PROPOSAL

INTERNATIONAL ROOF TRUSS DESIGN

COMPETITION 2018
7TH CIVIL IN ACTION

POLYNESIAN TRUSS FOR CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT CENTER

TARSIUS TEAM
 PREFACE

This proposal presents the idea of our team in designing our polynesian truss model in
detail. We design a wooden dual pitch polynesian truss which is set up to be appropriate with the
theme of International Roof Truss Design Competition 2018, “Polynesian Truss for Cultural and
Educational Development Center”. The truss was designed to have cultural artistic geometric shape,
strong structure, economic and easy-to-build, named “The Golden Truss”
This proposal is primarily addressed to the committee of International Roof Truss Design
Competition 2018 in order to complete the registration requirement. Readers from academia and
public are welcome to read and to give feedbacks in terms of supporting future improvement. We
hope this proposal may contribute to the knowledge of polynesian wooden roof truss especially for
cultural and educational development center.
Abundant appreciations are delivered to Mr. Athur P.N Siregar who has provided us a lot of
suggestion on the refinement of our design, and to Kak Agus who has spent most of his time
guiding us to make this work finished. This proposal would not be possibly done without their
invaluable helps.

March 20, 2018

Regards,

Tarsius Team

i
 LIST OF CONTENT

Title
Preface ............................................................................................................................................. i
List of Content ................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Picture .................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Table .................................................................................................................................... ii
Chapter 1 Preliminary ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Aim............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Benefit ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter II Theory ............................................................................................................................ 2
Chapter III Roof Truss Design ........................................................................................................ 3
3.1 Material Specification ............................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Design Load Analysis ............................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Structural Failure Analysis........................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 4 Drawing .......................................................................................................................... 6
Reference ........................................................................................................................................ 7

LIST OF TABLE

Table 1. Axial Force........................................................................................................................ 3

Table 2. Wood Design Value .......................................................................................................... 4
Table 3. Adjustment Factor for Sawn Lumber ............................................................................... 4
Table 4. Optional Section................................................................................................................ 5

LIST OF PICTURES

Figure 1. Truss Design .................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Ratio capacity and member force .................................................................................... 5

ii
 CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY
1.1 Background
Due to the needs of developing culture and increasing education, many new buildings is
required to be constructed to support the movement. Keeping the local wisdom, these buildings are
designed to show cultural values in its, starting from bottom to top, from walls to roof. These
building are expected to not only function as the center of culture and education development but
also as a manifestation of Indonesian heritage.
Gadjah Mada University findS this necessity as an opportunity to open the chance to
everyone who might be interested in designing such unique house. Inspired from a traditional house
of Central Java named Rumah Joglo, Universitas Gadjah Mada provides a contest which is focuses
on the basis frame of Rumah Joglo Roof Truss which uses polynesian truss. The truss shows both
economic and aesthetic basis.
Answering the challenge, we tried to design the best model of the roof truss which is
approriate to the requirement of this competition; strong and efficient, on the other hand several
aspects such as; aesthetic, simplicity and the availability of materials throughout Indonesia is
considered as well.
1.2 Aim
The aims of this proposal are:
1. To participate in the International Roof Truss Design Competition 2018
2. To design a polynesian truss which is innovatif, strong, workability, economic and
aesthetics
3. To contribute to the knowledge of wooden roof truss especially to polynesian roof truss
1.3 Benefit
This proposal presents a new design on both geometry and cross section type of roof truss
member using dual pitch. The top member which is the compression member, is built up with the
shape of T connected by bolt. This will rise up the compression capacity. However, possibility
failure would be occurred either tear-out (member/plate) or bolt connection. The selected wood
material is Nyatoh, this kind material is available in throughout Indonesia. So it will be easier to get
the material. In addition, the roof truss design can be loaded until 300 Kg.

1
 CHAPTER II
THEORY
There are several types of loads subjected on a structure, but are generally classified into
two groups; dead loads and live loads. Dead loads are static load, denoted as D. It includes the
weights of permanent materials attached on the structure. Live loads on the other hand fluctuated
with time (Breyer et al, 2007).
A Truss is an assembly of individual linear elements arranged with either a triangle
geometry or combination of triangles to form a rigid framework which is limited deformed when
subject by external load. The primary principle of using the truss as a load-carrying structures is that
arranging elements into a triangular configuration results in a stable shape. The analysis of
multimember trusses by hand calculation can be tedious. Fortunately, a number of numerical
method have been developed to compute structure analysis that are particularly suitable to use with
computer (Schodek, DL and Martin, B, 2014).
Design capacity criteria relies on the method used for design. The methods are Allowable
Stress Design (ASD) and Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). Each of these methods is
compare the internal member force with provided capacity (resistance or strength) of cross section
area of member. In ASD method, demand on the structure is calculated using loads that would be
commonly anticipated to occur (also referred to as service loading). In order to protect against
failure, a factor of safety is incorporated into the capacity of the structure. The loading service is
compared to anywhere between one third and two thirds of the peak capacity of the structure. In this
approach, factors of safety handed down from past practice have not been rationalized to the same
extent as the newer LRFD method. Those factors can produce an appropriate building serviceability
according to SNI 7973-2013. Now days, LRFD method has been used widely as it is closed to the
realistic factual result (Breyer et al, 2007). This method moves toward more rationally addressing
factors of safety by specifically accounting for possible variations in demand (load), using a load
factor, and possible variations in capacity (resistance), using a resistance factor (Breyer et al, 2007).
Therefore, LRFD method is more economic and efficient in structures.
SNI 7973-2013 code for Design Specification of Wood Construction was apply as Indonesia
standard. It is based on National Design Specification (NDS) for wood construction 2012. which
uses the method of reduction factor both on Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

2
 CHAPTER III
ROOF TRUSS DESIGN

3.1 Material Specification

Nyatoh is a wood which is available in all over Indonesia. Generally used for housing,
column, beam, and flank (P3HH, 2008). Based on laboratory test, the specific gravity is 0,66 and
modulus of elasticity 13.690,04 MPa. This wood is used for member and plate. In our design, the
members are connected using Hex Bolt with D = 5 mm and yield strength of (Fyb) 240 MPa.
3.2 Design Load Analysis
Design load 300 Kg subjected on the top of the truss and the load combination of 1,4D.
Figure 1 shows proposed design truss, member, node and dimension.The result of axial force
analyzed by using SAP2000 v.7.4 student version is shown in table 1.

