1 / 10

Bridge Design Project

Bridge Design Project. Ben, Jonathan, Mason, Kambriea Design Team 1. Statement of the Problem. 100 year flood damage Disrupts traffic Danger to State College residents. Project Objective. Design replacement bridge Emergency, fast-paced project. Required Design Criteria.

bains
Download Presentation

Bridge Design Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bridge Design Project Ben, Jonathan, Mason, Kambriea Design Team 1

  2. Statement of the Problem • 100 year flood damage • Disrupts traffic • Danger to State College residents

  3. Project Objective • Design replacement bridge • Emergency, fast-paced project

  4. Required Design Criteria • Standard abutments • No piers • Medium Strength Concrete • No Cable Anchorages • Designed for the Load of Two Trucks • Bridge Deck Elevation of 20 Meters • Deck Span of 40 Meters • Concept Design of Howe and Warren Through Truss Bridge

  5. Phase 2: structural efficiency Warren: Mass - 0.1735 lbs. (78.7 grams) Load failure - 43.4 lbs. Efficiency - 250 Howe: Mass - 0.1839 lbs. (83.4 grams) Load failure - 58.5 lbs. Efficiency - 318

  6. Phase 1: economic efficiency

  7. The results: economic efficiency High Compression Forces = Hollow Tubes High Tension Forces = Solid Bars High-Strength Low-alloy steel was used when compression strength was high Carbon Steel was used to lower cost Quenched and Tempered was used as a mix between slightly increased cost and increased strength

  8. The results: structural efficiency Minimum 173 Maximum 378 Range 205 Average 266 Geomean 258 Minimum 233 Maximum 467 Range 234 Average 316 Geomean 304

  9. The best solution Structural Efficiency of Howe Bridge Design Average-316 Ours-318 Structural Efficiency of Warren Bridge Design Average-266 Ours-250 Economic Efficiency Comparison Howe: $209,753.26 Warren: $203,851.50

  10. Our conclusions Our Objective Importance of the task The best choice:

More Related