View
225
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Bridge Report
By Jenny. Gina. Eunji. MattTeam 5
Introduction
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 sidesArched Design
Design Process
Strengths Triangles Base Light
Weaknesses Response to forcesTriangular 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:0.744 lbs
Weight Held:192 lbs
Efficiency:258
Prototype Performance
Expectations Results
Prototype PerformanceWeak 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 FinalityChanges from 1st to 2nd
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 held313 lbs
Bridge weight.52 lbs
Efficiency602
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
Conclusion
We showed why our design is best Performs well Simple, efficient, and easy to build Efficiency: 602, Load Held: 313lbs.
- The End -
Goodbye!