Hamilton, Aidan 1

Aidan Hamilton
Betsy Natter
Design and Society
Bridge Documentation
Introduction: In this project outlined below, the goal was to design and build out of file folders
a bridge that could carry at minimum 10 pounds. This process was split into 4 separate parts. In
the first part, activity 1, a predesigned bridge was constructed out of file folders in order for the
group to get used to working together, and to gain the construction skills necessary to build the
bridge our group would design. In activity 2 different bridge members were tested for their load
bearing capacity. This was done so that a calibration curve relating various features of bridge
members and the force that they could carry could be built. When our bridge is designed this
would allow our group to translate from the program that it was designed on, into the physical
model built out of file folders. Activity 3 was deemed superfluous. In activity 4 each member of
our group designed a bridge on a bridge designing program. We then compared our bridges and
chose the design that we would most like to actually build. In activity 5 the bridge was scaled
from the one designed in the program into the actual dimensions of the physical bridge. Then the
bridge was constructed and tested for its load bearing capacity. This is a documentation of the
entire process of the project from activity 1 to activity 5.
Activity 1:
The purpose of this activity was to gain the necessary skills in bridge building to
accomplish activity 5 successfully. Specifically, in doing this activity the skill of working with
file folders was gained. The ability to transfer from written plans to a physical was also
practiced. In this activity the team also got comfortable working together and developed in
efficiency of the production of a file folder bridge. The bridge that our team built held only 7.5
pounds, shy of the minimum required weight of 10 pounds. This shows that our teams quality of
production is lacking, and needs to be improved for the production of the next bridge.
Fig 1: The Bridge Built for Activity 1.
Activity 2:
In this activity different types of bridge members were tested for their load bearing capacity
under tension force for bars and compression force for tubes. This was done using a testing
apparatus like the one shown below.

Hamilton, Aidan 2
Fig 2: Sketch of the testing apparatus used in activity 2.

This apparatus works using the principle of the lever, which is based directly on the idea of
torque. The forces of a lever can be calculated in this simple manner, L1F1 = L2F2, which makes
it an attractive model for testing the bridge component members. To test the bars, they were
clamped to the felt pads on one side of the apparatus. These bars were constructed with paper
flaps glued onto their ends so increase the surface area contact between the bars and the
apparatus, decreasing slippage change. Then mass, in our case sand, was added to a bucket
attached to the other end of the apparatus. The mass at which the bar broke was recorded. To test
the tubes they were placed on the same side of the apparatus as the weights were added at a
marked location (to make calculations simpler). The tubes were reinforced at their ends to ensure
that the tubes would distribute the load of the apparatus effectively. Then mass was added to the
bucket until the tube crumpled. The mass at which this happened was recorded.
The materials required for this activity were:

Bars and Tubes to be tested.

4 clamps
Sand as a mass to be added
2 buckets to hold sand
Scale
Constructed testing apparatus

Results:

Hamilton, Aidan 3
Fig 3: Tension Force vs Width of Paper Bars

Tension Force vs Width of the Paper Bars

Force (N)

f(x) = 2.2 x^1.27

R = 0.66

Width (mm)

Fig 4: Compression (10x10) Force vs Length of Paper Tubes

Compression(10x10) Force vs Length of Paper Tubes

Force (N)

f(x) = 1.2x + 31.59

R = 0.24

Length (cm)

Hamilton, Aidan 4
Fig 5: Compression (6x10) Force vs Length of Paper Tube

Compression (6x10) Force vs Length of Paper Tubes

Force (N)

f(x) = -1.44x + 63.36

R = 0.46

Length (cm)

