Bridge Structure Lab Report

Malak Soliman
Lana Lakmoush
Reem Al-Muftah
Layan Darwish
June 30, 2022
Course: ENGR 216

Abstract :
A bridge is a structure designed to transport road traffic or other moving loads over an
obstruction or through other structures. The ethical perspective is as crucial as the engineering itself.
A lack of ethical knowledge endangers both engineers and the community. In this report, we will
address physics ethics and how physics concepts might be used in daily life. In the experiment, many
equations were implemented to analyze and construct the bridge. The experiment was divided into
three parts: one in which we calculated the forces without adding any masses to the bridge, one in
which we added a mass to joint D, and one in which we added a mass to point E. Sensors were
installed at the bridge's ends to measure the forces and compare them to the projected data. The
data gathered indicates that there is a similarity in the predicted value, indicating that Newton's laws
indeed apply in real life.

Table of Contents:

Abstract : ........................................................................................................................................1
Introduction :..................................................................................................................................2
Theory: ...........................................................................................................................................3
The procedure: ...............................................................................................................................6
Results:...........................................................................................................................................7
Discussion : ...................................................................................................................................10
FINDINGS : ....................................................................................................................................11
CONCLUSION :...............................................................................................................................12
Appendix: .....................................................................................................................................13

pg. 1
Introduction :
Across all the definitions of a bridge, stood the words: structure and connectivity, giving the
word a profound sense of effectiveness and efficiency, in all its aspects. As if, all those descriptions
are spelling-out that a bridge structure has to entail safety , in addition to the access, functionality
and beauty of the structure. Important concepts and approaches have seldom been put in place to
ensure bridges safety, maintenance, and management in real life situations. Bridges pass quality
control and simulation tests to study that those structures can sustain all possible threats and pass
any anticipated failures modes.As rigid as those regulatory and compliance systems of assurance,
keeping them effective in place is partially dependent on professional ethics and engineering
morals.The engineering scientists and consultants comply to such quality measures as part of their
commitment to their profession, their clients and their community.

In this experiment, team 1 was expected to build a four-span bridge out of two separate
beams, 4 and 5. The forces will be assessed by attaching weights to joints D and E. Calculations were
carried out to forecast the reaction forces required by the bridge to maintain the masses in place.
The major purpose of this part of the experiment is to add different weights while maintaining the
bridge stable and in place. Before construction, Newton's three laws were proven by measuring the
length and mass of the beams and collecting the needed number of beams. Once the number of
beams was determined, a free body diagram was drawn, and forces were computed and recorded.
Team 1 was then handed the bridge-building kit. After the bridge was finished, sensors were
installed at either end to measure the forces along each beam. Those procedures demonstrate
Newton's Three Laws, the third of which asserts that when two bodies contact, they apply forces to
each other that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Finally, according to the data and
computations, the experiment's purpose was met, and the bridge was steady.

pg. 2
Theory:
The main concepts used in this project are newton's three laws and, most importantly, laws on the
static equilibrium. These laws were planted using the free-body diagram of all joints' internal and
external forces. By using the concept of static equilibrium, it is understood that all the forces acting
on the body are at equilibrium. Moreover, this means all these force and their sum are equal to zero.
In addition, their moments are equal to zero.

This figure shows the external force of the free-body diagram. Which are the weight and the
reaction of both ends of the bridge.

This figure show all the internal force in the free-body diagram.

pg. 3
All our calculations were taken from the front face of the bridge, which is shown in the free-body
diagram. As a result, the weight was considered to be half which is 4.9N, when the external forces
were calculated.

There were three parts to this experiment: one in which there is no weight added to the bridge, the
second where the weight is added to point D, and the third on point E. This was calculated by taking
all the x and y components of each point, considering the angle. The weight that was added to points
D and E was one weight. As a result, the internal forces were changed, but the equations remained
the same.

