Assessment Cover Sheet

Assessment Title: Final Report Bridge Project

Programme Title: Bachelor of Engineering Technology

Course No.: EN6902

Course Title: Mechanics 2

Student Name: Mohamed Alahmed – Ahmed Albusmait

Student ID: 201800373 - 201800581

Tutor: Iftikhar Ahmad

Due Date: 26/12/2020 Date submitted: /12/2020

By submitting this assessment for marking, either electronically or as hard copy, I confirm the
following:
 This assignment is my own work
 Any information used has been properly referenced.
 I understand that a copy of my work may be used for moderation.
 I have kept a copy of this assignment
Do not write below this line. For Polytechnic use only.

Assessor: Date of Marking:

Grade/Mark: /100

Comments:
Introduction and Problem Analysis:
In this project it was instructed to design and build a bridge using trusses made out of tongue depressors
that can withstand heavy loads. This project tested the knowledge gained about axial forces (tension
and compression) as the manufactured prototype was put to a destructive test competition where the
bridge that can carry the most weight is the winner. This project also teaches a very important lesson in
engineering which is solving a problem with limitation of resources as only 160 sticks were provided to
create the bridge. Nevertheless, designing a bridge is not an easy task especially with the given
resources restrains as it requires immense testing and a lot of trial and failure to reach the most suitable
design. Furthermore, calculations play a large part in this project as it’s the foundation and the basis of
how to build the prototype (increasing the amount sticks used in a specific place).

Initial Research:
What is a Truss:
A truss consists of members that are usually structured triangularly, and designed in a way to withstand
compression and tension forces (in other words axial forces). Trusses come in many different shapes and
sizes, each design has its way of supporting the load. Trusses are mainly used for bridge construction
and large cranes that carry heavy loads.

The image below shows a basic design of a truss.

Types of Trusses:

1. Warren Truss:
Warren truss was designed by James Warren and received a patent for it in 1848. Warren Truss
is a very popular design as it is easy to construct and it can be identified easily by its equilateral
triangles. This truss design has the capability to share the force exerted by the load evenly
across different members.
2. Pratt truss:
The Pratt truss was invented in 1844 by Thomas Wills Pratt and his father Caleb Pratt. This type
of truss operates in a way that the vertical members are in compression and the diagonal
members are in tension.

3. K-truss:
The k-truss was invited by Phelps Johnson the president of Dominion bridge company. The k-
truss shares some similarities with the Pratt truss but it is more complicated. The biggest
difference is that the k-truss has smaller vertical members which improve its resistance against
the force exerted by the force.

4. Howe truss:
The Howe truss was invented by William Howe in 1840. The Howe truss uses a similar design to
the Pratt truss but with a significant difference which is the change of forces on the diagonal and
 the vertical members, in the Pratt truss the vertical members are in compression and the
diagonal members are in tension where the Howe truss works the other way around.

Plotting the strength of sticks

All of the experimental values below are the average test results gained in the past years. As it was
provided by the tutor.

The value of tensile experiment:

TENSILE EXPERIMENT
Distance between the holes (mm) Force (KN)

110 2.1

50 2.7

Tensile Force
3 2.7
y = -0.01x + 3.2
2.5 2.1
Force (KN)

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance (mm)
The value of the compression test:

Compresstion Force
0.9 0.82
0.8
0.7
0.6 0.54
Force (KN)

0.5
0.4 0.28
0.3 0.21
0.2 0.14
0.1 y = -0.0084x + 0.9895
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance (mm)

COMPRESSION EXPERIMENT
Distance between the holes (mm) Force (KN)

110 0.14

90 0.21

70 0.28

50 0.54

30 0.82
The value of the tensile test for joints:

Tensile Joint Force

0.5
y = 0.0071x + 0.187
0.45 0.45
0.4 0.41
0.37
0.35 0.35
Force (KN)

0.3 0.3
0.25
0.23
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (mm)

TENSILE EXPERIMENT
Distance between the holes (mm) Force (KN)

10 0.23

15 0.3

20 0.35

25 0.37

30 0.41

40 0.45

Final design and design development:

