Project Report II

MSE 221- Fall 2015

Prepared for Professor Flavio
Firmani
Raaj Chatterjee
301264623

Anahita
Mahmoodi
301254439

Sumreen Rattan
301249614

Erik Seidelmann
301183525

Table of Contents
I.

Abstract............................................2

II.

Design Description...........................3

III.

Failure...............................................4

IV.

Loads Effects on Members and Joint 4

V.

Cause of Failure................................5

VI.

Design Reflection..............................6

VII. Recommendations............................7
VIII. Conclusion........................................8
IX.

Works Cited.......................................9

Abstract
The objective of this project was to design and construct the lightest
bridge that can hold the greatest load, composed solely of Popsicle sticks
and all-purpose glue. The objectives, requirements and limitations of our
design are analyzed and discussed. The result of the bridge testing is
thoroughly analyzed, comparing software simulations and calculations to
the results. The causes of failure are discussed and recommendations for
further improvements are given.
The focal point of this entire project was to apply the theory behind
statically determinate structures to create the best possible modification of
the Pattullo Bridge. Once we designed, using software simulations and
calculations, we were able to determine possible points of failure within our
design. In a way, this project enabled students to learn more about real life
engineering situations versus a typical lecture environment. In exams,
students are usually expected to solve the statically determinate bridge with
no further analysis, whereas with this bridge, many design iterations were
required to construct a bridge, followed by detail calculations of where their
ideal design could actually fail. At the end of this report, we will determine
the best possible improvements of our design to ensure that our future
projects are as high quality as possible.

PROJECT REORT II

Figure 1: Pattullo Bridge Aerial View (Translink)

Design Description
Our objective was to create a bridge which would be able to support a
large applied load while maintaining a relatively light weight. The
restrictions on our bridge included that it be composed of Elmer's brand
Popsicle sticks and all-purpose glue, use statically determinate trusses and
be 80cm in length, spanning 75cm. Our final design for the bridge consisted
of the Warren truss with vertical supports in the triangular sections placed
to reinforce the top of the truss. The reason for the modification was to
increase the strength of the members in compression, allowing us to reduce
their chances of failure. The dimensions of the bridge were 12 cm by
11
3
2
cm and the roadway width was approximately 10 cm. The length of
the roadway was 80 cm and the overall weight of the bridge came to be 319
grams. The calculations we made showed that our bridge could support a
maximum weight of 63.79kg assuming all the members and joints met the
maximum theoretical stresses, when in practice they were likely to fail
before this point. This indeed was the case, as our bridge held half the
predicted load, the cause of which will be analyzed in subsequent sections.

PROJECT REORT II

Figure 2: Bridge across span before testing

PROJECT REORT II

Failure
Our bridge was able to support a maximum load of 32.4Kg, with a
load to weight ratio of 101.56, although this is below the 63.79Kg that we
assumed it would be able to hold. The results of this test gave us valuable
information that we can use to improve future projects of a similar nature.
We determined that our theoretical value of the maximum load had a 49.2%
error, although this value is fairly high. This led us to conclude that in future
projects we should assume a safety factor of at least 2. The safety factor
was found by taking the ultimate weight applied and dividing it by the
allowable weight applied, in this case, 63.79Kg / 32.4Kg. This is a very
important step as theoretical values of maximum stresses are always lower
than values observed in practical usage, as demonstrated by the results of
this test.

Loads Effects on Members and Joint

In the previous report we found the tension in all the members as a
percent of the applied force on our bridge. Since our bridge was able to
support a weight of 32.4Kg, we know that the maximum applied force the
bridge could sustain was 317.52 Newtons. This was found by multiplying
32.4Kg by 9.8m/s^2, the acceleration on earth due to gravity. From
Newtons second law, we know this will grant us the force applied. Thus,
given the percentage of the applied force in each member and the applied
force on the bridge, we can calculate the total force in each member as
shown in the table below. Our Matlab code [2] has helped us to find these
values.
Table 1: Compression and Tension in Members

Member

Net Tension (N)

AB
AC
BC
BD
CE
CF
DE
EF
EG
FH
FI
GH
PROJECT REORT II

0
90.921852
182.955024
0
0
272.781432
0
182.955024
0
0
454.68864
0
5

Net Compression (N)

