ENGG1000: ENGINEERING DESIGN AND

INNOVATION

CVEN Bridge Project

Report
TRUSS ISSUES
GROUP 23
Allen Zhou
Joel Babbage
Emily Hull
Ben Ginnivan
Daniel Miller
Carmen Wang
Submitted 19/05/2014

5020688
5020581
3459561
5017204
5016130
5020172

Truss Issues

ENGG1000 Bridge Project Report

TRUSS ISSUES
1. Abstract
2. Introduction and Background of Task
3. Options and Selection of Preferred Design
3.1
Design Options
3.2
Design Criteria
3.3
Design Evaluation
3.4
Design Selection
3.4.1
Initial Design Selection
3.4.2
Final Design Selection
3.5
Sustainable Design
4. Modelling and Analysis
4.1
Material Analysis
4.2
Force Analysis
5. Construction Details and Drawings
6. Conclusion
7. References
8. Appendices

1. Abstract

Truss Issues

This report details Truss Issues design process through the development and
construction of a sustainable and aesthetically pleasing scale bridge model. Functionally, the
bridge constructed is required to maintain sufficient strength to endure a 5kg dynamic load
and a 7kg static load, while conforming to material constraints. Through testing of materials
and supporting structures Truss Issues were able to narrow down three design options into a
design that is environmentally and economically sustainable whilst considering the aesthetics
and serviceability of the structure. The group chose an arch bridge due to its strength and
ability to be constructed from environmentally and economically sustainable materials. This
design can be altered for maximum strength and minimum weight due to the arch formations
distribution of forces through compression. The bridge was designed, tested and constructed
over formal group meetings, which were centred on strong communication and teamwork
objectives. This bridge design is a result of creativity, research and experimentation,
highlighting the design process and facilitating the growth of collaboration and
communication skills.

2. Introduction and Background of Task

Truss Issues

Project CVEN01 introduce students to the "profession of Infrastructure Engineering

through the studies of engineering design and innovation"1 through the design and
construction of an aesthetically pleasing and sustainable model bridge. The strict limitations
on materials result in only paper, card, glue, tape and string being permitted to be used for
construction. The bridge must maintain sufficient strength to support a five kilogram dynamic
load followed by a seven kilogram static load in conjunction with transporting the load safely
to the other side of the structure. The bridge is to have a width of 220mm, length of 800mm,
110mm clearance space below the structure and remain as lightweight as possible, staying
under 350grams. Through criteria provided by the Faculty of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, Truss Issues decided upon a design that we believed would meet all
requirements.
Truss Issues regarded a sustainable and safe design to be important factors in design
selection. Careful consideration of material strength and structural design ensured that the
final product would have high structural integrity against stresses and strains and would not
overturn or buckle under force. Issues surrounding serviceability and long-term sustainability
were also taken into consideration.

3. Options and Selection of Preferred Design

3.1

Design Options

The team had brainstormed many concepts for potential bridge designs. Further
investigation and research allowed us to come to a conclusion on three basic designs to go
under scrutiny from the whole team in terms of structural and material evaluation. This
brought upon the challenge of combining the teams knowledge and understanding of bridge
mechanics to implement the best possible and most adequate solution to the problem.

The three designs that Truss Issues settled upon;

Basic Truss Bridge- assembled from paper and cardboard.

An Arch Bridge- assembled from paper and cardboard.

Under Deck Cable-stayed Bridge- assembled from cardboard and string.

3.2

Design Criteria
4

Truss Issues

The following criteria were focused on to finalise our design:

Will it translate to a tiny scale with alternate materials?

Will it be under the required weight?

Is it possible to build with the time and hardware available?

Will it remain stable when interacting with both moving and stationary objects?

Are there any clear weak points, which need to be addressed?

Will it be able to withstand environmental factors such as weathering?

Will it be able to withstand continuous strain?

The aesthetics of the design: is the bridge visually pleasing?

