EDSGN100 Truss Bridge Design

Final Design Report

Introduction to Engineering Design

EDGSN 100 Section 011
Bob the Builders
Team #3
Li Yiwang, www.personal.psu.edu/ygl5424, ygl5424@psu.edu
Michael Fort, www.personal.psu.edu/myf5167, myf5167@psu.edu
Jon Seiferth, www.personal.psu.edu/jws6118, jws6118@psu.edu
Juan Ortega, www.personal.psu.edu/jjo5116, jjo5116@psu.edu

Submitted to: Prof. Berezniak

Date: 11/16/2012

Fall 2012

EDSGN100 Truss Bridge Design

Final Design Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction....
2.0 General Factors for Design
2.1 Structural Constraints.....
2.2 Construction Constraints....
2.3 Quality Control Testing.....
2.4 Aesthetics...
2.5 Economics .....
3.0 Consideration of Design Alternatives.
4.0 Selection of Bridge Design....
5.0 Prototype Construction....
6.0 Estimated Load Capacity....
7.0 Prototype Load Testing....
8.0 Prototype Performance and Forensic Analysis....
9.0 Final Design Performance....
10.0 Refine the Design......
11.0 Conclusions and Recommendations....
12.0 References.....

Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.

3
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7

Table 1.1

List of Tables
Weight of Popsicle Sticks .... Pg. 7

Figure 1
Figure 2

List of Figures
Final chosen design...... Pg. 8
Alternative design... Pg. 8

Fall 2012

EDSGN100 Truss Bridge Design

Final Design Report
Executive Summary
Our team decided on building a rectangular truss bridge. Our two options were between an
arched truss and a rectangle truss bridge. After comparing the two, the rectangular truss bridge
came out on top. It was simply the most economically friendly as well as the sturdiest and most
reliable of the two bridges. We built and tested the rectangular truss bridge. The regulations were
adhered to and upon completion of our prototype online we tweaked the design and made
corrections to any errors present in the design. After the design prototype was completed our
team sat down and decided on the total cost of construction, how much of each material we
would need to obtain and how many hours it would take to construct the design we had in mind.
After we came to a final consensus we put in a bid for materials we would need. Once we
obtained our materials we drew up a sketch to scale of the actual bridge and from there began the
construction. The design was changed slightly as the construction took place because of some
constructional constraints. The final product was a close replica of the original prototype that
was drawn up on the computer program West Point Bridge Designer. The next step was to
physically test the strength of our bridge by taking it to failing point. It took quite a bit for our
bridge to fail, but not as much as we had expected it to hold. After the physical test we sat down
and analyzed the results and made suggestions as to what we could have done better.
1.0. Introduction.
The objective of this project was to design and construct a highway truss bridge that would
span a certain distance and load test it until failure. This report is for the sole purpose of
describing how our design team came to its final decisions and what factors swayed us. It will
also discuss how we went about constructing our bridge and what our final results and
recommendations are for future constructions.
2.0 General Factors for Design.
2.1 Structural Constraints.
The physical prototype bridge had many constraints that we had to acknowledge
while designing it. No part of the bridge was allowed to exceed 10 inches above the end supports
or 3 inches below the end supports. The bridges were required to be less than 5 inches in width.
The length had to be greater than 30 inches, but less than 34 inches. The bridge had to weigh 400
grams or less once the glue was dried. The roadway could not be more than 6 inches above the
top of the end support or more than 2 inches below the top of the end support.
2.2 Construction Constraints.
The bridge was to be constructed from only the provided glue and popsicle sticks. No
other materials were to be used in the actual construction of the bridge. Any Popsicle sticks that
overlapped were only allowed to do so as long as it was less than 50% of an overlap of the
Popsicle sticks. The roadway was required to be continuous through the whole deck, be able to
accommodate a 4-inch by 4-inch vehicle and have no gaps except for where the load testing
clamp is to be placed. I beams and box beams were not allowed in the constructions. T-sections

