COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF TIMBER AND STEEL ... - RJEAS

Rjeas Research Journal in Engineering and Applied Sciences 1(3) 177-183 Rjeas 

© Emerging Academy Resources (2012) (ISSN: 2276-8467) 

www.emergingresource.org 

COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF TIMBER AND STEEL ROOF TRUSS SYSTEMS 

1 Ezeagu C. A ; 2 Umenwaliri S.N., 3 Aginam C. H and 3 Joseph C.A. 

Department of Civil Engineering, 

Faculty of Engineering, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, P.M.B. 5025, Awka. 

2 Department of Civil Engineering, 

Faculty of Engineering, Nnamdi Azikiwe University. P.M.B. 5025, Awka. 

3 Department of Civil Engineering, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, 

P.M.B. 5025, Awka. 

Corresponding Author: Ezeagu C.A 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

ABSTRACT 

In this study, a 1.6m span, twelve web kingpost model trusses were fabricated using timber and steel, also 

fabricated were twelve monochord and double chord trusses with different connection technique in timber and 

in steel and then eight truss models in timber and steel with four different shapes namely: - Howe truss system, 

Hip-stop down truss system, Dual pitch truss system, and Parallel chord truss system. These truss systems were 

fabricated in timber and steel of 2mm (0.08 inch) thickness and 25mm (0.98 inch) width. Each of the chords 

(bottom) had a length of 1600mm (63 inches) and height of 200mm (7.9 inches). During the course of the 

experiment, the trusses systems were loaded and the deflections at the nodes along the bottom chord of the 

trusses were recorded. It was observed that the maximum deflection occurred at the mid-span for all the trusses 

tested and of different shapes and configuration. The results show that double chord trusses resist more load 

than the monochord truss system of both timber and steel. And also the cost of fabrication timber trusses is 

cheaper than steel trusses. However all the systems satisifies the deflection requirement both of short and long 

spans.At the end of this study, it was obvious that the type of material, chord model system , configuration of 

the shape and connection techniques had a direct or indirect effect on the load bearing capacity, deflection of 

truss systems and cost of the truss fabrication. 

©Emerging Academy Resources 

KEYWORDS: Configuration, Cost, Deflection, Shape, Trusses 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

INTRODUCTION 

It is a popular adage that people usually say “I want 

to put a roof over my head” However; this popular 

statement involves a lot. To a structural engineer, the 

statement means to analyze, design and construct 

with aesthetic, economy and safety a roof system. To 

over a long span a lot of material may be wasted 

supporting only the beams self weight. This is 

because; the bending moment capacity is most 

efficiently governed by the depth of the section. 

According to Ezeagu et al (2009); for simply 

supported beams; In steel structures; 

talk about aesthetic is to talk about shape and m= wl 2 1 

configuration, to talk about economy is to talk about 

the cost of the roof and to talk of safety brings us to 

8 

z xx = m 2 

deflection as one of the serviceability requirements. 

In Nigeria, many of these roofs are fabricated with 

f y 

And z xx = bd 2 3 

either steel or timber. This research work focuses on 

6 

several research works on cost comparison of 

modeled timber and steel trusses and the comparative 

effects of shape configurations on the deflections of 

Where; m=bending moment; F y = max. Shear stress 

of the section; d = effective depth of the section; 

Z xx = section modulus; 

timber/steel trusses. In general, a truss system can be 

described as a triangular frame-work consisting of 

essentially, axially loaded members {Lau Wei 

Theing; 2005}. Trusses can also be described “as 

braced frame-works consisting of members (or bars) 

connected together at joints {or nodes}” {Weniyatra 

2004}. Trusses act like deep beams “a beam becomes 

stronger and stiffer as its depth increases” {Sattish et 

al; 2009}. But, when a deep beam carry a light load 

It is obvious that the effective depth d; governs the 

bending moment capacity. The main objective of this 

research is to determine the effect of shape and 

configuration on steel trusses. It is geared towards the 

determination of the most suitable truss section in 

terms of failure strength (deflection) and load bearing 

capacity. The scope of this research involves the 

analysis, design and fabrication of four (4) individual 

177

Research Journal in Engineering and Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2276-8467) 1(3):180-186 

Comparative Overview of Timber and Steel Roof Truss Systems 

types of general truss system with different shapes 

and configuration. This research is to be carried out 

using all plane two-dimensional trusses with supports 

at both ends of the span and assumed to be pinned. 

