bridge Joints
Figure 3.03 Diagram showing the location of the joints on the bridge.
The joints of the bridge can be seen highlighted above, all points which we would later find out are very important in load distribution and ultimately strengthened in our final model.
4.0 ANALYSIS OF MATERIAL STRENGTH 4.1 Fettucine
Figure 4.01 The difference between a straight and bent fettucine.
To gain an initial understanding on the materials to ensure proper understanding on the material and its limitations, we conducted some testing such as bend and stress tests on single and double layers. We also discovered that a fettucine may be bent and not fully flat, which compromises strength and is removed from the construction materials.
Figure 4.02 A u-beam built and tested.
Types of beams were also tested around to test the rigidity and strength, such as a ubeam, and the conclusion was that the i-beam provides the best strength whilst providing the compromise of using the least amount of materials. Other options were also explored such as the stacking of multiple layers of fettucine but that proved too heavy though a strong option.
Figure 4.03 An example of a 4-layer stack beam that was tested.
Fettucine beam types and comparisons
Single Piece Placed Horizontally Hardly sustain any load Too flexible <100g
Single Piece Placed Vertically Sustains more load Less flexible >100g
Two Pieces Placed Horizontally Visibly stronger Less flexible, some rigidity ~150g
Two Pieces Placed Vertically Relatively strong Better rigidity 200g
T-beam Placement Stronger than two flat pieces joined together Not flexible, relatively rigid 250g
I-beam Single Web Placement Almost the same as T-beam Not flexible, relatively rigid Uses more materials >250g
I-Beam Double Web Placement Relatively stronger Relatively good rigidity 400g
I-Beam with Single Web and Double Flange Strongest among the rest Very rigid Heavy >450g
Figure 4.04 Table of the different variations of beams tested.
In conclusion, the I-Beam Double Web Placement was ultimately chosen because it uses less materials and provides relatively good strength and rigidity which aids significantly towards our goal of achieving a high efficiency rating on our bridge.
4.2 Adhesive
Figure 4.05 UHU Glue.
Adhesive selections and tests have included the usage of UHU glue and 3 second super glue on initial tests and it provided the conclusion that UHU glue would take too long for the fettucine to glue itself together, that it would be too messy which severely affects workmanship and is essentially not strong enough to hold the bridge in place.
Figure 4.06 3 Second Super Glue.
Hence, the testing on 3 second super glue and through the testimony of seniors and fellow coursemates it has been determined that 3 second super glue is the best adhesive option for this project.
Adhesives Comparison Glue Type
Advantages
Disadvantages
Highest Efficiency Fastest drying time Solid when dry Easy to use Clean joint
Causes cracks after a few days of joining Might cause fettucine to expand and bend
3 second OK Glue
Easy to use
Quite messy and difficult to join Long drying time Flexible when dry
UHU Glue
Messy Long drying time Expensive Doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t join well
Easy to use
Easy to use
Cracked joints Leaves white stains Long drying time Expensive
Figure 4.07 Table of adhesive comparison.
5.0 CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE As it has been determined that the group should proceed with the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Waddell A Trussâ&#x20AC;? from the very beginning, the construction method has stayed largely the same throughout all the test models bar a few slight adjustments to the joints and material placement. Hence the construction steps are of below:
STEP 1: The planning for the truss begins. This is when dimension changes are made from information gained in past test models.
Figure 5.01 Mark draws out the plan for the truss.
STEP 2: The plan is drawn out.
Figure 5.02 The plan of the truss.
STEP 3: The beams for the base are constructed. Using a staggered joint system would mean that no joint will overlap each other which would create weak points on the base. Figure 5.03 The beams of the base.
Figure 5.04 The base is assembled.
STEP 4: Following the completion of the base, horizontal members are attached that structurally secures the base.
Figure 5.05 The truss is then assembled on the base.