Equations used :

{
∑𝐹 = 0
𝑥

∑𝐹 = 0
𝑦

∑𝑀 = 0
𝐴

• 𝐹_𝑥 = ‖𝐹‖ 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝜃)

• F: force
• 𝐹_𝑦 = ‖𝐹‖𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝜃)
• M: moment
• 𝑀 = 𝑦 ∙ 𝐹𝑥 ―𝑥 ∙ 𝐹𝑦
• W: weight
𝑀𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑔
•𝑊= 1000 • g: gravitational constant (9.8 m/s^2)

∑(𝑥𝑖 ― 𝜇)2
•𝜎= 𝑁

Tools for the project:

pg. 4
The kit was given after the results were checked by the professor.
Tool that were used were:

• 49 beams

• 94 screws

• 6 strain gauges

• 18 connectors

• Screw

• Screwdriver

• Connector

• Beams (2,3,4,5)

• Cords

• Strain gauge

• Sensors

• Additional Mass

After getting the kit box, all the parts were assembled into their place, and the model in the lab was
a reference to build the pieces to form the bridge correctly according to the required measurements.
All the beams used were screwed tightly. When the masses have added to the screws, they were
tightened again to ensure the reading of the values was accurately measured when the mass was
added to the beams. In addition, there were some gauges to add to the sensor in the lab. All the
pieces that were not used were kept in the kit box, then returned to the lab.

The bridge after being built with the sensors:

pg. 5
The procedure:

The overall objective of this project was to build the bridge: this required a few steps to
achieve the bridge in its real form. Firstly it was required to have all the measurements needed
beforehand, as the professor was to check them during lab time. If mistakes were made, then it was
required to have them fixed to reserve the kit. Moreover, the free-body diagram was a visual
reference to help build the real bridge. After the professor approved the measurements, the free-
body diagram found the number of materials and supplies. The parts of the supplies were counted
with the professor's help for these specific bridge measurements. After that, missing pieces were
added to the kit for the design. A file was uploaded to canvas containing all the measures to help
find the calculations and the information of all the essential pieces needed to build the bridge.

After receiving all that was needed to build the bridge, a few things were to be considered.
First was double-checking the number of supplies given, then having in mind that this particular
bridge had four spans, and beams 3 and 4 were used, and most importantly, keeping in mind the
weight that would be added to beams D and E. Then, the bridge had to be balanced as the masses
were added later to ensure accurate calculations of the value made. The bridge was built using the
beams, and spans and joints were used to Join everything together for the bridge to form. After
receiving all the equipment to build the bridge, the free body diagram was how the bridge should
look.

After completing the two main parts of the project: finding the calculations and building the
bridge, it was time to check whether the calculations' values were valid and to check if the objectives
were met. For the test to begin, sensors were inserted in two spaces off the bridge to measure the
forces. The inner forces were measured three times: first with no additional weight, then by adding
1 Kg on point D, and lastly adding the weight on point E.

pg. 6
Results:
When tabulating the experimental values of the weight on each joint, three different cases
were taken into consideration. To start off, in the initial scenario, no additional weights were applied
to any joint. In the second instance, a weight of 4.9 (N) was added to joint E Finally, in the third
instance, joint D was given a weight of 4.9 newton’s. Moreover, Table 1 in the appendix section
contains the given experimental weight values for each joint.

Table 2: shows experimental values of weights on each joint.

Joint (N) Case 1: No weight Case 2: Weight on E Case 3: Weight on D

A 2.69 2.69 2.69
B 1.47 1.47 1.47
C 1.62 1.62 1.62
D 1.62 1.62 6.52
E 1.10 6.00 1.10
F 1.62 1.62 1.62
G 1.62 1.62 1.62
H 1.47 1.47 1.47
I 2.69 2.69 2.68

Case 1: No additional weight

In this case, no additional weight was added to the bridge. Figures 2 and 3 show the
calculations for the calculated values after they were evaluated. Moreover, while the bridge was
being tested in the lab, the measured values were gathered. Depending on which sign is positive or
negative, the internal force is either exerting compression or tension. If the sign is positive then the
force is exerting tension. However, if the sign is negative then it is compression. But, it is the
opposite for the external forces. The calculated values as well as the theoretical values are shown
below in Table 3.

Table 3: shows calculated and measured values in the first case.