All the trusses are to bear the concentrated loads at 

the nodes only. The structural analysis is carried out 

manually using code BS 5950, 2000. A formula is 

generated, relating actual truss sizes to modeled truss 

shapes. The modeled shapes are to be loaded and 

their deflections noted respectively. The loads will be 

gradually increased {using a sequence} until the truss 

system deflects. 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Ohahuna (2008) in a work titled “Short term and long 

term comparative cost analysis of timber and steel 

roof trusses” carried out a cost comparison study 

between timber and steel truss frame used in 

residential and commercial buildings in Benin city to 

show the cost effectiveness of each material and 

connection type within the short term and long term 

periods. Ohahuna (2008) fabricated samples of 

models of trusses and prepared the Bill of 

Engineering Measurement and Evaluation (BEME) 

and used it for the cost comparison. Four samples of 

1.6m span, six web king post trusses were designed 

in accordance with the standard truss method, all 

fabrications were single unit types and the 

fabrications were carried out in two categories for 

both nail connection and bolts and nuts connection. 

The four fabricated trusses can be described as 

follows: 

Timber roof trusses pitch with nail connections 

Timber roof trusses pitch with bolts and nuts 

connections 

Steel roof trusses pitch with arc welded 

connections 

Steel roof trusses pitch with bolts and nuts 

connections. 

For the steel fabrication work, the 38.1mm (1½ inch) 

width, flat bar was used for both connection types 

and for the timber fabrication work, the Bafia wood 

was used for both connection types at 38.1mm x 

25.4mm (1½ inches by 1 inch) dimensions. Below is 

the sketch of the dimensional layout for the fabricated 

roof trusses in both timber and steel. In Nov 2008, a 

further research arose to verify Ohahuna 2008; 

Uwaya (2008) researched further on “cost 

comparison of timber roof truss and steel roof truss of 

residential buildings” Uwaya adopted Ohahuna 

research idea and concluded that the difference in 

cost between the modeled timber trusses and the 

modeled steel trusses is also approximately 50 

percent. Ezeagu and Eze(2009) also confirm the 

percentage ratio. 

In a work titled “Deflection of monochord and double 

chord roof truss system using timber and steel” 

Onoyivbeta (2010) carried out a destructive 

experimental test on six modeled roof trusses, namely 

monochord steel truss with welded connection, 

double chord steel truss with welded connection, 

monochord timber truss with nail connection, double 

chord timber truss with nail connection, monochord 

timber truss with bolt connection and double chord 

timber truss with bolt connection. Onoyivbeta (2010) 

was seen as the expansion of the earlier work done by 

Ayodele (2009) on the topic “Deflection of 

monochord and double chord timber truss 

system”Ayodele fabricated eight trusses as described 

below; 

Monochord timber truss with nail connections 

Double chord timber truss with nail connections 

Monochord timber truss with bolt connections 

Double chord timber truss with bolt connections 

Ayodele used an empirical scaled equation in the 

modeling considering the choice of scale and 

properties of the prototype to those of the model. The 

tests by Ayodele and Onoyivweta were to note the 

failure loads and maximum deflections. Offor (2011) 

in a work titled “Effect of shape configuration on the 

deflection of trusses” carried out a non destructive 

experimental test on twelve number of four modeled 

monochord trusses namely; Howe trusses, Hip step 

down trusses, parallel chord trusses and dual pitch 

trusses. The trusses were constructed using soft wood 

(Obeche) of 25mm x 25mm (1inch by 1 inch). The 

objective of the test was to obtain the deflections of 

the aforementioned truss configurations when 

subjected to known load values. Offor equally 

adopted Ohahuna model size but fabricated different 

shapes of the trusses 

METHODOLOGY 

This experiment is carried out on twelve samples of 

four individual truss shapes and configurations. This 

includes; 

Dimensions 

The steel bar used has a width of 25mm and thickness 

of 2mm. All the models have span of 1600mm 

{1.6m}. The rise is 200mm {0.2m}. The vertical web 

members which form the nodal points are placed at 

200mm {0.2m} centres. The diagonal webs run inbetween 

adjacent joints of top chord and vertical 

web, forming a series of interrelated triangles. 