After all the research that have been done and the information acquired with the application SkyCiv on
different designs, the warren truss was the most effective design to follow considering the terms of the
experiment and the material provided. The warren truss was chosen as it was relatively easy to
construct and design due to its equilateral triangles that distribute the load evenly on the bridge which
also makes it easier to calculate the axial forces (tension and compression) on the trusses. Nevertheless,
this design will need serious reinforcement as the compressive forces on the upper trusses in the middle
will carry a large force from the load so a proper solution would be increasing the number of sticks on
the specific members.
Load Prediction and Failure Location
The maximum load the bridge could handle is reached through testing various forms of the design by
reducing and increasing the length of members and increasing sticks used in each member. Through
SkyCiv a single side of the bridge was designed that will withstand a load of 0. 5KN.Therefore, the bridge
should withstand a force of 1 KN. The failure location was set to be in the upper central part of the
bridge as the calculations reached by skyciv have shown that the greatest compression forces occur
there and the sticks cope better with tensile forces according to the graphs.

Here are the specifications of each member:

Members Distance (mm) Members Distance (mm) Members Distance (mm)

1 75 11 75 21 75
2 75 12 75 22 75
3 75 13 75 23 75
4 75 14 75 24 75
5 75 15 75 25 75
6 75 16 75 26 75
7 75 17 75 27 75
8 75 18 75 28 75
9 75 19 75 29 75
10 75 20 75 30 75
31 75
 Moment Reaction
Assumption Assumption
+ Y-Axis

Calculations: + X-Axis
1. Reaction Force on Support:
 ∑ 𝐹𝑋 = 0
 𝑄𝐹𝑋 = 0

 ∑ 𝑀𝑄 = 0
 −0.3 × 0.5 + 𝐴𝑌 × 0.6 = 0
 −0.15 + 0.6𝐴𝑌 = 0
 0.6𝐴𝑌 = 0.15
0.15
 𝐴𝑌 = 0.6
 𝐴𝑌 = 0.25𝐾𝑁

 ∑ 𝐹𝑌 = 0
 𝑄𝑌 + 𝐴𝑌 − 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 0
 𝑄𝑌 + 0.25 − 0.5 = 0
 𝑄𝑌 − 0.25 = 0
 𝑄𝑌 = 0.25𝐾𝑁

2. Calculation for Different Joints:

A. Joint A:
 Finding the inclination of the stick:
0.0375
 𝜃 = cos −1 ( 0.075 )
 𝜃 = 60°

 ∑ 𝐹𝑌 = 0 θ
 𝐴𝐵 sin 𝜃 + 𝐴𝑌 = 0
 𝐴𝐵 sin(60) + 0.25 = 0 AC, 75mm
0.25
 𝐴𝐵 = − sin(60)
 𝐴𝐵 = −0.289𝐾𝑁 (𝑐) 𝐴𝑌

 ∑ 𝐹𝑋 = 0
 𝐴𝐵 cos(60) + 𝐴𝐶 = 0
 −0.289 cos(60) + 𝐴𝐶 = 0
 −0.1445 + 𝐴𝐶 = 0
 𝐴𝐶 = 0.1445 𝐾𝑁 (𝑇)
 Moment Reaction
Assumption Assumption
+ Y-Axis

+ X-Axis

B. Joint B:
 ∑ 𝐹𝑌 = 0 B BD, 75mm
 −𝐴𝐵 cos(30) − 𝐵𝐶 cos(30) = 0
 −(−0.289 cos(30)) − 𝐵𝐶 cos(30) = 0
30° 30°
 0.250 − 𝐵𝐶 cos(30) = 0
0.250
 𝐵𝐶 = cos(30)
 𝐵𝐶 = 0.289 𝐾𝑁 (𝑇)

 ∑ 𝐹𝑋 = 0
 𝐵𝐷 + 𝐵𝐶 sin(30) − 𝐴𝐵 sin(30) = 0 ABsin(30) BD BCsin(30)
 𝐵𝐷 + 0.289 sin(30)) − (−0.289 sin(30)) = 0
 𝐵𝐷 + 0.289 = 0 ABcos(30)
 𝐵𝐶 = −0.289 𝐾𝑁 (𝑐)
BCcos(30)

