Experimental Studies On Steel

Roof Trusses

Guided by
Dr. D. Tensing
Presented by
Vincent Sam Jebadurai.S
06da001
ME Structural Engineering
 Acknowledgement

• I thank the Almighty God who showed wisdom and grace for

accomplishing this project successfully.

• I reverently thanks the Founders (Late) Dr. D.G.S. Dhinakaran and

Dr. Paul Dhinakaran for their constant prayers.

• I also thank the Management of Karunya University, Dr. Paul P.

Appasamy, Vice Chancellor, Karunya University and Dr. Anne Mary
Fernandez, Registrar, Karunya University.
I also expresses my thanks to
– Dr. G. Prince Arulraj, Director & Head, Department of Civil Engineering

– Dr.D.Tensing, Professor

– Dr. M.G. Rajendran, Professor

– Dr. R. Mercy Shanthi, Professor

– Mrs. Jemimah Carmichael, Senior Lecturer

– Mr. S. Robert Ravi, Lecturer

– Dr. S. Justin,

– Dr. S. Sivaraj

– Mr. N. Anand.

– Mr. P.Augustine Lab Technician

 Contents
• These are the topics to be discussed in this Thesis

• Synopsis

• Introduction

• Review of Literature

• Objectives and scopes

• Eperimental Investigation

• Test results

• Discussion on Test results

• Overview and Conclusions

 Synopsis
• A truss -assumed to comprise members -means of pin joints,
and supported -hinged joints or rollers.

• For long span structures, it will be economical to have truss

roofs.

• The economy of roof trusses - configurations.

• Now a days, trusses are fabricated without gusset plated

connections which reduce the self weight of the truss resulting
in economy.
In this investigation
• Three types of trusses

• Arch Truss

• Scissors Truss

• Vaulted Parallel Chord Truss

• The weight of each truss was measured before testing.

• Tests were conducted to find the ultimate load carrying

capacity of each truss.
• Deflections at various nodes under incremental loading were
measured. Strain in members was also measured for different
loadings.

• The trusses were analyzed

– Theoretically - Method of joints

– Analytically- STAAD Pro

– Experimentally.

• The experimental results and theoretical results were compared

and commented.
• It was found that irrespective of weight of truss, the
configuration of the truss play a major role in deciding the
strength of the truss.

• In the present investigation, it was found that the Arch Type of

truss was economical and has high load carrying capacity. The
load deflection characteristics were studied. Cost comparison
was made for all the above trusses.
 Introduction
• A general lack of understanding and knowledge of connections
for trusses has led to inefficient connection designs.

• Steel in its many structural forms is becoming a prominent

building component in the construction industry, thus
accentuating the urgency for additional design knowledge and
more efficient construction methodologies.
• It has a high strength to weight ratio and is an excellent
alternative to wood in areas prone to termite infestation.

• Its light weight mitigates load effects directly related to mass

such as those resulting from earthquakes.

• In real trusses, of course, the members have weight, but it is

often much less than the applied load and may be neglected
with little error or the weight maybe included by dividing the
weight in half and allowing half the weight to act at each end
of the member.
• Also in actual trusses the joints may be welded, riveted, or
bolted to a gusset plate at the joint.

• However as long as the centerline of the member coincide at

the joint, the assumption of a pinned joint maybe used.

• In cases where there are distributed loads on a truss, these may

be transmitted to a joint by use of a support system composed
of stringers and cross beams, which is supported at the joints
and transmits the load to the joints.
Configuration of truss
 Advantages of Truss
• Large trusses can be assembled from small members pinned
together, facilitating production, transportation, and erection

• Because all internal stresses are axial, with no bending stresses

present, the truss is an extremely efficient structural form.

• Typically assembled- bolted, welded, or nailed together- easy

to customize the overall shape of the truss in relation to
external loads and spans.
 Model of Arch truss
ISA 25 x 25 x 5 mm
G
H

0.75 m
0.54m

A B C D

3m
 Model- Vaulted Parallel Chord
2ISA 25 x 25 x 5mm
D

0.785 m E J
0.6 m

C
I
F
G
0.2 m B

H
A 3m
 Model- Scissors Truss
D
ISA 25 x 25 x 5 mm
0.56m

0.75m E J

F I
C

G
B

H
A

3m
 Literature review

1. James V. Wood et.al

 Ten full-scale roof trusses – fabricated

 Tested to ultimate capacity under concentrated panel point

loading.

