2016 NJIT Steel Bridge

Report

Top 10: Take II

CE 490 203
Written by:
Devin Berniz

Introduction

We all know what bridges are and what they look like, but what makes
a bridge successful? A successful bridge will not only get you from point A to
point B, but it will also meet code requirements along with budget
requirements and side goals which will vary from client to client such as
aesthetics. In order to design a successful bridge, the first step is to come up
with goals. A bridge can only be as successful as what is trying to be
achieved.

Competition
I. Background
The student steel bridge competition is designed to provide a project
experience that replicates issues, concerns and challenges that civil
engineers face on a day by day basis in practice. In order to approach these
challenges successfully, students must apply engineering principles and
theory acquired from class and work together as a team effectively. In doing
so, each student will ultimately gain the vital experience of what it is like to
complete a project from start to finish. Steps taken to achieve these goals
will consist of designing conceptually before coming up with a final bridge
design that will reach its goal expectations, running several tests, and then
finally bringing the bridge to life through fabrication, erection and running
more tests. As a result, this project experience should give students great
insight of the common issues that engineers face in practice such as spatial

restrictions, material properties (compressive and tensile strength, etc.),

management and cost.

II. Categories
Overall, there are 7 separate categories in which we get scored on.
Theres construction speed, lightness, stiffness, construction economy,
structural efficiency, display, and overall performance. Construction Speed is
solely how long it takes to construct the bridge. Number of builders is
irrelevant and the team with the shortest time would place first in this
category. The winner of the lightness category will be the team that designs
the lightest bridge without failing. The next category coincides with
lightness, which is stiffness. Stiffness is judged by how much the bridge
deflects or in simpler terms, how much it bends. For this category, it is
imperative to stay as far away as possible from a smiling bridge. The reason
why this category is so tricky is because it clashes with lightness as well. In
some cases, a lighter bridge will have more deflection than a heavier bridge
depending on how it is designed. By combining these two categories, the
goal would be to design the lightest bridge with the least amount of
deflection, which is what many schools will end up trying to achieve. The
next category on the list is construction economy. This is one of the two most
important categories when it comes to which school will design the winning
bridge. It is determined by who can build a bridge with the lowest
2

construction cost (Cc) based on an empirical equation. The other equally as

important category is structural efficiency. This particular category is based
on who can design a bridge with the lowest structural cost (Cs). These two
categories combined make up the overall performance category (Cc + Cs),
which determines who designs the winning bridge. The bridge achieving the
lowest value of the two categories combined wins the overall competition.

III. Changes
There are some pretty big alterations to this years competition that
will influence how we design our bridge. Although there are a few minor
changes, the major changes that will impact our design the most are the fact
that there are six load cases that are asymmetrical including a constant point
load that is slightly offset from the center (Table 7.1). The rules also indicate
that no one will know from which side of the bridge the loads will be
measured from, therefore its not as simple as supporting the bridge from
where the determination of D is because we wont know. However, we were
left with the choice of taking a chance and guessing from which side they will
take the measurements and designing a bridge with best results, or taking
the safe route and making a symmetrical bridge that will give the same
results no matter what side is chosen for the measurements of the
determination of D.

Another major change that made an impact our design is the fact that
the weight of the bridge has a lesser effect on the final cost of the bridge
compared to last year. For this years competition, the structural Efficiency
Cs = Total weight (pounds) x 10,000 ($/pound) + Aggregate deflection
(inches) x 1,000,000 ($/inch) + Load test penalties (6.2.6), whereas last year
was 20,000 ($/pound). This makes it possible to play with all sorts of tube
diameters and thicknesses without making too much of an impact on final
cost. Many if not all schools will take advantage of this.
As for the construction side of the competition, there are a few
changes that will strongly impact the speed of construction and we all know
that construction speed is always king and queen of the competition.
Therefore we need to come up with a strategy that will ultimately give us the
best results. The changes from last year include the fact that the river now
extended using the whole width of the construction site boundary lines
(Figure 1 drawn by ASCE-AISC). It is because of this reason that there are
now two separate starting locations for the builders as show in the site plan
below. This makes it a bit complicated as to how many builders should be
used to give us the best results. As of now, we are thinking two builders on
4

each side for a total of four builders, but we wont know what will give us the
results were hoping for until practice starts.

