Bridge Design

MME 241-Statics
Due 12/10/13

By: Pratiksh Patel

Brian McKenzie
Waqas Muzammil

Table of Contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................3
Problem Statement.......................................................................................................5
Results and Analysis....................................................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................16
Appendix......................................................................................................................17
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Final Bridge design.......................................................................................3,6
Figure 2: Alternate Design 1.........................................................................................4
Figure 3: Alternate Design 2.........................................................................................5
Figure 3a: Force Distribution on Square and Triangle Members..................................7
Figure 4: Weight of the Members Equation..................................................................8
Figure 5: Material Density Given by West Point Bridge Design..................................8
Figure 6: Weight Density of Available Materials..........................................................8
Figure 7: Free Body Diagram of Truss Frame.............................................................10
Figure 8: Free Body Diagram of Joints........................................................................10
Figure 9: Free Body Diagram of Joints........................................................................11
Figure 10: Free Body Diagram of Joints.......................................................................11
Figure11: External reaction forces on the joints...........................................................12
Figure12: Forces on the central beam...........................................................................13
Figure 13: Forces generated by WPBD.........................................................................14
Figure 14: Simulation Run of the truck in WPBD........................................................14
Figure 15: Theory vs Simulation..................................................................................15
Table of Data
Table 1: Bridge Member Weights..................................................................................9
Table 2: Bridge Cost Breakdown..................................................................................22

Page 2

Abstract:
The purpose of this project was to design a single span bridge using any of the
available bridge types that would safely allow a standard 225kN truck to cross at the
lowest possible cost. The forces acting on the ridge had to be analyzed at two locations.
One central beam that was loaded in compression and one loaded in tension.

A successful bridge was designed at a cost of $186,470.72. Using West Point Bridge
Designer, several bridges were designed by each of the three group members using the
ideas of truss design learned in class. The primary focus of these designs ended up being
45 degree angles as these tend to provide the greatest strength. The final design is show
below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Final Bridge Design

This project allowed us to use the mathematical and physical properties learned in
class to a practical real world situation. When given the challenge of creating a low cost
bridge that would safely allow a 225kN truck to cross, the group met the challenge by

Page 3

improving on each design with both deductive reasoning and trial and error and selecting
the cheapest design that still met the given objectives.
The design chosen was the best design out of three primary designs chosen by the group.
The first of the two designs that did not make the cut are shown below in figure 2.

Figure 2: Alternate Design 1

This alternate design proved to be much sturdier than our final design, but at a much
more significant cost. At $202,272.60, it was almost $30,000 more expensive than our
final design and since our emphasis is to design the lowest cost bridge that can safely
allow the 225kN truck to pass, this design was passed on.
The second alternative design shown below in figure 3 spanned the entire length of the
gorge without any excavation. This design was impressive as it spanned 40 meters and
was not only able to hold up under its own weight, but was also able to support the
additional weight of the 225kN truck. Although impressive, as stated above the emphasis
of our design was to produce the bridge with the lowest cost. As this bridge cost
$228,720.53, it was also passed over for our final design.

Page 4

Figure 3: Alternative Design 2

Problem Statement:

Bridge designs can take on numerous different designs and shape, but they have one
common denominator, they all require the science and mathematics skills of an engineer.
From material selection, design of trusses and sections, cost, and safety are all factors that
must be taken into consideration and require the expertise and skills of engineers. All of
these factors were taken into consideration in the design of a bridge in West Point Bridge
Designer (WPBD) that would safely allow a 225kN truck to cross with the least amount
of cost possible.
Design requirements for the project were to determine the internal forces acting on
two internal locations in both compression and tension by the combined weight of the
bridge and the added weight of the crossing truck.

Page 5

Results and Analysis:

The lowest cost bridge designed by the group that met the criteria is represented below in
figure 1.

Figure 1: Final Bridge Design

This bridge is a Pratt Truss design. It provides a great amount of strength with a minimal
amount of material.
It was necessary to explore different truss geometries. When studying current bridge
designs the use of the triangle is obviously favorable. This is due to the distribution of
forces offered by angled design. When there is no load on the bridge all forces acting on
the bridge are due to the vertical force of gravity. If only vertical and horizontal joints
were used, the components would have an uneven distribution or force acting upon them.
The horizontal members would be under an extreme amount of tension and the vertical
members would have only minimal forces acting upon them. By providing a triangular
load the forced acting upon the members are more evenly distributed and provide a
stronger design. This concept is demonstrated by figure 9.

