1. Engineering 100: Bridge Project Group 6 (Team Bacardi) Jon Honari, Kevin Lam, Otis Chantharangsy, Ivee Ilao Group 6 (Team Bacardi) Jon Honari, Kevin Lam, Otis Chantharangsy, Ivee Ilao

2. Presentation Outline  Design  Ideas  Prototype Bridge  Process  Testing/Results  Prototype Analysis  Flaws  Improvements  Design  Ideas  Prototype Bridge  Process  Testing/Results  Prototype Analysis  Flaws  Improvements  Final Bridge  Design  Testing/results  Final Results  Graph  Analysis  Failures  Conclusion  Final Bridge  Design  Testing/results  Final Results  Graph  Analysis  Failures  Conclusion

3. Design  Arch Design  Proved to be strongest structure based on our research  Base  Flat and straight  Supports  Angle supports  Evenly distributed force  Arch Design  Proved to be strongest structure based on our research  Base  Flat and straight  Supports  Angle supports  Evenly distributed force

4. Prototype Design

5. Prototype Process  Arch  Supports  Road  Connections  Structural Reinforcements  Arch  Supports  Road  Connections  Structural Reinforcements

6. Prototype Process

7. Prototype Testing/Results

8. Prototype Analysis  Flaws  Uneven weight distribution  Not supported where bridge met jig  Ultimate reason for failure  Weak road  Sloppy design  Unnecessary weight  Flaws  Uneven weight distribution  Not supported where bridge met jig  Ultimate reason for failure  Weak road  Sloppy design  Unnecessary weight

9. Prototype Flaws Red: Excess WeightGreen: Lack of Support

10. Final Design  Excess weight was removed  Top section was more reinforced  Used wood glue instead of hot glue for the majority  Made sure weight was distributed evenly  Reinforced the legs where the bridge met the jig  Added more supports  Excess weight was removed  Top section was more reinforced  Used wood glue instead of hot glue for the majority  Made sure weight was distributed evenly  Reinforced the legs where the bridge met the jig  Added more supports

11. Prototype vs. Final Design Final BridgePrototype

12. Final Design (Completed)

13. Final Testing/Results

14. Final Design Failure Important joints were overlooked and were not supported correctly

15. Final Analysis  Overall, very good improvement  Bridge weighed 0.59 lbs  Bridge held 531.89 lbs  Performance = Successful  With more supports in the correct places we believe the bridge could hold much more weight  Overall, very good improvement  Bridge weighed 0.59 lbs  Bridge held 531.89 lbs  Performance = Successful  With more supports in the correct places we believe the bridge could hold much more weight

16. We conclude…  Spending more time on the construction yielded better results  About 170% improvement  High efficiency ratio  Endures a high amount of pressure  Lasts under consistent amount of low pressure  First Bridge:.56 pounds, held 296.00 lb  Final Bridge:.59 pounds, held 531.89 lb  Spending more time on the construction yielded better results  About 170% improvement  High efficiency ratio  Endures a high amount of pressure  Lasts under consistent amount of low pressure  First Bridge:.56 pounds, held 296.00 lb  Final Bridge:.59 pounds, held 531.89 lb