Consequently, Ayodele (2009) and Onoyivbeta 

Elizabeth (2010) adopted Ohahuna (2008) models of 

timber and steel trusses, but considered the 

deflections of the models. 

178



Fig. 3. A loaded truss system on a simply supported 

platform 

Table1: BEME summary result table 

S/No Item Description Amount 

1. Fabrication cost of single unit timber truss ₦3,440 

with nail connection 

2. Fabrication cost of single unit timber truss ₦4,790 

with bolted connection 

3. Fabrication cost of single unit steel truss ₦5,800 

with arc welded connection 

4 Fabrication cost of single unit steel truss 

with bolted connection 

₦9,980 

Source: (Ohahuna 2008) 

Table 2: Summary of test result one 

S/No Item Description Max. Deflection 

1. Monochord timber truss with 40mm @ 20kN 

nail connections 

2. Monochord timber truss with 43.5mm @ 30kN 

bolted connections 

3. Double chord timber truss with 46.5mm @ 30kN 

nail connections 

4. Double chord timber truss with 


46.5mm @ 40kN 

Source: (Ayodele 2009) 

Table 3: Summary of test result two 

S/No Item Description Max. Deflection 

1. Monochord timber truss 43.5mm @ 20kN 

with nail connections 

2. Monochord timber truss 43.5mm @ 30kN 

with bolted connections 

3. Double chord timber truss 46.5mm @ 30kN 

with nail connections 

4. Double chord timber truss 46.5mm @ 40kN 


5. Monochord steel truss with 25.1mm @ 10kN 


6. Monochord steel truss with 25.3mm @ 10kN 

welded connections 

7. Double chord steel truss 25.5mm @ 30kN 


8. Double chord steel truss 

with welded connections 

25.7mm @ 70kN 

(Source: Onoyivweta,2010) 

Table 4: Summary of Deflections 

S/No Truss shapes Average Maximum 

deflections 

1. Howe truss 12.3mm @ 50kN 

2. Hip Step down 14.8mm @ 50kN 

3. Parallel Chords 33.7mm @ 50kN 

4. Dual Pitch 18.2mm @ 50kN 

Source: Offor (2011), Ezeagu and Offor (2011). 

After concluding the experiment on the four different 

truss shapes and configuration, the results obtained 

for all truss models is presented in a tabular form as 

shown below. It was observed that the maximum 

deflections occurred at the mid-span for all truss 

models except for the pitch. However, when loaded 

with a load of 50kg @ mid-span, maximum 

deflection occurred at the mid-span for all truss 

models. Below are tables showing average maximum 

deflections for each truss models and their respective 

loadings. This is obtained by taking the average of 

each truss model. 

Table 5. Average maximum deflection for Howe 

truss model 

Loading (kg) 

Maximum deflections (mm) 

Truss 

1 

Truss 2 Truss 3 1+2+3 

3 

5 kg @ 200 mm c/c 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.7 

10 kg @ 400mm c/c 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 

10 kg @ 200 mm c/c 6.6 6.5 6.9 6.7 

20 kg @ 400mm c/c 9.0 8.7 9.0 8.9 

50 kg @ mid-span 11.1 10.9 11.1 11.0 

Table 6. Average maximum deflection for hip-step 

down truss model 

Loading (kg) 


Truss 1 Truss 2 Truss 3 1+2+3 

3 

5 kg @ 200 mm c/c 4.9 4.7 4.3 4.6 

10 kg @ 400mm c/c 4.7 4.6 4.2 4.5 

10 kg @ 200 mm c/c 9.0 8.9 8.5 8.8 

20 kg @ 400mm c/c 13.3 13.2 13.0 13.2 

50 kg @ mid-span 15.0 14.9 14.7 14.9 

Source: Joseph, 2011 

Table 7. Average maximum deflection for Dual-pitch 

truss model 

Loading (kg) 