Once the each design had been scrutinised through this analytical process the team as a whole
was confident that the best possible solution to our knowledge could be found.

3.3

Design Evaluation

The use of the following bullet points provides an objective comparison between the possible
designs against the outlined criteria.
3.3.1

Arch Design

Pros:
Force Distribution - Force is distributed to ends through the curvature of the arch
Low Weight - Bridge components use compression allowing for little glue or tape,
giving a much lower overall weight.
Simple construction - Pieces can be cut or made and put instantly into place.
Allowing simple testing and re-evaluation
Cons:
Weak Point - Centre of bridge is most susceptible to flexing with possible
connections failing.
5

Truss Issues

Aesthetics - Simple aesthetics not highly appealing

Design Constraint - Smooth curve difficult to achieve with available materials

3.3.2

Under Deck Cable-Stayed Design

Pros:
Low Weight String as a major component allows super-light weight design
Force Distribution Forces carried to each end of bridge where there is stable
ground support.
Aesthetics Aesthetically pleasing due to visual complexity and lack of overbearing
components
Cons:
Construction Difficult to get precise tension on strings and to anchor the string
within the design
Balance Design needs extra work to avoid tipping during the dynamic loads
movement.
3.3.3

Under Deck Truss Design

Pros:
Stable/Solid Design is made to withstand many forces such as compression and
torsion
Aesthetics When made with precision would be aesthetically pleasing due to
symmetry and shapes
Construction Repeated pattern allows for mass production, easy replacement
and perfection of straight components
Cons:
Weight Solidity and strong joints add a lot of weight along with large number of
components.
Joints Large number of joints gives more possible breaking points if constructed
unwell due to the difficult assembly.

3.4

Design Selection
3.4.1

Initial Design Selection

Early in the teams project evaluation Truss Issues agreed that a paper truss design was
the most practical option in terms of qualitative analysis. With this in mind we made a small
section of our truss design, which showed us results of an excessively heavy section of
bridge. We also learnt that using paper alone was impractical as it is unreliable and once
deformed cannot be used. During our original design and construction of the truss design we
also did not take into account the stability of the structure, which arose as another issue. After
this attempt we took the new information to refine our design criteria and move onto more
6

Truss Issues

practical options. The group focused on further designs, but as we researched further and
built small components, they were often realised to be inefficient or unable to satisfy the
requirements.
3.4.2

Final Design Selection

For the final selection Truss Issues had to re-evaluate the designs and reconsider some of
the strengths and weaknesses of each design after constructing built prototypes of the
differing design concepts. Each design was discussed and the group deemed the arch bridge
design would suffice for the task at hand and be under the required weight restriction. It was
clear to the group that the main goal of the project was to firstly construct a bridge that could
carry a 5kg dynamic load as well as a 7kg static load whilst having a mass less than 350g
these two criteria carrying the heaviest weightings in terms of marks allocated. However,
Truss Issues also came to the conclusion that aesthetics of the bridge is another factor that
most definitely needs to be taken into consideration. It was also noted that a visually pleasing
design would reflect a structure that has been thoroughly planned and as result being
structurally sound. Truss Issues concluded after an analysis of each initial design the best
option was to advance with the arch bridge. The group was united with its decision and
believes that through the extensive analysis of each design the correct and most adequate
design was selected. Upon completion of a test structure it became clear that this design was
superior to the others we had discussed as it held weights greater than necessary with ease.
This allowed us to continue the project with this design and focus on increasing the efficient
use of weight within our design.

4. Modeling and Analysis

4.1

Material Analysis
String:

Through re-evaluation of our original design, we discovered small issues with flaring of the
side components. We overcame this by placing string at the correct tension between the
components, holding them in place. Truss Issues both researched and tested different types of
string. Throughout testing, hemp string often frayed making it difficult to work with and
weakening it. After discovering braided nylon string, we found that it had the greatest
strength and quality for our needs.

