Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bridge Design
Bridge Design
Bridge Design
9 (planar view)
15
10.6 grams
Section
A. Bridge Design Description
Designs considered during brainstorming
Detailed description of final design
Design Specification Table
Bridge Diagram (label max tension and compression members)
B. Analysis and Construction of Bridge
Process Summary and Results
Member Force Table (with Factor of Safety)
Description of Construction Process
C. Testing
D. Summary of Project Processes
Description of Work Process and Schedule
Description of Individual Contributions
Reflections on Process and Results
Appendices:
Preliminary Designs
Supporting Calculations
Test Sheet
Page Number
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
9
11
11
11
13
23
28
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!Cridlebaugh,!Bruce!S.!"Guide!to!Bridge!Design."!Bridge'Basics.!N.p.,!3!June!2008.!Web.!20!Feb.!2013.!
2!"Virtual!Laboratory."!Bridge'Designer.!Johns!Hopkins!University,!n.d.!Web.!12!Feb.!2013.!
1!
We also used a combination of hand calculations and online truss solvers to evaluate the
four traditional truss designs: the Pratt Bridge and Roof and Howe Bridge and Roof. Based on
these calculations, we compared the weights in terms of the total length of the members
multiplied by a constant, discovering the Howe Bridge to be the most efficient. Similarly, we
evaluated the various creative design options to determine that the relative weights of various
numbers of triangles and heights, and decided that the bridge would be easiest to design and
contain the minimal amount of material if we allowed the triangles to be isosceles--as opposed to
the traditional Warren design with equilateral triangles--so that we could easily adjust the
dimensions to meet the design requirements. We also liked this design because, when evaluated at
a safety factor of 1.6, the angles were very close to 90-45-45 which would be very easy to
implement during the building phase. We decided to use this as our final design.
However, we soon found that there was a slight issue with this design as the calculated
height for a safety factor of 1.6 was 3.2 cm, which was a whole .3 cm under the minimum height
required for the roadbed to fit inside. This proved only a minor inconvenience, however, and we
recalculated the internal loads using a height of 3.5 cm, which still kept our design within the
safety factor requirements at 1.76 (see Appendix B pg 24-25). Throughout the analysis process,
we checked each others calculations and independently solved for forces to verify accuracy for
our final designs.
The planar view of our final design consisted of 9 joints, 15 members, spanned 25 cm,
had a width and height of 3.5cm, a weight of only 81.3*c (which is the total length of balsa wood
required multiplied by a constant), and a safety factor of 1.761 (see Table I). It was made up of
four base and three top isosceles triangles as shown in Figure II on the next page. The angles
were still quite close to a 45-45-90 degree triangle for ease of construction. Our team expenditure
came down to $0 dollars as we minimized material use with this design. It fulfilled the nonstandard design preference and had what appeared to be a promising shot at the minimized
material cost specification.
Table I . Bridge design specification table
Design Requirements
Number of joints
Number of members
Span
Width
Height
Cost (team expenditure)
Weight
Design approach
Safety Factor (SF)
Requirement
n/a
n/a
24 cm
3.5 cm
10 cm
$10
Minimized
Non-standard preferred
Min: 1.5
Max: 2.2
Our Design
Specs
9 (planar)
15
25 cm
3.5 cm
3.5 cm
0
81.3c
Isosceles triangles
1.761
2!
3!
4!
Table II Member force table of member loads for applied load of 121.5 N (SF 1.761). Shaded row indicates
member predicted to fail at applied load.
Member
Load
Tension
Compression
AB
AI
40.7
27.1
Compression
Tension
BC
54.2
Compression
BI
CD
CH
CI
DE
DG
DH
EG
EF
FG
GH
HI
40.7
72.3
13.6
13.6
54.2
13.6
13.6
40.7
40.7
27.1
63.4
63.4
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Compression
Compression
Tension
Tension
Compression
Tension
Tension
Tension
Member
Length
4.69
6.2
5
6.2
5
4.69
6.25
4.69
4.69
6.25
4.69
4.69
4.69
4.69
6.25
6.25
6.25
Failure
Mode
Load Capacity
Yield
Yield
735.0 N
69.5 N
Yield
735.0 N
Yield
Crushing
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
735.0 N
69.5 N
735.0 N
69.5 N
69.5 N
69.5 N
735.0 N
735.0 N
69.5 N
735.0 N
735.0 N
735.0 N
To calculate the internal forces shown in the Member Force Table (Table II), we used the
method of joints and the assumption that the system is in equilibrium. The external forces acting
on the entire bridge as the system could be found by assuming a pin joint at F and a roller at A
(See Figure II). The design load was calculated to be 121.5 N, which would result in 60.7 N
acting on each planar side of the bridge. Because the wood is assumed to be homogeneous, the
load can be approximated at 20.2 N when distributed evenly to each of the three joints on the
bottom edge of each side. The external force acting at joint A and F are then found to be 30.4 N
in the positive y-direction, opposite the 60.7 N downward, using equilibrium equations in the xdirection, y-direction, and moment about point A. There are no other forces acting in the xdirection, so the force at pin join F is only vertical.
