Bridge Design Project

By

Thao Lai
Kevin LaBeau

Grand Valley State University

Padnos School of Engineering

EGR 209: Statics

Dr. Reffeor
Fall 2003

October 2003
 Index

• Abstract 2
• Experiment Report
• Problem Statement 3
• Results and Analysis 3
• Discussion 9
• Conclusion 12
• Appendix A
• Member Properties 13
• Bridge Deck Properties 13
• Material Data 13
• Loads and Load Combinations 14
• Load Analysis
• Weight of the Deck and Wearing Surface 14
• Self-Weight of Truss Members 16
• Structural Analysis
• Equilibrium Equations 20
• Member Strength
• Tensile Strength 23
• Compressive Strength 24
• Bolt Analysis
• Shear Stress 29
• Minimum Diameter 29
• Structural Adequacy 30
• Appendix B
• Situation Diagrams 32
• Characteristic Matrix 34
• Forces
• Situation 1 35
• Situation 2 36
• Situation 3 37
• West Point Bridge Designer Bridge 38
• Works Cited

Page 1
Abstract

The purpose of this project was to design a 24 meter truss bridge that would allow a specified live
load to safely cross at the lowest possible cost, preferably between $1500 and $2500. The forces
acting on the bridge had to be analyzed at three locations. Tensile and compressive strengths and
standard bolt diameter had to be determined as well.

The maximum live load used in determining whether or not the bridge will buckle was a truck
with a rear axle force of 145kN and a front axle force of 35kN. The bridge that was designed will
not withstand a live load greater than that of the testing truck.

A successful bridge was designed, with a factor safety of one, at a cost of $2,169.51. Using West
Point Bridge Designer, multiple bridge designs were created using the ideas behind truss bridges.
These ideas include structurally stable shapes like the triangle and arch. The final design is
shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Final Bridge Design

The standard hex bolt diameter was found to be M56 with a grade of 10.9. The tensile strength in
this bolt class is 1040 MPa and the assumed shear stress for this experiment is half of the tensile
strength. Internal forces were calculated for the three positions on the bridge, in which none of
the force values exceeded the compressive and/or tensile strengths.

This experiment encouraged the application of learned mathematical and physical properties to a
real life situation. The objective of creating a strong truss bridge at a low cost was met through
deductive reasoning of choices for geometric structures and material properties.

Page 2
Problem Statement

Knowledge and skills in science and mathematics are often applied to mechanical engineering
design outside of classrooms. Material selection, geometry of parts and structure, fits and
tolerances, cost, and safety are all factors that are used with those math and science skills to solve
real life applications. These elements were utilized in designing a truss bridge, spanning 24m, in
West Point Bridge Designer (WPBD) at the lowest cost that would allow a specifically
dimensioned live load to safely cross. This live load was a truck that WPBD used to simulate
how the bridge would react to the truck crossing it. It had a rear axle force of 145kN and a front
axle force of 35kN.

Further design requirements and calculations for the project were to determine the internal forces
due to the combined dead (weight of the bridge itself due to gravity) and live load while the live
load was at three different positions. These three positions were described as the truck centered
over the second, third, and fourth joints of the bridge. It was also required to calculate the tensile
and compressive strengths. Finally, the proper standard hex bolt diameter used for connecting the
members (the rods connected by joints) had to be determined.

Results and Analysis

The most economical truss bridge design devised for the given objectives is represented below in
Figure 1.

Figure 1: Final Bridge Design

This design was a modification of the Warren Deck Truss design in WPBD. The number of
joints was altered, as well as the overall shape of the bridge.

After the bridge design was decided upon, it was essential to understand why the design met the
criteria and possibly look for more areas where the design could improve. Understanding why
the physical design of the bridge does not buckle could lead to an even more efficient and
economical design. In order to analyze the bridge, calculations were made to find the self-weight
of the truss members, the self-weight acting on the joints, the forces on each member, the member
strengths, and the factors of safety.

Page 3
Figure 2 is provided for the member identification used throughout the experiment.

Figure 2: Labeled Bridge Members

The self weights of each member in the truss were computed and will later be applied to find the
total dead loads acting on each joint. The equation used to determine the weights was
W = γ s Am L . Table 1 displays the weights of each member. When carefully observed, it can be
noted that some self-weights are the same for several members. This is due to the bridge being
symmetrical about the central vertical axis. Many other computations made in this experiment
will display the same observation. Appendix A has each calculation recorded and organized.

Table 1: Member Self-weights

Member Self-weight (kN)
AB 1.601
AH 1.775
BC 1.601
BH 0.592
CD 1.601
CH 0.885
CI 0.883
DE 1.601
DI 0.883
DJ 0.883
EF 1.601
EJ 0.883
EK 0.885
FG 1.601
FK 0.592
GK 1.775
HI 1.727
IJ 1.294
JK 1.727

Page 4
The self-weights of the members were then used to find the weights acting on each joint. The
total load, at any given joint, is fifty percent of the combined weight of all the members attached
at that joint. After finding each load on a given joint, the total factored dead load on that joint
was assessed. These weights and dead loads are arranged in Table 2 and the complete
calculations along with their respective diagrams can also be found in Appendix A.

Table 2: Self-weight and Dead Load on Joints

Joint Self-weight (kN) Dead Load (kN)
A 1.688 70.29
B 1.897 138.7
C 2.486 139.5
D 2.485 139.5
E 2.486 139.5
F 1.897 138.7
G 1.688 70.29
H 2.490 3.112
I 2.393 2.992
J 2.393 2.992
K 2.490 3.112

Member forces were calculated for the three required positions in the criteria. Visual
representation of these situations, with the truck over three joints, can be found in Appendix B.
Before looking at the loads, the characteristic matrix summarizing the geometry of the truss
design was derived from drawing free body diagrams. Free body diagrams were drawn for all
joints, A through K, and equilibrium equations were developed (See Appendix A). The reaction
forces of the pin at joint A and the roller at joint G were also calculated. The characteristic matrix
was put together in MathCad2001 Software, found in Appendix B. The inverse of the
characteristic matrix was multiplied by a loading matrix in each situation to get values for the
forces acting on each member. These loading matrices were found by summing the dead and live
loads acting on each joint, for each situation.