Forces (N) Calculated Measured

Ay 2.69 5.03
Iy 2.69 4.77
HI -1.91
GI 1.35 -1.65
HG 0.87
FH -1.96 5.03
FG 0.28
GE 1.77

pg. 7
FE -1.42
FD -0.76
DE 2.20
EC -0.80
DC -3.35
BD 3.17 5.2
CB 4.49
AB 8.97
AC -6.34 -6.05

Case 2: Weight on E

In this case, the same process was repeated however, weight was added on joint E. The
calculated values were assessed, and the computations are shown in Figure 4 in the appendix
section. Moreover, Table 4 displays the calculated values along with the measured values of the
following case.

Table 4: shows calculated and measured values in the second case.

Forces (N) Calculated Measured

Ay 3.92 7.71
Iy 3.92 6.97
HI -3.64
GI 2.57 -4.39
HG 2.60
FH -4.41 9.73
FG -1.45
GE 5.44
FE 0.31
FD -5.66
DE 3.94
EC 5.44
DC -5.08
BD -4.41 9.67
CB 2.60
AB -3.64
AC 2.57 -8.01

Case 3: Weight on D

In this case, the weight was added at joint D. The calculated values were assessed, and the
computations are shown in Figure 5 in the appendix section. Moreover, Table 5 displays the
calculated values along with the measured values of the following case.

pg. 8
Table 5: shows calculated and measured values in the final case.

Forces (N) Calculated Measured

Ay 4.22 8.37
Iy 3.61 6.45
HI -3.21
GI 2.27 -3.7
HG 2.17
FH -3.80 8.58
FG -1.02
GE 4.52
FE -0.12
FD -4.43
DE 0.90
EC 3.80
DC -5.51
BD 0.10 10.75
CB 6.66
AB 6.81
AC -4.81 -8.57

The standard deviation between the theoretical and experimental values of cases 1, 2, and 3 can be
viewed in Tables 6, 7, and 8 respectfully.

Table 6: shows standard deviation values for case 1.

Ay Iy GI FH BD AC
Standard 2.96 2.32 4.84 0.62 0.15 7.87
devitation

Table 7: shows standard deviation values for case 2.

Ay Iy GI FH BD AC
Standard 2.53 2.37 5.99 0.65 6.05 1.98
devitation

Table 8: shows standard deviation values for case 3.

Ay Iy GI FH BD AC
Standard 1.76 1.69 5.38 0.63 1.96 6.63
devitation

pg. 9
Discussion :

The goal of this project was to build a bridge that could be tested under different conditions. The
first case was a test of the bridge without any additional weight. However, the second and third
cases encountered an additional weight of 4.9 N that was placed on joint D and E. From the table, it
was noted that the only change in the weight was at the joints where the counterweight was added.
Nevertheless, the weight of the remaining joints was about the same. In addition, further
calculations for this project are included in the appendix.

To being with, Table 2 showed the experimental values of weights taken on each joint for all
three cases. On the other hand, Table 3 showed the measured and the calculated values of the
forces for case 1 where no counterweight was added. The illustration of case 2 was displayed in
Table 4 where a counterweight of 4.9 N was placed at joint E. Lastly, case 3 was displayed in Table 5
where a counterweight of 4.9 N was placed at joint D. Although the values varied experimentally and
theoretically, the change in sign within the values differentiates between forces of compression ( if
reported negative ) and tension (if reported positive).

Tables 6, 7, and 8 show the standard deviations of the experimental values from the theoretical
values in all three cases. The table reveals that there is a significant difference between the
experimentally calculated weight and the theoretically calculated weight. In Table 6, the standard
deviation ranged from 2 to 8, showing that the values differ experimentally and theoretically.
Standard deviation in Table 7 and 8 ranged between 2 to 6 and 1 to 6 respectively. Hence the
standard deviations varied across the three cases, one cannot rely on values measured theoretically.

During case 1 the standard deviation of forces Ay, Iy, GI, FH, BD, and Ac were calculated to be
2.96, 2.32, 4.84, 0.62, 0.15, 7.87 respectively. In case 2, the standard deviation of forces Ay, Iy, GI,
FH, BD, and Ac were calculated to be 2.53, 2.37, 5.99, 0.65, 6.05, and 1.98 respectively. In case 3, the
standard deviation of forces Ay, Iy, GI, FH, BD, and Ac were calculated to be 1.76, 1.69, 5.38, 0.63,
1.96, and 6.63 respectively.

