Bridge Report By Jenny. Gina. Eunji. Matt Team 5

Introduction

Daily activities Family, friends, work, school, travel How are you getting from location A to location B? Safety on the road YOU can be a safe, but what about THEM?? Enough to worry about, construction of roads and bridges should allow one to feel safe & secure

Introduction Our design Simple Efficient Safe Smaller

Introduction Why be interested? Strengths our bridge possesses make it the best design Through our presentation we will explain why we feel it is the best option After listening and learning about our bridge, our client will be enthused and believe in our design

Introduction PROTOTYPE Design process Performance Changes/suggestions FINAL Changes for final design Performance Recommendations

Introduction CONCLUSION Testing results Goals of our bridge

Prototype Design

Design Process Strengths Based on working design Structural shape Solid walls Multiple layers Weaknesses Heavy Construction Connecting sides Arched Design

Design Process Strengths Triangles Base Light Weaknesses Response to forces Triangular Design

Design Process Truss Design Strengths Well known Efficient Light Weaknesses Originality Response to forces

Prototype Number of depressors Compromises

Prototype Strengths Solid walls Bracing Number of connecting members

Prototype Strengths Box

Prototype Performance Bridge Weight: lbs Weight Held: 192 lbs Efficiency: 258

Prototype Performance Expectations Results

Prototype Performance Weak Points Bracing Wall widths

Suggestions for Change Wall widths Cross Members Bridge height and angle Use of different glue More Symmetrical

Final Design

Changes for Finality Changes from 1 st to 2 nd Less amount of sticks Higher angle More bracing near top Less bracing near bottom Cross bracing inside Smaller surface at top Cut more off sides and a little off the bottom Stronger glue vs. Weaker glue (Elmer ’ s Glue vs. Hot Glue) Use of clamps

Final Bridge Performance Weight held 313 lbs Bridge weight.52 lbs Efficiency 602

Failures of Final Design Bracing near bottom left broke First bracing caused inside cross braces to break Bridge began to twist

Final Bridge Performance Did the improvements help the redesigned bridge ’ s performance? Yes. If the final bracing near the bottom didn ’ t break, the bridge would have been able to hold much more weight. This can be predicted because the side with no broken braces was completely in tact.

Recommendations Further bracing near bottom sides of bridge More cross braces Allow less room for torsion

Conclusion

We showed why our design is best Performs well Simple, efficient, and easy to build Efficiency: 602, Load Held: 313lbs.

- The End - Goodbye!