STEP 5: The truss is constructed and assembled. Using the drawings in steps 1 and 2 as a guideline, the membranes and components are carefully made to ensure proper load bearing and reduce workmanship error to a minimum.
STEP 6: The finished truss components are attached to the base using 3 second super glue.
Figure 5.06 The truss components before assembly.
STEP 7: The vertical and diagonal members of the truss are strengthened using more fettucine. Depending on the test model variations, some were added using double layer and I-beams. In the final model the middle 3 vertical and 2 diagonal members were only strengthened as a result of the trial and error findings.
Figure 5.07 Strengthening of the vertical members of the truss.
STEP 8: Horizontal members are added throughout the top of the bridge, running the entire span in measured gaps. This provides a uniform load distribution across the entire bridge and both trusses.
Figure 5.08 Horizontal members are added to the top.
STEP 9: Finally, the H-shaped portion of the base which bears the weight is added in. Additional strength is applied in the form of extra layers and I-beams. This is only an addition after learning of its benefits after 2 trial models.
Figure 5.09 The H-shaped base is added in last.
Figure 5.10 The completed model.
STEP 10: The model is completed and is prepped for testing.
6.0 BRIDGE TESTING 6.1 TEST MODEL 1 DESCRIPTION Test Model 1 is an experiment of construction methods and the truss itself. Hence, the truss strengthening is limited as all the strengthening components were focused on the base. Using our precedence studies as an example, we built the bride and sought out to identify the limitations of the truss and what was to be wrong with the entire structure before learning from it and applying them in the next test model. As a result, the bridge was underweight (57g), had a very short clear span (370mm) and was woefully inefficient.
DETAILS AND RESULTS Length: 370mm Height: 80mm Width: 50mm Weight: 57g Total weight carried: 2.09KG Efficiency: 36.77%
PICTURES
Figure 6.01 & Figure 6.02 Test Model at 400g weight.
Figure 6.03 & Figure 6.04 Test Model at 800g weight.
Figure 6.05 & Figure 6.06 Test Model at 1200g.
Figure 6.07 & Figure 6.08 Test Model at 1600g.
Figure 6.09 The truss at its initial failure location(highlighted).
Figure 6.10 The bridge after breaking.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis and test conducted on the very first test model, we have concluded that, among the reasons that the bridge has failed would be that the bridge occurred a fall that structurally weakened the structure. The short span and poor workmanship also further reduced the strength. All these mistakes were sought to be improved in the second test model.
6.2 TEST MODEL 2
DESCRIPTION Test Model 2 was constructed with lessons learnt from Test Model 1. Hence, improvements to the model include the usage of a more lighter and stronger beam in the form of I-beam on the base. The base and height was extended by 1cm in the hopes of providing extra strength, and the final model ended up lighter than the first test model as a result of the usage of lighter components. The details of the bridge are as follow below.
DETAILS AND RESULTS Length: 370mm Height: 90mm Width: 60mm Weight: 52g Total weight carried: 2.46KG Efficiency: 48.00%
PICTURES
Figure 6.11 & Figure 6.12 The test model BEFORE adding weight.
Figure 6.13 & Figure 6.14 The model at 800g weight.
Figure 6.15 & Figure 6.16 The model at 1600g weight.
Figure 6.17 & Figure 6.18 The modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s breaking points.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Although lessons were learnt and the implementation of strengthening components helped to a certain degree, the lingering issues that persisted the first test model such as the workmanship, bad fettucine and short span still persisted which we concluded were the main causes of the bridge failing. As a conclusion to this particular test emphasis on strengthening was given a priority.
6.3 TEST MODEL 3
DESCRIPTION With the second test model providing unsatisfactory results due to shoddy workmanship and being too inefficient, in Test Model 3 emphasis was placed on strength, which meant that strengthening was placed in every possible location where we knew needed it. Length was increased, as well as height. This however, led to the bridge being overweight from the limit provided but proved to be an important stepping stone towards the understanding of strengthening components in our final few test models.
