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 002 Design Team Mothman Design Team #2 Kathryn Yorko Dylan Stecklair Min Jung Kim Brian Block Presented to: Prof. Berezniak Spring 2016

Statement of Problem Local flooding caused the bridge over Spring Creek to collapse All traffic must be rerouted more than 10 miles now Disrupts traffic flow, local commerce, and exposes State College residents to considerable risk in emergencies 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 To design a new vehicle bridge over Spring Creek to replace the destroyed 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. 3

Design Criteria Design must include Standard abutments No piers Deck material made from medium strength concrete No cable anchorages A span of 40 meters and an elevation of 20 meters Design must be able to hold two AASHTO H20-44 trucks (225kN) Both a Howe and a Warren must be analyzed 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 Cost of the bridge was found using Engineering Encounters Bridge Design software Material Cost Connection Cost Product Cost Site 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. 5

Technical Approach Phase 2: Structural Efficiency A prototype bridge for both the Warren and Howe design were load tested until failure Structural efficiency was calculated by dividing the load the bridges supported at failure by the weight of the prototype bridge Objective was to find which truss was more effective at dissipating the force of a load 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

Results Phase 1: Economic Efficiency Howe The Howe truss bridge would cost $213,960.11 The Warren truss bridge would cost $220,912.59 The difference in costs is $6,952.48 Warren 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 The structural efficiency of Design Team 2’s designs were Howe: 322 Warren: 238 Both prototype bridges were made from the same materials (60 popsicle sticks) Failure in both bridges occurred because the top joints failed 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. 8

Best Solution Economic Efficiency: The Howe bridge cost $6,952.48 less while using the same amount of materials as the Warren Structural Efficiency: The Howe design had a structural efficiency that was 84 more than the Warren Design Efficiency: The Howe truss had a design efficiency of $664.50/unit while the Warren’s was $928/unit Constructability: The Howe only used one type of material while the Warren used two 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 The Howe through truss design is better than the Warren in every category Economic Efficiency Structural Efficiency Design Efficiency 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 PennDOT should go with the Howe truss design if they want the strongest and most inexpensive 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. 11