 Gusset plates at the heel connections in bearing -significant

factor in strength determination

 Local buckling of the top chord adjacent to the heel plates

was the predominant failure mechanism
 James V. Wood et.al contd..,

 Trusses that experienced - local buckling failure exhibited

postbuckling ductility

 whereas failures at the connections in bearing were sudden.

 A truss - partial point loading

to simulate the effect of a partial roof snow load

The experimental ultimate capacity substantiated the

predicted capacity.
 James V. Wood et.al contd..,

 A beam–column analysis of the top chord- failure-

requirements of the Canadian Standards Association CSA
S136-01.

 The calculated nominal resistance was 12% conservative

 The trusses were sufficiently stiff to satisfy a deflection

requirement of the span length L divided by 360.
 Conclusion from literature
review..,
• When a truss was subjected to a partial loading, the ultimate
capacity was reduced by 20% corresponding to theoretical
values expected.

• Adding a member from the top of the raised heel to the

adjacent bottom chord panel point and stiffening the heel plate
increased the capacity of the truss by 23% without paying a
penalty with regard to ductility.
 2. John L. Dawe et.al

 Twenty three small-scale roof trusses were fabricated from

cold-formed steel and tested to ultimate capacity.

 Subjected to a single point load at the ridge

 One series-fabricated with a hinge connection at the ridge

 Second series had a gusset plate connection at this location

 John L. Dawe et.al contd..,

 The hinge served to isolate the strength properties of the

heel connection and upper chords

 Addition of the ridge plate--the load sharing between the

ridge and heel connections.

 The performance of several heel plate configurations

altered by

Adding edge stiffeners

Varying their shapes and thickness

 John L. Dawe et.al contd..,

 Local buckling of the top chord adjacent to the heel plate was
the predominant failure mechanism.

 Methods of reinforcing the top chords to prevent local

buckling were investigated.
 Conclusion from literature
review 2..,

• Increasing the tk of the top chords from 33 to 43 mils -

50% increase in ultimate strength.

• Increasing the thickness of the heel plates from 43 to 54

mils and adding edge stiffeners -reduced the distortion of
the plates and -32% increase in ultimate capacity.
 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
• Structural analysis of trusses of any type can readily be carried
out using a matrix method

• To perform an accurate analysis a structural engineer must

determine such information as structural loads, geometry,
support conditions, and materials properties.

• The forces in the members of trusses can be found by the

following methods:
1. Method of joints

2. Method of sections, and

3. Graphical method
 Experimental Investigation
• Six truss specimens -fabricated

• Subjected to concentrated load on the ridge of the truss

till failure.

• The load versus deflection readings were recorded.

• Three different configurations of roof truss with and

without Gusset plates were fabricated and tested.

• The ultimate load carrying capacity of each truss was

obtained experimentally as well as theoretically.
• The experimental and theoretical loads were compared.

• The supports of trusses were made in such away that one end
of the trusses were restrained against vertical and horizontal
movement and in other end against vertical movement only.

• Truss specimens were fabricated with a pitch of 1 in 4 of span

3 m.

• Vaulted parallel truss and Scissors trusses were fabricated with

double angle continuous member in principal rafter and main
tie.

• The arch truss was fabricated with single angle for all the
members.
 Experimental Setup
• Specimens were tested using a hydraulic loading frame of
capacity 50T.

• One end of the truss was restrained against vertical movement

(roller) and other end was restrained against vertical and
horizontal movement (hinged).

• Load was applied using hydraulic jacks. The strains in the

members of trusses were found using Demountable
Mechanical Strain Gauges (DEMEC) with gauge length of
7.5cm and 10cm. The deflections at mid-span and near the
adjacent nodes were measured using dial gauges.
Front View of Vaulted Parallel Chord
Truss
Front View of Scissors Truss
 Test Results
• Member Forces of Scissors Truss

• Member Forces of Arch Truss

• Member Forces of Vaulted Parallel Chord Truss

• Deflection at joints of Scissors Truss

• Deflection at joints of Arch Truss

• Deflection at joints of Vaulted Parallel Chord Truss

DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
• Graphs were drawn between Load on the truss and forces in
the members of the different trusses.
 D