Page 5
Table 3 displays the forces for each member for each situation, and the forces that were found in
WPBD are shown in Table 3.1 (placed side by side comparative purposes). When observing the
presented figures, the force acting on Ax is noteworthy due to its magnitude. This extremely
small magnitude is due to all the loads, both dead and live, acting in the vertical direction, except
the slight force acting along the members attached to the pin in the horizontal direction.

Table 3: Calculated Forces Table 3.1: WPBD Calculated Forces

Member Situation 1 Situation 2 Situation 3 Member Compressive Tension
(kN) (kN) (kN) Force (kN) Force (kN)
AB 959.8(C) 1131(C) 1010(C) AB 1191.2 0
AH 1109(T) 1306(T) 1167(T) AH 0 1376.4
BC 864.9(C) 1047(C) 972.3(C) BC 1061.3 0
BH 360.8(C) 318.6(C) 143.8(C) BH 493.6 0
CD 824.4(C) 1063(C) 1169(C) CD 1172.1 0
CH 50.21(C) 182.8(C) 325.8(C) CH 355.4 0
CI 167.5(C) 261.6(C) 110.8(C) CI 280.4 58.8
DE 772.7(C) 958.8(C) 1123(C) DE 1194.9 0
DI 24.12(C) 8.860(T) 149.4(C) DI 301.1 15.5
DJ 134.0(C) 213.1(C) 246.1(C) DJ 252.7 63.8
EF 657.4(C) 778.0(C) 898.6(C) EF 1057.4 0
EJ 32.77(C) 10.56(T) 7.769(T) EJ 335 32.3
EK 171.2(C) 230.4(C) 289.6(C) EK 319.2 35.8
FG 695.3(C) 815.8(C) 936.4(C) FG 1117.5 0
FK 143.8(C) 143.8(C) 143.8(C) FK 493.6 0
GK 803.4(T) 942.7(T) 1082(T) GK 0 1291.3
HI 919.5(T) 1208(T) 1243(T) HI 0 1327.5
IJ 835.8(T) 1059.1(T) 1239(T) IJ 0 1307.6
JK 802.3(T) 971.0(T) 1140(T) JK 0 1294.7
Ax 6.61E-14 7.06E-14 9.94E-14
Ay 794.7 724.9 655.1
Gy 472.8 542.6 612.4

When the greatest magnitude of force on each member, highlighted in red in Table 3, is compared
to the force value given in WPBD, the calculated values are observed to be smaller than the
WPBD values. The reason for the difference is because WPBD looked at the extreme values for
the truck in all positions, while the calculated forces were focused on three specific positions.

Page 6
 After the forces were calculated, it was necessary to calculate the tensile and compressive
strengths to determine the factors of safety. The maximum compressive and tensile strengths
were calculated by WPDB and are arranged in Table 4. These strengths are related to the material
that the member is made of and the size of the member. This design only used high-strength low-
alloy steel for the members.

Table 4: Member Strengths

Member Member Size (mm) Length (m) Compressive Strength (kN) Tensile Strength (kN)
AB 170 x 170 x 8 4.0 1235 1699
AH 65 x 65 5.5 77.20 1385
BC 170 x 170 x 8 4.0 1235 1699
BH 120 x 120 x 6 2.9 647.4 896.7
CD 170 x 170 x 8 4.0 1235 1699
CH 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 463.4 896.7
CI 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 464.4 896.7
DE 170 x 170 x 8 4.0 1235 1699
DI 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 464.4 896.7
DJ 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 464.4 896.7
EF 170 x 170 x 8 4.0 1235 1699
EJ 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 464.4 896.7
EK 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 463.4 896.7
FG 170 x 170 x 8 4.0 1235 1699
FK 120 x 120 x 6 2.9 647.4 896.7
GK 65 x 65 5.5 77.20 1385
HI 65 x 65 5.3 81.40 1385
IJ 65 x 65 4.0 145.3 1385
JK 65 x 65 5.3 81.40 1385

To understand how these strengths were produced in WPBD, the tensile and compressive forces
were calculated. Tensile strength was determined using the formula, Pr = φ y Fy Ag . Table 5
displays the results of calculating the tensile strengths for each member. When comparing each
value to the values that WPBD gave, it is noted that the values do not perfectly match. This is
most likely due to rounding errors; WPBD could be more precise with each calculation.

Table 5: Tensile Strength Comparison

Member Size & Type (mm) Calculated Tensile Strength (kN) WPBD Tensile Strength (kN)
65 x 65 solid bars 1377 1385
120 x 120 x 6 hollow tubes 884.9 896.7
170 x 170 x 8 hollow tubes 1704 1699

The equations used to find the compressive strengths in different member sizes and lengths were
more complicated than tensile strength. Different equations were used depending on the type of
buckling that would occur in that member. The type of buckling was represented by λ, where if
λ ≤ 2.25 , inelastic buckling would occur and the corresponding equation for compressive
strength was Pr = φ c ⋅ 0.66 λ Fy Ag . If λ > 2.25 , elastic buckling would occur and the
0.88 Fy Ag
corresponding equation for compressive strength was Pr = φ c . Explanation of the
λ

Page 7
variables used in those equations, as well as all calculations for each member size can be found in
Appendix A. Table 6 displays the calculated compressive strengths to the strengths given by
WPBD.