Fall 2012

were allowed, but they had to be only for the roadway and they were required to be
perpendicular to the length of the bridge. The bridge was allowed a maximum of 6 sticks stacked
on top of each other at any point on the bridge and stacks of sticks were required to be a
minimum of 1 inch apart from each other. Load supports were 29 inches apart, no more than
inches wide and inches high, and were 5 inches long. The bridge was required to be selfsupporting and had to be able to stand freely on its own. For the load testing a gap in the deck
was required exactly 10 inches from where the end supports would be assuming the span of 29
inches with the width of one Popsicle stick roughly 3/8 inches.
2.3 Quality Control Testing.
Weight of Popsicle Sticks - Table 1.1

Weight dry
(g)
2.6
5.4
8.0
11.0
13.7
16.5
19.1
21.7
24.4
27.1

# Sticks
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

Weight glue wet

(g)
2.6
5.5
8.2
11.2
13.9
16.8
19.5
22.1
24.8
27.6

Weight glue dry

(g)
2.6
5.5
8.1
11.1
13.8
16.7
19.4
22.0
24.7
27.4

Glued Weight (g) vs. Number of Sticks

30.0

y = 1.3785x - 0.0333
R = 0.9998

25.0

Weight (g)

20.0

15.0
linear

10.0
5.0
0.0
0

10

15

20

25

Number of Sticks
Our group purchased 300 Popsicle sticks for this project. By applying the equation
obtained through a series of data, the weight of 300 glued Popsicle sticks is expected to be
413.51 g. In fact, a total of 290 Popsicle sticks were used in building the bridge, the estimated
glued weight is 399.73. However, the final weight on the balance is measured to be 403 g, which
is heavier than the calculated weight.

Fall 2012

2.4 Aesthetics.
The final bridge was eye pleasing in general. It was symmetrical and had a smooth
continuous flow to it. The only part of it that was a little rocky was the actual roadway deck
because of a slight flaw in the cross beams under it the deck had a weird construction and had
some areas of overlap that caused it to be slightly bumpy. In general our bridge got an average
rating.
2.5 Economics.
There were three types of materials and costs for the construction of the bridge. The
first of them was the cost of the Popsicle sticks. In the initial bid the Popsicles cost $1,000 per
stick. Our initial bid was for 200 popsicle stick so we estimated a total expense for Popsicle
sticks to be $200,000. During construction we ran out of Popsicle sticks and were forced to
purchase more, but this time the cost per stick was $2,000. We bought 100 more sticks costing
our group another $200,000. Total expenses for only Popsicle Sticks turned out to be $400,000.
The next material we had to bid for was glue. Our group estimated we would need roughly 20
grams of glue. The glue itself went for $5,000 per gram. Our team spent $100,000 on glue. Total
expenses for just the Popsicle Sticks and glue came out to be $500,000 in the end because of our
error in guessing during the initial bid. The final coast was labor hours. We estimated that it
would take us 4 hours to build the whole bridge, but we were off by roughly 6 hours.

3.0 Consideration of Design Alternatives.

There were a few alternatives to the design of the bridge that we chose. Arch bridges and
Suspension bridges were good alternatives that we considered and attempted to design. However
the bridge that we chose satisfied the requirements and was best suited for the site. It was also
the most economically friendly and sturdiest. The rectangular truss bridge was our best option by
far. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 for graphics depicting the design attempts and chosen designs of
our bridge project.
4.0 Selection of Bridge Design.
The bridge we chose was a heavier bridge, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made in order
to complete tasks. The bridge design was the most stable and strongest bridge of the other
options we had. Construction of the bridge was tough, but it was the least hardest to construct
from the options we came up with. The costs were by far the cheapest with the rectangular truss
bridge design. We were struggling to come up with better designs that would not fail under stress
from weight on the bridge. Most of the other designs that we attempted to replicate all failed in
one way or another. The other design we got to succeed was three times as expensive as our final
choice in bridge design, and it was double the weight. Our final design was the most efficient of
all of our designs because it distributed the stress from weight being added more evenly
throughout it, and therefore was our best choice.
5.0 Prototype Construction.
The total number of Popsicle used is 390 pieces. And based on the calculation, the amount of
glue used is (390/20)*(27.6g-27.1g) = 9.75 g (wet). As measured on the balance, the final mass
of the bridge is 403g, the pure mass (only Popsicles sticks) without glue is estimated to be 403g

