This document summarizes a student group project to design and construct a truss bridge made of fettuccine pasta. It describes the methodology used, including precedent studies of truss bridges, material and equipment testing, multiple iterations of model making and structural analysis. The group tested different pasta brands and adhesives to determine the strongest materials. They built six bridge models of varying designs, testing each to improve efficiency before selecting a final design. The document provides details on the project aims, outcomes, procedures, and presents analysis of a precedent truss bridge as a case study.

1. TUTOR: MS. ANN
CHUAH SAY YIN 0315301
CHRISTINE YEAP ZHE XING 0316294
KHOR XIN SUAN 0316230
NG WEI YING 0316366
WANG PUI YEE 0316283
5-7-2015
ARC 2523 BUILDING STRUCTURES
PROJECT 1:
FETTUCCINE TRUSS
BRIDGE
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING AND DESIGN, TAYLOR’S
UNIVERSITY LAKESIDE CAMPUS

2. 1 | P a g e
CONTENT Page
1.0 Introduction 2
1.1Project Intention
1.2Report Overview
2.0 Methodology 3
2.1 Aim of Study
2.2 Learning Outcomes
2.3 Precedent Study
2.4 Materials and Equipment Testing
2.5 Model Making
2.6 Structural Analysis
2.7 Bridge Efficiency Calculation
3.0 Precedent Study 5
4.0 Material and Equipment 9
4.1 Material
4.2 Equipment
5.0 Modal Making 14
5.1 Process
5.2 Precautions
6.0 Structural Analysis 26
6.1 Member Analysis
6.2 Design Analysis
7.0 Conclusion 38
8.0 Appendix 39
9.0 References 40
10.0 Exercise: Truss Analysis 41

3. 2 | P a g e
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project intention and research
In a group of 5, we were required to design and construct a truss bridge with fettuccine. The
bridge requirement include a clear span of 750mm and maximum weight of 200g. The fettucine
structure will be tested to fail. The bridge must be of high efficiency by using the least material to
sustain the higher load. The intention of designing this bridge is to investigate and understand the
tension and compressive strength of construction materials. In this case, it's the fettucine.
We are required carry out research on precedent studies of bridges with different truss system.
There 6 types of bridges identified through extensive research. Namely, the
Beam bridge, Truss Bridge, Arch Bridge, Suspension bridge and Cantilever Bridge. For this project,
only truss bridge is needed to be analyzed as the project requirement is to build a truss bridge
with high efficiency.
Materials are being experimented to differentiate its strength. Several brands and types of
adhesives are used in the test to determine its strength and properties. Through this project we
are able to identify which member in the truss system needs to be strengthen so that the load
apply will be distributed evenly throughout the entire system.
1.2 Report Overview
The report started off with a precedent study carried out on a truss bridge. Analysis of load
distribution and how it affects its member. The report also recorded down the several designs we
had tried out before the deciding on the final design. These test bridges were improved and
developed further based on previous test results and analysis to increase its efficiency. A set of
analysis regarding the strength of the bridge structure and its reason of failure had been done.
Individual case studies calculations are attached at the end of the report.

4. 3 | P a g e
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Aim of Study
The aim of this projects is to develop student's understanding of tension and compressive
strength of construction materials as well as the force distribution in a truss. This project aims to
enable students to design a perfect truss bridge which fulfills the aesthetic value and minimum
construction material required.
2.2 Learning Outcomes
By the end of this project, students are able to:
- Evaluate, explore and improve attributes of construction materials
- Explore and apply understanding of load distribution in a truss
- Evaluate and identify tension and compression members in a truss structure
- Explore different arrangement of members in a truss structure
2.3 Precedent Study
We had opted to carry out our case study on the Cicero Avenue Cal-Sag Bridge. This bridge is the
closest to what we had for our fettucine bridge in terms of design and truss member arrangement.
Further elaboration and findings will be in the Precedent Study section later.
2.4 Materials and Equipment Testing
We had experimented with different brands and types of fettuccine to examine its tension and
compressive strength before deciding to select a specific brand to proceed with our bridge
building. The brand of fettucine we had selected in this project is San Remo. Various types of
adhesive are being used in the experiment and were observed how they affect the joints and
connecting members of the bridge. In the end, we settled on super glue (3 seconds glue).
2.5 Model Making
The model making process was an on-going process as we had to keep revising and improving the
Fettuccine Bridge after load testing to achieve higher efficiency. A total of 6 bridges with various
designs and improvements were built for this project. After testing, the strength of each bridge
will be maintained and the weakness will be eliminated for further development.