Table 6: Compressive Strength Comparison

Member Size Length Calculated Compressive WPBD Compressive
(mm) (m) Strength (kN) Strength (kN)
65 x 65 4.00 146.7 145.3
65 x 65 5.34 81.73 81.4
65 x 65 5.49 77.33 77.2
120 x 120 x 6 2.85 641.1 647.4
120 x 120 x 6 4.25 461.8 464.4
120 x 120 x 6 4.26 460.5 463.4
170 x 170 x 8 4.00 1237 1235

The discrepancies for compressive strengths are assumed to be existent for the same reason there
was a discrepancy in tensile strengths. WPBD most likely calculated the strengths to more
significant figures, yielding more exact values.

With the forces and strengths found, the calculations for factors of safety could be performed.
The factors of safety were calculated by dividing the appropriate strength (either tensile or
compressive depending on the type of force acting on the member at that moment) by the value of
the force acting on that member. Each member in each situation yielded a different factor of
safety. These factors can be found in Table 7.

Table 7: Factors of Safety

Member Factor of Factor of Factor of
Safety Safety Safety
Situation 1 Situation 2 Situation 3
AB 1.289 1.094 1.225
AH 1.242 1.054 1.180
BC 1.430 1.182 1.272
BH 1.777 2.012 4.459
CD 1.500 1.163 1.058
CH 9.171 2.519 1.414
CI 2.758 1.765 4.167
DE 1.601 1.290 1.101
DI 19.146 99.876 3.092
DJ 3.447 2.167 1.877
EF 1.882 1.590 1.377
EJ 14.092 83.797 114.034
EK 2.690 1.999 1.590
FG 1.779 1.516 1.321
FK 4.459 4.459 4.459
GK 1.714 1.461 1.273
HI 1.498 1.140 1.108
IJ 1.648 1.300 1.111
JK 1.716 1.418 1.208

Page 8
 The smallest factor of safety found was 1.054, on member AH in the second situation. As long as
the factors of safety were above one, the bridge would be safe and meet requirements. However,
if the factor of safety equaled one, the bridge would fail. Since 1.054 was the smallest factor of
safety computed, the factor of safety for the whole design is also 1.054. Member AH is the most
susceptible to buckling first, so if it buckled, the entire bridge would fail.

To securely fasten the members together, the proper bolt diameter was calculated. These
calculations can be found in Appendix A. Using the largest force acting on any single member,
the standard 10.9 grade hex bolt diameter was determined to be a M64 (National).

The total material cost for the bridge design is tabulated in Table 8. WPBD broke the cost down
into components including material, connection, and production cost. The total cost for this
design is $2169.51, minus the expense of the needed bolts.

Table 8: Bridge Cost

Type of Cost Product Cost Calculation Cost
Material Cost High Strength Steel Bars (851.2 kg) x ($0.48 per kg) = $408.60
High Strength Steel Tubes (1647.1 kg) x ($0.72 per kg) = $1,185.91
Connection
(11 Joints) x ($25.00 per Joint) = $275.00
Cost
8 - 120 x 120 x 6 High-Strength
Product Cost ($100.00 per Product) = $100.00
Low-Alloy Steel Tubes
6 - 170 x 170 x 8 High-Strength
($100.00 per Product) = $100.00
Low-Alloy Steel Tubes
5 - 65 x 65 High-Strength Low-
($100.00 per Product) = $100.00
Alloy Steel Bars
Total Cost $2,169.51

Discussion

To create an optimal truss design that safely meets all of the given design requirements at the
lowest possible cost, many aspects were taken into consideration. The method that West Point
Bridge Designer calculated the cost of the bridge designed was very specific. WPBD priced each
joint at $25.00 and there was a $100 fee for each product used. Therefore, the less variety of
member materials used, the lower the cost of producing the bridge. Each of the three materials
available for design were assigned certain prices. These prices are displayed below in Table 9.

Table 9: Material Cost

Product Cost (dollars per kg)
Carbon Steel Bars 0.42
Carbon Steel Tubes 0.63
High Strength Steel Bars 0.48
High Strength Steel Tubes 0.72
Quenched & Tempered Steel Bars 0.70
Quenched & Tempered Steel Tubes 1.06

While analyzing maximum tensile and compressive strengths of each material (see Table 10),
certain advantages were found. As the properties of the steel bars get stronger through different
manufacturing processes, the maximum compressive and tensile strengths that each member can

Page 9
 sustain also increases. While Table 10 only shows the strengths for bars of cross section
120x120mm, the same relationship applies to all bar sizes.

Table 10: Member Force Limitations (for 120x120mm)

Material Maximum Compressive Strength Maximum Tensile Strength
Carbon Steel Bars 3240.0 kN 3420.0 kN
Carbon Steel Tubes 615.60 kN 649.80 kN
High Strength Steel Bars 4471.2 kN 4719.6 kN
High Strength Steel Tubes 849.50 kN 896.70 kN
Quenched & Tempered Steel Bars 6285.6 kN 6634.8 kN
Quenched & Tempered Steel Tubes 1194.3 kN 1260.6 kN

When examining the relationship between Table 9 and Table 10, a direct correlation between the
price and strength of the materials was found. To create a bridge at the lowest cost, it would be
instinctive to choose carbon steel since it is the cheapest. However, there is a much greater
advantage to use high strength steel. The difference in price for carbon steel and high strength
steel is low, yet the compressive and tensile strengths for high strength steel are much greater
than carbon steel. Using quenched & tempered steel would not be as cost efficient due to the
unequal proportionality between cost and strength of the material. In other words, the difference
in cost should yield a higher difference in strength. From these understandings, the optimal
bridge should be made mostly of high strength steel.

After selecting the material that would best meet the requirements, it was necessary to explore
different truss geometries. While studying different bridge frames, one can denote the customary
use of triangular truss formations. The reason for this has to do with the distribution of forces on
the frame. When there is no live load, all forces being applied to the parts of the bridge are due to
gravity, which acts vertically. If squares were used, their components would have an uneven
distribution of the force acting on them. The vertical members of the square would be under an
extreme amount of pressure, while the horizontal members of the frame would only feel a small
fraction of the force. Triangles, on the other hand, distribute the loads more evenly than squares.
Figure 3 demonstrates this concept.

