9.

0 QUESTION
1. Compare the graph of theoretical and experimental results. Comment on the results.

Based on the graphs that have been plotted, we can see that for the graph 1 and 2, the
comparison between the theoretical and the experimental results is there is not much different
for the two lines. When more loads were applied, the value of force was also increase. For
graph 1 which are force versus load for member S1, the value of experimental was higher
than the value of theoretical that being calculated. The same cases also happen to graph 2 and
graph 3 which respectively graph of force versus load for member S2 and S3. The negative
sign values for member S3 in theoretical value can be ignored as it only indicate the direction
of the force.
2. Gives reasons for any discrepancy in the results.

The conventional ruler may cause the instrument error because it cant obtain an accurate
result.
The parallax error while reading the dynamometer.
Apparatus error Apparatus already old and give unaccurately reading
There are several different value between theoretical and experiment value. This discrepancy
caused of several errors that occurred during doing the experiment. It is can be from
equipment error and not in the good condition which then effect the reading on the
dynamometer reading. The value on the dynamometer reading is not exact on zero during the
system on free load condition. The other reasons, air movement in the laboratory also maybe
effect to the reading on the dynamometer reading when load subjected on the system. Besides
that, discrepancy can be happen because of parallax error that happens during reading the
dynamometer. Spring that being used also not elastic anymore after being stretched for many
time of doing experiment.

10.0 DISCUSSION
In the experiment that been carried out, space truss with three dimension has been used.
Every member was installed with dynamometer to provide compression reading or tension
when forces who act to stated member exist. In this experiment, there were two parts where
the part one which involves height change a, with constant burden 10 N. The second part
which involving height an equal to 450mm as constant with increased load from 5 N until 25
N.
The experimental value that obtained was recorded in Table 1 and Table 2. Experiment value
of member S1, S2 and S3 acquired from difference reading dynameters before and after load
is being imposed to this frame system. Theory of value also obtainable from calculation use
coefficient analytical method tension which involves coefficient x, y and z. Where, Fx = 0,
Fy = 0 and Fz = 0.
In this experiment, the load being imposed by vertical fight axis z at the end of where the
three stated member meets. Experiment value and theory was compared and had been
diversity among experiment value and theoretical value. This differences may be caused by
error such as reading not taken up exactly, apparatus not give reading that accurate, which is
air movement factor also gave impact to value acquired.

11.0

CONCLUSION

The experimental and the theoretical value are not much different from one and another. This
is proven from the graph and the calculations. Space frames have multidirectional span, and
are often used to accomplish long spans with few supports along it. The strength is come
from the inherent rigidity of the triangular frame; flexing loads which is the bending moments
are transmitted as tension and compression loads along the length of each structure at the
frame. A stronger purer form is composed of interlocking tetrahedral pyramids in which all
the struts have unit length. In other word this is referred to as anisotropic vector matrix or in a
single unit width an octet truss.

12.0

REFERENCE

1.0 Third Edition (Structural Analysis)R.C. Hibbeler

2.0 Module Analysis Structure