CIV102 Bridge Design and Construction Competition 2016

November 28, 2016

Group 1 Friday Afternoon GB117
Shakibasadat Tonekabonipour, Xiaoxiao Zhang, Peter Yao, Wenhan Jiang

Introduction
In this document a segment of a model railway bridge is designed to support the passage
of a 400N train without significant deformation or instability. This bridge segment is to be
constructed using only matboard and contact cement. All design decisions were based upon
general engineering design and bridge design requirements, and were selected based upon their
ability to exceed these requirements and align with our bridge design philosophy. In this report,
key design decisions will be analyzed thoroughly, including the selection process, suggested
alternatives, supporting calculations and final evaluations against the requirements. Such key
decisions include the use of diaphragms to strengthen high load sections, the strategic positioning
of the junction, and the choices of cross section frames and thickness.
Engineering Design Requirements
Our group defines engineering design as a creative and analytical process in which a
physical solution to an issue is developed or the existing solutions are improved. Through the
application of relevant calculations and detailed drawings, a physical solution can be derived
from requirements described in the original problem. Both public safety and construction safety
must be considered in the design. Good engineering designs, however, will exhibit a high level
of reassessment throughout the design process. Finally, high quality engineering design should
return a solution that uses its given resources efficiently and effectively, often prioritizing with
factors such as: Safety, Manufacturability, Usability, Assembly, Accessibility, and Aesthetics.
Example metrics:
Public Safety - Primary intended user group as well as unintended users, often measured
with factor of safety.
Resource efficiency (Actual used material /Estimated material),
Working Hours
Cost ($)
Waste (Produced/Predicted)
 (Actual output/expected output),
Clarity of design drawings (E.g. scale of 1-5 for clarity of information presented)
Environmental impact (Highly qualitative and specific)
Bridge Design Requirements
The following requirements are given restrictions:
Bridge will support the passage of a 400N train
Bridge will support at least two point loads of 200N
Resources limited to one matboard (32x40x0.05) and two tubes of contact cement
(30mL)
Bridge must weigh less than or equal to one matboard (750g).
Bridge will not exceed length of 1325mm, track level will not exceed 200mm above
supports, lowest point will be no less than 200mm below supports, bridge will have a
width of no less than 100mm.
Track will be straight and level, so that the train will be able to pass unhindered.
There must be two holes with diameters of 25mm through the bridge to assist in applying
loads.
Maximum allowable mid span deflection is 35mm.
The team has further imposed requirements to ensure the success of the design:
Bridge will support a minimum of twice the weight of the required point loads (800N)
Bridge will use a minimum of 90% of matboard
All contact cement will be applied to weak points
Bridge will meet aesthetic requirements by having a clean, contact cement-free outer
surface and is visually appealing
Statement of Bridge Design Philosophy
Our bridge segment will be designed primarily to safely withstand the 400N load applied
by the train, by designing for a minimum of 800 N in loading weight. The design of the bridge
segment will be protective against torsion, flexural, and shear stresses, which improves safety by
lowering the probability of different types of failure. The bridge will be able to maximize the use
of the provided materials, by following a detailed design drawing. The key goals of our bridge
segment design will be the ability to resist shear and flexural stress, high load weights, and
distributed weight with minimal deformation using an aesthetically tasteful frame of only
matboard and contact cement.
Key Design Decisions
Several design decisions were crucial in ensuring that our bridge met our requirement of
800N. Below are the key design decisions of our bridge:
We chose the height of the bridge to be 80mm, which we decided was an economical
height to maximize the amount of matboard left for a layered deck and diaphragms.
The width of the bridge is 100mm, also the minimum width, as it is the most economical
width.
The length of the bridge will be 1250mm, which is within length limitations. This length
was chosen as it is long enough for diaphragms to be applied at point load locations,
while economizing on available matboard material.
Our frame as seen from a cross-section view will be in the shape of the figure of pi. It
consists of a flat upper deck supported by two thin walls between the ends of the deck.
These two thin walls will be raised 80mm apart, with 10mm long flanges on each side. A
bottom deck 100mm wide is also added.
The thickness of the bridge would vary throughout the span of the bridge. As the bridge
is divided into two parts, the section adjacent to support A would have a double top deck
of 2.54mm, and the section adjacent to support B would have a double bottom deck to
fortify against the relevant flexural stresses, the most important being compressive stress.
We decided to divide the whole bridge into 2 different sections since the length of the
matboard is less than the span of the bridge, and connect them at a junction. This junction
is located between supports A and B, near support B because of the negative moment
there. The two main sections of the bridge segment will be connected by interlocking
layers of matboard that will be glued together. These layers will then be supported by a
diaphragm, which will further fortify this natural weak point. For the section on the left
side of support B, we use two layers on the top and one layer on the bottom due to
compression on the top track, and for the section on the right side, we use two layers on
the bottom and one layer on the top due to compression on the bottom, since matboard
has a low compression strength.
 Diaphragms are crucial additions that will allow the bridge segment to withstand higher
loads without failing due to torsion or buckling. The diaphragms will help resist
compression forces and maintain the shape of the frame. As predictions for the two point
load locations cannot be accurately estimated, two diaphragms will be placed less than
64mm apart so that the point loads will fall between them. These diaphragms will consist
of two sections of matboard glued together to create a 2.54mm thick diaphragm. Glue
tabs will be folded perpendicularly, so that the diaphragm can be glued to all four sides of
the bridge frame to resist torsion. The diaphragms will be 80mm x 80mm, meaning there
will be enough matboard to produce 8 of them. Two of these diaphragms will be installed
around each of the two point load locations, two will be installed around support B,
which was identified as the higher load support, one will be installed at the junction and
one will be installed above support A.
The group unanimously decided to reduce cutting to a bare minimum, and to proceed
with folding parts as necessary. By reducing the number of small parts, the chances of
complete failure due to the local failure of one section is reduced. Larger pieces will
allow for easier application of contact cement. If the contact cement is applied
effectively, parts will not fail due to shifting places. Without as many cuts, the original
grain of the material will not be interrupted, this original strength will add to the stiffness
of the bridge.
Gluing will be applied evenly to glue tabs of a minimum of 10mm width. This minimum
width is necessary to keep the shear stress tolerance high. Calculations show that if
gluing is applied correctly during construction, the bridge should not fail due to the glue.
The group decided to use any leftover matboard and contact cement to fortify key weak
points, which would be point loads and the junction. Leftover matboard pieces are to be
fashioned into stiffeners and glued.
Consideration of Design Alternatives
The core skills that are central to engineering design are reflective iteration and the rational
consideration of alternative design practices. A main point of divergence in our group was over
the use of a rectangular cross section versus a rectangular cross section with flanges. The normal
rectangular cross section would have greater centroid. It was decided that there should be flanges
on the bridge, and that the thin walls should be 10mm away from the ends of the deck. This way,
with 80mm between the thin walls they would be able to better support the 75mm wide train. It
was also decided that the glue tabs for the thin walls should fold inwards instead of outwards, as
the glue tabs would add an extra 1.27mm of thickness directly under the location where the train
wheels would contact the bridge deck. While designing the bridge, a miniature prototype (figure
1) was constructed using cardboard in the place of matboard to simulate the junction between the
two matboard sections. Approximate loads were applied to this joint, and the reactions were
observed. From these reactions, we realized that a diaphragm was crucial for the junction, and
that the deck layers would have to be glued on with extreme caution to ensure maximum
strength. For the diaphragms, it was discovered that by applying glue tabs to connect the thin
walls to the diaphragm in addition to the top and bottom decks there could be more resistance
against buckling. This addition would improve horizontal stability in the immediate area.