(Figure 1)

Another reason why were are strongly considering 4 builders is

because of the fact that now two members can be preassembled as long as
the assembled pieces get carried by two builders. There is a lot of trial and
error to be done with this in order to figure out what the best approach is.
Lastly, they brought the idea of using a pier back into the competition, which
will greatly impact how we construct our bridge, but again, this is all
something to be figured out with trial and error.

NJIT History
NJIT has come a long way since competing in the ASCE-AISC Steel
Bridge competition for roughly 20 years now. It wasnt always as easy as it
has been to earn a spot at the national level of competing. The Metropolitan
Regional Competition was more than enough struggle to make it a goal just
to reach the national level. Throughout the years we have progressed

through setting higher standards, expectations and goals, but most

importantly we have learned to grow as a team.
It has been a decade now that we have been winning 1st place in the
Metropolitan Regional Competition without a sweat. Not only that, but
previously our best ranking nationally was 12th place overall and now we
have improved earning ourselves a spot in the top ten finishing 6th place
overall.

Goals & Schedule

Considering that we have won regionals for a decade straight, we
definitely want to continue that tradition. As for competing at the national
level, we would like to continue the path of reaching the very top. The goal is
always to progress. We placed 12th place overall nationally 2 years ago and
6th place last year. Although the ultimate goal is always to get first, it is our
expectation and one of our goals to at least reach a spot in top 5.
In order to achieve our goals, we must be determined and follow a
strict schedule as follows:

SCHEDULE
Have top designs ready to show Schiavone by October
Choose the final design by November
Start working in SolidWorks by November
Get orders for materials sent out before January
Complete Jig and Fabrication Drawings by February
Start of fabrication of the bridge by early February
6

Finish fabrication by the end of February

Begin Practicing by early March

Design Process
I. Training
There is no time to waste when it comes to designing a winning bridge;
and being determined as we are, we went straight to the lab as soon as we
got back from the 2015 national steel bridge competition. Although the rules
for the upcoming years competition didnt come out until August, there was
still a lot of work to catch up on in order to get ahead of the game. Our first
step as captains was to familiarize ourselves with drawing in 3D Wireframe in
AutoCAD and designing our own bridges using the previous competitions
rules. Then in order to analyze the bridges that we designed in AutoCAD, we
had to import our CAD drawings into a program called SAP2000. SAP2000
makes it easier for us to input all load cases and desired tube sizes for our
wireframe drawing of our bridge. We then took all data from the tables that
SAP2000 provided and imported it into a formulated excel file that converts
all of the data into a final cost of our bridge design. We were able to create
this excel file using formulas listed in the rules for construction cost and
structural cost, and then we created our own empirical formula for building
time to be included in the cost to give us an accurate overall cost of our
bridge the way it would be judged at the competition.
7

II. New Rules

As soon as the rules came out for the upcoming years competition, the
first thing we did was point out all of the obvious big changes from the
previous years competition that would influence the way we design for this
years competition. We then took a solid week of clarifying each word
precisely so that we knew exactly the kinds of things that we can get away to
use to our advantage that would either improve our bridge structurally,
economically, or building time. If there were any difficulties interpreting the
rules for any reason, we are to report them, which is why it is vital to check
for clarifications of the rules on the website on a day by day basis since it
can potentially influence change to our design.

III. Final Bridge Design Process

Once we had a good understanding of the rules and all of our
constraints, it was time to design. Our first approach was to analyze the
moment diagram for each load case (Figure 2), and to overlap them to see
what kind of overall shape it would provide.

70000
60000
50000

Load Case 1
Load Case 2

40000

Load Case 3

30000

Load Case 4

20000

Load Case 5
Load Case 6

10000
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

(Figure 2)

We then took the outermost line of each moment diagram and extended
each line so that they would intersect and provide an overall shape for
minimal material use without failure (Figure 2). The next step was to scale
the provided shape to the necessary dimensions that would satisfy our span
and height restrictions of our bridge. Since all of the values that we got in the
process of designing our bridge only occur in a perfect world, the only way to
take that in consideration is to manipulate certain values by a fraction of on
an inch where necessary, which serves as a minor factor of safety. These
precautions need to be taken so that we dont get a failing bridge when
competition day comes. After obtaining the overall shape that we would
analyze with further investigations, we came up with various versions of a
simple suspension, Howe, Pratt and Warren truss to see what kind of
structure would provide the best results. After observing that the Pratt and

Warren truss provided the best result, we then came up with preliminary
truss designs to do further investigating on (Figure 3).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(Figure 3)

