cx hjjchdvk

1. Building Structures [ARC 2522]
Fettuccine Truss Bridge Analysis Report
CHEAH EUGENE 1001GH77034
MARIA ROSA SEU 0317067
MEGAT KHAIRUR RASYAD BIN ZULKHAIRI 0320832
NUR SYAZLEEN SIES 0321260
SUMITCHAI THAMDEE 0310892

2. 2
Tableof Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 General Purpose of Study
1.2 Report Preview
1.3 Restrictions
2. Methodology
3. Equipment and Material Analysis
3.1 Equipment
3.2 Materials Strength Study
3.2.1Adhesive Types
3.2.2 Adhesive Strength Test
3.2.3 Fettuccine Types & Strength Study
4. Precedent Study
4.1 History and Function
4.2 Truss Analysis
4.3 Joints
5. Analysis of Test Bridges
5.1 Test Bridge 1 Analysis
5.2 Test Bridge 2 Analysis
6. Analysis of Final Bridge
6.1 Final Design of Truss
6.2 Final Bridge Testing
6.3 Failure Analysis
7. Conclusion
8. References

3. 3
1. Introduction
1.1 General Purpose of Study
The aim of this project was to successfully design an effective truss bridge
through the analysis conducted with the precedent studies as well as the
points discussed throughout the lectures. Students had to evaluate,
explore and improve upon attributes of construction throughout the
project with the given construction material, fettuccine pasta. This was
achieved through numerous experimentations of different truss systems,
adhesives and the types of joints used, while the construction material
remained fixed. By applying our understanding of tensile and compressive
strengths in a truss system, we then were able to develop our
understanding of force distribution in the bridge constructed. Throughout
the project, we were also able to calculate the load distribution in a truss
system, demonstrated later in the report. We were then later able to
identify which members and joints were to be strengthened in terms of
tension and compression.
1.2 Report Preview
In a group of 5, we were tasked to choose an appropriate precedent
study of a structural truss bridge. Later, based on the precedent, we had
to construct a bridge consisting only of fettuccine and any adhesive
materials we deemed fit (superglue). The requirement of the bridge was
that it had a maximum weight of 150 g and a 600 mm clear span. As well
as being functional and efficient, in that it can carry a high load, it had to
be lightweight and aesthetically pleasing. It would then be tested to see if
it could withstand different weights of acute, point loads (when a weight is
focused on one specific part of the bridge) for ten seconds.
1.3 Project Restrictions
Fettuccine was the only construction material allowed for building the
model truss bridge and we had to construct it with a 600 mm clear span
and had to have a maximum weight of 150 g.

4. 4
2. Methodology
For completing this project, the following procedures were carried out:
Precedent Study
In order for our group to have a better understanding of a real, functioning truss
bridge, we chose a good precedent study to refer to and help us along the
analysis of our model bridge. We focused on the connection of joints, arrangement
of members and which truss type was the most efficient, as well as whether it was
aesthetically pleasing. Based on our findings for the precedent, we then adopted
that features worked best and implemented it into our design.
Material and Adhesive Strength Testing
Before constructing even the first test bridge, we had to experiment with the
physical properties of the fettuccine, such as the ‘feel’ and behavior of it when
subjected to abnormal amounts of weight. We experimented with different brands
of fettuccine (Barilla vs. San Remo), the type of fettuccine (regular fettuccine vs.
spinach fettuccine), and the types of adhesive used. It is important to test different
brands of fettuccine to observe their strength when subjected to loads before
skipping to the next phase of model making. Our analysis of how well different
fettuccine behaves under different weights is recorded under the chapter
“Material Strength Analysis”.
The adhesive was an important consideration, as what we used to bond the
fettuccine together would affect the overall strength of the structure. There are
various choices of glue with different characteristics available, so it is obviously
crucial to choose the appropriate adhesive.
Model Making
When we began to design the bridge, we started out with drawing sketches of the
truss. Once a general design was agreed upon, we drafted it on AutoCAD and
these drawings were printed out in a 1:1 scale, so we could follow the design
accurately and easily.
Fig. 1.1 & Fig. 1.2: Process photos of the crafting of the bridges.

5. 5
Structural Analysis
The truss’s strength was analyzed by which understanding which members were
used for tension purposes and which for compression. We based our structural
analysis of the bridge on the same methods used in the truss analysis exercises
given as case studies.
Model Testing
The initial draft bridge models were tested by applying loads attached to a string to
the middle of the intermediate member of the model with the restriction of a 600
mm clear span. Every time a draft model could not hold the required weight, we
analyzed the reason behind it and improved upon it with the next one until we
made the final bridge for testing in class.
Working Schedule:
23rd March 2015 Forming of group
2nd April 2015 Testing of the strength of the materials
(brands and types of fettuccine) and
different adhesives,
7th April 2015 Initial designing of truss
8th April 2015 Confirmation of design and crafting of
bridge #1
9TH April 2015 Testing of bridge #1
13th April 2015 Construction of bridge #2
15th April 2015 Testing of bridge #2
17th April 2015 Construction of bridge # 3
20th April 2015 Testing of bridge #3
24th April 2015 Construction of bridge #4
25th April 2015 Testing of bridge #4
26th April 2015 Construction of final bridge
27th April 2015 Submission and testing of final fettuccine
bridge
Table 1: Working Schedule

6. 6
3. Equipment and Material Analysis
Fig.2: Typical materials and equipment’s used throughout the project.
3.1 Equipment
These were the tools we needed for the model making:
1) Pen Knife & Scissors:
The penknife and scissors were used in
the model making process to cut the
fettuccine strips.
2) Rulers & Scale Rulers
To help us accurately measure each
fettuccine member.
3) Calculator
In order for us to solve the calculations
accurately and quickly, we made sure
to always have a calculator on hand in
the duration of the project.

7. 7
4) Kitchen Balance
Measuring equipment for weighing our
pasta to make sure it did not exceed the
restricted weight, 150 g.
5) S-Hook
The S- Hook was used to connect the
fettuccine bridge to the load (weights),
at the center of the bridge.
6) Camera
A camera was used to document the
working process as well as take videos
for testing of the bridges.
7) Bucket
Buckets were used during the load
testing to hold the loads- water.
Table 2: Equipment needed for project

8. 8
3.2 Material Strength Study
3.2.1 Adhesive Types
We experimented with different types of glues to obtain the best result for our
connections:
Types of Adhesive Analysis
3- Second glue (V-tech)  Fastest bonding time- about 3
seconds.
 High connection bond
strength
 High efficiency
 Clean connection of joints
 Easy to apply
 However, it makes the
fettuccine brittle faster than
the other glues and has a high
tendency of cracking after a
few days.
Super Glue (Elephant)  Fast bonding time- about 10
seconds, but not as fast as the
3- second glue.
 High bonding strength
 High efficiency
 Clean connection of joints
 Easy to use.
 Strength of bond between
connections still remained
strong after a few days.
UHU Glue  Slow bonding time- about 35
seconds.
 Easy to apply.
 Average connection bond
strength.
 Average efficiency.
Glue gun  Troublesome to use
 High connection bond
strength.
 Finish is bulky and messy-
increases weight of bridge.
 Joints flexible when dry.
Table 3: Comparison of different types of adhesives.

9. 9
3.2.2 Adhesive Strength Test
Type of
Glue:
Clear
Span
(mm):
Length (mm): Glue applied on
fettuccine:
Layer of
pasta:
Weight
Sustained (g):
Super Glue 20 24 Whole 2 360.5
3- Second
Glue
20 24 Whole 2 270
Table 4: Comparison between the strength of fettuccine after being applied with
super glue and 3- second glue within a day.
According to the table above, super glue performed better than the 3- second
glue as it has the highest strength in connecting joints and withstanding loads,
although it takes a longer time to bond.
Next, we let the layers of pasta dry for more than one day:
Type of
Glue:
Clear
Span
(mm):
Length (mm): Glue applied on
fettuccine:
Layer of
pasta:
Weight
Sustained (g):
Super Glue 20 24 Whole 2 380
3- Second
Glue
20 24 Whole 2 260
Table 5: Comparison between the strength of fettuccine after being applied with
super glue and 3- second glue for more than one day.
After leaving the fettuccine layers to settle for more than a day, we conducted
another test to see if the weight it could sustain was more or less than what it could
in table 4. Super glue could sustain even more weight, while the 3-second glue
sustained less. This may be because the 3-second glue made the joints brittle,
causing the members to easily dislocate. This experiment proves that when using 3-
second glue, we need to make sure that a test for a bridge would be carried out
immediately after making it, while super glue could keep its hold longer.
Type of
Glue:
Clear
Span
(mm):
Length (mm): Glue applied on
fettuccine:
Layer of
pasta:
Weight
Sustained (g):
Super Glue 20 24 Whole 2 280
3- Second
Glue
20 24 Whole 2 105
Table 6: Comparison between the strength of fettuccine after being applied with
super glue and 3- second glue for more a number of days.

