1. National Timber Bridge Design Competition - 2017
College or University Name: Temple University
Student Chapter (ASCE or FPS): ASCE
Address: 1947 N 12th St, Philadelphia, PA 19122
Website Address: bridge-design-cimp/home
Faculty Advisor: Felix Udoeyo
Phone:
Student Member in Charge of Project: Nick Catando
Phone:

2. Hours Spent on This Project Students: 250 Faculty: 5 Cost of Materials
Team Member
Class
Nick Catando
2017
Nathan Deardorff
Adam DiCioccio
Michael Cronin
Hours Spent on This Project
Students: 250
Faculty: 5
Cost of Materials
Donated: $
Purchased:$448.95

3. Abstract (Maximum 500 Word Narrative): Explain the bridge design concept and what was done to optimize stiffness wile attempting to minimize weight of the structure.
The bridge we designed and built was made up of four longitudinal beams. It was composed of two large exterior girders that were in contact with the ground and two floor beams that were supported by a total of nine transverse joists running the length of the bridge. The two large girders were designed to carry a majority of the load placed on our deck, leaving the interior beams and transverse joists to be minimized and more economical. Though the design is simple and not as complex as the other design types, it could be very effective in minimizing deflection using less material. The main point to this design concept is to take all loading applied to our bridge and distribute it to our side girders. This concept helps to minimize the total amount of wood we had to use and the amount of metal needed to connect it. Southern Yellow Pine was used for the bridge because it is commercially available and made reliable, strong glue-laminated beams and decking.

4. 2. Deflection Table (Deflection – millimeters rounded to 2 decimal places)
1. Loading Increment
2. Bridge
3. Beam
LEFT
4. Beam
RIGHT
5. Average
(L & R)
6. Gross Deck
7. Net Deck
5 kN
0.95
0.83
0.75
0.79
0.21
-0.58
10 kN
2.08
2.20
2.2
0.70
-1.50
15 kN
3.22
3.36
3.07
3.215
1.15
-2.07
20 kN – 0 min.
4.84
4.77
4.33
4.55
3.81
-0.74
20 kN – 15 min.
4.92
5.07
4.58
4.825
3.90
-0.93
20 kN – 30 min.
4.98
5.75
4.72
5.235
4.50
-0.73
20 kN –45 min.
5.08
5.80
4.89
5.345
4.86
-0.48
20 kN – 60 min.
5.89
4.97
5.43
5.63
0.20
Loading Increments
Bridge – As measured at midspan of the longitudinal beam receiving greatest loading.
Beam L – As measured under the longitudinal beam to left of selected deck monitoring point.
Beam R – As measured under the longitudinal beam to right of selected deck monitoring point.
Average (L & R) – Average of 3 and 4, above.
Gross Deck – As measured under the loading point expected to experience maximum deflection.
Net Deck – Column 6 minus Column 5.
Deck Span:
Transverse distance between main longitudinal bridge support members measured from inside edge to inside edge = _____600______mm ÷ 100 = _____6_____mm = maximum allowable net deck deflection.

5. Material Item Description
3. Materials List
Material Item Description
Weight (kg)
 Deck Total
 274.02
Girder Left
 51.07
Girder Right
49.67
Floor Beam Left
 12.61
Floor Beam Right
12.02
Joist Total
 189.74
Joist Hangers LUS28-2
 2.92
Hurricane Tie H4
 .65
Nail Plate TP411
 .80
Corner L Bracket L50
 .47
#9x1.5 Connector Screws SD9112
 .52
#9x2.5 Connector Screws SD2112
 .36
#10x4 Deck Screws
 1.89
#9x3 Curb Screws
 .33
TOTAL WEIGHT (Kg)
 471.69
Weight Non-Wood (Kg)
 7.94
Percent Non-Wood (max. 25%)
 1.68

6. 4. Summary – Describe Bridge and Its Behavior Under Load (max
4. Summary – Describe Bridge and Its Behavior Under Load (max. 500 words)
Under loading our bridge held up very well. We saw the greatest amount of deflection take place when we added the full 20kN on our bridge and let it sit for an hour. During that time period we saw increases in deflection to a point near the end of the hour were the deflection seemed to being to level out. Overall, our bridge and its components did not deflect too much in the process. The deck withstood the forces very well and distributed much of the forces to the substructure components.