From our preliminary ideas, design (c) of a warren truss kept providing the
kind of results that we were looking for, but we still knew that there was
room for improvement. Since there is a lot more wiggle room to play with the
weight of the bridge compared to last years rules, that left us with a lot for
options to play with bigger tubes and the boundaries of our shape, while still
keeping in mind not to add to many more members since construction speed

10

is king and queen of the overall competition. Our first thoughts to adding
weight in a beneficial way were to extend the outermost diagonal members
to a flat top, thus creating a trapezoidal shape (Figure 4). On top of that, we
also toggled with the angles of the outermost diagonals. We analyzed results
using a 30, 35, 40 and 45 degree angle from the connection at the abutment.
A 45 degree angle ultimately gave us our best results while only adding an
additional 4 members.

(Figure 4)

IV. Deck Truss

After being satisfied with the design of our bridge in 2-D, it was time to
give it some volume and add 3 dimensional components such as the deck
truss and abutments. Although the main components of the bridge that
influences how much weight a bridge can uphold is the truss design of the
top chord, it wouldnt be practical to use single tubes for the deck and
abutments. Not only that, but we also had to meet certain template
restrictions drawn by ASCE-AISC (Vehicle Clearance Template/A Section
provided on the next page), which gave us no choice but to make our
decking three dimensional. The trick isnt just to abide by the restrictions
given to us but how to optimize our design in the best ways possible given
our restrictions. For example, we could have made our decking consist of
11

completely horizontal double tubed members, but why would we do that

when we know that the more vertical we make it, the better. Provided in
Figures 5.1 and 5.2 below is the decking design that we feel comfortable with
providing numbers that we are happy with.

(Figure
5.1)

(Figure
5.2)

VI. Tubing
Once we were confident with our overall shape and design of our
bridge that would give us the results we were looking for, the next step was
to come up with tube sizes that would optimize our bridge. It isnt always a
guarantee that our supplier has all the sized tubes that we need in stock,
therefore we had to first come up with a list of tube sizes and total lengths
needed to create our bridge and from there we are given a response of which
tubes cannot be provided. In this case we simply just bumped up the
diameter and thickness values to a tube sizing that they can provide just
12

because of the fact that weight doesnt make as big as an impact on final
cost as it did last year. Although there were cases where we knew we could
go down in size, which we did in order to compensate for all of the other
tubes that went up in diameter and thickness. The thing about going down in
size however is followed by more tests to make sure we dont go to the point
of failure.

V. Abutments
Once we had a full understanding of our entire bridge in 3-D from the
deck up, it was time to come up with a design for the abutments. Most of the
design was influenced by how the rest of the bridge was designed since the
decking and top chord both need to connect to the abutment. Where we
were able to be more so creative instead of depending on the decking or top
chord was the design of the lacing as shown below in Figures 6.1, 6.2 and
6.3.

13

(Figure
6.1)

(Figure
6.2)

(Figure
6.3)

VII. Fittings
The style of fittings for the bridge we used for last years competition
seemed to work really well. We plan on using the same style of fittings for
the decking, diagonal, and lateral members, while also incorporating a
different style of fittings that has been used in previous years for the thicker
tubing of the top chord (all styles of fittings provided below and on the
following page).

Top Chord
Female

14

Top Chord
Male

Decking
Male

Decking
Female

VIII. Final Drawings

15

As soon as our bridge was complete in design form, the only thing left
before fabrication was to come up with a shop drawing of every different
member and to define it in a way that its almost like giving instructions on
how to create the member. Important information to provide in these
drawing are things such as specific angles, lengths, diameters, thicknesses,
etc. of every component of that member as provided below and on the
following page.

16

Conclusion
If there is one thing I have learned about the designing aspect of
making a bridge is that there is always room for improvement, but the
challenge is to do the best that you can with the time given to you, while
simultaneously making sure to abide by rules/code requirements. Lucky
enough we have three co-captains this year to share all of the responsibilities
and tasks needed to reach our goals, which brings me to another valuable
lesson. I have learned and lived through understanding the difference
between having slackers for lab partners in class and what true teamwork is.
I am so fortunate to have the same co-captains that I was a builder with last
year. They understand the kind of hard work that it takes to reach the very
top and what it takes to design a successful bridge. We can proudly say that

17

we have given our design our best efforts with the time given to us and the
only thing left to do is to bring our design to life. We understand that many
schools will design successful bridges, but who will design the most
successful bridge?

18