Glue:

Glue is a key component of our bridge as it holds together each section. Through a small amount of
research, we believed hot glue would be the strongest glue to use. We weighed each stick of hot glue
and discovered they were 5 grams each, therefore we knew we had to use it minimally to retain a low
weight.

Paper & Tape:

7

Truss Issues
Both paper and tape were originally planned to constitute the majority of our bridge however through
many prototypes and testing structures we discovered that the previously mentioned materials were
far superior overall. Despite papers low weight, to be useful it has to be used in great quantities which
make it heavy altogether. Tape also loses stickiness and is more difficult to work with than glue.

4.2

Force Analysis
Shear force:

Shear force occurs when unaligned forces push one part of a structure in one direction and a
different part in the opposite direction. This is compared to compression forces where the
forces are aligned. A small diagram is provided to illustrate how this force essentially occurs.

This shear force is present within the bridge, underneath the deck. Below the deck a system
of small cardboard strips has been implemented in order to support the edges of the deck. In
this system small strips of cardboard have been glued to the walls of the bridge beneath the
deck, providing a place for the deck to rest on. This can be seen within the graphic below
showing the inside of the bridge looking up at the deck.
Specifically the shear force occurs between the side of the bridge and the cardboard strip as
load on the bridges deck forces the strip down while the cardboard side remains stationary.
Overcoming this shear was important for the structural integrity of the bridge, holding the
loaded deck in place. This was done by using strong hot glue to bind the pieces together but
most importantly the number of small cardboard strips was increased in order to evenly
distribute weight, reducing the shear force on each strip.

Figure 1: Tab inserted to support deck on prototype.

Torsion force:

Truss Issues

Torsion is described as the twisting of an object due to opposing moments along the same
axis. This force will occur typically in a suspension bridge, as although the bridge is
suspended the cables will not prevent the twisting and oscillation of the bridge, with deck
stiffeners used to minimise the torsional oscillation on the bridge. However this force is only
significant in suspension type bridges as the vibrations within cables (due to external
environmental factors such as wind) can travel through the bridge forming a regular
oscillation that can lead to these torsional forces. Torsional forces within the arch bridge
design are limited due to rigidity of the components of the bridge as a whole, meaning no
additional planning was required in order to effectively manage and overcome potential
problems.
Compression force:
Cardboard has a high resistance to compression forces when force is applied parallel to the
corrugation inside. Knowing this, we designed our bridge to take advantage of this strength.
Arch bridges consist of largely compression forces making it a great design for our material
constraints. Through testing we discovered that our simple arch design, taking advantage of
the cardboards resistance to compression, allowed us to easily withstand the 7 kilogram static
load and although the 5 kilogram load is difficult to replicate, we believe our design should
pass that test. The weakness in cardboard is any area with a crease or fold. To overcome this,
we gained the highest quality cardboard we could and placed a supporting strip of cardboard
in areas, which could not withstand the compression otherwise. Figure 2 shows the dispersion
of the compression force throughout an arch design and the role that a keystone has in
connecting each side of the arch and sending the forces down each side of the arch.

Figure 2: Force dispersion within an arch bridge with two concentrated forces
(Graham Dean, 2014)

Tension force:

Truss Issues

Tensional force in arch bridges, on the other hand is virtually negligible. The natural curve of
the arch and its ability to dissipate the force outward greatly reduces the effects of tension on
the underside of the arch. However, the members of Truss Issues noticed that when a load
was place upon the bridge in testing the arch began to flare out. The team identified this as an
issue and came to the conclusion that using string tied from one arch to the other would limit
the cardboard from flaring. Flaring is a significant concern as it is applying a force against the
compressive nature of the cardboard, perpendicular to the flutes. Another added benefit to the
high tensile strength of string is that it is very light weight, whilst increasing the structural
integrity of the bridge greatly, this can be seen in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The string keeps the
cardboard straight, which allows compressive nature of cardboard to be utilised.

Figure 3: Under view of string used to limit the flaring.

Figure 4: Top View of String used to limit the flaring.

