1. Ben, Jonathan, Mason, Kambriea Design Team 1
Bridge Design Project
Ben, Jonathan, Mason, Kambriea
Design Team 1

2. Statement of the Problem
100 year flood damage
Disrupts traffic
Danger to State College residents
Severe flooding from a 100 year flood damaged a bridge over Spring Creek, State College PA. Heavily traveled, disrupting traffic and danger because 1st responder vehicles do not have direct access to that area of State College

3. Project Objective Design replacement bridge
Emergency, fast-paced project
Penndot Engineering district 2 initiated a fast-track, emergency project to design a new bridge to replace the recently destroyed bridge.

4. Required Design Criteria
Standard abutments
No piers
Medium Strength Concrete
No Cable Anchorages
Designed for the Load of Two Trucks
Bridge Deck Elevation of 20 Meters
Deck Span of 40 Meters
Concept Design of Howe and Warren Through Truss Bridge

5. Phase 2: structural efficiency
Warren: Mass lbs. (78.7 grams)
Load failure lbs.
Efficiency - 250
Howe: Mass lbs. (83.4 grams)
Load failure lbs.
Efficiency - 318

6. Phase 1: economic efficiency

7. The results: economic efficiency
High Compression Forces = Hollow Tubes
High Tension Forces = Solid Bars
High-Strength Low-alloy steel was used when compression strength was high
Carbon Steel was used to lower cost
Quenched and Tempered was used as a mix between slightly increased cost and increased strength

8. The results: structural efficiency
EDSGN100
Design Team#
Howe Truss Bridge Weight (grams)
Bridge Weight (lbs.)
Load at Failure (lbs.)
Structural Efficiency 1
83.4
0.1839
58.5
318 2
84.6
0.1865
43.5
233 3
65.3
0.1440
36.0
250 4
83.6
0.1843
236 5
69.0
0.1521
71.0
467 6
76.2
0.1680
66.0
393
EDSGN100
Design Team#
Warren Truss Bridge Weight (grams)
Bridge Weight (lbs.)
Load at Failure (lbs.)
Structural Efficiency 1
78.7
0.1735
43.4
250 2
91.2
0.2011
76.0
378 3
54.9
0.1211
21.0
173 4
86.7
0.1911
58.5
306 5
74.2
0.1636
43.5
266 6
73.5
0.1620
36.0
222
Minimum 233
Maximum 467
Range
Average
Geomean
Minimum 173
Maximum 378
Range
Average
Geomean

9. The best solution Structural Efficiency of Howe Bridge Design
Average Ours-318
Structural Efficiency of Warren Bridge Design
Average Ours-250
Economic Efficiency Comparison
Howe: $209, Warren: $203,851.50

10. Our conclusions
Our Objective
Importance of the task
The best choice: