1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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: 8

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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