5. Construction Details and Drawings

10

Truss Issues

The arch bridge was primarily constructed with corrugated cardboard with some braided
nylon line as tension supports for the sides. More details on materials can be found in the
materials analysis section. Due to limited resources, only cardboard of poor quality could be
sourced. These had creases and damaged surfaces. Truss issues also had limited access to
tools. The only tools used were a hot glue gun, scissors, ruler, pencil and box-cutter blade.
To construct the bridge, a large sheet of corrugated cardboard was cut into 3 rectangles: one
of 860mmx200mm and two of 850mmx155mm. The 860mmx200mm was cut so that the axis
of corrugation would run along the length of the bridge. The two 850mmx155mm were cut so
that the corrugation was along the width. These corrugations are displayed in Figure 5 as
reference. Using a thin and flexible wooden board, a smooth curve was made and placed
along their length so that each end was marked 25mm in from in from these two pieces of
cardboard and traced and cut. Circular holes of radius 27mm, 21mm and 16mm were cut
according to Figure 6 to reduce weight, called lightening holes. Two pieces of rectangular
cardboard size 140mmx200mm and one of 70mmx200mm were prepared, corrugation along
the width. Four more small rectangles were cut out of size 50mmx2mm. Using the hot glue
gun, the pieces were assembled with minimum glue: our bridge used 15 grams worth. The
deck was glued on a slight arch as depicted in the CAD drawings. Two nylon strings of length
longer than 250mm were tied between the two arches to provide a tension enough to keep the
cardboard from deforming outwards under compression. A basic overhand knot was fastened
down on a small amount of hot glue and then more overhand knots on top of that for security.
The CAD drawings of the front, side, top and isometric views are included in the appendix.

Figure 5: The configurations and axis of the cardboard.

11

Truss Issues

Figure 6: Side view of bridge.

In the construction phase, many issues arose surrounding the precision and accuracy of
cutting and placement of cardboard components. It was very difficult to cut cardboard to the
right size with straight edges. Also troublesome was the controlling the mass of the bridge.
The prototype weighed 380g without any lightening holes and with excessive amounts of hot
glue. In revised models, lightening holes were cut out in numerous structurally stable areas to
reduce weight as well as control the amount of hot glue used. This brought the bridge down
to a total weight of 350g making it just within the restrictions. Building more models with
different types of cardboard pieces, such as double flute corrugated cardboard, yielded varied
results in total mass and aesthetic view. It was even more difficult to cut straight edges on
double flute compared to single.

6. Conclusion
The design process has proven to play a vital role in aiding Truss Issues in the research,
experimentation, testing and construction of a bridge design. It has allowed the assessment of
various designs and has lead to the selection of a final design solution, commonly agreed
upon by the group. Truss Issues successfully constructed an arch bridge, ready for final
testing and within the guidelines specified by the project.
Initial plans were to purse an under-deck cable stayed bridge however testing prototypes and
further experimentation lead to the realisation that a different approach may be needed.
Hence an improved design was developed. With further research and experimentation with
materials, various modifications were applied to the design including the addition of holes to
reduce the weight of the structure. This design has been constructed with aesthetics and the
restrictions kept in mind as well as the goals that the final product can withstand the forces
placed upon it
Teamwork and time management were also important factors that Truss Issues successfully
incorporated into the project. Early on, methods of communication were established to allow
frequent contact, roles and responsibilities were distributed evenly. Meetings were organised
on a two per week basis with specified agendas for each meeting, this allowed for effective
group work. Communication was fundamental; therefore methods of communication
including social media, email and document sharing sites along with the face to face meetings
reduced conflicts and increased efficiency. Similarly, issues regarding time management were
reduced through specifying activities in a time plan.
12

Truss Issues

Over the course of the project, Truss Issues has demonstrated extensive knowledge of the
design process and teamwork skills in the construction of an arch bridge. The final design is
one the group takes pride in, fitting expectations of elegance and functionality.

7. References
8. Appendices

13