Successful Bridge Design

Cameron Stacy
 Introduction
 A bridge is a structure used to compensate for an obstacle such as a
valley, river, or to assist traffic flow.
 Early bridge’s development used natural materials such as flat
stones and tree trunks.
 Bridges have been seen in history from as long ago as 4,000 years
crossing the Euphrates River.
 Romans can be considered the greatest bridge builders in ancient
history.
 The Roman bridges were known for their water proof cement,
massive arches, and the ability to make temporary structures to
work on pier abutments under water called cofferdams.
 Many of the bridges throughout Europe follow the Roman design.
 Modern Bridge development began in the 17th and 18th Century.
 In the 18th Century iron began to replace the timber, brick, and stone
of ancient bridges.
 Iron aloud for longer spans that could cross great distances.
 This study will examine the weight supported by girder and
suspension bridges.
 What is a Girder Bridge?
 A girder bridge is perhaps the most common and most basic bridge.
 The two most common girders are I-beam girders and box girders.
 The typical span of a girder bridge is 10m to 200m.
 The girder bridge evenly distributes the weight of the traffic amongst
its many supports.
 What is a Suspension Bridge?
 The suspension bridge allows the largest span of all bridges to this
day.
 The typical span of a suspension bridge is 70m to 1000+m.
 The cables on a suspension bridge needs stiffing to help distribute
the weight amongst many cables.
 The two main cables then connect to huge concrete structures
where the cables are secured into the ground and distribute weight
into the earth.
 Minneapolis Bridge Collapse
 In August of 2007 design flaws caused the Minnesota to collapse
into the Mississippi river.
 When the bridge collapsed into the river 13 people were killed and
almost 145 were injured.
 The design flaw found was that of the gusset plates were too thin to
hold the weight of traffic.
 The Austin Public Works Department services the city’s 10-15
bridges.
 There are hundreds of bridges in the greater Pittsburgh area.
 This fact that a city with only 10-15 bridges could have one collapse
compared to Pittsburgh’s hundreds prompted
me to perform an experiment to
designate the most efficient bridge
design.
 Purpose
The purpose of this research is to
determine the most efficient bridge design.
This experiment will simulate constructions
of bridges, from simple deck design to
more complex suspension bridge designs.
The experiment will take the designs of the
computer to the laboratory, testing the
affectedness of various designs.
 Hypotheses
Experimental Hypothesis:
– There will be a significant difference between
the weights supported by a deck depending
on the design
Null Hypothesis
– There will be no difference in the weights
supported by a deck depending on the
design.
 Materials
 6” x 12” x ½” Styrofoam
 ¼” x ¼” Balsa wood strips
 1/8” x 1/8” Balsa wood strips
 4” x 4” x 24” Wood supports
 MAACO liquid nail adhesive
 Dental Floss
 Balsa wood knife
 Stop watch
 Ruler
 E-Hole screws
 Food scale
 Weights at .45kg increments
 Note book and pencil for data recording
 Computer for support design
 Calculator
 Procedure
 Collect Materials necessary to complete testing.
 Research design of suspension and girder bridge.
 Take design from computer to libratory.
 Cut Styrofoam and balsa wood to appropriate sizes to match
design.
 Adhere supports fabricated to Styrofoam bridge deck.
 Allow adhesive to cure as directed for 24 hours.
 Place bridge Mock-Ups on 4”x 4” wood supports.
 Place weights at .45 kg increments allowing 60 seconds
between additions of weight.
 Add weight until the simulated bridge fails fully-cracking apart.
 Record weight necessary to break the bridge deck, recorded
on data sheet in kg.
 DATA
Small Small
Flat With 2 Small Small Large Large Upper Lower
1/4" Upper Lower Upper Lower With With
Trial Control Supports Support Support Support Support Floss Floss

1. 1.91 kg 9.23 kg 11.7 kg 12.26 kg 8.78 kg 9.45 kg 11.7 kg 12.83 kg

2. 1.80 kg 9.00 kg 11.36 kg 12.15 kg 8.55 kg 9.23 kg 11.81 kg 13.05 kg

3. 1.91 kg 9.45 kg 11.93 kg 12.15 kg 8.78 kg 9.45 kg 11.59 kg 12.6 kg

4. 2.03 kg 9.23 kg 11.81 kg 12.38 kg 9.00 kg 9.56 kg 11.7 kg 12.83 kg

5. 1.91 kg 8.78 kg 11.7 kg 12.26 kg 8.66 kg 9.45 kg 11.81 kg 12.83 kg

 Results
 The smaller supports of the Styrofoam deck
provided the most contestant support. Small
lower supports were the most successful.
 Larger supports were not as successful as the
smaller supports, both upper and lower.
 Adding floss to act as a suspension bridge
enhanced the strength of all the bridge designs.
 Analysis
Failure of the large supports demonstrated
weakness because of the added lengths of
the girder system.
Deck failure was common with the small
supports, while the girder system failed in
the larger support designs.
Sources of Error