5. 4 | P a g e
2.6 Structural Analysis
Structural Analysis is the determination on the effects of load on the Fettuccine Bridge and its
members by calculation.
2.7 Bridge Efficiency Calculation
The efficiency of the bridge tested is calculated using the formula:
 
bridgeofWeight
LoadMaximum
E,Efficiency
2


6. 5 | P a g e
3.0 PRECEDENT STUDY
CICERO AVENUE CAL-SAG BRIDGE
Cicero Avenue Cal-Sag Bridge is a truss bridge through Calumet Sag Channel at Cicero Avenue,
Illinois. It was built in the year 1938 and was rehabilitated on year 1963. It is one of the oldest
existing metal truss bridges among the truss bridges on Calumet Sag Channel and Little Calumet
River. According to the bit letting in November 2011, the bridge is planned to be rehabilitated
again of which the works include painting, repair of gusset plate connections, joints repair, etc.
The truss bridge function as a four lane vehicular bridge with 2 pedestrian passage at each side.
Figure 3.1: West Elevation and Top View of the Bridge
The type of this truss bridge is warren truss. It is the type of truss that contain a series of
isosceles or equilateral triangles. In the case of Cicero Avenue Cal-Sag Bridge, vertical members

7. 6 | P a g e
are added to increase the span of the bridge. The total length of this bridge is 115.2m with the
span of 82.3m, deck width of 13.3m and vertical member of 5.3m. Besides, top chord and end
post is also riveted with an additional plate as shown in box A in figure 2 to strengthen the its
box beam.
Figure 3.2: Connections of Top Chord, Bottom Chord, Vertical Member and Diagonal Member
Figure 3.3
A
B
BC
Figure 3.3 is showing from the interior view of the bridge
the part labelled as B in Figure 3.2. It is the connection
joint among diagonal members, vertical member, struts
and lateral bracing son the top as well as top chord or
bottom chord. They are joined together by riveting to
gusset plates.

8. 7 | P a g e
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5: Interior View of the Bridge
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.4 is showing the part labelled as C in figure 3.2. It
is the connection joint of the vertical member to the top
chord.
Figure 3.6 is showing the part labelled as A in figure 3.5. It
is the connection joint of the lateral bracings and struts
through gusset plate.
B
A

9. 8 | P a g e
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.7 is showing the part labelled as B in figure 3.5. It
is the connection joints of the members of portal bracings.
Its connection system is the same with sway bracings
except having different arrangement of the truss.

10. 9 | P a g e
4.0 Material and Equipment
4.1 Materials
Table 4.1.1
Initially, we use both UHU and 3 seconds glue as we think that both are able to counter the
compression and tension we might need flexibility in certain members and used 3 seconds
glue on horizontal members at the base to have the best strength to hold the whole bridge
together. Then we switch to UHU super glue as flexibility in using UHU is unnecessary and is
less efficient. Finally, we have chosen to use only 3 second glue as it dries faster which could
save up a lot of time in model making as this project need us to test on multiple bridge
design before finalizing on the selection of design.
Type of Adhesives Advantages Disadvantages
UHU Glue
- Able to adjust position of
connection as it dries slower
- Flexiblele connection
- Easy to use
-Causes the bridge to
weight more
-Needs more amount to
stick the members tightly
UHU Superglue
-Efficient
-Easy to use
-Does not hold the
members tightly
3 Seconds Glue (Superglue)
-Highest efficiency
-Firm and stiff connection
- Easy to use
-More brittle: broken
easily if fettuccini is not
stacked in multiple layers

11. 10 | P a g e
We had selected two different brands of fettucine to carry out the material load testing
before selecting one of it for the bridge construction later. The difference between San
Remo brand fettucine and Kimball brand fettucine is the width. Sam Remo fettucine is
measured at 5mm whereas Kimball fettucine is measured at 4mm. Load testing is then
carried out to determine the tension and compressive strength of each brand.
Figure 4.1.2 San Remo Fettucine Figure 4.1.3 Kimball Fettucine
Material Load Testing Results:
San Remo Fettucine Weight
I-beam One pail and 600 g
Laminated truss One pail and 200 g
Kimball Fettucine Weight
I-beam One pail
Load testing results proved that San Remo’s fettuccini is stronger than Kimball’s fettuccini. It
is compared in the condition where the glue used and the way of lamination is the same.
San Remo brand is selected in the end.