With the external forces known, the internal forces are found using the method of joints,
starting with joint A. The height of the bridge is 3.5 cm, so the angle between AB and AI is
approximately 48.24 degrees. This angle is the same measurement throughout the bridge because
of the isosceles triangle design. At joint A, there is a diagonal force AB and a horizontal force AI
in addition to the upward force of 30.4 N. Using the sum of the forces in the y-direction, we find
the magnitude of the force in AB to be 40.7 N pointing toward joint A, indicating that the force in
member AB is compressive. With the sum of the forces in the x-direction, the force in member
AI is found to be 27.1 N in tension. Following the same steps of solving the equilibrium equation
in the y-direction and then the x-direction for joint B, we find the force in BI to be 40.7 N in
tension, and the force in BC to be 54.2 N in compression. We can then solve for the unknowns at
joint I, and finally joint C which gives us the compression in member CD to be 72.3 N. This is
the member with the most compressive force, and thus the member that would cause failure at the
design load. This value is slightly higher than the balsa woods given maximum compressive
load of 69.5 N; the discrepancy likely resulted from rounding too early in the calculations and the
estimations of the design load. The expected maximum load that the bridge can withstand is
slightly less than the design load of 121.5 N, and has a safety factor slightly below 1.76. The
5!
design is symmetrical, so the magnitudes of the individual members can be mirrored on the other
side of the design.
Description of Construction Process
We started the construction process by drawing out a model of our design on a
whiteboard to make sure the whole team was on the same page (see Figure III). We needed to
decide how to align the measurements with the thickness of the balsa wood in order to accurately
represent our measurements. We worked together come up with a design in which the height
remained the required 3.5cm and the simplified analysis design aligned with the centerlines of the
balsa wood in the diagonal members.
We cut the members by mapping the outline of the members of balsa wood at a joint in
Figure IV. The team organized tasks so that one person cut the members, while another glued
using a paintbrush, another finalized design drawings, and the last person calculated design
loads. It quickly became clear that the building process was at most a two person job (cutting and
gluing as shown in figures V and VI on the next page), in which extreme focus was required for
gluing the pieces so that the joints aligned properly.
Figure
Construction
Reference
Sketch
Figure
IVIV
Joint
Construction
Template
!
6!
In our bridge, there were two specific member designs: one for the horizontal members
and one for the diagonal members. We had to adjust the alignment of the wood on the template to
account for the width of the pencil lines and so we did our best to use the inner lines for
reference. The angles were difficult to perfectly duplicate, so we had to adjust the alignment on a
joint-by-joint basis using the sandpaper to make fine adjustments to the angles. The ultimate goal
was to make the horizontal members as parallel as possible. We used the straight lines on the
graph paper and rulers for this broader reference point.
After completing a few of the trusses, we double checked the measurements of the
angles, height, and members with the design plan, as shown in Figure VI. Luckily, the error was
minimal and we were able to continue construction. After the first side was built, we switched to
using its physical members as models with the goal of keeping the two sides as symmetrical as
7!
possible. The second side of the bridge ended up being approximately 3.2 mm longer in span
length than the first side, so we did our best to make up for the difference by aligning the center
cross beams first, and adjusting the outer members slightly to ensure that the joints would act as
pins with all members meeting at approximately the same point. Once we had the two side
trusses, we cut some straight members at the required 3.5cm width for the roadbed to hold the
sides together. We glued the entire bridge together using the metal braces, which was a delicate
process with the bridge now in three dimensions. We used binder clips to secure the side trusses
to the metal braces during this final gluing process (see Figures VII and VIII). The whole process
took about six hours, with several breaks to allow for the glue to dry. At the end, we realized we
wanted to put in two more horizontal supports, which we did a few days later.
8!
C Testing
On Tuesday, the 19th of February, we tested our bridge. The test consisted of placing the
bridge across a 23 cm span, placing a 3.5 cm x 21 cm x 3.5 cm roadbed inside the bridge, and
hanging weights off of the road bed until failure as shown by Figure IX. Our bridge ultimately
failed at a load of 104 N. The breakage was due to joint failure in several places as illustrated by
Figure X on the following page. Based on how the failure occurred at several of the joints, the
design could have used more glue at the joints. We did not account for this type of failure in our
analysis because we assumed that the failure causes would be limited to compressive or tensile
failure within the wooden members. We also simply did not have a method for calculating the
strength of the glue at the joints. From our calculated safety factor and our analysis of different
failure mechanisms, we expected our bridge to fail due to compression at a load slightly below
121.5 N. Sadly, due to the premature joint failure we cannot know if our bridge would have failed
above or below this compression force. The failure was difficult to predict, because it could have
resulted from various simplifications we used in the calculation process. In particular, some
items that may lead to variation between calculated and actual values would be that the balsa
wood is not homogenous, the members are not massless, the bridge doesnt have true pin joints,
the constructed bridge is not entirely accurate to our design, etc. There is also a possible
discrepancy in the fact that the weight of the roadbed and the bucket itself may not have been
included in the load measurements. The loads were also applied at increments of 5 N when the
failure occurred, so the determined failure load is an approximation that could have been up to 4
N lower than the actual failure load.
9!
10!
11!
first meeting, and later came together and compared results. This ensured a thorough exploration
of possible designs and led to an efficient bridge in terms of weight and load requirements. There
are many variables that we could investigate, for instance we could have investigated the
isosceles triangle design with more members, and yet we did a good job of limiting our options to
allow for precise analysis and comparisons. We also conducted independent calculations of the
same designs to corroborate our results which gave us confidence in our final design--it is easy to
make a small error during analysis that would lead to a large structural problem later on during
building or testing. Further, we made sure all members of our team were on the same page by
using a shared Google Doc, thorough email and texting communications, and many drawings on
paper and whiteboard that we could all reference.
We did our best to equally share in the work, but it became especially difficult during the
construction process. We realized that the work was more easily and accurately done if one
person focused on cutting the pieces and another glued the joints together, leaving the other two
members of the team without much to do. To counter that, we switched roles a couple times and
allotted more of the report writing to the members of the team that were unable to help with
bridge construction. This worked well, and each member drafted assigned sections of the report,
with all of us working together to edit and format the final version.
12!
13!
14!
15!
16!
17!
18!
19!
20!
21!
22!
Appendix B Calculations
23!
24!
25!
26!
27!
28!