E J
F C I
B G

A H
3m

Force in Member " DE " Vs Load on the Scissors Truss

6 5.94

5.76
4.86
5
Member Force (10 N)

4.32
4.68
4

4
3.42 3.96

3 3.42
2.276
1.8
2 2.26
1.8
With Gusset
1
Without Gusset

0
0.53 1.09 1.67 2.24 2.8 3.37
Load on the truss (104N)
 D

E J
F C I
B G

A H
3m

Force in member "FA" Vs Load on Scissors Truss

6.93
7

5.97
6 6.49
Member Force in N (10 )
4

5.76
5
4.35

4
3.46 4.15

3 3.34
2.39

2 2.38
With Gusset
0.91 Without Gusset
1
0.9

0
0.53 1.09 1.67 2.24 2.8 3.37
4
Load on Truss in N (10 )
 D

E J
F C I
B G

A H
3m
Force in the member "EF" Vs Load on the Scissors Truss

6 5.76

5.58
5 4.68
Member Force in N (104)

4.12
4.5
4

3.26 3.96
3 3.26
2.34

2 2.33

0.9 with Gusset

1
Without Gusset
0.9

0
0.53 1.09 1.67 2.24 2.8 3.37
Load on the Truss in N (104)
 DISCUSSION OF SCISSORS TRUSS

• It was found from the graphs that ,the forces in the members of
Scissors truss were almost closer for both trusses with and
without gusset plates under various loads. The member forces
for the truss with gusset plates were found to be marginally
higher than the truss without gusset plate, particularly in the
higher range of loads. The maximum increase in load carrying
capacity for the truss with gusset plate was found to be 9%
than the truss without gusset plate.
 G
H
F

A B C D E
3m
Force in member "GH" Vs Load on Arch Truss

9
8.36
8
8.2
7.13
7 6.6
7.2
Member Force in N (10 )

6.6
4

6
5.11
5
4.47
4.86
4 3.78 4.5

3.06
2.72 3.56
3
3.04
2.64
2
Without gusset
With Gusset
1

0
2.34 2.95 3.56 4.17 4.78 5.38 6.607 7.825
4
Load in Truss in N (10 )
 G
H
F

A B C D E
3m

Force in member "HA" Vs Load on Arch Truss

6.86
7
6.36
6.86
6
5.25
Member Force in N (10 )

5.94
4

5
4.28 4.88
4.12
4 3.62 4.24
3.08 3.83
3
3.2
2.28
2.77
2 2.18 Without Gusset
With Gusset
1

0
2.34 2.95 3.56 4.17 4.78 5.38 6.607 7.825
4
Load in Truss in N (10 )
 G
H
F

A B C D E
3m

Force in Member "HC" Vs Load on the Arch Truss

6.86
7
6.86
6.36

6 5.94
5.25
Member Force in N (10 )
4

5 4.88
4.28
4.12
4 3.62 4.24
3.83
3.08
3 3.2
2.28
2.77
2 2.18
Without Gusset
With Gusset
1

0
2.34 2.95 3.56 4.17 4.78 5.38 6.607 7.825
4
Load on the trussin N (10 )
 DISCUSSION OF ARCH TRUSS

• It was found from above graphs, the forces in the members of

Arch truss were almost closer for both trusses with and
without gusset plates under various loads. The member forces
for the truss with gusset plates were found to be marginally
higher than the truss without gusset plate. The maximum
increase in load carrying capacity for the truss with gusset
plate was found to be 9% than the truss without gusset plate.
 D

E J

C
F
G
B
A H

Force in Member " DE " Vs Load on the Vaulted Truss

10

9 8.7

8 8.59

6.98
7
Member Force in N (10 )
4

6.92
6

5
4.4
4 4.24
3.3

3 Without Gusset
3.07 With Gusset
2

0
0.5 1.09 1.67 2.24
4
Load on the truss in N (10 )
 D

E J

C
F
G
B
A H
Force in Member "EF" Vs Load on the Vaulted Truss

5
4.49
4.5

3.83 4.33
4

3.5
Member force in N (104)

3.45
3
2.62
2.5

2.3
2
1.47
1.5
Without Gusset
1 1.233 With Gusset

0.5

0
0.5 1.09 1.67 2.24
4
Load on the truss in N (10 )
 D

E J

C
F
G
B
A H
Load on the Vaulted Truss Vs Force in Member "BF"

