Civil engineering is an engineering discipline that deals with the design and maintenance of physical and naturally build structures. Our civil engineering unit will consist of the design and construction of a wooden bridge. Made of balsa wood, we will attempt to build a bridge that will span a 9 inch gap and be able to hold a 20 pound weight without failing. As we progress through the project, we will strive to learn what civil engineers do and what their lives look like, how to characterize building materials and joints, and how to use material characterization to plan our design and build of the bridge. In addition to this, we will be learning about static force analysis and how it can bring light to the forces acting on members and the significance of specific pieces and designs.
1. Maximize the strength to weight ratio for a 9” balsa wood bridge.
2. Predict where the bridge will fail and justify your prediction using static force analysis, terminology, and calculations.
1. What do civil and structural engineers do? What does that life look like?
2. How do we characterize our building materials and the joints connecting them?
3. How do we use material characterization to guide/drive a structural design?
4. How do we use material characterization to predict structural failure?
The version 1 of our balsa wood bridge was designed using a vertically mirrored design. My partner, Gabe, and I built each side with six exterior pieces and five interior connecting beams. As shown above, the interior pieces connect in the center of the side and are glued to the 9'' piece that stretches across the entire side. At each vertex we attached gusset plates, circular pieces of balsa wood that distributed the stress from the joint onto a larger area.
After completing both sides of the bridge, we connected them using horizontal and diagonal members. The diagonal members were essential in preventing the bridge from collapsing horizontally; a triangle is much harder to shift than a rectangle, which readily deforms into a parallelogram. These can be seen in the second picture below. Directly below shows the completed version 1 of our bridge. The bridge sat on four feet which are not particularly easy to see in the picture below. The weight was hung from a hook that sat on four horizontal members in the middle of the bridge. To reduce weight, we trimmed our gusset plates so that they did not extend passed the exterior lines of our bridge.
Here is a video of how our version one performed. As you can see, the bridge broke. However, this was part of the learning experience. Our bridge was very sturdy; it did not move side to side at all. The issue was with the distribution of the weight that was being applied. The single member that held the hook received too much direct pressure and broke under the stress.
Due to the success and sturdiness of our version 1 design, Gabe and I did not change much for our version 2. The exterior members were the same as before and the interior was similar. Although difficult to see above due to the gusset plates in the way, we added three vertical supports on both sides of the center connection. We placed he supports to be on either side of and below the horizontal members holding the weight. This is the pressice location where the version 1 bridge failed. In addition to adding these supports, Gabe and I wanted to reduce the weight of our bridge. In version 1, we had man crossing, diagonal supports in between the two side of the bridge. We decided to remove the 'X' design and replace it with singular diagonal supports.
The goal of version 1 was to design and build a bridge with the highest strength to weight ratio possible. The goal of version 2 differed slightly and required us to support a 20 pound weight. Once we demonstrated we could do that, the bridges would be displayed in the library window case, holding a 10 pound weight, for two weeks. Gabe and I's version 2 successfully held the 20 lbs and was displayed.