10. 10
The table above demonstrates how the strength of bond of both glues fell sharply
after several days left to dry and settle. We concluded it was because of the fact
the glue oxidizes and makes the pasta brittle and weak. However, between the
two glues, super glue remained superior in terms of strength bond over 3- second
glue so we decided upon using that for the making of the models.
However, the bridge would have to be done 2 days before testing to prevent
oxidization from happening, so timing was a key factor.
3.2.3 Fettuccine Types & Strength Study
We carried out several strength tests on the 2 materials used for the bridge,
fettuccine and adhesive, to see which brand or which type of each material was
the strongest for carrying loads.
Fig. 3.1: San Remo was our choice of fettuccine for the final bridge.
Fig. 3.2: Experimenting with different layers of fettuccine.
Since fettuccine was our main construction material, it was crucial that different
brands and types of fettuccine were tested before making the physical model.
To build a strong and efficient bridge, different brands and its properties (rigidness,
flexibility etc.) were tested to see which could withstand the highest load. Below are
the three different brands of fettuccine we tested by hanging a load on one stick
of fettuccine:
Image Brand Weight
Sustained
San Remo 180 kg

11. 11
Barilla 160 kg
Kimball 120 kg
Table 7: Fettuccine brands and the weight they could sustain.
Based on the table above, it is clear that San Remo was the best choice of
fettuccine as it could sustain the highest load. Also, compared to the other brands,
San Remo had a flatter shape, this easier to stick into layers and create a quicker
and more solid bond.
After we chose San Remo as main building material, we decided to test whether
the “normal” fettuccine would be better than the spinach fettuccine:
Spinach type Regular Type
 Could hold up to 179 kg.
 Color not as nice as the regular
fettuccine.
 Could hold up to 182 kg and
potentially more.
 Color more aesthetically pleasing.
Table 8: Comparison of spinach fettuccine vs. regular fettuccine.

12. 12
When we decided that the regular type of fettuccine was superior, we also
conducted a test in which we layered sticks of fettuccine to test how many layers
was the strongest without jeopardizing the weight of the overall structure.
Layers of
members
Length of
fettuccine
(cm)
Clear span
(cm)
Load
sustained,
vertical facing
(g)
Load
sustained,
horizontal
facing (g)
1 24 10 400 200
2 24 10 500 400
3 24 10 800 800
4 24 10 1200 1400
5 (I- beam) 24 10 - 1800
Table 9: The test results of different layers of fettuccine and the load each could
sustain.
Another question we pondered upon was whether the orientation of the fettuccine
while we stuck it into layers would affect the strength when used in our model
design.
Type of glue Layer of sticks Glue applied Weight
sustained
(horizontal)(g)
Weight
sustained
(vertical)(g)
Super Glue 2 Whole 280 360
3 Whole 385 450
4 Whole 465 530
5 Whole 585 525
Table 10: Comparison of horizontal and vertical orientation weight load as number
of layers increase.
As table 10 illustrates, it is best to bond the layers vertically as it can sustain higher
loads than the bonding it horizontally. However, this is only best up to four layers. For
five layers, a better outcome will occur to bond it horizontally as it could sustain the
highest amount of load.