Figure 1. Truss Design

Table 1. Axial Force
Member Tension (N) Compression (N) Length (mm)
a1 = a6 - 5070.68 246.22
a2 = a5 - 5070.68 246.22
a3 = a4 - 6187.72 360.56
d1 = d6 - 0.00 158.11
d2 = d5 - 1466.29 213.60
d3 = d4 1881.92 - 548.29
b1 = b3 4633.64 - 375.00
b2 3861.37 - 750.00
Design specification of member and connection code are according to SNI 7973-2013 on Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). Design of the following section is covered in this proposal:
1. Axial tension member
2. Axial compression member
3. Built up T compression member (point 15.3.4 SNI 7973-2013)
4. Bolt connection (point 11.3 SNI 7973-2013)

3
5. Tear-out (row/group) member and shear plate (appendix E)
Based on table 4.2.1 SNI 7973-2013, the E = 13.690,04 MPa, is computed by doing
interpolation and the design value is:
Table 2. Wood Design Value
Ft// Fc// Fv Fct E Emin
Fb (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
12,35 10,88 10,88 1,45 2,90 13.690,04 6845.02
Table 3. Adjustment Factor for Sawn Lumber
Ft’=Ft Fv’=Fv Fc’=Fc E’=E Emin’=Emin Note
CM 1 1 1 1 1 wet service factor, MC≤19%
Ct 1 1 1 1 1 temperature factor, normal condition
CF 1 - 1 - - size factor, point 4.3.8 SNI 2013
Ci 1 1 1 1 1 incising factor, not incised
CP - - Calc. - - column stability factor
CT - - - - 1 axial force only, point 4.4.2 SNI 2013
Kf 2,7 2,88 2,4 - - format conversion factor
Φ 0,8 0,75 0,90 - 0,85 resistance factor
λ 0,6 0,6 0,6 - - time effect factor, 1,4D
The capacity of member and bolt connection is calculated on the basis of SNI 7973-2013,
wood design value (table 2), adjustment factor (table 3), and the rules of competition IRTDC
manuals. Differs from option A and B, option C uses built-up T section. According to SNI 2013
equation 15.3-1, value of Cp must be multiplied by Kf = 0,75. The critical buckling stress, FcEn
proposed by Euler was employed on the FcEn. The radius gyration of T section is calculated
manually which is r = 6,872 mm. Bolt space criteria for built-up compression member is based on
point 15.3.4 SNI 7973-2013. Table 4 presents three optional section lumber of the design.
Table 4. Optional Section
Option A B C

Top Member
(Compression)
Section

Bottom/diagonal
Member
(Tension/Comp.)

Thick Shear Plate 10 mm 5 mm 10 mm

4
 The design capacity ratio and member force in each optional section is shown in figure 2 by
considering four type possible failure.
1. Optional section A (marked as blue bar), using section 30/20 for all member. Double shear
plate 10 mm (Max. width or height 40 mm). Tension member, compression member, bolt
connection, tear-out has not reached ratio of 1 that mean option A is safe for the design.
2. Optional section B (marked as red bar), using built-up 30/30 section for compression only
(Top chord). Tension member ratio is the same with option A, but the ratio of compression
member is lower than A which means option B can manage compression failure better than
A. But in connection and tear-out plate is not safe, because the ratio closes to 1 due to the
thickness of plate which is only 5 mm.
3. Optional section C (marked as green bar), using built-up T section for compression member
only. Ratio on tension member is the same with option A and option B. Ratio on
compression member is higher than option B, but still has not reached 1. Furthermore, both
on bolt connection failure and tear-out plate are safe. Considering four important aspects in
design; strength, safe, economic and aesthetic, Option C is the most suitable option and
therefore will be used for our roof truss design.
1.50
RATIO (PU/PN)

0.91 0.99
1.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.82 0.82
0.73
0.52 0.49 0.49
0.50

0.00
Tension Member Compression Member Bolt Connection Tear-out member/plate

Option A Option B Option C

Figure 2. Ratio capacity and member force

The total wood needed for this design are 3451800 mm3 for member and 3713570,3 mm3 for plates,
with the total of 7165370,3 mm3 .
2.3 Structural Failure Analysis
According to figure 2, the lowest ratio occurs in tear-out member/plate that is 0,49, while
compression member has the smallest ratio of 0,73 and bolt connection is 0,82. The highest ratio is
tension member about 0,82. Bottom member using wood 30/20 with double shear plate 10 mm.
Based on calculation, member b1 = b3 need gross area of approximately 528,63 mm2 which is
closed to the available area, 600 mm2. It can be concluded that the failure of structure will be caused
by the failure of tension member (b1 or b3).

5
 Plate A

Plate B Plate C Plate D

Plate E Plate F Plate G

6
 REFERENCES

Breyer, D.E., Fridley K.J, Cobeen, K.E., and Porlock, D.G. 2007. Design of Wood Structures
ASD/LRFD. McGraw-Hill: New York
BSN. (2013). SNI 7973-2013. Design Specification for Wood Construction.
Schodek, DL and Martin, B. 2014. Structures 7th ed. Pearson: New York.