During the experiment, errors could’ve occurred, due to which the values could differ for a
number of reasons. There could be issues with the screw heads being tightened properly, the
sensors being attached insecurely, or incorrect calculations being made when using Excel. In
addition, using the incorrect gravitational force that has a significant effect on the results during
manual calculations, incorrect readings of the masses and lengths of the beams and instruments,
etc..

pg. 10
FINDINGS :
Case 1

• Before any counterweight was added to any joint, the weight at vector Ay was found to be
2.69 N experimentally and 5.03 N theoretically.

• Certain positions had different weights after calculations.

• The forces of Ay, Iy, GI, FH, BD, and Ac were measured to be 5.03 N, 4.77 N, -1.65 N, 5.03 N,
5.2 N, -6.05 N and calculated to be 2.69 N, 2.69 N, 1.35 N, -1.96 N, 3.17 N, -6.34 N respectively.

• The predicted type of force by theoretical methods at FH and BD was compressive since they
were measured to be positive in nature however, it was found to be tensive force in nature due to
its value being negative as shown in the results.

Case 2

• At joint E, the weight went from 1.10 N to 6.00 N after the additional weight of 4.9 N.

• According to experimental results, the weight of Ay, Iy, GI, FH, BD, and AC was 8.37 N, 6.45 N,
-3.7 N, 8.58 N, 10.75N, and -8.57 respectively. However, the theoretical values for the same forces
were calculated to be different, and they were determined to be 4.22 N, 3.61 N, 2.27 N, -3.80 N, 0.10
N, and -4.81 N in that order.

• The predicted type of force by theoretical methods at GI and AC was compressive since they
were measured to be positive in nature however, it was found to be tensive force in nature due to
its value being negative as shown in the results.

Case 3

• At joint D, the weight went from 1.62 N to 6.52 N after the additional weight of 4.9 N.

• According to experimental results, the weight of Ay, Iy, GI, FH, BD and AC was found to be 7.71
N, 6.97 N, -4.39 N, 9.73 N, 9.67 N, and -8.01 N respectively. However, the theoretical values for the

pg. 11
same forces were calculated to be different, and they were determined to be 3.92 N, 3.92 N, 2.57 N,
-4.41 N, -4.41 N, 2.57 N in the same order.

• The predicted type of force by theoretical methods at GI and AC was compressive since they
were measured to be positive in nature however, it was found to be tensive force in nature due to
its value being negative as shown in the results.

CONCLUSION :

 Values recorded theoretically were an underestimate to the experimental values

due to large variations between them.
 Errors throughout the experiment might have led to the large variations between
the measured and calculated values.
 Validation of Newton’s second law.
 The large difference in the values indicates that the behavior of the bridge cannot
be predicted using theoretical values.
 The objective of this experiment was met as the internal and external forces were
calculated and recorded.
 Compression and tension forces were identified due to the change in signs over the
values.

pg. 12
Appendix:
Table 1 shows the values given that help us calculate the total mass and weight of the bridge in
newton’ mm ms. They were found by multiplying the amount used by their mass and weight.

Table 1: shows mass, length, and weight of the bridge’s components.

Components Amount Mass (kg) Mass x Length (m) Weight (N) Weight x
amount (kg) amount
(N)
#5 beam 3 0.0123 0.037 0.24 0.12 0.36
#4 beam 8 0.0085 0.068 0.17 0.084 0.67
#3 beam 12 0.00595 0.071 0.115 0.058 0.69
#2 beam 0 0.0041 0 0.08 0.040 0
Half round 11 0.0186 0.20 0.01 0.18 2.01
connecter
screw 36 0.0034 0.12 0 0.033 1.19
Strain gauge 6 0.0992 0.59 0 0.97 5.83
Total mass 1.09 10.77

pg. 13
Figure 1: shows calculations of the weight on each joint in the 3 cases.

pg. 14
Figure 2: shows calculations of experimental values of case 1 part 1.

pg. 15
Figure 3: shows calculations of experimental values of case 1 part 2.

pg. 16
Figure 4: shows calculations of experimental values of cases 2 and 3.

pg. 17