National Timber Bridge Design Competition - 2016

National Timber Bridge Design Competition - 2016

National Timber Bridge Design Competition - 2018 College or University Name: SUNY Environmental Studies and Forestry Student Chapter (ASCE or FPS): SUNY ESF FPS Address: 1 Forestry Drive Syracuse, NY 13210 Website Address: www.esf.edu Faculty Advisor: Paul Crovella Email: [email protected] Phone: (315)-470-6839 Student Member in Charge of Project: Collin Lewis Email: [email protected] Phone: (585)-409-9575 Team Member Bristyl Baker Travis Berube Zach Bulak Norm Button Joe Lomardo Eric Osborne Alex Schiano

Position Testing Coordinator Estimate Manager Drawing Manager Project Manager Engineering Manager Construction Manager Design Manager Hours Spent on This Project Students: 95 Faculty: Cost of Materials Donated: $0.00 Purchased: $1057.00 Class Junior Senior Senior Junior Senior Junior

Junior ABSTRACT The main concept for the bridge design utilizes a composite wood box beam this was done to maximize EulerBernoulli beam theory. Using just one more member on edge than an I beam, the box beam design resists torsion while increasing stiffness and strength minimizing weight along the neutral axis. The beams are 16 feet in length and incorporate a combination miter and lap-joint at all joints in the flat use sections of the beam. Pressure treated wood was selected and to improve stiffness all lumber was kiln dried to about 15% moisture content prior to machining and gluing. We did compression shear tests on pressure treated samples using three different adhesives Titebond III, PL Premium, and Gorilla Glue. We found that The Gorilla glue was by far the strongest in the semi ideal fit of the test it produced a yield strength of 800 psi. followed by Titebond III at 550 psi. then PL Premium at 466 psi. The mitered lap joint with the most stress was on the bottom layer and must withstand 3382 lbs. of tension force. In order to accomplish the lap joint has a gluing surface area of not less than 33 sq. in. requiring an adhesive strength of not less than 102 psi. All adhesives tested would be sufficient but PL Premium was chosen due to its gap filling properties to allow for any imperfections in the fit of the joints. After the layers were jointed they were planed this provided a clean surface that allowed us to use Titebond III to join the layers of the beam. The secondary members were attached with high strength (HUC26-2) joist hangers to withstand the 5 kN load stresses. The joists are 12 on center to maintain deck stiffness and the joist spans are less than half of the allowable span for 2x6s for this loading based off online load calculator. 1. Loading Increment

2. Bridge 3. Beam LEFT 4. Beam RIGHT 5. Average (L & R) 6. Gross Deck 7. Net Deck 5 kN 10 kN 15 kN 20 kN 0 min. 20 kN 15 min.

1.83 2.05 2.25 2.43 2.15 0.28 3.20 3.78 4.16 4.48 3.97 0.51

5.05 5.74 6.25 6.80 5.99 0.80 6.96 4.75 8.69 9.33 6.72

2.60 7.37 8.33 9.07 9.71 8.70 1.01 20 kN 30 min. 7.52 8.48 9.18 9.84

8.83 1.01 20 kN 45 min. 7.55 8.61 9.29 9.95 8.95 1.00 20 kN 60 min. 7.59

8.71 9.39 10.04 9.05 1.00 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Loading Increments Bridge As measured at midspan of the longitudinal beam receiving greatest loading. Beam L As measured under the longitudinal beam to left of selected deck monitoring point. Beam R As measured under the longitudinal beam to right of selected deck monitoring point. Average (L & R) Average of 3 and 4, above.

Gross Deck As measured under the loading point expected to experience maximum deflection. Net Deck Column 6 minus Column 5. Deck Span: Traverse distance between main longitudinal bridge support members from inside edge to inside edge 266.7 mm / 100 = 2.667 mm max allowable deflection Bridge Span: 4654.55 mm / 400 mm = 11.636mm max allowable deflection 3. Materials List Material Item Description Weight (kg) Box Beam #1 (Consists of two vertical 2x6 with center joint, 2x6s with multiple staggered lap joints for top and bottom plates) 100.51 Box Beam #2 (Consists of two vertical 2x6 with center joint, 2x6s with multiple staggered lap joints for top and bottom plates) 106.72 Secondary Members (consist if two 2x6s supported by joist hangers) 78.58