182.9518488
0
0
181.843704
182.955024
0
181.843704
0
363.592152
182.955024
0
363.687408

HI
HJ
JK
IK
IL
KM
KL

182.955024
0
0
363.687408
0
363.687408
0
182.955024
636.31008
0
0
545.5342872
182.955024
0
We were similarly able to find the amount of shear stress every joint
was enduring, using the percentage of shear stress for an applied load
found previously. The results were calculated and entered into the table
below.
Table 2: Shear Stresses in Joints

Joint

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L

X
forces
(N)
180.98
64
365.14
8
546.13
44
365.14
8
727.12
08
819.20
16
727.12
08
1092.2
69
1273.2
55
1092.2
69
1454.2
42
1454.2
42

PROJECT REORT II

Shear in
X (MPa)

Y
Shear in
forces Y (MPa)
(N)
1.122493 317.52 1.959996
53
98
2.244990 317.52 1.960025
23
56
3.367598 317.52 1.960025
07
56
2.244983
0
0
88
4.489993 317.52 1.960025
17
56
5.047024 317.52 1.960025
85
56
4.489967
0
0
76
6.734780 317.52 1.960025
19
56
7.857076 317.52 1.960025
85
56
6.734561
0
0
1
8.978195 317.52 1.960025
52
56
8.978195 635.04 3.920025
52
72

Total
Force
(N)
365.148
482.6304
631.8648
365.148
793.8
876.3552
727.1208
1136.721
6
1311.357
6
1092.268
8
1489.168
8
1587.6

Total
Shear
(MPa)
2.258665
82
2.980214
14
3.896462
56
2.244983
88
4.899155
79
5.414255
78
4.489967
76
7.014197
79
8.097861
79
6.734561
1
9.189654
31
9.796663
65

Cause of Failure
As expected, our bridge failed in member KM and in joint L as shown
in figure 1. Since both locations had failed when the bridge was examined,
it is impossible to know exactly which failed first, thus both will be analyzed
as a cause of failure. Member KM is in more compression than any other
joint in our truss and as such was expected to fail before the other
members. Although other members feel higher tensile forces, due to the
fact that the popsicle can handle for more tensile forces than compressive,
[3][4] member KM was assumed to fail first. From this we know that in
future designs joint KM should either be further reinforced or the design
should be altered to ensure less compressive forces occur in that member.

Figure 3 Failure of member KM (left) and joint L (right)

The joint L is the location where the highest shear forces are felt and
as such was assumed to be where the bridge would fail. These high shear
stresses are due to a large number of members with high compressive or
tensile stresses meeting in one location. It intuitively makes sense that the
joint that would feel the most stress is the furthest away from the supports
and is closest to the applied load. This indicates that future designs should
either reinforce joint L, so that it can handle a higher shear stress, or the
bridge should be designed so that shear stresses are minimized in this
location.

Design Reflection
In an ideal world, the expectations of a project would match the
outcome, but in reality, experience proves a different story where it is not
uncommon for a project to fail. Although we had a thorough approach,
PROJECT REORT II

which certainly could have resulted in an exceptional ending to this project,

a few design errors and inconsistences resulted in an inability to meet our
predicted load. After the bridge testing, and analysis of other bridges, we
recognized the minor changes and additions which may have increased the
allowable load of our bridge. To start, the bridge may have been improved
by adding horizontal supports across the top of the trusses which would
have reduced the likelihood of deformation due to the bridge concaving
inwards. Although this was not the main cause of bridge failure, it was likely
a contributing factor for the bridge collapsing before our predicted load
limit was reached. Next, the truss itself could have been designed
differently from the analysis of bridges which carried a significant load, it
was evident that bridges with the Howe or Pratt truss lasted longer than
bridges with simpler trusses. In the case of our bridge, it may have been
better to choose one of these trusses rather than the Warren truss.
With respect to building the trusses, the Popsicle sticks could have
been reinforced better - for example, there were many redundant Popsicle
sticks which did not help with reinforcement, and added additional weight
instead. These included some of the vertical columns as well as doubled
sticks on either truss, which could have been better proportioned the
trusses were doubled up at different points, which altered the symmetry
and distribution of the weight of the bridge. Similarly, the gluing could have
been carried out more effectively it was evident that one of our trusses
was more symmetrically aligned, and less distorted due to a better gluing
job and use of alignment tools. There was also a lack in consistency in the
amount of glue used, where there was excessive glue at some joints, and
very minimal glue at others, again reducing the proportionality of the
trusses. Additionally, we could have sanded the Popsicle sticks to increase
the surface area for gluing, which would have resulted in a better
strengthened bridge. After the bridge competition, we were given the
opportunity to speak to other teams with successful bridges and acquired
some advice. One of the teams used a unique process which involved testing
each individual Popsicle stick to ensure each stick was equal in thickness
and strength. In the future, we will test each individual Popsicle stick to
attain the most balanced, symmetrical and evenly distributed bridge.