Figure 3: Force Distribution on Shapes

F
F
Ffelt

Ffelt Ffelt
Ffelt

Another geometric standard in bridges, when looking for stability, is the arch. This curved
structure works to the bridge’s advantage to provide a high resistance to the forces that act to
bend the bridge (Chernyak). Arches naturally redirect the weight on the members to the ends of
the bridge, evenly distributing the forces and providing for a better structure. If a stronger, more

Page 10
stabile structure can be constructed, the member sizes can be reduced, which can consequently
reduce the costs.

Members of bridges undergo moments of compression and tension. Therefore, it is necessary to

use different types of members, hollow tubes or solid bars. It is advantageous to use hollow tubes
where the members are in compression and to use solid bars where the members undergo tension.

Using all of the acquired information, multiple bridges were designed, implemented, and tested in
WPBD. The best structured and least expensive design resulted as the bridge in Figure 1. In
order to understand what WPBD did to determine which designs would be structurally adequate
or buckle for the specified live load, hand calculations were performed using three different truck
positions. From these calculations found in Appendix B, it was determined that WPBD found the
maximum tensile and compressive forces for each member. As long as the calculated forces for
the situations fell below the extreme strengths in WPBD, the bridge would be able to withstand
the forces of the passing live load.

The calculations made for strengths and forces all differed from what was given in WPBD.
These discrepancies are most likely due to how exact WPBD was in calculating its values. The
forces from WPBD were higher than the results from the hand calculations. WPBD looks at the
extreme values for the truck in all positions; therefore, if the calculated values fell outside of the
extremes, there would probably be a mistake in a calculation. That did not happen in this
experiment.

For this experiment, the shear stress between the bolt and members was assumed to be half of the
tensile strength of the bolt. Bearing stress was not taken into account, due to the ability to
manufacture sufficient bosses that would resist that stress. Using the maximum internal force in
any member, the required bolt was found to be the standard M64 hex bolt with a 10.9 grade. The
10.9 grade was decided to be used because of the low cost objective. Although this bolt grade is
one of the higher grades, which costs more, it provides the sufficient strength needed to endure
the loads acting on the truss bridge. Since the final bolt diameter of M64, it is necessary to add
bosses to some of the members due to the difference in the diameters was extremely low.

There were limitations to this design. Although one of the objectives was to apply mathematical
and physical skills to a real life application, this bridge would not realistically be constructed.
This design has a high potential of drastic consequences occurring, due to the factor of safety
being so close to one. It design would not be able to withstand a live load greater than the
particular live load. In reality, designers would consider the possible consequences involved and
ensure the unlikelihood of failure occurring by making the factor of safety higher.

Page 11
Conclusion

Concepts theoretically taught through lecture and discussion are often understood better when
applied to real life situations or problems. Bridge and truss design reinforced the concept of
external and internal forces, the properties of materials in tension and compression, and structural
shapes and sizes in frames. These mathematical and physical concepts are related to cost and
production when utilized to applications. It is valuable to know what the best member sizes and
materials are when designing the ultimate bridge. However, the ultimate bridge has costs that
must be accounted for in design.

Even if the most superlative bridge is devised for precise purposes, cost manages many decisions
in the design process. However important it is to keep costs at a minimum, it is essential to never
compromise safety. Real bridges, or any other engineered product, are meant to support lives
which are more valuable than any cost specification.

Triangular frame structures have been used in designing bridges for their structural stability. This
experiment reinforces this concept mainly when tampering with bridge designs in West Point
Bridge Designer. Squares and rectangles caused the buckling of many designs before the final
design was made. Arches were also used in design for the strength of its structure. This brought
down costs by making more evenly sized bars and allowing members to be smaller since the
strength of the structure increased.

Since all of the factors of safety surpassed the value of one and the cost was within the desired
range, the bridge was a successful design. The objectives for this project were met by combining
the aspects of acquired skills learned in books with actual situations where people use those skills
everyday.

Page 12
 Appendix A

The given bridge dimensions and properties were calculated and organized. These quantitative
aspects are presented below.

Each member of the bridge design was given letter identifications. For clarification, Figure 1
depicts the bridge with the appropriate labels.

Figure 1: Bridge Design and Member Identification

Member Properties
• 6 members are 170mm x 170mm x 8mm hollow tubes.
• 8 members are 120mm x 120mm x 6mm hollow tubes.
• 5 members are 65mm x 65mm solid bars.
• All members are high-strength low-alloy steel, with Modulus of Elasticity E=200,000
MPa and yield stress Fy =345 MPa.

Bridge Deck Properties

• Deck is 10.0m wide and must accommodate two lanes of highway traffic.
• Deck is reinforced concrete with thickness tc=0.15m.
• Deck is covered with an asphalt overlay with ta=0.05m.
• Deck is supported on transverse floor beams, each weighing 24.0 kN.

Material Data

Table 1: Material Density

Mass Density, ρ Weight Density*, γ
Material
(kg per cubic meter) (kN per cubic meter)
Steel 7850 76.98
Reinforced Concrete 2400 23.54
Asphalt 2250 22.06
*To calculate weight density, multiply mass density
by the acceleration of gravity, g=9.8066m/sec2

Page 13
Loads and Load Combinations

From West Point Bridge Designer (WPBD), the critical load combination for this
structure is expressed by Equation 1. The critical load combination is the multiple types
of weights acting on the bridge.

Q= 1.25DC + 1.5DW +1.75LL (1)

where:
Q = total factored load
DC = dead load (self-weight) of structural components
DW = dead load (self-weight) of wearing surface
LL = live load (highway truck loading), adjusted to account for dynamic
effects of moving load.