Joist Members (consists of single 2x6s 12 on center supported by joist hangers) 34.76 Decking (consists of 2x6s layered horizontally fastened by 3 deck screws) 290 End Plate (consists if 2x12s fastened by 3 deck screws) 19.28 Curbs 17.24 Screws (160) (4 Box) GRK 5/16 x 5 Deckmate #10x 3 10 bs 3.681 11.3

joist hangers .00048kg x 36 4.3 double joist hangers .00074 x 8 2.485 TOTAL WEIGHT (Kg) 668.855 Weight Non-Wood (Kg) 21.765 Percent Non-Wood (max. 25%) 3.2 4. Summary Describe Bridge and Its Behavior Under Load (max. 500 words) Bridge testing was performed on 2 separate days, first on 4/3/2018 and then on 4/4/2018 in the Wood Products Engineering Lab at SUNY ESF. Assisting the setup, as well as testing was Neil Kohan who is a graduate student responsible for the testing lab. The bridge was tested with the Young machine (capable of testing with loads up to 400,000) equipped with a 5,000 pound load cell. Electronically reading our deflections were 4 RDP LVDTs. The setups were precisely placed to ensure even distribution of the loads over the 4 load

points. The load was electronically applied from a computer to ensure loading times and requirements were maintained. The design of our bridge forced us to perform two loading tests to gauge the deflection of the vertical deck deflection and bridge deflection separately. The first load setup on April 3rd, was placed so that the loads were equally straddling the center lines both longitudinally and transversely (load setup drawings). As the load was applied, the primary beam where we were gauging bridge deflection began to flex. The beam withheld the load very well with a final deflection of 7.59 mm. For the second loading, the load points were spread outwards towards the ends of the bridge centering the loading points between the secondary and tertiary bridge members. The bridge deflection was setup so that one of the load points fell exactly on top of the gross deck deflection gauge. As the load was applied, we could see that the left beam deflection was slightly higher than the right. This made sense because this deflection gauge was closer towards the center of the bridge where the load was creating the greatest deflection. Again, the bridge held up well with a net deflection of 2.60 mm at the end of the loading sequence. Front End View w/o End Cap Overhead View Measurements For Deflection Top View with Loading Points for Main Beam deflection Drawing Clearly Showing Location of Loading and Deflection Gage Points in Relation to Transverse Members (insert below) NOTE: Repeat slide if loading set-up was moved to measure deck deflection.

Trimetric Drawing Trimetric Photo of Finished Bridge Team Photo 6. Bridge Component Details Briefly describe each bridge component, as applicable. Stringers/Girders Box beams consisting of vertical 2x8s to form the sides of the box with 2 two layers of 2x6s laminated to the sides and each other on the top and bottom. Deck Decking was 2x6s going across the deck to minimize slip hazards as people walk on it when wet. Floor Beams Secondary cross members are a double 2x6 glued with PL Premium and screwed. Joists

2x6 floor joists were used 12 o.c. between the secondary members. Suspension The Secondary Cross members were suspended with high strength (HUC26-2) joist hangers to withstand the 5 kN load stresses. Unique Components PL Premium used on mitered lap joints. 7. Preservative Treatment: Describe the preservative treatment applied to all wood members. Include type and concentrations. Also, include a short statement of why this treatment was selected. Did the treatment requirement present any special problems? If yes, provide details. If treatment was not selected, explain why. Ground contact pressure treated lumber was selected for our bridge. The type of pressure treatment used was 0.15 PCF Micronized Copper Azole Compounds. Our bridge will be used The SUNY-ESF Ranger School in Wanakena, N.Y.. It is because of this location that we chose ground contact pressure treated lumber. This preservative treatment helps prevent against termite and insect attacks as well as helps preventing decay. There were no problems with fabrication and the cost difference was under 6% on average to untreated lumber. We did keep shavings and saw dust out of the dust

