   |
| College & Team Information | |||
| College or University: | Student Chapter: | ||
| Address: | |||
| Phone: | Fax: | E-mail: | |
| Website address: | Faculty Advisor: | ||
| Person In Charge of Project: | |||
| Team Member | Class | Team Member | Class |
| Hours spent on project: | Cost of Material ($ Amount) | ||
| Student: | Faculty: | Donated: | Purchased: |
| 1. Abstract - (Max 500 word narrative) | ||
| Design: This bridge was built for one main goal, to obtain as minimal defelction as possible. The weight is higher than most of the other bridges, but out does each of them in support against overall deflection. An integral part to the bridge was the design of the deck. Utilizing many different structure books, we found that a truss like design holds up better under compression. After hours of solving equations for deflection a final answer was found; an under truss of only 5/16 in. thick wood along the width of the bridge could hold much more than the required load. With this new innovative design our team concluded that only glue was needed to piece together each member. In all only 20 lbs. of non-wood was used in the making of the bridge. With a total weight of 640 lbs. The non-wood comprised only +/- 3% of the bridge. Other than glue, nails were used for construction of the bridge. They are not in anyway supportive to the structure. Optimization: After all the calculations were done, our team was faced with the decision of what type of wood to use. Douglas Fir Select was decided to be the wood of choice. The bridge was under way, ripping and planing the wood was the first step in achieving our goal, to reduce the amount of defects in the wood. After five, eight-hour days of cutting and planing we were finished with preparations, and started the construction of the bridge. | ||
| 2. Deflection Table | ||||||
| Deflection (millimeters - rounded to 2 decimal places) | ||||||
| Loading Inc. | Bridge | Beam L | Beam R | Average (L&R) | Gross Deck | Net Deck |
| 5 kN | ||||||
| 10 kN | ||||||
| 15 kN | ||||||
| 20 kN - 0 min. | ||||||
| 20 kN - 15 min. | ||||||
| 20 kN - 30 min. | ||||||
| 20 kN - 45 min. | ||||||
| 20 kN - 60 min. | ||||||
| 1) Loading Increments. | ||||||
| 2) Bridge - As measured at midspan of the longitudinal beam receiving greatest loading. | ||||||
| 3) Beam L - As measured under the longitudinal beam to left of selected deck monitoring point. | ||||||
| 4) Beam R - As measured under the longitudinal beam to right of selected deck monitoring point. | ||||||
| 5) Average (L&R) - Average of 3 and 4. | ||||||
| 6) Gross Deck - As measured under the loading point expected to experience maximum deflection. | ||||||
| 7) Net Deck - Column 6 minus column 5. | ||||||
| Deck span (transverse distance between main longitudinal bridge support members measured from inside edge to inside edge) = mm / 100 = mm (max. allowable net deck deflection) | ||||||
| 3. Materials List | |
| Material Item | Weight (kg) |
| Total Weight (Kg) | |
| Weight Non-wood (Kg) | |
| Percent Non-wood | |
| 4. Summary -Describe Bridge and behavior under load - (Max 500 words) | ||
| The bridge was designed to take a heavy load, more than what was required of it. When the first 4 kN weight was applied the bridge had almost no deflection. Over all the bridge accoplished what it was suppose to do. Its overall deflection was half that of most entries in the 1998 contest. Each increment of 4kN there after the first load increased the deflection by approximatly .005 of an inch. The bridge had an overall deflection of less than 2 mm. exactly 1.905 mm. Overall deck deflection was only .4191 mm that means the deck held up much better than the supports under it. | ||
| 5. Project Drawings and Photos | ||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Longitudinal Cross Section | Tranverse Cross Section | Trimetric View | Project Photo | Team Photo |
| Click on drawing or photo above for larger view. | ||||
| 6. Component Details | ||
| In ten (10) words or less per each component below, describe the bridge: | ||
| Stringers/Girders: | I-beams designed to carry the deck. | Deck: | Truss like design utilizing point loads distributed to the I-Beams. |
| Floor Beams: | ||
| Suspension: | ||
| Unique: | New deck design. Not used before in bridge construction. | |
| Describe preservative treatment for all wood members. Include type and concentrations. Also include a short statement of why this treatment was selected. Did the treatment requirement present any special problems? If yes, provide details | ||
| 7. Special Considerations | ||
COPYRIGHT ©2009 - MSRCD
Programming by:Keith Mazer
All rights reserved.