Page 6

Figure 3a: Force Distribution on Square and Triangle Members

The calculations for forces on our two locations differed from what was given in WPBD.
The differences are most likely due to all additional factors not taken into consideration in
our calculations.

After we agreed upon a bridge design, it was essential to look at each joint and member
and look for any more possible areas where the design could be improved upon. In order
to analyze the sections of the bridge, the weight was calculated for each of the individual
members and the forces acting on each member.

The individual weights of each member of the bridge were calculated using the equation
below in figure 4 and the density provided by the WPBD given in figure 5.

Page 7

Figure 4: Weight of the Members Equation

Figure 5: Material Density Given by WPBD

The equation in figure 4 and the material density given in figure 5 provided us with
the weight density of the materials available given by figure 6.

Figure 6: Weight Density of Available Materials

Page 8

Table 1 displays the weights of each member. Due to the symmetry of the bridge several
members of the bridge are the same weight.

Table 1: Bridge Member Weights

Forces on each member were calculated. Free body diagrams, as shown in Figure 7,
were drawn for all joints A through L. Weight of members acting on these joints were
calculated as shown in figure8,9 and 10 below.

Page 9

Figure 7: Free Body Diagram of truss frame

Figure 8: Free Body Diagram of Joints

Page 10

Figure 9: Free Body Diagram of Joints

Figure 10: Free Body Diagram of Joints

Page 11

Figure 11 : Calculation of the external reaction forces on the joints

Page 12

Figure 12 : Forces on the Central beam while the truck is at the center of the bridge

Page 13

Figure 13 : Forces generated by WPBD Test Run

Figure 14 : Simulated Truck in the middle of the bridge

Page 14

Figure 15 : theoretical vs. simulation forces

Conclusion:
The concepts taught in class are often understood better when they are able to be
implemented on real world problems. Bridge design allows us to use our knowledge of
internal and external forces, structural geometries, and sizes in a real world application.
We have found that triangular structures are used in bridge design for their structural
stability. This project enforces that idea and could easily be seen when changing supports
in the WPBD program. Many small changes could make or break a design by making the
slightest change in geometry or material.

Page 15

Appendix:

The given bridge dimensions are properties were calculated and organized. Each member
of the bridge design was given a number and is represented by figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Bridge Member Labels

Member Properties

Page 16

Member 9,10,11,12,18,19,21

Big length (L)

width (w)
Small length (l)

A-hollow tube [9,10,11,12,18,19,21]

=
=
=
=

120
6
L-(2*w)
108

=
=
=

L^2-l^2
2736
0.002736

=
=
=
=

140
7
L-(2*w)
126

=
=
=

L^2-l^2
3724
0.003724

=
=
=

190
9
L-(2*w)

(mm)
(mm)
(mm)

(mm^2)
(m^2)

Member 1,2,5,6,17

Big length (L)

width
Small length (l)

A-hollow tube [1,2,5,6,17]

(mm)
(mm)
(mm)

(mm^2)
(m^2)

Member 8,13,16

Big length (L)

width
Small length (l)

(mm)
(mm)

Page 17

Dead Load of Internal Joints

Single Lane

Length of the deck (l)

Width of the deck(w)
A-tributary

Weight of truck (w-t)

DLA of the truck
thickness of concrete (t-c)
thickness of asphalt (t-a)
Weight of the concrete (W-c)

Weight of the concrete (W-a)

weight of the floor beam (W-f)

4
5
=
=

m
m
l*w
20

=
=
=
=

225
1.33
0.15
0.05

KN

70.632

KN

22.0725

*(t-a)*(A-tributary)
KN

12

KN

=
=

=
=

m^2

m
m
*(t-c)*(A-tributary)

1.25*(W-c)+1.25(W-f)+1.5(W-a)+1.75(W-t)
Dead load of Internal Joints

=
(1+DLA)
=
1053.836
Dead Load on External deck

Due to Symmetry:

level

=
=

KN
0.5 * Dead Load of internal Joints
526.9181 KN

Cost:

Page 18

Table 2: Bridge Cost Breakdown

Page 19