Values for the tension force on the bars at the time of collapse were calculated in this manner. F on
bar = Mass of sand + bucket * 9.81 * Length from fulcrum to bucket / length from fulcrum to bar.
Values for the compression force on the tubes was calculated similarly. F on tube = Mass of sand +
bucket * 9.81 * Length from fulcrum to bucket / length from fulcrum to tube.
Discussion:
From figure 3 it is simple to conclude that with increasing width of the file folder bars,
the tension force that they can bear before breaking increases. I fit a linear curve to our data, but
lack the theoretical or experimental justification for such a fit, so I cannot say whether this
increase in load bearing capacity increase linearly with increasing width or not. This result is
expected from theory. However the other two graphs are so noisy that attempting to draw any
conclusions from them would be a folly. Especially from the graph presented in figure 4. From
the data gathered on compression forces I cannot make any conclusions because the error in the
testing out ways any possible results that could have appeared. However, from my study of
physics I do know what the data should have shown, that with increasing length of the tubes the
compression force that they can bear increases quadratically, but the data gathered here is too
noisy to support this.
Prominent sources of error include non-uniformity in the production quality of the bars
and tubes. This error would resolve if a greater number of trials were conducted but, for the low
number conducted here, it has the effect of loss of precision in the data. The time delay between
a tester registering that the sample has broken and when they stop pouring sand would also have
the effect of increasing the obtained load capacities. The lack of taking into consideration
instantaneous forces would have had a decreasing effect in obtained load capacities, but because
of the small size of the sand particles this effect is negligible.

Hamilton, Aidan 5
From these results a calibration curve between the size of tubes and bars to the loads they
can carry can be constructed. This assisting in the design and creation of our own bridges.
Activity 4:
Design 1:
Total Cost: 176,619.09
Safety Factor: 2

Material Type
1 CS
2 CS
3 CS
4 CS
5 CS
6 CS
7 CS
8 CS
9 CS
10 CS
11 CS
12 CS
13 CS
14 CS
15 CS
16 CS
17 CS

Cross Section
Hollow Tube
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Solid Bar
Hollow Tube
Solid Bar
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube

Design 2:
Total Cost: 382,426.92
Safety Factor: ?

Size (mm) Length (m) Compression

Compression
Force Compression
StrengthTension
StatusForce Tension Strength Tension Status
200x200x10
5.66 1269.25 1293.53 OK
0
1805 OK
75x75
4
0 257.63 OK
897.49
1335.94OK
75x75
4
0 257.63 OK
897.49
1335.94OK
75x75
4
0 257.63 OK
1063.87
1335.94OK
75x75
4
0 257.63 OK
1063.87
1335.94OK
75x75
4
0 257.63 OK
844.42
1335.94OK
75x75
4
0 257.63 OK
844.42
1335.94OK
200x200x10
5.66 1194.2 1293.53 OK
0
1805 OK
130x130x6
6
0 320.26 OK
607.73
706.8 OK
110x110x5
5.66
0 189.36 OK
469.08
498.75 OK
110x110x5
7.21 111.09 116.27 OK
332.29
498.75 OK
110x110x5
5.66
0 189.36 OK
424.05
498.75 OK
55x55
4
0
74.51 OK
607.45
718.44 OK
120x120x6
7.21
72.55 178.66 OK
406.35
649.8 OK
55x55
4
0
74.51 OK
607.45
718.44 OK
220x220x11
8.25 1177.05 1267.35 OK
0
2184.05OK
220x220x11
8.25 1149.02 1267.35 OK
0
2184.05OK