DETAILS AND RESULTS Length: 420mm Height: 110mm Width: 60mm Weight: 81g Total weight carried: 3.7KG Efficiency: 45.67%
PICTURES
Figure 6.19 & Figure 6.20 Test model 3 undergoing weight testing.
Figure 6.21 & Figure 6.22 Pictures of the connection points of the truss.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Test 3 proved a significant step in the understanding of the truss and the success of the overall project. With the addition of strengthening components we have learnt that strengthening the truss would mean that the bridge is able to significantly hold more weight even though the weight of the bridge crept up higher and higher. Thus we were confident of our approach and would emphasize of weight cutting and efficient use of materials.
6.4 TEST MODEL 4
DESCRIPTION Test Model 4 was an experiment of a different truss design after the failures of the first two test models to explore the possibility of a more efficient truss design. However, with the truss being too big and not viable for construction efficiently it this test model never came to say the light of day other than testing. Though the resulted in only the base which broke apart, it is noted that the truss did not have any strengthening components, and hence it would not be feasible to create a model of this truss that is very strong whilst still maintaining the 70g weight limit.
DETAILS AND RESULTS Length: 450mm Height: 130mm Weight: 75g Total weight carried: 1KG Efficiency: 13.34%
PICTURES
Figure 6.23 & Figure 6.24 Test Model 4 picture and testing.
Figure 6.2 & Figure 6.26 The breaking points of the model (highlighted).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Test 4 proved to just be a futile test as the truss design and testing ultimately did not provide any meaningful feedback and information. All in all Test Model 4 proved to just be a waste of time and resources.
6.5 TEST MODEL 5
DESCRIPTION Although Test Model 3 proved to be less efficient than Test Model 2, it proved that by strengthening the right components the bridge stands a chance of being a lot more stronger. Hence, in Test Model 5 we sought to improve further the strengthening components, which include implementing I-beams across the base and truss, emphasizing on connections and ensure they land exactly on each other for optimum load distribution, the removal of overlapping on membranes and focusing heavily on workmanship. As a result, the bridge came to over a hair heavier than the limit at 72g whilst being significantly more stronger.
DETAILS AND RESULTS Length: 420mm Height: 90mm Width: 40mm Weight: 72g Total weight carried: 6.89KG Efficiency: 95.76%
PICTURES
Figure 6.27 & Figure 6.28 Picture of truss and the construction details.
Figure 6.29 & Figure 6.30 Details of truss and full model.
Figure 6.31 & Figure 6.32 H-shape support and picture of bridge.
Figure 6.33 Aftermath of model testing.
Figure 6.34 The model breaking point (highlighted).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
With the focus on efficient use of materials and weight shedding we finally had a significant gain in our results and were confident of our approach. Workmanship was also improved which helped the strength of the bridge as well. As we approached the construction of the final model we gathered all our experiences from previous tests and place them into the final model. From the fifth test the lessons learnt meant that focus on the sixth model would be to remove redundant weight, strengthening the essential components and shedding a few more grams from the bridge to meet the requirements. The H-shaped base was also made stronger.
6.6 FINAL MODEL
DESCRIPTION Finally, with the results of Test Model 5 a satisfactory result was gained and thus the information on strengthening the truss in the correct way. In what would be the final model, minor adjustments were made to the locations of efficiency, such as the placements of I-beams the removal of some components that were deemed not necessary to shed some weight. The middle truss was added I-beams (M shape) and the modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s overall dimensions were made shorter and thinner as well. Workmanship emphasis was placed at a maximum level, while the middle base that was to hold the hook and weight was strengthened. The result was a bridge that only passed the weight limit by the skin of the teeth, at exactly 70g.
DETAILS AND RESULTS Length: 370mm Height: 80mm Width: 40mm Weight: 70g Total weight carried: 9.2KG Efficiency: 131.43%
PICTURES
Figure 6.35 Picture of the truss and its membranes.