The numbers 1.25, 1.5, and 1.75 were given load factors from WPBD.

The truck that WPBD used to represent the live load is shown in Figure 2. This will be
used as the determining factor of whether or not the bridge will be safe.

Figure 2: Live Load Representation

Load Analysis

Weight of the Deck and Wearing Surface

The tributary area corresponding to one typical interior deck-level joint is indicated in
Figure 3 (WPBD).

Figure 3: Tributary Area of Interior Deck-Level Joints

Page 14
Thus the tributary area is:
Atrib = l ⋅ w
Atrib = ( 4.0m)( 5.0m)
Atrib = 20.0m 2

The weight of the concrete within this tributary area is:

Wc = γ c Atrib t c
 kN 
( )
Wc =  23.54 3  20.0m 2 (0.15m )
 m 
Wc = 70.61kN

The weight of the asphalt overlay within this tributary area is:
Wa = γ a Atrib t a
 kN 
( )
Wa =  22.06 3  20.0m 2 (0.05m )
 m 
Wa = 22.06kN

Half of each transverse floor beam also falls within the tributary area. Thus the tributary
weight of the floor is:
1
Wb = (24.0kN )
2
Wb = 12.0kN

Based on the controlling load combination, Equation 1, the factored dead load applied to
each of the interior deck-level joints (B, C, D, E, F) is:
Dint = 1.25(Wc + Wb ) + 1.5Wa
Dint = 1.25( 70.61 + 12.0 ) + 1.5( 22.06 )
Dint = 136.36kN (2)

Note that the deck and the floor beams are both considered structural components, so
they use a load factor of 1.25. The asphalt wearing surface must use a load factor of 1.5,
as noted in Equation 1.

Page 15
 For the exterior deck-level joints (A and G), the tributary area is only half as large as for
the interior joints, as shown below in Figure 4 (WPBD).

Figure 4: Tributary Area of Exterior Deck-Level Joints

Thus the factored dead load applied to exterior deck-level joints is half that of the load
applied to the interior deck-level joints:
1
Dext = Dint
2
1
Dext = (136.36kN )
2
Dext = 68.18kN (3)

Self-Weight of Truss Members

The surface areas, Am , of the members are as follows:

• For the 65mm x 65mm solid bar: 0.0042m2
• For the 120mm x 120mm x 6mm hollow tube: 0.0027m2
• For the 170mm x 170mm x 8mm hollow tube: 0.0052m2

The weight of any member is the weight density of the material (steel, in this case)
multiplied by the volume of the member. The weight of any member is as in Equation 4.

W = γ s Am L (4)

where,
γ s = the density of the material
Am = the cross-sectional area of the member
L = the length of the member

Members BH and FK:

 kN 
( )
WBH =  76.98 3  0.0027 m 2 (2.85m )
 m 
WBH = 0.592kN

Page 16
Members CH and EK:

 kN 
( )
WCH =  76.98 3  0.0027 m 2 (4.26m )
 m 
WCH = 0.885.kN

Members CI, DI, DJ, and EJ:

 kN 
( )
WCI =  76.98 3  0.0027 m 2 (4.25m )
 m 
WCI = 0.883kN

Members AB, BC, CD, DE, EF, and FG:

 kN 
( )
W AB =  76.98 3  0.0052m 2 (4.00m )
 m 
W AB = 1.601kN

Members HI and JK:

 kN 
( )
WHI =  76.98 3  0.0042m 2 (5.34m )
 m 
WHI = 1.727 kN

Member IJ:

 kN 
( )
WIJ =  76.98 3  0.0042m 2 (4.00m )
 m 
WIJ = 1.294kN

Members AH and GK:

 kN 
( )
W AH =  76.98 3  0.0042m 2 (5.49m )
 m 
W AH = 1.775kN

The self-weight of each member must be split in half and applied at the attached joints of
the member. At each joint, the total load is 50% of the combined weight of all the
members linked to that joint. The self-weight acting on any joint is as in Equation 5.

1 
W=  ∑ Wi  (5)
2 i 

Page 17
Using the load factor of 1.25 for self-weight given by WPBD and including the weight of
the deck and asphalt from Equation 2 and Equation 3, the total factored dead load on any
joint would be as it is in Equation 6.

D = 1.25W + Dext / int (6)

Joints A and G

1
WA = (W AB + W AH )
2
1
A W A = (1.601kN + 1.775kN )
AB 2
W A = 1.688kN
AH

D A = 1.25(W A ) + Dext
D A = 1.25(1.688kN ) + 68.18kN
D A = 70.29kN

Joints B and F
1
WB = (2W AB + WBH )
2
B 1
AB BC WB = (2(1.601)kN + 0.5924kN )
2
BH WB = 1.897 kN

D B = 1.25(WB ) + Dint
D B = 1.25(1.897 kN ) + 136.36kN
D B = 138.7 kN

Joints C and E
1
WC = (2W AB + WCH + WCI )
2
1
C WC = (2(1.601)kN + 0.8854kN + .8833kN )
BC CD
2
WC = 2.486kN
CH

CI

DC = 1.25(WC ) + Dint
DC = 1.25(2.486kN ) + 136.36kN
DC = 139.5kN

Page 18
 Joints D
1
WD = (2W AB + 2WDI )
2
D 1
CD DE WD = (2(1.601)kN + 2(0.8833)kN )
2
WD = 2.485kN
DI DJ

D D = 1.25(WD ) + Dint
D D = 1.25(2.485kN ) + 136.36kN
D D = 139.5kN

Joints H and K
1
WH = (W AH + WBH + WCH + WHI )
2
1
W H = (1.775kN + 0.5924kN + 0.8854kN + 1.727 kN )
AH BH CH
2
W H = 2.490kN

