Design Project 1 Replacement of Vehicle Bridge over
Design Project #1 Replacement of Vehicle Bridge over Spring Creek Centre County, PA Introduction to Engineering Design EDGSN 100 Section 002 (The Wiggles) Design Team 3 Maks Mateja Alex Olson Dillon Famous Cameron Mc. Clellan Presented to: Prof. Berezniak Spring 2018 Insert Your Design Team Photo here
Statement of the Problem - Severe flooding has destroyed a bridge located over Spring Creek along Puddintown Road in College Township, Centre County, PA. - The destroyed bridge is along a heavily traveled road and is designated as a lifeline for vehicle access to the Mount Nittany Medical Center. - All traffic must now be re-routed several miles and exposes State College residents to considerable risk, since first-responder vehicles do not have direct access to that area of College Township.
Project Objective Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Penn. DOT) Engineering District 2 -0 initiated an emergency project ● Design new vehicle bridge ● Spring Creek ● Replace bridge destroyed by flood
Required Design Criteria - Standard abutments, no piers (one span) - Deck material shall be medium strength concrete (0. 23 meters thick) - No cable anchorages and designed for the load of two AASHTO H 20 -44 trucks (225 k. N) with one in each traffic lane - The bridge deck elevation shall be set at 20 meters and the deck span 40 meters.
The Technical Approach Phase 1: Economic Efficiency -The goal was to make a structurally efficient bridge with a cost of under $250, 000 -Tried to maximize the use of tensile and compressive forces and use hollow tubes to minimize cost
The Technical Approach Phase 2: Structural Efficiency One of the most important design elements in our bridge was its structural efficiency. We tested multiple bridge designs and chose the one that was the most stable under load and used the least amount of material.
The Results Phase 1: Economic Efficiency Warren -increasing the height and using hollow tubes had the same effect as solid members but a lower cost Howe - Tried multiple structures but none of them were under $250, 000
The Results Phase 2: Structural Efficiency On average the Warren Truss bridge experienced much smaller tension and compression forces than the Howe Truss bridge. Warren: 304 Howe: 245 Warren Truss Left Howe Truss Right
The Best Solution ● Warren bridge provides higher efficiency ● Higher Average ● Higher Geometric Mean ● Lower range ● Higher minimum
Our Conclusions ● Select the Warren Truss design: cheaper, more structurally efficient ● Met with average results (see recommendations) ● - Both for warren and howe - In Pennsylvania In United States Around the world Need for better bridges
Our Recommendations ● Biggest problem was the connection at the end ● Hot glue at the end could be improved ● Could use more time between glueing and load test ● More investigation into keeping both sides of the bridge together
In Closing
Bridge screenshots
Bridge screenshots
- Slides: 22