4.42
4.5

4 4.31

3.42
3.5
Member Force (10 N)
4

3 3.2
2.44
2.5

2 1.81 2.27

1.5 1.729
Without Gusset
1 With Gusset

0.5

0
0.5 1.09 1.67 2.24
4
Load on the truss (10 N)
 D

E J

C
F
G
B
A H

Force in Member "CE" Vs Load on the Vaulted Truss

4.5 4.39

4 4.22

3.5 3.33
Member Force (104N)

3 2.91
3.2

2.5 2.3

2.33
2

1.5 1.72
Without Gusset
1 With Gusset

0.5

0
0.5 1.09 1.67 2.24
4
Load on the truss (10 N )
 DISCUSSION OF VAULTED
PARALLEL TRUSS
• It was found that the forces in the members of vaulted parallel
truss were almost closer for both trusses with and without
gusset plates under various loads. The member forces for the
truss with gusset plates were found to be higher than the truss
without gusset plate. The maximum increase in load carrying
capacity for the truss with gusset plate was found to be 24%
than the truss without gusset plate.
 D

E J
F C I
B G

A H
3m

Comparision of Theoretical and Experimental Forces

Scissors- Member DE

5.94
6 Theoretical 5.8 5.8 5.76

Staad
Force in the member in N (10 )

With Gusset
4

5 4.8 4.82 4.86

Without Gusset 4.68

4.32

3.96
4 3.84 3.86

3.42 3.42

3 2.86 2.87

2.276 2.26

1.87 1.87
2 1.8 1.8

0.91 0.91
1

0
0.53 1.09 1.67 2.24 2.8 3.37
Load on the truss in N (104)
 D

E J
F C I
B G

A H
3m
Comparision of Theoretical and Experimental Forces
Scissors- Member EF

6 Theoretical 5.77 5.76

5.53 5.58
Staad
With Gusset
Force in the member in N (10 )
4

5 Without Gusset 4.79

4.68
4.6
4.5

4.12
3.96
4 3.83
3.67

3.26

3 2.73
2.86

2.34 2.33

1.87
2 1.78

0.87 0.91 0.9 0.9

1

0
0.53 1.09 1.67 2.24 2.8 3.37
Load on the truss in N (104)
 D

E J
F C I
B G

A H
3m
Comparision of Theoretical and Experimental Forces
Scissors- Member FA

6.93
7 Theoretical
6.49
Staad
With Gusset 5.97
6 5.83
Force in the member in N (10 )

5.76 5.72
4

Without Gusset

5 4.8 4.75

4.35
4.15
3.87 3.8
4
3.46
3.34

2.9 2.83
3
2.39 2.38

1.9 1.85
2

0.92 0.9 0.91 0.9

1

0
0.53 1.09 1.67 2.24 2.8 3.37
4
Load on the truss in N (10 )
 G
H
F

A B C D E
3m
Comparision of Theoretical and Experimental Forces
Arch- Member GH

9
8.36
8.12 8.2
8.06
8 Theoretical
Staad 7.2 7.13
Without Gusset 6.8 6.86
7
Force in the member in N (10 )
4

With Gusset
6
5.11
4.92 4.96 4.86
5

4 3.67 3.69
3.56
3.78

3 2.64 2.72
2.41 2.43

0
2.34 3.56 4.78 6.607 7.825
Load on the truss in N (104)
 G
H
F

A B C D E
3m
Comparision of Theoretical and Experimental Forces
Arch- Member HA

6.86 6.86
7 Theoretical 6.7 6.69

Staad 6.36

5.94
Without Gusset
Force in the member in N (10 )

6
4

5.65 5.65
With Gusset

5
4.24 4.28
4.08 4.08
4 3.62

3.2
3.04 3.04
3
2.28
2.18
2 2
2

0
2.34 3.56 4.78 6.607 7.825
4
Load on the truss in N (10 )
 G
H
F

A B C D E
3m
Comparision of Theoretical and Experimental Forces
Arch- Member HC

3.5
3.2
3.052
Theoretical 2.94 2.94
3 2.9
Staad 2.745

Without Gusset
Force in the member in N (10 )
4

2.48 2.48
2.5 With Gusset

2 1.84
1.919
1.86
1.79 1.79

1.518
1.5 1.34 1.34

1.015
1 0.87 0.88
0.92

0.5

0
2.34 3.56 4.78 6.607 7.825
4
Load on the truss in N (10 )
 D

E J

C
F
G
B
A H
Comparision of Theoretical and Experimental Forces
Vaulted- Member DE
10