H HI
D H = 1.25(WH )
D H = 1.25(2.490kN )
D H = 3.112kN

Joints I and J
1
WI = (WHI + 2WCI + WIJ )
2
1
W I = (1.727 kN + 2(0.8833)kN + 1.294kN )
2
CI DI W I = 2.393kN
HI

IJ
D I = 1.25(W I )
I
D I = 1.25(2.393kN )
D I = 2.992kN
With the dead weight values calculated, the self weight of the bridge at its joints look like the
drawing displayed in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Dead Load Diagram

Page 19
 Structural Analysis

Joint A

Free Body Diagram

Equilibrium Equations
Ay  4.75 
∑A = A x + AB + AH
x  = 0
A  30.125 
AB
 2.75 
Ax ∑ A y = A y − D A - AH 30.125  = 0

DA
AH

Joint B

Free Body Diagram Equilibrium Equations

 .75 
AB B BC ∑B x= BC − AB + BH   = 0
 8.125 
 2.75 
∑ B y = − DB − BH  8.125  = 0
DB
BH

Joint C

Free Body Diagram

Equilibrium Equations
C
 2   3.25 
∑C = CD − BC + CI 
x  − CH   = 0
BC CD  18.0625   18.125 
 2.75   3.75 
DC ∑ C y = − DC − CH  18.125  − CI  18.0625  = 0
CH
CI

Joint D

Free Body Diagram Equilibrium Equations

 2   2 
∑D
CD D DE
x= DE − CD + DJ   − DI   = 0
 18.0625   18.0625 
 3.75   3.75 
∑ D y = − DD − DI  18.0625  − DJ  18.0625  = 0
DI DD DJ

Page 20
Joint E

Free Body Diagram

Equilibrium Equations
DE E EF
 3.25   2 
∑E = EF − DE + EK 
x  − EJ   = 0
 18.125   18.0625 
 2.75   3.75 
∑ E y = − DE − EK  18.125  − EJ  18.0625  = 0
DE EK
EJ

Joint F

Free Body Diagram Equilibrium Equations

 .75 
EF F FG ∑F = FG − EF − FK 
x  = 0
 8.125 
 2.75 
∑ Fy = − DF − FK  8.125  = 0
DF
FK

Joint G

Free Body Diagram

Equilibrium Equations
Gy
 4.75 
∑G = − FG − GK 
x  = 0
FFG G  30.125 
 2.75 
∑ G y = G y − DG − GK  30.125  = 0
DG
FGK
Joint H

Free Body Diagram

BH
AH CH Equilibrium Equations
 4.75   .75   3.25   5.25 
∑ H x = − AH  30.125  − BH  8.125  + CH  18.125  + HI  28.5625  = 0
 2.75   2.75   2.75   1 
∑ H y = AH  30.125  + BH  8.125  + CH  18.125  − HI  28.5625  = 0
H HI

DH

Page 21
Joint I

Free Body Diagram

CI DI Equilibrium Equations
 5.25   2   2 
∑ I x = − HI  28.5625  − CI  18.0625  + DI  18.0625  + IJ = 0
     
HI  1   3.75   3.75 
IJ ∑I y = HI   + CI   + DI   = 0
 28.5625   18.0625   18.0625 
I
DI

Joint J

Free Body Diagram

DJ EJ
Equilibrium Equations
 2   2   5.25 
∑ J x = − IJ − DJ  18.0625  + EJ  18.0625  + JK  28.5625  = 0
     
JK  3.75   3.75   1 
IJ ∑ J y = DJ  18.0625  + EJ  18.0625  + JK  28.5625  = 0
     
J
DJ

Joint K

Free Body Diagram

FK
EK
Equilibrium Equations
GK  5.25   3.25   .75   4.75 
∑ K x = − JK  28.5625  − EK  18.125  + FK  8.125  + GK  30.125  = 0
 1   2.75   2.75   2.75 
∑K y = − JK   + EK   + FK   + GK   = 0
 28.5625   18.125   8.125   30.125 
JK
K

DK

Page 22
 Member Strength
Tensile Strength

According to WPBD, the strength of a tension member with respect to the yielding
failure mode is given in Equation 7.

Pr = φ y Fy Ag (7)

where,

Pr = the factored tensile resistance

φ y = the resistance factor for tension yielding on the
(
gross cross-section φ y = 0.95 )
 kN 
Fy = the yielding stress of the steel  Fy = 345MPa = 345,000 3 
 m 
Ag = the gross cross-sectional area of the member

Members of 65mm x 65mm solid bars

Pr = φ y Fy Ag
 kN 
(
Pr = 0.95 345,000 2  0.0042m 2 )
 m 
Pr = 1377 kN

Members of 120mm x 120mm x 6mm hollow tubes

Pr = φ y Fy Ag
 kN 
(
Pr = 0.95 345,000 2  0.0027 m 2 )
 m 
Pr = 884.9kN

Members of 170mm x 170mm x 8mm hollow tubes

Pr = φ y Fy Ag
 kN 
(
Pr = 0.95 345,000 2  0.0052m 2 )
 m 
Pr = 1704kN

Page 23
Compressive Strength

Equation 8 calculates the radius of gyration of the member. The results of this equation
will be used in Equation 9.

I
r= (8)
Ag

where,

I = the area moment of inertia of the cross-section.

The moment of inertia of the members are as follows:

• For the 65mm x 65mm solid bar: 1.49 x 10-6 m4
• For the 120mm x 120mm x 6mm hollow tube: 5.94 x 10-6 m4
• For the 170mm x 170mm x 8mm hollow tube: 2.27 x 10-5 m4

Members of 65mm x 65mm solid bars

I
r=
Ag

1.49 x10 −6 m 4
r=
0.0042m 2
r = 0.01884m

Members of 120mm x 120mm x 6mm tubes

I
r=
Ag

5.94 x10 − 6 m 4
r=
0.0027 m 2
r = 0.04690m

Members of 170mm x 170mm x 8mm tubes

I
r=
Ag

2.27 x10 −5 m 4
r=
0.0052m 2
r = 0.06607 m

Page 24
Equation 9 is a dimensionless parameter that defines the boundary between inelastic
buckling (λ ≤ 2.25) and elastic buckling (λ > 2.25) failure modes. The result of this
calculation will be used in Equation 10.