Figure 6.36 The truss detail.
Figure 6.37 The model undergoing final testing.
Figure 6.38 Close-up of the bridge.
Figure 6.39 The M-Shaped centre membrane (highlighted).
Figure 6.40 Detail of the H-Shape carrying the rope.
Figure 6.41 Membranes of the truss.
Figure 6.42 Breaking point of the final model (highlighted).
ASSUMTIONS OF COMPRESSION AND TENSION MEMBERS
Figure 6.43 Assumptions of the tension and compression.
According to our assumptions based on analysis and testing, this is where the tension (highlighted red) and compression (highlighted blue) is acted upon on the truss and bridge.
CALCULATIONS FOR MODEL
CONCLUSION (STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE)
Figure 6.44 Structural analysis of bridge.
After conducting tests and calculations, the conclusion was of the above on tensions, compressions and neutral forces acted on the truss and bridge.
The performance of the final model proved the success of our trial and error approach to the project, a marriage of efficient use of materials proving the key component in building a strong and light bridge. What was learnt was also that every single little detail that was focused on such as the angle of the beams and full connection of components was the single most important aspect of an efficient bridge that was able to transfer load properly versus a bridge that merely held weight due to just one component being exceptionally stronger that the other components.
7.0 CONCLUSION
Figure 7.01 Group picture.(Totally not photoshopped)
The journey to the completion of this project has been long and arduous. Many sacrifices have been made to ensure the completion of this project with flying colours. With blood, sweat and tears (literally) as well as sacrificing family time on weekends we as a group have been striving and succeeding in achieving the best possible result to ensure that the project is a success. And to everyoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s credit this has indeed been a monumental success in that we have actually learnt from mistakes gained in testing prior models and applying them into the final model. With a weight carry of 9.2KG and a bridge barely being under the 70g limit it can be said that our aim of achieving a high efficiency on our perfect truss has been a success. We as a group have learnt to cooperate and coordinate with one another to produce the necessary results in spite of time commitments and other factors and produced a memorable experience from this project that we could all learn from.
APPENDIX 1 (CASE 1) [ PRASHOBH ]
APPENDIX 2 (CASE 2) [ ADRIAN ]
APPENDIX 3 (CASE 3) [ JASON ]
APPENDIX 4 (CASE 4) [ SHALINN ]
APPENDIX 5 (CASE 5) [ MARK ]
REFERENCES 1. Ball, N. (1903). Design for a single track R.R. bridge using Waddell's A-truss. 2. Bridge specifications, design of plate girders, design of a highway truss bridge, design of a railroad truss bridge, wooden bridges, roof trusses, bridge piers and abutments, bridge drawing. (1908). Scranton. 3. Hayashi, J. (2015). Building structuresproject1 fettuccinnefinalm. Slideshare.net. Retrieved 25 April 2016, from http://www.slideshare.net/JJhayashi/buildingstructuresproject1fettuccinnefinalm 4. Improved Iron Truss Bridge. (1862). Sci http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican08301862-129
Am,
7(9),
129-129.
5. Jacoby, H. (1911). Recent BridÇľe Construction in America. Sci Am, 72(1853supp), 30-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican07081911-30supp 6. Kindmann, R. & Kraus, M. (2012). Steel Structures. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. 7. Syazwi, M. (2013). Design Analysis and Evaluation of Waddell "A" Truss Bridge. prezi.com. Retrieved 1 May 2016, from https://prezi.com/mac7bkdjf3ki/design-analysis-and-evaluation-ofwaddell-a-truss-bridge/ 8. Waddell "A" Truss Bridge. (2002). Bridgehunter.com. Retrieved 28 April 2016, from http://bridgehunter.com/mo/platte/waddell/ 9. Wang, T. (1993). Impact in a railway truss bridge. Computers & Structures, 49(6), 1045-1054. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(93)90016-7