Figure 1. The miniature prototype with the diaphragms

To construct these four tabbed diaphragms, we had a choice of cutting one 1.27mm thick
diaphragm with four folding tabs or two diaphragms with two folding tabs each. It was decided
that the double thickness diaphragms were better at preserving the integrity of the structure. They
were better at resisting shear buckling, consisted of cleaner cuts, and produced less waste.
Basis for Key Design Decisions
The smallest critical load was calculated to be 821.5N, and was due to compressive
flexural stress. This failure load is greater than the designed load requirement of 800N. However,
it is expected that due to faults in construction this expected failure point may be lower. When
testing the junction with the prototype, it was determined that the interlocking double layers
would best be applied at this point, as it would mean more surface area for the contact cement.
The junction location was determined by examining the relevant bending moment diagram. By
having the junction in the central region of the bridge, neither section would be subject to
unevenly high stresses, and thus extreme local failures can be avoided. Cross sectional frame was
also physically tested. It was noted that by having the thin walls further apart, there would be
more bending in the top deck especially when point loads were applied. This excessive bending
was considered aesthetically unpleasing, and a source of failure. However, greater failure was
also observed when the thin walls were placed too close together. A compromise was achieved in
the 80mm spacing of the thin walls. Diaphragm locations were chosen based on simple tests
using the cardboard mockup. A junction scenario, point load scenario, and support scenario were
tested both with and without diaphragm to visually assess the potential increase in stiffness
provided by the diaphragms. As the tools and equations required to calculate torsion are
unknown, this simple physical test was deemed sufficient evidence for the improved resistance
against torsion that the diaphragms provide. To prove that the double layer diaphragms were
more effective than the single layer, the cardboard mockup was used, along with the appropriate
equation for shear buckling. The calculations yielded a maximum shear buckling force of 1527N,
and the mockup was noticeably stiffer.
Design Evaluation
The suggested design meets all the requirements of the bridge design as well as an
engineering design in general. It supports 822N in point loads, well above the requirement of
400N and our goal of 800N. The predicted max deflection for the train at the highest moment
position is 3.41mm, while the max deflection for a 200N point load is 2mm. This deflection is
much less than the maximum of 35mm, and is deemed to be quite satisfactory. Leftover and
waste products were allocated for further bridge stiffening. Diaphragms further help preserve the
original shape of the bridge and resist torsion, buckling, and shear stresses. The 400N train
should have no problem in crossing this aesthetic bridge. In conclusion, the bridge design
successfully meets all requirements and satisfies all goals put forward by the design team.
Appendix B

Peter Xiaoxiao Wenhan Shakiba

November 21 1.5 1.5

brainstorming brainstorming

November 23 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

coming up with coming up with coming up with coming up with
design decisions design decisions design decisions design decisions

November 25 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

designing the designing the designing the designing the
bridge and doing bridge and doing bridge and doing bridge and doing
the initial the initial the initial the initial
calculations calculations calculations calculations

November 26 4 report write-up 3

Calculations and
model design
and construction

November 27 9.5 9.5 8.5 5.5

Calculations and Calculations, Calculations, report write-up
report write-up drawing and drawing, and
report add-ons model
construction

November 28 4 report edits

Totals 21.5 18 12.5 11

Signatures