Recommendations
As a whole, the course project was an excellent learning experience.
However, there are always changes that can be made to significantly
PROJECT REORT II

improve the experience for all parties involved. One way to improve would
be by having access to the lab equipment approximately a week ahead of
time. This enables students to test their bridges with the appropriate
equipment, preparing them for exactly what is expected in the lab. Software
simulations and calculations provide a great way to estimate the strength of
the bridge, but testing the bridge physically will provide a more sufficient
method of testing its true reliability.
Another way to improve would be having stronger equipment in the
lab. There were a couple of groups whose bridges had failed as a result of
equipment failure. Whether it was the cables that snapped or the bar of
wood given out, the bridge itself had not failed. Having better equipment
can provide a more accurate result by not being forced to reset the
experiment, saving a significant amount of time on testing day.
The final method in improving this project is if the criteria required
groups to set self-goals at the beginning of the course. Similar to a
checklist, groups can mark down each completion stage of their project,
motivating themselves to get started on their project earlier. This will
produce a substantial source of motivation to complete their bridges with a
higher level of quality and confidence.

Figure 4: Fracture due to compression in the top beam

PROJECT REORT II

Conclusion
Our objective was to create a bridge, which would be able to support
a large applied load while remaining relatively lightweight. Before the
bridge was tested, we estimated through a series of calculations that the
bridge holds the capacity to support a load of 60kg, while roughly weighing
300 grams, and spanning 75cm while meeting other design
requirements. The final design of our bridge was decided through an
iterative process, ruling out multiple other designs and improving the ones
we thought could work well. Several days were devoted to ensuring the
bridge met the requirements specified in the project outline. However, with
every design come areas of weakness. Our bridge did not hold as much as
we expected it to, in fact, it held significantly less. When we analyzed the
broken bridge after it had taken on a load of 32.4Kg, we realized that a
couple of the key joints did not have enough glue binding the two popsicle
sticks together which may have caused early failure.
We believe this was a key factor that hindered the bridge from
reaching its expected potential. Our bridge had a strength to weight ratio of
101.56. Another aspect of the project in which we would do differently
would be to implement popsicle sticks on top of the bridge that connect the
two sides. We failed to do this the first time, and only implemented a layer
on the bottom of the bridge. Had we added that extra layer on top, our
bridge would be significantly more sturdy. Overall, the entire process of this
project was an excellent learning process. We were able to learn how to
collaborate with team members, shifting through iterations of design,
testing and analyzing, and also learning how to improve from our previous
experiences.

PROJECT REORT II

10

Figure 5: Team Photo

Works Cited
[1] J. Matthews, 'Pattullo bridge under construction', Vancouver, 2015.
[2] R. Chatterjee, E. Seidelmann, A. Mahmoodi, S. Rattan, MSE 221 Project Report I, 2015.
[3] G. Boon, 'Garrett's Bridges Warren Truss', Garrettsbridges.com, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.garrettsbridges.com/design/warren-truss/. [Accessed: 17- Nov- 2015].
[4] Matbase.com, 'Birch | Class 4 wood: slightly durable (CEN EN) | Wood | Polymer Matrix
Composites (PMC's) | Natural & Synthetic Composites | Material Categories | Chemical,
mechanical, physical and environmental properties of materials | Matbase: the independent
online material selection resource', 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.matbase.com/materialcategories/composites/polymer-matrix-composites-pmc/wood/class-4-wood-slightlydurable/material-properties-of-birch-wood.html#properties. [Accessed: 17- Nov- 2015].

PROJECT REORT II

11