TO: Prof.

Kenny Bagley FROM: Stephen Henderson DATE: November 20, 2013 SUBJECT: Bridge Material Testing Our team designed a new bridge for the city of Bridgeport, which was accepted by the mayor and town council. However, they conditioned the acceptance on our ability to reduce material costs. In order to do this, the team tested all of the individual bridge members and concluded which ones are the most necessary and effective. This will reduce costs by giving us the best ideas of what the strongest bridge materials are. These steps will help create the safest, best and most cost-effective bridge possible. We tested our members for two factors; tension and compression. The data indicates that the tensile strength of the pieces follows an expected pattern. We could not completely estimate the results, but we did notice a clear relationship between the size and shape of the members and their strength. This testing will determine what materials should be used for the final design. Each of the tables below refers to the three sample tests of the bridge members by separate groups, which are all then averaged at the end of the test. T indicates a member tested for tensile strength, while C indicates compressional strength.
Sample 1 (Mentor Session 1) Testing: #1 T1 T2 T3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 0.802 kg 1.685 kg 1.590 kg 2.345 kg 1.969 kg 1.811 kg 2.613 kg 1.498 kg 1.308 kg #2 1.106 kg 1.709 kg 2.092 kg 1.648 kg 1.614 kg 2.001 kg 1.938 kg 0.789 kg 1.980 kg #3 1.210 kg 1.428 kg 2.518 kg 1.815 kg 1.680 kg 1.639 kg 1.703 kg 1.637 kg 1.756 kg Avg 1.040 kg 1.607 kg 2.067 kg 1.936 kg 2.088 kg 1.817 kg 2.085 kg 1.308 kg 1.681 kg

Sample 2 (Mentor Session 2) Testing:

Sample 3 (Mentor Session 3) Testing:

#1 T1 T2 T3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 0.580 kg 0.827 kg 1.408 kg 1.422 kg 1.338 kg 1.719 kg 0.647 kg 1.411 kg 0.968 kg

#2 1.962 kg 2.985 kg 2.851 kg 2.261 kg 2.291 kg 1.296 kg 1.504 kg 1.208 kg 1.342 kg

#3 1.758 kg 1.871 kg 2.635 kg 1.440 kg 1.493 kg 0.608 kg 1.403 kg 1.201 kg 1.253 kg

Avg 1.433 kg 1.894 kg 2.298 kg 1.708 kg 1.707 kg 1.208 kg 1.185 kg 1.273 kg 1.187 kg T1 T2 T3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

#1 0.322 kg 0.466 kg 0.703 kg 1.381 kg 1.025 kg 1.114 kg 1.035 kg 0.727 kg 1.074 kg

#2 0.638 kg 0.549 kg 0.925 kg 1.252 kg 1.014 kg 0.839 kg 0.765 kg 1.104 kg 0.514 kg

#3 0.516 kg 0.627 kg 0.938 kg 1.092 kg 0.973 kg 0.800 kg 0.899 kg 1.151 kg 0.449 kg

Avg 0.492 kg 0.564 kg 0.855 kg 1.242 kg 1.004 kg 0.917 kg 0.893 kg 0.994 kg 0.679 kg

Overall Averages of Results: MS1 T1 T2 T3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 1.040 kg 1.607 kg 2.067 kg 1.936 kg 2.088 kg 1.817 kg 2.085 kg 1.308 kg 1.681 kg MS2 1.433 kg 1.844 kg 2.298 kg 1.708 kg 1.707 kg 1.208 kg 1.185 kg 1.273 kg 1.187 kg MS3 0.492 kg 0.564 kg 0.860 kg 1.242 kg 1.004 kg 0.917 kg 0.893 kg 0.994 kg 0.679 kg Overall Avg 0.988 kg 1.355 kg 1.742 kg 1.629 kg 1.599 kg 1.314 kg 1.388 kg 1.192 kg 1.182 kg

Tensile Strength on Different Sized Bars: Tensile strength of the members was measured by stretching them to their breaking point gradually adding weight to one end of a pivot arm, while the bars were pulled at the other end. Below are the chart and graph revealing the different tensile strengths of each member. Testing Machine Length L1 (in): Testing Machine Length L2 (in): 25

69.5

Compressive Strength on Two Different Tube Sizes and Different Lengths: To test the compressional strength of each member, weight was added to the machine until the tubes collapsed beneath the applied force. Below are the chart and graph illustrating the compressional strength of the tubes. It should be noted that the dimensions of the machine were identical for both compressional and tensile testing.

In conclusion, the data collected is indicative of the materials that should be used for the final bridge design, as well as those to avoid. In the interest of cost and safety, only the strongest members will be used for the final design.