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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Best Solution Economic Efficiency:
The Howe bridge cost $6, 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

10. 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

11. 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