C. Joint C:
 ∑ 𝐹𝑌 = 0 BC CD
 𝐵𝐶 sin(60) + 𝐶𝐷 sin(60) = 0
 0.289 sin(60) + 𝐶𝐷 sin(60) = 0
 0.250 − 𝐶𝐷 sin(60) = 0
0.250
 𝐵𝐶 = − sin(60) 60°
60° 60°
 𝐵𝐶 = −0.289 𝐾𝑁 (𝑐)
AC CE
 ∑ 𝐹𝑋 = 0
 −𝐵𝐶 cos(60) − 𝐴𝐶 + 𝐶𝐸 + 𝐶𝐷 cos(60) = 0
 −0.289 cos(60) − 0.1445 + 𝐶𝐸 + (−0.289 cos(60)) = 0
 𝐶𝐸 − 0.4335 = 0 𝐵𝐶 sin 60
 𝐵𝐶 = 0.4335 𝐾𝑁 (𝑇)
𝐶𝐷 sin 60

AC CE
𝐵𝐶 cos 60 𝐶𝐷 cos 60
 Moment Reaction
Assumption Assumption
+ Y-Axis

+ X-Axis

D. Joint D:
 ∑ 𝐹𝑌 = 0
 −𝐷𝐸 sin(60) − (−𝐶𝐷 sin(60)) = 0 BD DF
 −𝐷𝐸 sin(60) − (−0.289 sin(60)) = 0 60° 60°
−(−0.289 sin 60))
 𝐷𝐸 = 60°
sin 60
 𝐵𝐶 = 0.289 𝐾𝑁 (𝑇)

 ∑ 𝐹𝑋 = 0 CD DE
 −𝐶𝐷 cos(60) − 𝐵𝐷 + 𝐷𝐹 + 𝐷𝐸 cos(60) = 0
 −(−0.289 cos(60)) − (−0.289) + 𝐷𝐹 + 0.289 cos(60) = 0
 𝐷𝐹 + 0.578 = 0 𝐶𝑆 cos 60 𝐷𝐸 cos 60
 𝐷𝐹 = −0.578 𝐾𝑁 (𝑐)
BD DF

𝐷𝐸 sin 60

𝐶𝐷 sin 60
Conclusion and Reflection:
To conclude, this project required a very outstanding approach where all variables should be taken into
consideration as it combines the theoretical understanding of trusses and the accuracy of the
calculations as it was required to build a wooden bridge made out of 160 tongue depressors and using
nuts and bolts to combine them. Building a bridge with only 160 sticks that should be 600mm in length
is a challenge which required hours of studying different types of trusses to choose the most suitable
design as it was a must to approach the problem analytically and determine the skills needed to provide
an optimized design that is able to withstand a large load force. Accuracy played a large part in this
project as the measurement needed to be exact to the desired distance between the holes and at same
level of the stick, furthermore the execution of the design should be done with low deviation to avoid
any sort of discrepancy from the predicted values. Building the bridge required hands on skills of power
machine which also meant that all safety precautions should be taken into consideration. Based on the
initial background study and according to SkyCiv the selected design should have the capability to
withstand a load of 120 kg. Nevertheless, the load prediction was reduced to 100kg due to the fact that
human error is inevitable and some minor flaws were made during the process of assembling the bridge.

The destructive test has proved that the design is actually capable to withstand the predicted load and
even more which proves the quality of the design itself even though some mistakes were made during
the building process. However, the predicted failure location was not at the same point of the actual
failure in the destructive test, this could have happened due to the inaccuracies of the sticks as some
could be defective and will break before the predicted ones. Amazingly, the bridge carried a load of 111
kg which in hindsight is a great number as its sits between the initial prediction and the final prediction.
Many recommendations can be obtained from this project to improve similar activities like providing a
software that simulates the destructive test and providing exact sticks with no minor differences.
Bibliography:
Boon, G., Jen, Boon, G., Charles, J., Keshav, West, B., . . . Pombo, J. (2018, December 28).
Garrett Boon. Retrieved from https://www.garrettsbridges.com/design/howe-truss/

K-Truss. (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2020, from https://bridgehunter.com/category/tag/k-truss

Types of Truss Structures. (2019, February 21). Retrieved from

https://skyciv.com/docs/tutorials/truss-tutorials/types-of-truss-structures/

What is a Truss? (2019, February 21). Retrieved from https://skyciv.com/docs/tutorials/truss-

tutorials/what-is-a-truss/