Hamilton, Aidan 6
#

Material Type
Cross Section
Size (mm) Length (m)Compression
Compression
Force Compression
StrengthTension
Status
Force
Tension Strength
Tension Status
1 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
4
125.8 2633.62 OK
0
4655 OK
2 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
4
0 2633.62 OK
197.89
4655 OK
3 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
4
0 2633.62 OK
163.22
4655 OK
4 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
4
0 2633.62 OK
160.6
4655 OK
5 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
4
0 2633.62 OK
145.17
4655 OK
6 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
4
316.21 2633.62 OK
0
4655 OK
7 CS
Hollow Tube
300x300x15
7.28
748.98
3132.9 OK
0 4061.25 OK
8 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
10.63
389.1
442.9 OK
0
4655 OK
9 CS
Hollow Tube
320x320x16
7
702.56 3704.49 OK
0
4620.8 OK
10 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
10.63
397.26
442.9 OK
0
4655 OK
11 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
7
0 1021.39 OK
477.33
4655 OK
12 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
8.06
51.65
769.97 OK
158.83
4655 OK
13 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
8.06
48.86
769.97 OK
187.77
4655 OK
14 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
7.28
0
944.3 OK
730.71
4655 OK
15 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
8.06
0
769.97 OK
786.36
4655 OK
16 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
6
584.47 1390.22 OK
0
4655 OK
17 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
6
390.14 1390.22 OK
0
4655 OK
18 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
5
406.5 1970.68 OK
0
4655 OK
19 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
5
593.66 1970.68 OK
0
4655 OK
20 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
7.62
409.71
862.89 OK
0
4655 OK
21 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
7.28
366.71
944.3 OK
0
4655 OK
22 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
0 3407.97 OK
468.89
4655 OK
23 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
456.02 3407.97 OK
0
4655 OK
24 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
131.22 3407.97 OK
36.96
4655 OK
25 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
4
0 2633.62 OK
654.01
4655 OK
26 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
18.75 3407.97 OK
149.44
4655 OK
27 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
4
0 2633.62 OK
764.38
4655 OK
28 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
118.27 3407.97 OK
85.9
4655 OK
29 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
67.69 3407.97 OK
136.48
4655 OK
30 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
4
0 2633.62 OK
797.72
4655 OK
31 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
102.74 3407.97 OK
107.63
4655 OK
32 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
89.42 3407.97 OK
120.96
4655 OK
33 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
4
0 2633.62 OK
750.12
4655 OK
34 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
97.33 3407.97 OK
64.43
4655 OK
35 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
46.22 3407.97 OK
115.54
4655 OK
36 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
4
0 2633.62 OK
623.31
4655 OK
37 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
0 3407.97 OK
447.19
4655 OK
38 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
2.83
434.31 3407.97 OK
0
4655 OK
39 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
7.07
0 1000.96 OK
356.89
4655 OK
40 CS
Solid Bar 140x140
7.28
0
944.3 OK
340.66
4655 OK

Design 3:

Hamilton, Aidan 7
Total Cost: 477,664.24
Safety Factor: 3

Material
Type
1 CS
2 CS
3 CS
4 CS
5 CS
6 CS
7 CS
8 CS
9 CS
10 CS
11 CS
12 CS
13 CS
14 CS
15 CS
16 CS
17 CS
18 CS
19 CS
20 CS
21 CS
22 CS
23 CS
24 CS
25 CS

Cross Section
Hollow Tube
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Hollow Tube
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Hollow Tube

Size (mm)
500x500x25
160x160
160x160
160x160
160x160
160x160
160x160
260x260x13
260x260x13
260x260x13
260x260x13
260x260x13
260x260x13
500x500x25
500x500x25
500x500x25
500x500x25
500x500x25
500x500x25
160x160
160x160
260x260x13
160x160
160x160
260x260x13

Steel
Width
(mm)

Paper
Width
(mm)
500
160
160
160
160
160
160
260
260
260
260
260
260
500
500
500
500
500
500
160
160
260
160
160
260

Length
(m)
12.5
4
4
4
4
4
4
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
4
4
6.5
4
4
6.5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4.47
4.47
4
4
4.47
4.47
4
6
8
8
8
6
5.66
5.66
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94

Paper
Length
(cm)