2
 kL  Fy
λ =  (9)
 rπ  E

where,

k = the effective length factor of the member ( k = 1 for a truss member)

L = the length of the member

E = the modulus of elasticity of the member

 kN 
 E = 200000 MPa = 200000000 2 
 m 

Members of 65mm x 65mm solid bars with a length of L = 4.00m

2
 kL  Fy
λ = 
 rπ  E
 (1)(4.00m ) (345MPa )
2

λ =  
 (0.01884m )π  (200000MPa )
λ = 7.879
Members of 65mm x 65mm solid bars with a length of L = 5.34m

2
 kL  Fy
λ = 
 rπ  E
 (1)(5.34m ) (345MPa )
2

λ =  
 (0.01884m )π  (200000MPa )
λ = 14.04
Members of 65mm x 65mm solid bars with a length of L = 5.49m

2
 kL  Fy
λ = 
 rπ  E
 (1)(5.49m ) (345MPa )
2

λ =  
 (0.01884m )π  (200000MPa )
λ = 14.84

Page 25
Members of 120mm x 120mm x 6mm tubes with a length of L = 2.85m

2
 kL  F y
λ = 
 rπ  E
 (1)(2.85m ) (345MPa )
2

λ =  
 (0.04690m )π  (200000MPa )
λ = 0.6454
Members of 120mm x 120mm x 6mm tubes with a length of L = 4.25m

2
 kL  Fy
λ = 
 rπ  E
 (1)(4.25m ) (345MPa )
2

λ =  
 (0.04690m )π  (200000MPa )
λ = 0.1435
Members of 120mm x 120mm x 6mm tubes with a length of L = 4.26m

2
 kL  Fy
λ = 
 rπ  E
 (1)(4.26m ) (345MPa )
2

λ =  
 (0.04690m )π  (200000MPa )
λ = 0.1442
Members of 170mm x 170mm x 8mm tubes with a length of L = 4.00m

2
 kL  Fy
λ = 
 rπ  E
 (1)(4.00m ) (345MPa )
2

λ =  
 (0.06607 m )π  (200000MPa )
λ = 0.6406

Page 26
According to WPBD, the strength of a compression member with respect to the yielding
failure mode is given in Equation 10.

If λ ≤ 2.25 , then

Pr = φc ⋅ 0.66 λ Fy Ag (10a)

If λ > 2.25 , then

0.88 Fy Ag
Pr = φ c (10b)
λ
where,

Pr = the factored compressive resistance

φ c = the resistance factor for compression (φ c = 0.90 )

Fy = the yield stress for steel

Ag = the gross cross-sectional area of the member

Members of 65mm x 65mm solid bars with a length of L = 4.00m and λ=7.879

0.88 Fy Ag
Pr = φ c
λ
Pr = 0.90
(
0.88(345000 MPa ) 0.0042m 2 )
7.879
Pr = 146.7 kN

Members of 65mm x 65mm solid bars with a length of L = 5.34m and λ=14.04

0.88 Fy Ag
Pr = φ c
λ
Pr = 0.90
0.88(345000 MPa ) 0.0042m 2( )
14.04
Pr = 81.73kN

Page 27
Members of 65mm x 65mm solid bars with a length of L = 5.49m and λ=14.84

0.88 Fy Ag
Pr = φ c
λ
Pr = 0.90
(
0.88(345000 MPa ) 0.0042m 2 )
14.84
Pr = 77.33kN

Members of 120mm x 120mm x 6mm tubes with a length of L = 2.85m and λ=0.6454

Py = φ c ⋅ 0.66 λ Fy Ag
(
Py = 0.90 ⋅ 0.66 0.6454 (345000 MPa ) 0.0027 m 2 )
Py = 641.1kN

Members of 120mm x 120mm x 6mm tubes with a length of L = 4.25m and λ=1.435

Pr = φ c ⋅ 0.66 λ Fy Ag
(
Pr = 0.90 ⋅ 0.661.435 (345000 MPa ) 0.0027 m 2 )
Pr = 461.8kN

Members of 120mm x 120mm x 6mm tubes with a length of L = 4.26m and λ=1.442

Pr = φ c ⋅ 0.66 λ Fy Ag
(
Pr = 0.90 ⋅ 0.661.442 (345000 MPa ) 0.0027 m 2 )
Pr = 460.5kN

Members of 170mm x 170mm x 8mm tubes with a length of L = 4.00m and λ=0.6406

Pr = φ c ⋅ 0.66 λ Fy Ag
(
Pr = 0.90 ⋅ 0.66 0.6406 (345000 MPa ) 0.0052m 2 )
Pr = 1237 kN

Page 28
 Bolt Size
To determine the appropriate size bolt needed for the bridge, Equation 12 (which is derived from
Equation 11) must be used. Using a bolt grade of 10.9, the allowable tensile strength is 1040
MPa (Norton). For this project, the shear stress τ is assumed to be half of the tensile strength.
Thus, the shear stress in the bolt is 520 MPa. The applied shear force that will be used to
calculate the diameter is from member AH in situation 2. This member experiences the highest
magnitude of force out of all three situations.

V
τ= (11)
A

where,

V = the shear force

A = the cross-sectional area of the bolt

V
A=
τ
π 2 V
 (d min )  =
4  τ
2 4V
d min =
πτ
4V
d min = (12)
πτ

4(1306.47 kN )
d min =
π (520 MPa )
d min = 0.05656m

The minimum diameter of the bolt that will hold the maximum applied weight has to be at least
57mm. Bolt diameters are manufactured in standard sizes and are cheaper to purchase than
custom made bolts. Therefore, the 10.9 grade hex bolt diameter used for this bridge design will
be M64 (Andrews).

