Cover Sheet

   (For the specic steps taken to estimate bridge weight, refer to the Data

Appendix.)

Design Methodology
We initially approached the project by making the simplest designs possible. The rst three proposed designs include a bridge that takes up as much volume as possible (Fig. 1), a Minimalist design (Fig. 2), and another that involves parabolic arches (Fig. 3). Figure 1: Punch Out Figure 2: Minimalist Figure 3: Truss Arch

After Dennis incorporated these simple designs into SolidWorks, Nick did some research online for various archetypal bridges and brought to the attention of the group that a simple truss or arch brige would most likely be ideal for the situation. With this in mind, we determined the Truss Arch (Fig. 3) was the best of our initial designs, so we kept its general shape and tossed the others. Nick then proceeded to create detailed schematics for a truss-arch bridge hybrid (Fig. 4), Jon and Ben created a design that incorporates I-beams as well(Fig. 5), and then Dennis and Jon re-designed Nick's general design using llets instead of a simple truss (Fig. 6). Figure 4: Nick's Part Figure 5: I Beam Figure 6: Full Arc

Nick and Dennis then met with Jordan to discuss possible using a macro to run several load studies while varying certain aspects of the bridge to nd an optimum design. Jon, Ben, and Dennis then spent quite a long time tinkering with beam hights, widths, lengths, radii, etc. of all arch designs (Figs. 3-6) After a long night of optimizing the six dierent designs, the Full Arc (Fig. 6) was found to have the highest predicted applied f orce ratio. For enlarged schematics for any of the six designs, refer to the Schematics Appendix. weight

Method of Analysis & Optimization

After decided on the nal four designs, we rst modied them such that there were no clear areas of high stress concentration. We then used the Design Studies feature in SolidWorks to optimize some of the specic parameters of the four bridges. Our design studies looped through many dierent load studies, varying the dimensions of each part. (To see what specic demsions were varied and the quanitative results of these design studies, see the Data Appendix.) In our design studies, we applied a constant force of 1N to the ring-shaped loading area on top of each bridge. SolidWorks would then report maximum Von Mises stress due to this applied load, as well as the volume of the bridge in cubic inches. Given that the studies required only a single value for Young's Modulus, eects on mass and strength due to varying surface area were neglected. Thus, in our studies we assumed mass was proportional to volume. It should be noted, however, that in reality the parts of the bridge that are saturated with epoxy have higher density and strength than those without. We also made a second, small strain analysis assumption. In other words, we assumed that the stress at any given point in a bridge is proportional to the applied force. So with these assumptions in mind, maximizing applied load (constrained by maximum possible internal strain without breaking) is directly propertional to minimizing the product of volume and max stress (constrained by a constant applied load). Thus, our principle evaluation criterion during our design studies was
design

score = (volume) (maximum stress at 1N )

So by varying several dimensions of each design, we were then able to select the each design's optimum dimensions. Finally, we compared the design scores of each optimized design. The Full Arc (Fig. 6) had the best score of 53933 P a in3 , indicating that it would be able to withstand the greatest applied load prior to failure. 

Bridge Material Properties

Table 1: Calculated ZP150 Material Properties from Lab 2 Yield Stress, yield (M P a) Y oung s P oisson s Horizontally Built Vertically Built M odulus, E (GP a) Ratio ,  Tension 3.14 3.07 2.1255 Compression 41.49 48.73  

Predicted Components of Failure

Eight separate loading reticles were added to the circular loading area of the Full Arc bridge to simulate the possible loading areas during the actual contest (Fig. 7). By symmetry, the only possible loading scenarios include a long-side load (1), a short-side load (2), or a diagonal load (3). We then applied a load of 1N , F0 , normal to each possible Figure 7: Full Arc with Loading Reticles loading reticle in three separate Load Studies in SolidWorks. We then used the observed stress, 0 , (in both tension and compression) and used the fact that applied load varies linearly with stress to calculate the force at failure, FM AX , (in tension and compression) based on calculated yield stress values, M AX , (in tension and compression) determined in Lab 2 (Tab. 1).

The general calculation is as follows: (Note that the horizontal yield stress was used when the observed stress acted parallel to the build layers of the bridge, and vertical yield stress was used when the observed stress acted perpendicular to the build layers.)
F0 = k0 FM AX = kM AX FM AX = F0 M AX 0 = (1N ) M AX 0 N M AX 0

FM AX =

After FM AX was calculated for both tension and compression, we took the lesser of these two values and dened that as the load at which failure will occur, FF AIL . We then ran the same Load Study with the applied load as 0.1 (FF AIL ) and observed the maximum displacement, 10% to predict a load-displacement relationship for each of the three possible loading scenarios.  (Insert 3-panel of gures showing 10% and the stress concentration caused by 0.1 (FF AIL )) Table 2: FF AIL and 10% Data & Calculations Long-Side Load Short-Side Load Diagonal Load FM AXT (N ) 1661.64 1286.09 2543.75 FM AXC (N ) 52128.80 46627.12 42033.99 FF AIL in T or C? T T T 0.1 (FF AIL ) (N ) 166.164 128.609 254.375 10% (m) 6.422 2.673 6.739  For specic calculation steps, refer to the Data Appendix  

Expected Mode of Failure

tension. Additionally, we believe the bridge will not fail due to buckling. The thinnest column where buckling could occur has dimensions of 1in 1in 3in, giving its 1in 1in cross sections a moment of inertia (with 1 1 respect to the x or y axis) I = 12 bh3 = 12 in4 . Plugging into the equation which determines the critical load
N 109 m2 GP a

Based on the calculations above, the expected mode of failure for the Full Arc bridge is failure due to

to cause buckling, we observe:

PCRIT

EI = = L2

2.1255 GP a

1 4 12 in

(m)4 (39.3701in)4

3 in

2 m 39.3701in

kN 103N

PCRIT 125.3153 kN PCRIT 28172 lbf

Because the calculated FM AX for each of the three loading scenarios is far below PCRIT , as long as there are no discontinuties nor other signicant variables introduced in the actual Z-printing of the bridge, the Full Arc bridge will assuredly not fail due to buckling.

Data Appendix

(insert weight calculation) (insert Excel optimization data) (insert specic FF AIL calculations)

Schematics Appendix

(insert a 1-page SolidWorks drawing for each design)