AMANDA GREENTRIPP COLLIERWILL RILEYTAE FREEMANJASON REINSTEVE LEEWAYNE PENCETY WARDELLADVISOR: Dr. J. LEROY HULSEYADVISOR: WILHELM MUENCH

MAIN REQUIREMENTS:• Each member has to fit inside a 6”x4”x36”

box• Overall height, length and width of bridge• Construction rules and restrictions

WHAT WE FOCUSED ON:• Decrease weight• Increase stiffness• Quick construction speed

Multiple designs drawn and tested in SAP (Structural Analysis Program)

3 Types of Connections for Main Span• Dove tail

• T-slot

• Twist lock

• Specialized cantilever connections

We wanted to utilize a side rotation for each main span member for quick construction.

Steps:• Main-span members

rough cut Mill

• Top and bottom chord had plate welded• Connections• Welded entire main-span with connections

in place• Cantilever

April 27th-29th Hosted By:

• University of Washington & Seattle University

13 Universities competing

WEDID

AWESOME

May 25th-26th Hosted By:

• Clemson University in South Carolina 47 Universities competing

Two National Titles – 1993, 1996 (tied)

8 top 8 finishes at National Competition out of 12 attempts.

One provisional patent

Revolutionized method of testing students’ bridges at competition

1993 – 1st time we competed; won all categories at Regional’s & all categories at National’s

1995 – National’s: 4th place overall 1996 - Disqualified at Regional’s; re-instated & tied for 1st

at National’s. 1997 - Did not send a bridge; bridge failed during testing. 1998 – At Regional’s: Bridge collapsed during unloading;

obtained a provisional patent for the concept.

2001 – Bridge was not in top three at Regional’s. 2002 - Bridge was not in top three at Regional’s. 2003 - 6th at National’s 2004 - 4th at National’s

2005 - Regional’s • Overall Performance (1st)• Economy (1st)• Efficiency (1st)• Stiffness (2nd)• Lightness (2nd)• Construction speed (3rd)• Aesthetics (10th)

National’s - 6th overall

2006 – No bridge 2007 - Hosted Regional’s 2008 - 8th at Nationals

2010 – Regional Competition. •Construction speed – (3)•Lightness - (1)•Display - (2) •Stiffness - (8)•Economy - (5)•Efficiency - (8)•Overall - (7)

2011- Regional’s took 1st place in five of the six individual categories. They were: efficiency, stiffness, economy, lightness and construction speed. The team also won fourth place in aesthetics.

The record at National’s was : first place in Lightness

and placed 8th overall. 

• Construction speed (6th)• Lightness (14th)• Aesthetics (15th)• Stiffness (19th)• Economy (1st)• Efficiency (15th)• Overall (7th)