Page 29
 Structural Adequacy
When checking for structural adequacy, the internal member force is compared to the member
strength. The strength must be greater than the forces inside of the member, otherwise the
member will buckle. Table 2 displays the Load Test Results produced by WPBD. Each of the
compressive and tension strengths are greater than their respective forces, ensuring that the design
is structurally adequate.

Table 2: Load Test Results

Member Member Size Length Compressive Compressive Status Tension Tension Status
(m) Force Strength Force Strength
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
AB 170 x 170 x 8 4 1191.2 1234.9 OK 0 1699.1 OK
AH 65 x 65 5.5 0 77.2 OK 1376.4 1384.7 OK
BC 170 x 170 x 8 4 1061.3 1234.9 OK 0 1699.1 OK
BH 120 x 120 x 6 2.9 493.6 647.4 OK 0 896.7 OK
CD 170 x 170 x 8 4 1172.1 1234.9 OK 0 1699.1 OK
CH 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 355.4 463.4 OK 0 896.7 OK
CI 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 280.4 464.4 OK 58.8 896.7 OK
DE 170 x 170 x 8 4 1194.9 1234.9 OK 0 1699.1 OK
DI 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 301.1 464.4 OK 15.5 896.7 OK
DJ 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 252.7 464.4 OK 63.8 896.7 OK
EF 170 x 170 x 8 4 1057.4 1234.9 OK 0 1699.1 OK
EJ 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 335 464.4 OK 32.3 896.7 OK
EK 120 x 120 x 6 4.3 319.2 463.4 OK 35.8 896.7 OK
FG 170 x 170 x 8 4 1117.5 1234.9 OK 0 1699.1 OK
FK 120 x 120 x 6 2.9 493.6 647.4 OK 0 896.7 OK
GK 65 x 65 5.5 0 77.2 OK 1291.3 1384.7 OK
HI 65 x 65 5.3 0 81.4 OK 1327.5 1384.7 OK
IJ 65 x 65 4 0 145.3 OK 1307.6 1384.7 OK
JK 65 x 65 5.3 0 81.4 OK 1294.7 1384.7 OK

Knowing that the status passed for “OK” in WPBD was not sufficient for understanding why the
bridge was stabile. The quantitative factors of safety would provide for a better understanding of
the relationship between forces and strength. Table 3, on the following page, shows the factors of
safety for each situation using equation 13.

Maximum Strength
Factor of Safety = (13)
Applied Force

The maximum strength used was either tensile or compressive depending on the activity of the
member due to the applied force.

Page 30
 Table 3: Factors of Safety
Member Situation 1 Situation 2 Situation 3 Compressive Tension Factor of Factor of Factor of
Force Force Force Strength Strength Safety Safety Safety
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Situation 1 Situation 2 Situation 3
AB 959.8(C) 1131(C) 1010(C) 1237 1704 1.289 1.094 1.225
AH 1109(T) 1306(T) 1167(T) 77.33 1377 1.242 1.054 1.180
BC 864.9(C) 1047(C) 972.3(C) 1237 1704 1.430 1.182 1.272
BH 360.8(C) 318.6(C) 143.8(C) 641.1 884.9 1.777 2.012 4.459
CD 824.4(C) 1063(C) 1169(C) 1237 1704 1.500 1.163 1.058
CH 50.21(C) 182.8(C) 325.8(C) 460.5 884.9 9.171 2.519 1.414
CI 167.5(C) 261.6(C) 110.8(C) 461.8 884.9 2.758 1.765 4.167
DE 772.7(C) 958.8(C) 1123(C) 1237 1704 1.601 1.290 1.101
DI 24.12(C) 8.860(T) 149.4(C) 461.8 884.9 19.146 99.876 3.092
DJ 134.0(C) 213.1(C) 246.1(C) 461.8 884.9 3.447 2.167 1.877
EF 657.4(C) 778.0(C) 898.6(C) 1237 1704 1.882 1.590 1.377
EJ 32.77(C) 10.56(T) 7.769(T) 461.8 884.9 14.092 83.797 114.034
EK 171.2(C) 230.4(C) 289.6(C) 460.5 884.9 2.690 1.999 1.590
FG 695.3(C) 815.8(C) 936.4(C) 1237 1704 1.779 1.516 1.321
FK 143.8(C) 143.8(C) 143.8(C) 641.1 884.9 4.459 4.459 4.459
GK 803.4(T) 942.7(T) 1082(T) 77.33 1377 1.714 1.461 1.273
HI 919.5(T) 1208(T) 1243(T) 81.73 1377 1.498 1.140 1.108
IJ 835.8(T) 1059.1(T) 1239(T) 146.7 1377 1.648 1.300 1.111
JK 802.3(T) 971.0(T) 1140(T) 81.73 1377 1.716 1.418 1.208

Page 31
 Appendix B

The following are graphics that visually display where the truck, the live load, is at for each
situation. The members that are colored blue are in tension in that situation, while the members
in red represent those that are in compression,

Figure 1 shows the live load at situation 1, when the truck is over the first joint, B. The front axle
is exactly between joints B and C. The rear axle is centered between joints A and B.

Figure 1: Situation 1

Figure 2 shows the live load at situation 2, when the truck is over the second joint, C. The front
axle is placed directly between joints C and D, while the rear axle is placed between joints B and
C.

Figure 2: Situation 2

Page 32
Figure 3 shows the live load at situation 3, when the truck is over the third joint, D. The front
axle is placed exactly between joints D and E. The rear axle is directly between joints C and D.

Figure 3: Situation 3

Page 33