9 8.59 8.7
Theoretical 8.51 8.51

Staad
8
Without Gusset
Force in the member in N (10 )
4

With Gusset 6.98 6.92

7
6.35 6.35

5
4.4
4.14 4.14 4.24

4
3.3
3.07
3

1.9 1.9
2

0
0.5 1.09 1.67 2.24
Load on the truss in N (104)
 D

E J

C
F
G
B
A H
Comparision of Theoretical and Experimental Forces
Vaulted- Member EF
5

Theoretical 4.49
4.5 4.32 4.33
Staad 4.24

Without Gusset
4 3.83
With Gusset
Force in the member in N (10 )
4

3.45
3.5
3.22
3.16

3
2.62

2.5 2.3
2.1 2.06
2

1.47
1.5
1.233

0.965 0.95
1

0.5

0
0.5 1.09 1.67 2.24
Load on the truss in N (104)
 D

E J

C
F
G
B
A H
Comparision of Theoretical and Experimental Forces
Vaulted- Member BF
5

4.42
4.5 4.31
Theoretical 4.18
4.02
Staad
4
Without Gusset
Force in the member in N (10 )
4

With Gusset 3.42

3.5
3.2
3.12
3
3

2.44
2.5 2.27
2.04
1.96
2 1.81
1.729

1.5

0.935 0.9
1

0.5

0
0.5 1.09 1.67 2.24
Load on the truss in N (104)
 D

E J

C
F
G
B
A H
Comparision of Theoretical and Experimental Forces
Vaulted- Member CE
5

4.5 4.39
Theoretical 4.22
4.05
3.97
4 Staad
Without Gusset
Force in the member in N (10 )
4

3.5 With Gusset 3.33

3.2
3.02
2.91 2.96
3

2.5 2.3 2.33

1.97 1.93
2
1.72

1.5

1 0.905 0.89

0.5

0
0.5 1.09 1.67 2.24
Load on the truss in N (104)
Comparison of theoretical, experimental and the forces

obtained by STAAD Pro

• It was found from the above graphs that, the forces in the
members of scissors, arch and vaulted parallel truss were
compared with the theoretical forces and the forces obtained by
STAAD Pro.

• The theoretical forces and forces obtained by STAAD Pro

agree each other in all the cases.

• The experimental values were found to be higher particularly

for the trusses with gusset plates.

• The reasons for the higher values are attributed to the joint
conditions.
 D

E J

C
F
G
B
A H
Vaulted Parallel Truss - Load vs Deflection curves
(Deflection measured at joint 'B')
2.5

2.24

2.24
2

1.671

1.671
1.5
Load in N (10 )
4

1.09

1 1.09

0.53
0.5 Without gusset
0.53
With Gusset

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deflection in mm
 D

E J

C
F
G
B
A H
Vaulted Parallel Truss - Load vs Deflection curves
(Deflection measured at joint 'C')
2.5

2.24
2.24
2

1.671
1.671
1.5
Load in N (10 )
4

1.09
1 1.09

0.5 0.53
Without Gusset
0.53 With Gusset

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection in mm)
 D

E J

C
F
G
B
A H
Vaulted Parallel Truss - Load vs Deflection curves
(Deflection measured at joint 'G')
2.5

2.24

2.24
2

1.671

1.671
1.5
Load in N(104 )

1.09
1.09
1

0.53
0.5 0.53 Without Gusset
With Gusset

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deflection in mm
 G
H
F

A B C D E
3m
Arch Truss - Load vs Deflection curves
(Deflection measured at joint 'B')
9

7.825
8
7.825
7 6.607

6.607
6
5.389
Load in N (10 )
4

5 4.781 5.389
4.172 4.781
4 3.563 4.172

3.563
3

2
Without Gusset
With Gusset
1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Deflection in mm
 G
H
F

A B C D E
3m
Arch Truss - Load vs Deflection curves
(Deflection measured at joint 'C')