12. 11 | P a g e
4.2 Equipment
Figure 4.2.1 Penknife Figure 4.2.2 Scissors
Penknife is able to cut precisely and accurately compared to using scissors. Fettucine are
prone to breakage as it is very brittle. Therefore, penknife is a better choice for cutting
Figure 4.2.3 Nylon String Figure 4.2.4 Raffia String
Nylon string is chosen to hang the pail of water from the bridge rather than raffia because it
is more durable.
Figure 4.2.5 T-Square Figure 4.2.6 Set Squares

13. 12 | P a g e
Figure 4.2.7 Metal Rule
Set squares were used to ensure the vertical member sticking to the horizontal member is at
right angle.
T-square and metal rule are used to mark the measurement as it can reach longer length,
which increase the accuracy of the measurement
Figure 4.2.8 Sand Paper
Sand paper is used to mill the edge of the fettuccini in case it is not cut well. This is
important as the contact surface of fettuccini should be maximum as it could affect the load
it could carry and the better the joint connection, the more stable it could be.

14. 13 | P a g e
Figure 4.2.9 Pail Figure 4.2.10 S-hook
Pail is used to fill the water which act as load pulling downwards from the bridge with an S-
hook connecting to the bridge.
Figure 4.2.11 Electronic balance
An electronic balance is used to get a more accurate weight measurement.

15. 14 | P a g e
5.0 Model making
5.1 Process
1. Categorize the fettucine into usable and non-usable. (bent or straight)
2. Draft out the design of the bridge in AutoCAD and print out the drawings of the bridge.
3. Measure the fettucine and cut them into the specific lengths.
4. Make all the components and turn them into I-beams or laminated truss with adhesive.
Figure 5.1.1 I-beams and laminated trusses are constructed precisely
5. Join the vertical components to the base strip as seen in 5.1.2
Figure 5.1.2

16. 15 | P a g e
6. Place the bracings in between the vertical components.
Figure 5.1.3
7. Stick the top chord for both sides of the bridge.
Figure 5.1.4

17. 16 | P a g e
8. Connect both sides of the bridge horizontal I-beams.
Figure 5.1.5
9. Continue by fixing horizontal components on top to hold both sides of the bridge.
Figure 5.1.6

18. 17 | P a g e
10. Place the two major supporting beams in the middle.
Figure 5.1.7
11. Weight the bridge.
Figure 5.1.8

19. 18 | P a g e
12. Test the bridge.
Figure 5.1.9
13. Identify the weakness and problems.
Figure 5.1.10
14. Repeats the steps above until the final model.

20. 19 | P a g e
Model 1
Figure 5.1.11
Model 2
Figure 5.1.12

21. 20 | P a g e
Model 3
Figure 5.1.13
Model 4
Figure 5.1.14

22. 21 | P a g e
Model 5
Figure 5.1.15

23. 22 | P a g e
5.2 Precautions
Overall aspects:
1. Quality controls is needed for fettucine. There are twisted and bended fettucine which
will affect the stability and strength of the bridge.
Figure 5.2.1 shows the examples of a straight and bended fettucine
2. In order to make sure the bridge functions as how we plan, we need to build the model
as perfect as the drawing. We can use setsquares to make sure the fettucine are joined
perpendicular to one another.
3. Place cardboard on the table when using 3 seconds glue in order to prevent the glue
from staining the table.
4. When using 3 seconds glue, make sure the position of joint and stick it quick and
accurately. Remember try not to readjust the position because when there is a layer of
glue on the fettucine, it will be tricky to stick them precisely again.
5. Make sure the finger is not near to the place where u apply glue because when
removing the finger after holding the fettucine in its position might cause destruction of
the joints of the fettucine itself.