3 

5 kg @ 200 mm c/c 7.9 8.1 8.0 8.0 

10 kg @ 400mm c/c 7.7 7.9 8.0 7.9 

10 kg @ 200 mm c/c 13.7 14.0 14.0 13.9 

20 kg @ 400mm c/c 16.5 16.8 16.9 16.7 

50 kg @ mid-span 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 


Table 8 Average maximum deflection for parallel 

chord truss model 

Loading (kg) 



3 

5 kg @ 200 mm c/c 10.0 9.9 9.7 9.9 

10 kg @ 400mm c/c 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

10 kg @ 200 mm c/c 26.1 26.1 25.9 26.0 

20 kg @ 400mm c/c 30.1 30.0 30.0 30.0 

50 kg @ mid-span 33.7 33.6 33.7 33.7 


Since the experiment was performed on three 

samples of each truss shape and configuration 

namely: - Howe truss system, Hip-step down, Dualpitch 

and parallel chord system there is every 

tendency that the results might differ from each other. 

Therefore, it is of utmost importance to verify how 

different these results are from each other.The 

following table shows average nodal deflections for 

the four truss shapes and configurations. 

Table 9 Average results for Howe truss system 

Loading (kg) 

Nodal Deflections(mm) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

5kg @ 200mm c/c 1.00 1.3 1.9 2.7 1.9 1.3 1.0 

10kg @ 400mm c/c 1.1 1.4 2.0 2.7 2.0 1.4 1.1 

10kg @ 200mmc/c 1.5 3.1 4.7 6.7 4.7 3.1 1.5 

20kg @ 400mm c/c 1.9 4.0 6.4 8.9 6.4 4.0 1.9 

50kg @ mid- span 2.7 5.9 8.3 11.0 8.3 5.9 2.7 

179



Table 10 Average results for Hip-step down truss 

Loading (kg) 


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

5kg @ 200mm c/c 1.3 2.2 3.4 4.6 3.4 2.2 1.3 

10kg @ 400mm 1.4 2.4 3.4 4.5 3.4 2.4 1.4 

c/c 

10kg @ 200mmc/c 2.2 4.4 6.2 8.8 6.2 4.4 2.2 

20kg @ 400mm 2.4 6.7 10.1 13.2 10.1 6.7 2.4 

c/c 

50kg @ mid- span 3.6 7.2 11.0 14.9 11.0 7.2 3.6 

Source: (Joseph, 2011) 

Table 11. Average results for Dual-pitch truss system 

Loading (kg) 


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

5kg @ 200mm c/c 2.7 5.2 8.0 7.0 5.3 3.2 1.5 

10kg @ 400mm 2.7 5.1 7.9 6.8 5.1 3.0 1.2 

c/c 

10kg @ 200mmc/c 3.8 8.9 13.9 12.5 9.1 6.1 3.1 

20kg @ 400mm 

c/c 

5.5 11.3 16.7 15.5 12.1 8.1 3.9 

50kg @ mid- span 4.7 10.0 15.0 18.4 14.1 9.7 4.7 

(Source: Joseph, 2011) 

Table 12. Average results for Parallel Chord truss 

system 

Loading (kg) 


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

5kg @ 200mm c/c 2.4 5.2 7.2 9.9 7.2 5.2 2.4 

10kg @ 400mm 2.5 5.0 7.1 10.0 7.1 5.0 2.5 

c/c 

10kg @ 200mmc/c 6.7 12.5 19.8 26.0 19.8 12.5 6.7 

20kg @ 400mm 

c/c 

7.2 14.9 22.0 30.0 22.0 14.9 7.2 

50kg @ mid- span 8.8 16.9 25.6 33.7 25.6 16.9 8.8 

(Source: Joseph, 2011) 

DISCUSSION 

From table 1, the total amount for steel fabrication is 

(₦5,800 + ₦9,980 = ₦15, 780), and the total amount 

for timber fabrication work is (₦3,440 + ₦4,790 = 

₦8,230). The difference in cost between steel and 

timber fabrications is ₦7,550 amounting to 

approximately 48% extra cost to timber truss for both 

material and labour lumped together. From tables 2 

and 3, it was inferred that the deflection of timber 

trusses using bafia species was less than 50mm for all 

models fabricated and tested, and that the deflection 

of steel trusses were less than 50mm for every model 

considered, showing that the loading condition 

generated within the deflection required (L/100). 