8
7.825 7.825

7 6.607

6.607
6
5.389

4.781 5.389
Load in N

5
4.172
4.781
4 3.563 4.172
3.563

2 Without Gusset
With Gusset

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Deflection in mm
 G
H
F

A B C D E
3m
Arch Truss - Load vs Deflection curves
(Deflection measured at joint 'D')

7.825
8
7.825

7 6.607
6.607

6
5.389
5.389
Load in N (10 )
4

5 4.781
4.781
4.172
4.172
4 3.563
3.563

2
Without Gusset
With Gusset
1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Deflection in mm
 D

E J
F C I
B G

A H
3m
Scissors Truss - Load vs Deflection curves
(Deflection measured at joint 'B')
4

3.522
3.5
3.522

3 2.8

2.8
2.5
2.24
Load in N (104)

2.24
2
1.67

1.5 1.67
1.09

1
1.09 Deflection without gusset
0.585
Deflection with gusset
0.5
0.585

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection in mm
 D

E J
F C I
B G

A H
3m
Vaulted Parallel Truss - Load vs Deflection curves
(Deflection measured at joint 'C')
4

3.5 3.522 3.522

3
2.8 2.8

2.5
Load in N(104)

2.24 2.24

1.67 1.67
1.5

1.09 1.09
1
Deflection without gusset
Deflection with gusset
0.585 0.585
0.5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection (mm)
 D

E J
F C I
B G

A H
3m
Scissors Truss - Load vs Deflection curves
(Deflection measured at joint 'G')
4

3.522
3.5
3.522

3
2.8

2.8
2.5
2.24
Load in N(104)

2 2.24

1.67

1.5 1.67

1.09

1
1.09 Without gusset
0.585
With gusset
0.5
0.585

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Deflection ( mm )
 Discussion on Load-Deflection Curves

• From above graphs, it was found that the

deflection at various points in a truss without
gusset plates is more than the deflection in a
truss with gusset plates. The area under the load
deflection curves defines the toughness of the
truss. From the above graphs, it was found that
the trusses with gusset plated connections had
shown marginally greater toughness than the
trusses without gusset plated connections.
 Strength Vs Weight of the truss
180.00

160.00 153.13

140.00
120.96
120.00
Strength in kN

100.00

80.00

60.00
42.58
37.57
40.00
25.85 28.45

20.00

0.00
Vaulted without Vaulted with Scissors without Scissors with Arch without Arch with gusset
gusset (32.76 kg) gusset (36.76 kg) Gusset( 32.98 kg) Gusset(35.76 kg) Gusset (28.74kg) (32.22kg)

Weight of the trusses in Kg

 Strength and Weight of Trusses –
Comparison

• It was found from above, the configuration of roof truss plays a

major role in deciding the strength of truss.

• In all the trusses fabricated and tested, it was found that the Arch
type of truss without gusset plated connections with a self weight
of 28.74 kg carried a maximum load of 120.96kN and truss
without gusset plated connection with a weight of 32.22 kg carried
a load of 153.13kN.
• The vaulted parallel truss with gusset plated connection could
carry only 28.45 kN with a self weight of 36.76kg. The
scissors truss with gusseted connection performed better than
vaulted parallel truss by carrying a maximum load of 42.58 kN
with a self weight of 35.76kg.

• Hence the performance of Arch type of truss is better in

comparison to all the trusses included for this experimental
investigation.
 Cost Vs Types of Trusses
2500

2021.8
1966.8
2000
1801.8 1813.9
1772.1

1580.7

1500
Cost in Rs.

1000

500

0
Vaulted without Vaulted with gusset Scissors without Scissors with Arch without Arch with gusset
gusset (32.76 kg) (36.76 kg) Gusset( 32.98 kg) Gusset(35.76 kg) Gusset (28.74kg) (32.22kg)
Type of Trusses
 Cost Comparison of three types of
Trusses
• It was found that the configuration of roof truss plays a major
role in the load carrying capacity of a truss. Hence the cost of a
truss depends on the configuration of truss. In all the trusses
fabricated and tested, it was found that the material cost of
Arch type of truss with gusset plated connections is Rs.
1772.10 and which carried a load of 153.13kN.

• The cost of all the other trusses was found to be higher which
is shown in the above graph.
Thank You