13. 13
4. Precedent Study
B.B. Comer Bridge, Jackson Count y, Alabama, Unite St ates of America.
To aid us in designing the best possible bridge, we conducted a precedent
study on the B.B. Comer Bridge.
Figure 4.1: Exterior view of bridge
Type of truss: Cantilevered Warren through Truss
Main span length: 310.1 ft.
Total length: 2,143.1 ft. (653 m)
Deck width: 19.7 ft.
Status: Open to traffic
Average daily traffic: 8639
4.1 History and Function
The B.B. Comer Bridge is a two lane, 2,143-foot (653 m) long, cantilevered warren
through truss bridge spanning the Tennessee River along Alabama State Route 35 in
Scottsboro, Alabama. The bridge is named after Braxton Bragg Comer, the
governor of Alabama who served from 1907 to 1911. It was constructed by the
Kansas City Bridge Company for the Alabama State Bridge Corporation, in which
construction commenced in 1929 and was completed by 1931. As of 2013, this is
the only remaining bridge of the 15 memorial toll bridges constructed by the
Alabama State Bridge Corporation.
By 2007, the aging structure was classified by the Alabama Department of
Transportation as being a structurally deficient bridge with an overall rating of 7.7

14. 14
out of 100. Construction of a replacement bridge commenced in October 2007,
and is expected to be completed in late 2015. The Comer Bridge is scheduled to
be demolished in 2015 although preservation efforts are underway and the Comer
Bridge Foundation has been organized. On October 31, 2013, the B. B. Comer
Bridge was added to the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage.
Figure 4.2: Interior view of bridge
Fig 4.5: Historical photograph
showing the construction of
the bridge
Fig 4.3: Close up of structural
members of the bridge.
Fig 4.4: Cantilever Warren
through truss spanning over the
Tennessee River.
Fig 4.5: Bracing at top of bridge.

15. 15
4.2 Truss System
Fig 4.6: Warren Truss
The bridge is a fixed metal 8- paneled warren through truss. The bridge has main
spans whose truss spans have "towers" at the piers and thus have the appearance
of a cantilever truss. However, the bridge appears to function as a rigid continuous
truss since no hinges are visible on the central main span. The bridge also has a four
simple through truss approach spans, as well as 14 steel stringer approach spans.
The warren truss that the B.B. Comer Bridge utilizes consists of equilateral or isosceles
triangles, which minimizes the forces to only compression and tension. Warren
trusses typically range from 150 ft. to 300 ft. When a load moves through across a
bridge, the forces on the members switch from compression to tension. Most warren
trusses consist of verticals to limit the length of the floor system panels and the
unsupported length of the top chord. The verticals alternate in being tension
members and compression members. They carry insignificant load in a through truss
but full live loads in a deck truss.
4.4 Joints
The B.B. Comer Bridge makes use of a number of connecting joints:
1) Gusset plate connections

16. 16
2) Connections of portal bracing members
3) Connection of multiple diagonal members

17. 17
5. Analysis of Test Bridges
5.1 Test Bridge 1 Analysis
After studying the difference of each beam and the orientation of it, we started
building our very first Fettuccine Bridge. Our main study was to test how much the
base plays a role in carrying a load. We used “I” beam for the long span because it
was proven to be strongest among other five type of beam. And then we focused
on strengthening the load bearing part so it can withhold more load. We didn’t pay
much attention to the truss, so it was a simple design just to accommodate some
weight. A 2 layer 7cm piece of fettuccine was used as a connective part of two
long span I beams.
Test Result
Test Load 10-Second test
1 0.4 
2 0.8 
3 1.2 
4 1.6 X
Efficiency = load2/weight of the bridge
= (1.6)(1.6)/0.1
= 25.6
Bridge Information
Height: 12cm
Width: 7cm
Clear Span: 750mm
Total Length:
900mm
Weight: 100g

18. 18
Problem Identification
As more weight added onto
the bridge we noticed how
big of a role trusses play in
weight distribution. The top
beam started to break and
the bridge broke at weak spot
of the I beam and break
instantaneously. The base
didn’t pay as much damage
so we know we did the right
thing with the base and
wanted to use I beam and
strengthening them by
adding more layers and
adding proper trusses.

