Bridge Report

By Jenny. Gina. Eunji. MattTeam 5

Introduction

Introduction

Daily activities Family, friends, work, school, travel How are you getting from location A to location

B?

Safety on the road YOU can be a safe, but what about THEM?? Enough to worry about, construction of roads

and bridges should allow one to feel safe & secure

Introduction

Our design Simple

Efficient

Safe

Smaller

Introduction

Why be interested? Strengths our bridge possesses make it the

best design

Through our presentation we will explain why we feel it is the best option

After listening and learning about our bridge, our client will be enthused and believe in our design

Introduction PROTOTYPE

Design process Performance Changes/suggestions

FINAL Changes for final design Performance Recommendations

Introduction

CONCLUSION Testing results Goals of our bridge

Prototype Design

Design Process

Strengths Based on working design Structural shape Solid walls Multiple layers

Weaknesses Heavy Construction Connecting sidesArched Design

Design Process

Strengths Triangles Base Light

Weaknesses Response to forcesTriangular Design

Design Process

Truss Design

Strengths Well known Efficient Light

Weaknesses Originality Response to forces

Prototype

Number of depressors

Compromises

Prototype

Strengths Solid walls Bracing Number of

connecting members

Prototype

Strengths Box

Prototype Performance

Bridge Weight:0.744 lbs

Weight Held:192 lbs

Efficiency:258

Prototype Performance

Expectations Results

Prototype PerformanceWeak Points

Bracing Wall widths

Suggestions for Change

Wall widths Cross Members Bridge height and angle Use of different glue More Symmetrical

Final Design

Changes for FinalityChanges from 1st to 2nd

Less amount of sticks Higher angle More bracing near top Less bracing near bottom Cross bracing inside Smaller surface at top Cut more off sides and a

little off the bottom Stronger glue vs. Weaker

glue (Elmer’s Glue vs. Hot Glue)

Use of clamps

Final Bridge Performance

Weight held313 lbs

Bridge weight.52 lbs

Efficiency602

Failures of Final Design Bracing near bottom left

broke First bracing caused

inside cross braces to break

Bridge began to twist

Final Bridge Performance

Did the improvements help the redesigned bridge’s performance?

Yes.If the final bracing near the bottom

didn’t break, the bridge would have been able to hold much more weight. This can be predicted because the side with no broken braces was completely in tact.

Recommendations

Further bracing near bottom sides of bridge

More cross braces Allow less room for torsion

Conclusion

Conclusion

We showed why our design is best Performs well Simple, efficient, and easy to build Efficiency: 602, Load Held: 313lbs.

- The End -

Goodbye!