Replacement of Vehicle Bridge over Spring Creek Design Project #1 Replacement of Vehicle Bridge over Spring Creek Centre County, PA Introduction to Engineering Design EDGSN 100 Section ### Beachboys Team 2 Max Hyatt Mahesh Pai Xavier Galgano James Zhao Insert Your Bridge Photo here Insert Your Design Team Photo here Presented to: Prof. Berezniak Fall 2015

Statement of Problem Local flooding Bridge Failed PennDOT contact Need for bridge Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 2

Objective Replace the bridge. Requirement: Withstand flood. 3 Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 3

Design Criteria No piers (one span) Deck : medium strength concreate. No cable Designed for load of two AASHTO H2)-44 Trucks. Bridge deck elevation 20 meters Bridge deck span 40 meters. Both Howe and Warren bridges needs to be analized. Steel member type, Steel cross section type, and Steel member size. Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 4

Technical Approach Phase 1: Economic Efficiency Materials: solid , carbon steel Hollow quenched and tempered steel Howe truss is more economic efficient Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 5

Technical Approach Phase 2: Structural Efficiency Both designed and built out of standard wooden Same dimension of length height and width Howe truss used 48 popsticks Warren truss used 50 popsticks Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 6

Result Phase 1: Economic Efficiency Howe: Total cost $326,083.37 Warren: Total cost $339,039.89 Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 7

Results Phase 2: Structural Efficiency Howe: Prototype Load testing Forensics Analysis SE=(Load at Failure/Weight of Structure Warren: Prototype Load testing Forensics Analysis Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. Warren did not get an SE Howe SE: 239.72 8

Best Solution Warren truss design Price is more than Howe Truss Bridge but it is a safer design. Warren Bridge was unable to be determined on the weight that it could hold but was determined that it could hold more weigh then the Howe design which could hold 3.9Ibs Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 9

Conclusions Howe Truss Bridge held weight of 33.9Ibs Warren Truss Bridge was undetermined on the weight that it could up too but could hold at least 33.9Ibs Warren weighed more but is the safer solution Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 10

Recommendations Warren Truss Bridge design is a safer design to go with to construct this bridge. Recommended bridge for the area. It is better to go with safety than cost Use this slide to create a new slide—use this template slide if you would prefer to have a Penn State blue background for your slides. 11