24. 23 | P a g e
6. Reapply glue to every joint.
7. Test the completed bridge a day after construction to make sure the glue has set in.
Joints:
a) Make sure the fettucine join firmly with each other. Use sand paper to make sure the
end of the fettucine is flat and even in order to prevent the uneven surface of the
fettucine when joining to one another which would affect the strength of joints.
b) When assemble the components into a bridge, it is better to have four people so that
those components can be held in position and join firmly.
c) In order to make sure the fettucine joins firmly, it is better to join it in a way which the
two fettucine members have the most surface contact. Diagrams below are the
examples.
Example 1:
(a) (b)
Joint (a) will sustain the weight solely based on the glue whereas joint (b) will transfer the load
through the connection. Therefore, joint (b) is a better choice.

25. 24 | P a g e
Example 2:
(a) (b)
Joint (a) has larger contact surface area compares to joint (b) which make it a better choice for
making the bridge.
Example 3:
(a) (b)
Joint (b) has larger contact surface area compares to join (a) which enable it to hold both of the
bottom strip together firmer than join (a).

26. 25 | P a g e
Example 4:
(a) (b)
Joint (a) has more contact surface area and a more flat contact surface compare to joint (b)
which mean it can be join much more firmly. Therefore, it is better to choose joint (a) over joint
(b) as this is an important joint for bracing which is an important member in supporting the
bridge.

27. 26 | P a g e
6.0 Structural Analysis
6.1 Member Analysis
Experiment of various designs of Fettuccini members’ tension and compressive
strength with load. The members were tested to bear with load for 10 seconds
during each experiment. Each members had 160mm clear span and 350mm resting
on table at each end.
Type of member Weight
C beam 300 g 500 g
Broken -
Bent Bent
Bent Bent
Bent Broken
Laminated
Broken -
Bent Broken
Bent Bent
I- beam
Bent Broken
Bent Bent
Bent Broken
L- beam
Broken -
Bent Bent
Triangular
Bent Broken
Table 6.1.1
In conclusion, the double layered I-beam is the most stable although it contributes
the most weight.
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
D
z
D
d
d
D
z
D
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d

28. 27 | P a g e
Further experiments are then carried out to test how different choice of adhesive
affect the performance of the truss. Double layered I-beam of 160mm clear span is
used in this experiment.
Table 6.1.2
The test is carried out further with double layered I-beam with clear span of 160mm
placing vertically on both side of the desks. The adhesive used to construct the I-
beam is 3 seconds glue
800g 900g 1000g 1100g 1200g
Not bent Not bent Bent Bent Broken
Table 6.1.3
Adhesive 800g 900g 1000g 1100g
3 seconds glue Bent Bent Bent+ broken
(18s)
-
UHU + 3 seconds
glue
Bent Bent Bent Bent+ broken
(7s)

29. 28 | P a g e
6.2 Design Analysis
Fettuccine Truss Bridge Design 1
Figure 6.2.1 (a)
*Assumption Made
Figure 6.2.1 (b)
Total Length: 950mm
Weight of Bridge: 230g
Clear Span: 750mm
Load Sustain: < 1400g
Efficiency: < 8.522 Figure 6.2.1 (c) Cross section

30. 29 | P a g e
Figures 6.2.2
Problems encountered:
1) Too many members at one joint does not help to transfer load.
2) The bridge is overweight with low efficiency.
3) The upper members are not strong enough to overcome compression.
Solutions:
1) Change the connection of slanted members with vertical members.
2) Reduce the length of connecting beams to reduce weight of the bridge which does
not exceed 200g.
3) Replace two-layer laminated with I-beam for upper members and vertical members
to increase the strength.

31. 30 | P a g e
Fettuccine Truss Bridge Design 2
Figure 6.2.3 (a)
*Assumption Made
Figure 6.2.3 (b)
Total Length: 950mm
Weight of Bridge: 233g
Clear Span: 750mm
Load Sustain: < 1000g

32. 31 | P a g e
Efficiency: < 4.292 Figure 6.2.3 (c) Cross Section
Figure 6.2.4
Problems Encountered:
1) The internal bracings are too long and weak to resist force.
2) Failure on joints.
3) Horizontal members broken. The surface in contact with vertical member is low
therefore load cannot be transferred.
4) Upper members are too weak to sustain load.
Solutions:
1) Reduce the length and increase the thickness of internal bracing.
2) Perfect edges on fettuccine to allow perfect joining.
3) Change the orientation of I-beams.
4) Replace two-layer laminated with I-beam for upper members and vertical members
to increase the strength.
5) Change the orientation of slanted members for better load distribution.