collection system as much as possible since the saw dust collected by the dust collection may have other uses. 8. Special Considerations Indicate the End Use of Your Bridge The SUNY-ESF Ranger School in Wanakena, N.Y. has many hiking trails that are used throughout the year for cross country skiing. Our constructed bridge will be used as a walking bridge over a small stream on this property. The foundation and supports of this bridge will be hot dip galvanized helical piers with a triple 2x6 cross beam to support the bridge. The original design criteria was due to the location the bridge would have to span at least 14 feet, after talking with James Savage at Wanakena it was decided to go with 16 feet to make it easier to blend the bridge approach on both sides. This bridge should never again be exposed to the loads we applied during testing. 9. Summary of the Team Experience from Participation in this Competition. Was it beneficial? What steps would you recommend to improve the experience? Summary of the teams experience Overall this was a great learning experience from the project management perspective. We learned that it is better to start simple and add rather than starting too complicated then simplify.

Benefits We learned a lot about our strengths and weaknesses as well as where how to put into practice many of the skills learned in classes. Improvements to the experience For future classes having a little clearer guidelines of how the process works as far as school procedures for purchase orders etc. As well as where and what tools are available in the shop. Changes in our construction process changed as we learned more about what was available for our use. Highly recommend that going forward a TA that has gone through this experience be specifically selected to assist this project.

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • INTRODUCTION TO INSURANCE BASICS - Web Designers

    INTRODUCTION TO INSURANCE BASICS - Web Designers

    Times New Roman Book Antiqua Monotype Sorts movnglns.ppt Microsoft Clip Gallery INTRODUCTION TO INSURANCE BASICS HISTORY OF INSURANCE MARINE INSURANCE SHIPS AND CARGOES INSURANCE IN THE USA INSURANCE IN THE USA INSURANCE IN THE USA TYPES OF INSURANCE COMPANIES Standard...
  • Tanglewood Area Neighborhood Street Reconstruction NSR 454A/Subproject 1

    Tanglewood Area Neighborhood Street Reconstruction NSR 454A/Subproject 1

    Tanglewood AreaNeighborhood Street Reconstruction NSR 454A/Subproject 1 Preconstruction Community MeetingWBS NO. N-000386-0001-4. Sam Habibi, P.E ... etc. will be done when construction is complete. City does not approve final payment to contractor until restoration is complete. ... presentation ...
  • Stereochemistry - La Salle University

    Stereochemistry - La Salle University

    Stereochemistry Stereochemistry refers to the 3-dimensional properties and reactions of molecules. It has its own language and terms that need to be learned in order to fully communicate and understand the concepts.
  • Παρουσίαση του PowerPoint

    Παρουσίαση του PowerPoint

    Η γνώση βασικών κανόνων ασφάλειας και η ανάπτυξη κριτικής σκέψης είναι καθοριστικοί παράγοντες για την προστασία μας από κακόβουλους ανθρώπους και τη διαφύλαξη των προσωπικών μας δεδομένων, ώστε να μπορούμε να ...
  • Fejlett Programozási Technikák 2.

    Fejlett Programozási Technikák 2.

    Az informatikai tanszékcsoport hálózata 4 helyszín ~500 munkaállomás ~20 szerver 13 aktív eszköz (kapcsoló) IPv4 és IPv6 Monitorozás - Nagios Monitorozás - Netdisco Monitorozás - Netdisco Menedzselés Naplózás: Syslog szerver RSTP Hiba keresés: Ping CDP infók Végső megoldás: port monitorozás...
  • Quantitative Chemical Analysis 7e

    Quantitative Chemical Analysis 7e

    In general, analytes with equal concentrations give different detector responses. Therefore, the response must be measured for known concentrations of each analyte. A graph of detector response as a function of analyte concentration is called a .
  • Computer Networks - hkedcity.net

    Computer Networks - hkedcity.net

    Arial 新細明體 MS PGothic Calibri Clarity 1_Clarity 2_Clarity 3_Clarity 4_Clarity Computer Networks What is computer network? What is computer network? LANs and WANs LANs and WANs LAN WAN Examples of LAN & WAN Advantages and disadvantages of networks Advantages of...
  • Suprathreshold Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation as an analog of

    Suprathreshold Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation as an analog of

    Sofia Santos-Perez³, Steven Moore¹. ¹ Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; ²University Hospital LucusAugusti, Spain; ³University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. What is Suprathreshold Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation (GVS)? Suprathreshold GVS refers to the application of current across the mastoid...