Howe trusses, Hip-step down trusses and dual-pitch 

trusses are types of trusses which are frequently used 

to support roofs while the parallel chord truss 

systems is mostly used to support floors and also in 

bridges. 

From tables 4.13a, b and c, the acceptable deflection 

limits for roof support is given as, 

Span/360 = 1600/360=4.44mm Span/300 = 1600/300 

= 5.33mm or 15mm for maximum consideration 

From tables 5 and 6, it is observed that the maximum 

deflections for both Howe and Hip-step down truss 

configurations satisfy the deflection limits for all 

loading condition applied. 

For the Dual-pitched truss system, table 7, shows that 

only loadings which are 10kg and less placed at 

200mm centres satisfy the above condition. 

For parallel chord truss systems which as earlier 

stated are mostly used to support floors and in 

bridges, the acceptable limit from tables 8 and 9 

include. 

Span/360 = 1600/360=4.44mm 

Span/300 = 1600/300 = 5.33mm 

Or 10mm 

In this case, results from table 10 shows that only 

loadings of 5kg and less placed at 200mm centres 

satisfy the deflection limit. 

In summary, Howe and Hip-step down truss 

configurations can carry loads up to 50kg @ midspan 

whereas Dual-pitch should not be loaded with 

more than 10kg loads placed at 200mm centres. 

Likewise, parallel chord should not be loaded with 

more than 5kg loads placed at 200mm centres. 

Finally, it can be deduced from the results of the 

experiment that Howe truss configuration is the best 

of the four truss configurations in terms of strength. 

Hip-step down, Dual-pitch and parallel chord follows 

in that order respectively. Graphs of deflections 

against loadings are then plotted as shown below; 

mm 

GRAPH 1a; Howe truss 1: Graphs of deflections 

against loadings 

180



mm 

GRAPH 4.4.2a; Hip-step down truss 1: Graphs of 

deflections against loadings 

mm 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

After thorough observations of the graphs obtained 

from each of the twelve truss systems and comparing 

the results of each shape and configuration to its 

average result; it could be deduced that the difference 

in the results were so small and therefore negligible. 

This shows that the level of accuracy observed during 

the experiment is arguably high and therefore the 

results is valid and can be deemed accurate. 

Also, comparing results from the graphs showing 

average nodal deflection results for the four truss 

systems, it can vividly be noted that Howe and Hipstep 

down truss systems gave similar curves and 

carries same range of loadings effectively and 

efficiently. “Effect of shape and configuration on 

steel trusses” which is aimed at determining if the 

shape and configuration of a truss system actually has 

effect on its load bearing capacity was carried out on 

four of the most commonly used truss shapes and 

configurations, namely; Howe, Hip-step down, Dualpitch 

and parallel chord truss systems. This study 

provided us with the following:- 

From the results recorded in table 5 to 10; with the 

maximum deflections being our utmost concern, it 

was observed that Howe truss system out of the four 

can be regarded as the best in terms of its load 

bearing capacity. During the course of the 

experiment, average maximum deflection values 

were recorded with respect to varying loading 

condition (table 5,6,7,8) at the end of which the 

Howe truss configuration was found to withstand all 

of such loads effectively and efficiently without 

exceeding the deflection limits. 

GRAPH 4.4.3a; Dual-pitch truss 1: Graphs of 


mm 

GRAPH 4.4.4a; Parallel chord truss 1: Graphs of 


Hip-step down truss configuration was also found to 

be effective and efficient under these loading 

conditions (as in Howe truss systems) except that its 

deflection values were slightly higher than those of 

Howe (table 6) However, it satisfied the deflection 

limits for all loading condition. It can therefore be 

rated as the second best in terms of its load bearing 

capacity. 

Using same loading conditions for the Dual-pitch and 

Parallel chord, their respective deflections were noted 

and recorded accordingly (tables 7 and 8). It was 

observed that the parallel chord had the least load 

bearing capacity of the four truss shapes and 

configurations. After conducting the experiment, the 

deflection values obtained were compared with 

acceptable defection limits as stated by well known 

and established bodies and institution which include. 

British standard codes (BS 8110, 1997 and BS 5940, 

2000), Department of civil Engineering, Monash 

University, Timber Research Association and 

Development of America (TRADA). It was found 

that:- Howe truss configuration satisfied the 

acceptable deflection limit of 15mm for roof trusses 

181



under long term effect for all the loading system 

used. 