19. 19
5.2 Test Bridge 2 Analysis
After having the right design for the base we started to focus on the design of out
trusses. We used triangular shape because its supporting tension and compression
member are theoretically better as it is more strong and effective. We used the
base from our first analysis and improve our workmanship. We focused on learning
from our last mistake by protecting the “weak spot” of the bridge and
strengthening it by putting stopper to avoid rotation and putting a small piece of
fettucine at the connection to react as a connecting plate.
Test Result
Test Load (kg) 10-Second Test
1 0.5 
2 1.0 
3 1.5 
4 2.0 
5 2.5 
6 2.6 X
Effectiveness = Load2/Weight of bridge
= (2.6)(2.6)/1.6
= 42.25
Bridge Information
Height: 14cm
Width: 7cm
Clear Span: 750mm
Total length: 890mm
Weight: 160g

20. 20
Problem Identification
The bridge was sturdy until we
start putting on more than
2kg. We can see that the
bridge slowly shake and
starting to fall apart. After we
put on 2.6 kg, the trusses
started to break and as the
trusses break, gravity did its
job and pulled the bridge
downward which later cause
shearing on the long span I
beam which ended up
broken. It was obvious that
weak spot was still at ¾ of the
bridge and it was the most
breakable point after the
trusses broke down.

21. 21
6. Analysis of Final Bridge
6.1 Final Design of Truss
92 cm
12 cm
7 cm
9 cm
6 cm
14 cm
12 cm
Cantilevered warren through truss design.
Elevation of the truss with measurements
Side elevation with dimension of deck width.

22. 22
6.2 Final bridge testing day:
Tension members start
to buckle after 600
grams are added to
the center of the
bridge.
Top chord (compression
member) begins to
deflect at around 10
seconds into testing.
The bridge breaks at
about 60 seconds into
testing.
Bridge breaks
completely in half
at 1067 g.
The bridge was
placed between two
tables and an S hook
with loads were
attached to the
center.

23. 23
6.3 Failure Analysis:
In our final bridge model testing, we
made a mistake by using old pasta
instead of a freshly opened one. It
affected the strength of our final
fettuccine bridge. We discovered that
old pasta is weaker and its so much
easier to break and instead of using two
points we put the weight on only one
point of the bridge, making the load
distribution much more focused on the
middle part and drags the bridge down
more easier. This bridge is also heavier
than our second testing bridge
because we used more pasta to
strengthen the trusses and joints. At the
end it only withheld 1.067kg of weight
and the efficiency dropped due to all
these various reason.
Test Result:
Effectiveness of = Load (2) /Weight of
bridge
= (1.07) (1.07)/0.182
= 6.25

24. 24
7. Conclusion
We had constructed a few bridges and experimented with many factors such as
types of beams, orientation of beams, design of the trusses and limiting the weight
of the bridge and by doing so we chose the best proven method to build our final
bridge in hopes that it will be the strongest of them all.
Other than understanding how each member works, we also learnt how important
tensile and compressive members were in making the bridge more effective, as
well as that the orientation of each member plays a big role in keeping everything
together. Besides that, small things such as how long the material is exposed to air
can affect the whole effectiveness of the bridge and how load distribution is
important.
In conclusion, it has been a great experience to use an everyday-household item
such as fettuccine to construct a bridge that can withhold more weight than
expected. We are lucky to study the strength of the pasta and study how amazing
by simple movement such as turning the pasta sideway can affect so much in
constructing a strong and effective bridge. As an architecture student it is
important that we know how all these things work so that we can design more
effectively and not just for aesthetic reason. It is a privilege to understand all these
because now we can use the information to make our future design, better and
more effective.

25. 25
8. References
Ambrose, James E. Design of Building Trusses. 1st ed. New York: J. Wiley, 1994. Print.
Baughn, James. "B.B. Comer Bridge." B.B. Comer Bridge. Bridgehunter, 2 Oct. 2006.
Web.
Boon, G. (2011, January 4). Warren Truss. Retrieved October 3, 2014, from Garrett’s
Bridges: http://www.garrettsbridges.com/design/warren-truss/
Ching, F.D. (2008). Building Const ruction Illustrated Fourt h Edition. Canada: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.