7. Side Drawing (insert below)
All dimensions in inches.

8. End Drawing (insert below)
All dimensions in inches.

9. Trimetric Drawing (insert below)

10. All dimensions in inches.
Drawing Clearly Showing Location of Loading and Deflection Gage Points in Relation to Longitudinal Members (insert below) NOTE: Repeat slide if loading set-up was moved to measure deck deflection.
All dimensions in inches.

11. All dimensions in inches.
Drawing Clearly Showing Location of Loading and Deflection Gage Points in Relation to Transverse Members (insert below) NOTE: Repeat slide if loading set-up was moved to measure deck deflection.
All dimensions in inches.

12. PHOTO Showing SIDE View of Loading Setup for Measuring Bridge Deflection (insert below) NOTE: Repeat slide if loading set-up was moved to measure deck deflection.

13. PHOTO Showing END View of Loading Setup for Measuring Bridge Deflection (insert below) NOTE: Repeat slide if loading set-up was moved to measure deck deflection.

14. End Photo of Finished Bridge

15. Side Photo of Finished Bridge

16. Trimetric Photo of Finished Bridge

17. Team Photo (with bridge in the foreground, where possible)

18. 6. Bridge Component Details
Briefly describe each bridge component, as applicable.
Stringers/Girders
3”x12” 24F-V5 Southern Yellow Pine Glulam. Designed to take the distributed loads from all other components of the bridge.
Deck
3”x6” (2.5”x5.5” actual) Southern Yellow Pine. Designed to take the first impact of the load and distributed it to the substructure.
Floor Beams
2”x4” 24F-V5 Southern Yellow Pine Glulam. Designed to take loading forces on the deck and distribute them to the joists.
Suspension
2”x6” 24F-V5 Southern Yellow Pine Glulam. Designed to take forces from the floor beams and distribute them to the girders.
Unique Components

19. 7. Preservative Treatment: Describe the preservative treatment applied to all wood members. Include type and concentrations. Also, include a short statement of why this treatment was selected. Did the treatment requirement present any special problems? If yes, provide details. If treatment was not selected, explain why.
The preservative treatment used and recommended by our timber supplier was MCA. Micronized Copper Azole is clean, odorless, non- staining, and non-irritating. It is safe for humans, animals, and the environment. It has a long-lasting resistance to decay and termites. It can also withstand harsh weather conditions and is effective for decades. In addition, all glue-laminated members were sealed and laminated.

20. 8. Special Considerations –Indicate the End Use of Your Bridge
The final destination for our beautiful bridge is going to be a Juniata Golf Club in North Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It we be used as a small creek crossing for golf carts and pedestrians on the course.

21. 9. Summarize the Team’s Experience from Participation in this Competition. Was it beneficial? What steps would you recommend to improve the experience?
Overall, we had a pretty good experience with the competition. We learned a lot about timber and benefits of a timber as a construction material. We also learned a lot about time management and the design/build process. The whole process of designing and building the bridge was beneficial to us in the way that it prepares us for the outside engineering world. In order to improve the process, we would recommend more detailed drawings of the competition guidelines.

22. Photo of Bridge Weighing

23. BRIDGE DECK BEAM LEFT BEAM RIGHT
One photo of each deflection gauge at full loading, with identification sign indicating DECK, BEAM LEFT, BEAM RIGHT, BRIDGE.
BRIDGE
DECK
BEAM LEFT
BEAM RIGHT

24. Add as many photos as you wish showing the bridge construction process
Add as many photos as you wish showing the bridge construction process. Especially consider photos of internal structural components that may not be visible to judges from observing the finished bridge.