33. 32 | P a g e
Fettuccine Truss Bridge Design 3
Figure 6.2.5 (a)
*Assumption Made
Figure 6.2.5 (b)
Total Length: 950mm
Weight of Bridge: 340g
Clear Span: 750mm
Load Sustain: 3860g
Efficiency: 43.822 Figure 6.2.5 (c) Cross section

34. 33 | P a g e
Figure 6.2.6
Changes made refer to previous designs:
1) Vertical and upper members are changed to I-beams.
2) Length of connecting beams reduced. (shown in section)
3) Height of the truss bridge reduced.
4) Internal members increases.
Problems Encountered:
1) Connecting beams could not sustain higher load.
2) Weight of the structure exceeds 140g.
3) The efficiency is still not satisfying.
Solutions:
1) Replace some of the members with two-layer laminated to reduce the weight.
2) Increase the spacing of the internal members to reduce material used.
3) Add horizontal beams onto connecting beams to sustain higher load.

35. 34 | P a g e
Fettuccine Truss Bridge Design 4
Figure 6.2.7 (a)
*Assumption Made
Figure 6.2.7 (b)
Total Length: 950mm
Weight of Bridge: 354g
Clear Span: 750mm
Load Sustain: 5200g
Efficiency: 76.384 Figure 6.2.7 (c) Cross Section

36. 35 | P a g e
Figure 6.2.8
Changes made refer to previous designs:
1) Height of truss bridge reduced.
2) Internal members reduced.
3) Horizontal beams added onto connecting beams.
4) Length of connecting beams reduced.
Problems encountered:
1) Failure on joints.
2) The structure has sustain its maximum load but efficiency still not satisfying.
3) Weight of the structure still exceeds 154g.
Solutions:
1) Have all the connecting beams join directly perpendicular to the vertical members to
improve load distribution.
2) Reduce the number of layers in less critical members.
3) Reduce the height and length of connecting beams.

37. 36 | P a g e
Fettuccine Truss Bridge Design 5 (Final Design)
Figure 6.2.9 (a)
*Assumption Made
Figure 6.2.9 (b)
Total Length: 950mm
Weight of Bridge: 225g
Clear Span: 750mm
Load Sustain: 5750g
Efficiency: 146.944

38. 37 | P a g e
Figure 6.2.9 (c) Cross Section
Figure 6.2.10
Apparently, the efficiency of our last design is the highest among the previous truss bridges.

39. 38 | P a g e
7.0 Conclusion
By the end of this project, we had constructed a total of 5 fettucine bridges to achieve the
highest efficiency possible. The precedent study of Cicero Avenue Cal-Sag Bridge had help us
to understand how load is distributed in a truss bridge system.
Our final model of the bridge is constructed in perfect frame system and achieved the
highest efficiency among the 5 bridges. The efficiency calculated for our final bridge testing
is 146.944. This project has made us understand more about load distribution in a structure.
We also learned to calculate the efficiency and type of force applied in each structural
member.
We had also experimented with various truss and beam deigns in order to select the best
one for our bridge construction. We understood the importance of the diagonal bracing
member. Therefore, these members are heavily strengthen using double layered I-beams.
The precision of each connecting joints were achieved as we had built the bridge based on
the computer aided drawing we had prepare. Each connecting point were milled evenly
using sand paper to prevent imperfect connecting joints.
This project required quite a period of time as we had to go through a couple of trial-error.
The bridge building process was long and tedious and required lots of patience putting the
whole thing together. But it never fail to amaze us how a non-construction material like the
fettucine is able to withstand load after proper designing and structural analysis. All in all, it
was a great learning process, regardless of how tedious the building process might be. We
learnt a great deal in proper structural design and it will definitely us in creating a building
with proper building structure for future projects.

40. 39 | P a g e
8.0 Appendix
A group photo taken during final load testing.

41. 40 | P a g e
9.0 References
Cicero avenue cal-sag bridge. (2011). Retrieved from
http://historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=illinois/cicerosag/
Kathy , W. (2007, 2 27). Cicero avenue cal-sag bridge. Retrieved from
http://bridgehunter.com/il/cook/calsag-cicero/
Vincent T. H, C. (n.d.). What are the differences among warren truss, howe truss and pratt
truss?. Retrieved from http://www.engineeringcivil.com/what-are-the-differences-among-
warren-truss-howe-truss-and-pratt-truss.html