Centre County PA Introduction to Engineering Design EDGSN 100 Section 001 Fig Neutrons Design Team 1 Gavin Oswald Jude Lampman Leah Kiner Derek Shuman Presented to Prof Berezniak Spring 2018 ID: 815474
Download The PPT/PDF document "Design Project #1 Replacement of Vehicle..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Design Project #1Replacement of Vehicle Bridge over Spring CreekCentre County, PAIntroduction to Engineering DesignEDGSN 100 Section 001Fig NeutronsDesign Team 1Gavin OswaldJude LampmanLeah KinerDerek Shuman
Presented to: Prof. BerezniakSpring 2018
Slide2Statement of the ProblemA severe 100-year flood in Spring Creek along Puddintown Road in College Township, Centre County, PA destroyed a deficient vehicle and pedestrian bridge located in Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Engineering District 2-0. This bridge is a vital lifeline for travel to the Mount Nittany Medical Center located in State College, PA. Rerouted traffic is disrupting resident traffic flow, school bus routes, and local commerce. This is a safety hazard because first-responder vehicles do not have direct access to that area of College township.2
PennDOT Engineering District 2-0 has requested the designing and building of a new vehicle bridge over Spring Creek due to a recent destructive flood event.
Project Objective
Slide3Required Design CriteriaStandard abutmentsNo piers (one span)Deck material shall be medium strength concrete (0.23 meters thick)no cable anchorages Designed for the load of two AASHTO H20-44 trucks (225kN) with one in each traffic lane. The bridge deck elevation was 20 meters and the deck span was exactly 40 meters. Each design team designed and tested a concept for both a Warren through truss bridge and a Howe through truss bridge.
4
Slide4The Technical Approach Phase 1: Economic EfficiencyEconomic Efficiency Engineering Encounters Bridge Design 2016 (EEBD 2016) was used in the designing of both a Warren and Howe bridge. With the software, loads were tested on the bridges to determine strength and the total cost of construction. The bridges utilized different widths and materials to minimize costs and symmetry for strength. This program was used to determine which bridge type was most efficient to use. 5
The Technical Approach Phase 2: Structural Efficiency
The ability for a truss bridge to safely dissipate live loads is structural efficiency. Structural efficiency (SE) is calculated by dividing the load the bridge supports at catastrophic failure by the weight of the prototype bridge.
LOAD
WEIGHT
BRIDGE
WEIGHT
Slide5The Results Phase 1: Economic EfficiencyThe Warren bridge ($218,727.49) is more economically efficient than the Howe bridge ($233,744.06).The Warren bridge was cheaper by ~$15,000 because it used less quenched steel than the Howe bridge, and quenched steel is expensive.
7
Slide6The Results Phase 2: Structural EfficiencyThe structural efficiencies for our bridges were 251 for the Howe bridge design and 201 for the Warren bridge design. The average structural efficiency of the Warren bridges was 348 compared to 279 in the Howe bridge. (Difference of 69)
The Howe design had a small range of 293 as compared to 439 for the Warren design. (Difference of 146)The max value for the Warren bridge (640) was significantly higher than the max structural efficiency of the Howe bridge (418), and the minimum value of the Warren bridges (201) was also higher than the minimum value of the Howe bridges (125).
Overall
, the Warren design is vastly favorable in terms of structural efficiency
8
Slide7Our DesignsWarren Truss….……………………………Howe Truss7
Slide8The Best Solution: Warren Truss BridgeEconomic Efficiency: The Warren cost $218,727.49 while the Howe cost $233,744.06. Structural Efficiency: The structural efficiencies for our bridges were 251 for the Howe bridge design and 201 for the Warren bridge design. The average structural efficiency of the Warren bridges was 348 compared to 279 in the Howe bridge. The Howe design had a small range of 293 as compared to 439 for the Warren design.
Design Efficiency: costs: Warren, $218,727.49 Howe, $233,744.06
Structural efficiencies: Warren 201, Howe 251
Design efficiencies ($/SE): Warren 1088, Howe 931
Constructability
: The overall costs of the Warren Bridge was $15,016.57 cheaper than the Howe Bridge.
9
Slide9Our ConclusionsWe created both a Warren an Howe Truss Bridge to meet PennDOT’s project requirements due to the recent flood event at Spring Creek.Our bridge met and fulfilled the design specifications. Both bridges were able to carry two large trucks and fulfilled the correct span, cost, and material requirements.Based on the design on the EEBD 16 our recommendation for the bridge would be to construct a Warren Truss Bridge. The Warren bridge was substantially cheaper and more structurally efficient than the Howe Bridge.
This project was important because it gave us an opportunity to not only learn about the important engineering concept of bridge design, but also to use what we learned to have the hands-on experience of constructing two truss bridges.
10
Slide10Our RecommendationsNext Steps To Advance The Bridge Designs:-Take it to the woodshop, build prototypes on a larger scale- Choose different substances for gluing, stronger materials to hold more loadA more detailed investigation could be made on what should be used to “glue” the bridge struts together.Possible Courses of Action:Interview an expert, set up a consultation for bridge design to be utilized in the real-worldExperiment with different truss bridge designs11
Slide11In Closing: Thank You PennDOT!Your Travels will never be the same!