Also, the Hip-step down configuration satisfied the 

same acceptable deflection limit (15mm) for loading 

system used. The Dual-pitch truss system on the 

other hand when compared against the acceptable 

deflection limit of 15mm was found that only under 

loadings of 10kg and less placed at 200mm centers 

satisfy this condition. 

Finally, the Parallel chord truss system when 

compared with the acceptable deflection limit of 

10mm for floors, it was noted that it will only be 

satisfactory under loadings of 5kg placed at 200mm 

centres and 10kg placed at 400mm centres and less. 

Maximum serviceability will be derived from the 

above truss configuration provided no alterations are 

made on the shape, configurations and dimension of 

the truss models designed by researcher (The 

dimensions of the model can be related to real life 

prototypes using the model equations and physical 

prototype .this calls for research funding. 

OBSERVATIONS 

Consequent upon the results of these experiment the 

maximum deflection for all the truss configurations 

except that of the Dual-pitch truss configuration 

occurred at the mid-span for all loading condition. 

However, with 50kg Load placed at the mid-span, the 

maximum deflection occurred at the mid-span for the 

four truss configurations. 

CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE 

It has been evidently been shown that these variables 

i.e shape configuration, chord system, connection 

techniques and the type of material had a direct and 

indirect relationship with the deflection and cost of 

fabrication of the trusses. 

REFERENCES 

Ayodele (2009) “Deflection of Monochord and 

Double chord Timber Roof Truss Systems” An 

unpublished B.Eng work at the Department of Civil 

Engineering, University of Benin, supervised by 

Engr. Dr. C.A. Ezeagu 

. 

Ezeagu C.A and Eze A. B. K (2009) '' Comparative 

cost Analysis of timber and steel roof trusses'' Journal 

of Management and Enterprise Development. Vol. 6, 

No.1 pp 30-38 ISSN1117-1677. 

Ezeagu C. A. and Offor N. I (2011) ''Effect of Shape 

Configuration on the deflection of timber trusses'' 

journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and 

applied science. Vol2. No 3, pp 414- 418. 

Ezeagu. C.A and Nwokoye D.N (2009) “Design in 

structural Timber” published by Mufti books, 

Nigeria. 1 st edition. ISBN: 978-2692-25-5 

Joseph C. (2011) “Effect of Shape Configuration on 

the Deflection of Steel Trusses” An unpublished 

B.Eng work at the Department of Civil Engineering, 

Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, supervised by 

Engr. Dr. C.A. Ezeagu 

Offor N.I. (2011) “Effect of Shape Configuration on 

the Deflection of Trusses” An unpublished B.Eng 

work at the Department of Civil Engineering, 

University of Benin, supervised by Eng. Dr. C.A. 

Ezeagu. 

Ohahuna U (2008), “Short term and Long term 

Comparative Cost Analysis of Timber and Steel Roof 

Trusses” An unpublished B.Eng work at the 

department of Civil Engineering, General 

Abdulsalami Abubakar College of Engineering, 

Igbinedion University Okada, Edo state, supervised 

by Engr. Dr. C. A. Ezeagu, July 2008. 

Onoyivweta E. (2010) “Deflection of Monochord and 

Double chord Timber Roof Truss Systems using 

timber and steel” An unpublished B.Eng work at the 

Department of Civil Engineering, University of 

Benin, supervised by Engr. Dr. C.A. Ezeagu. 

Uwaya P.I. (2008), “Cost Comparison of Timber 

Roof Truss and Steel Roof Truss of Residential 

Buildings” An unpublished B.Eng work at the 

Department of Civil Engineering, University of 

Benin, supervised by Engr. Dr. C.A. Ezeagu, Nov. 

2008. 

182

Rjeas Research Journal in Engineering and Applied Sciences 1(3) 177-183 Rjeas 

© Emerging Academy Resources (2012) (ISSN: 2276-8467) 

www.emergingresource.org 

825 825 

201 

200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 

Fig 1: dimension layout 

Fig.2. four individual truss shapes and configurations 

183

COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF TIMBER AND STEEL ... - RJEAS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?