Fall 2012

 (390/20)*(27.4-27.1) = 395.2 g. For the entire project, the total man-hours spent are 13.5 hours,
which means in average, 3.375 hours was spent on each person
6.0 Estimated Load Capacity.
Our design team estimated that the constructed bridge would be able to withstand roughly
35lbs of weight added to it. The end results were better than we had expected. Our bridge
withheld 56lbs of added weight which when converted to grams comes out to be roughly
25401.2g. Our failure load to bridge weigh ratio was 63:1.
7.0 Prototype Load Testing.
In order to test the bridge, the bridge was placed in between two tables edges, which is 43 inches
apart. A hole (testing spot) was made 10 inches away from the edge on the bridge. A chain was hung
down from the hole. And then, a bucket was attached to the chain and placed right below the bridge.
Below the bridge, sand and 15 pound weights were added into the bucket to increase the weight. .

8.0 Prototype Performance and Forensic Analysis.

The bridge was able to hold 70 pound truck in the prototype test on animated bridge software.
After we loaded the bridge, the bridge started bending. This is because our bridge did not have sticks
that balance the structure of the bridge. So the bridge eventually split into two pieces and fail after
sever warping.

9.0 Final Design Performance.

Our bridge was able to hold 43.5 pounds before it failed when we load tested it. The deck where
the joint was placed is destroyed and ripped apart. It failed for multiple reasons but mainly because
the deck was too weak due to the lack of attention and adjustments in building the deck. It wasnt
sturdy enough to hold the weight before caving in. But other than that, the entire structure of the
bridge is till complete and sturdy.

10.0 Refine the Design.

The bridge has a very strong and sturdy structure. The only problem associated with this
design is that the deck of bridge was not taken care of. The only part that was destroyed in the
load test is the deck. We put much attention and works onto the structural design, and we had
taken the deck for granted. If we are going to refine the design, we would put more strength to
the deck. We can add 2 layers on the top to prevent crack.
11.0 Conclusions and Recommendations.
This is an engineering based project, in which all the design, plan and calculation involved
have to be precisely and accurately done. The plan itself is not flawless, so our group did a lot of
modification in between the process in order to improve the plan to the best possible. The
structure itself is very strong and efficient. However, we do need to pay more attention to the
parts that we had taken for granted. Besides, good teamwork and communication are also the
essential factor of this project; everyone in this project team contributed. After all, this is a very
meaningful and interesting project.

Fall 2012

12.0 References.
12.1 ANGEL/Lessons/Design Project #1/Final Design Report/EDSGN100_Bridge
Building_SOW_F2012+.doc.
12.2 ANGEL/Lessons/Design Project #1/Final Design Report/EDSGN100_Bridge
Building_Specifications_F2012+.doc.
12.3 ANGEL/Lessons/Design Project #1/Final Design Report/EDSGN100_Stick
Weights_F2012+.xlsx.
12.4 ANGEL/Lessons/Design Project #1/Final Design Report/EDSGN100_Bridge
Competition_F2012+.xlsx.
12.5 West Point Bridge Designer (2011). Developed by Colonel Stephen Ressler,
Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY
<http://bridgecontest.usma.edu/download2011.htm>.
12.6 Virtual Laboratory: Bridge Designer. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
<http://www.jhu.edu/virtlab/bridge/bridge.htm>.
<Compile a list of references if you used any outside resources and mentioned them in this
report, Referencing should follow a format like you may encounter in your textbooks.>

TABLES
Weight of Popsicle Sticks - Table 1.1
Weight dry
# Sticks
(g)
2
2.6
4
5.4
6
8.0
8
11.0
10
13.7
12
16.5
14
19.1
16
21.7
18
24.4
20
27.1

Weight glue wet

(g)
2.6
5.5
8.2
11.2
13.9
16.8
19.5
22.1
24.8
27.6

Weight glue dry

(g)
2.6
5.5
8.1
11.1
13.8
16.7
19.4
22.0
24.7
27.4

Fall 2012

Glued Weight (g) vs. Number of Sticks

30.0

y = 1.3785x - 0.0333
R = 0.9998

25.0

Weight (g)

20.0
15.0
Series1

10.0

linear

5.0
0.0
0

10

15

20

25

Number of Sticks

FIGURES
Figure 1: Chosen Final Design

Final Chosen Design

Fall 2012

Figure 2: Alternate Design

Actual bridge model

Fall 2012

10

Fall 2012