Paper
Paper
Compress Compress Tension Tension
Force (N)
ion Force ion Force Force
10 1056.9828.147251
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
10
0
0 831.46 22.14168
10
0
0 831.46 22.14168
10
0
0 814.3921.687108
10
0
0 814.3921.687108
10
0
0
0
0
11.175 773.7620.605136
0
0
11.175 773.7620.605136
0
0
10 930.7724.786294
0
0
10 930.7724.786294
0
0
11.175 734.1519.550327
0
0
11.175 734.1519.550327
0
0
10 1003.8426.732139
0
0
15
19.240.5123589
0
0
20
0
0 632.8416.852453
20
23.230.6186121
0
0
20
0
0 632.8416.852453
15
19.240.5123589
0
0
14.15
0
0 928.6324.729306
14.15
0
0 978.7426.063729
22.35
441.8 11.765081
0
0
22.35
0
0 417.24 11.111051
22.35
32.510.8657374 357.829.5287038
22.35 402.1910.710272
15.040.4005134

Hamilton, Aidan 8

Comparison:
Pugh Matrix:
Scored From 1-5 (1
is good)
Design 1
Cost
Safety Factor
Ease of Construction
Appearance
Safety

Design 2
1
5
5
3
5

Design 3
3
5
5
5
4

5
2
1
2
2

Design 1 was by far the cheapest design, as it was optimized for cost and design 3 was
the most expensive. However this was not the attribute that our group considered the most and
had little effect on our final design choice. For safety factor design 1 was the worst, by
optimizing for cost it had the minimum safety factor. Design 2 was moderately better according
to the program in terms of safety factor and design 3 was by the best. Design 1 and design 2 were
both scored very poorly in terms of ease of construction, design 1 because, when scaled into
paper, its members were very small, some only 1 mm in width. Design 2 had many parts and too
many bars to adequately support itself when converted to paper, making its score low. Design 3
was rated as easy to construct because it had a small number of parts, and most of the pieces
were at very easy angles to measure relative each other, which would make the layout much
easier to make. For appearance design 1 was rated a 3 because it was subjectively rated to be of
average appearance. Design 2 was rated poorly because it was asymmetrical and design 3 was
rated highly because everyone in our group liked the designs appearance. In terms of safety
design was rated poorly because it had a minimum safety factor and no redundancy. Design 2
was also rated poorly in terms of safety because it was asymmetrical. Design 3 was rated highly
in terms of safety because it had a large safety factor, the only strike against it was its lack of

Hamilton, Aidan 9
redundancy.
From this matrix it is easy to see that design 3 has the lowest score, and hence is the best design
overall. So it is obvious that design 3 would be the one picked as our groups final design to be
implemented.
Activity 5:
The design chosen to be the bridge actually built was design 3 shown in activity 4.
Design:
Cost: $477,664.24
Weight: 63024 kg

Hamilton, Aidan 10
#

Material
Type
1 CS
2 CS
3 CS
4 CS
5 CS
6 CS
7 CS
8 CS
9 CS
10 CS
11 CS
12 CS
13 CS
14 CS
15 CS
16 CS
17 CS
18 CS
19 CS
20 CS
21 CS
22 CS
23 CS
24 CS
25 CS

Cross Section
Hollow Tube
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Hollow Tube
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Hollow Tube
Solid Bar
Solid Bar
Hollow Tube

Size (mm)
500x500x25
160x160
160x160
160x160
160x160
160x160
160x160
260x260x13
260x260x13
260x260x13
260x260x13
260x260x13
260x260x13
500x500x25
500x500x25
500x500x25
500x500x25
500x500x25
500x500x25
160x160
160x160
260x260x13
160x160
160x160
260x260x13

Steel
Width
(mm)

Paper
Width
(mm)
500
160
160
160
160
160
160
260
260
260
260
260
260
500
500
500
500
500
500
160
160
260
160
160
260

Length
(m)
12.5
4
4
4
4
4
4
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
4
4
6.5
4
4
6.5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4.47
4.47
4
4
4.47
4.47
4
6
8
8
8
6
5.66
5.66
8.94
8.94
8.94
8.94

Paper
Length
(cm)

Paper
Paper
Compress Compress Tension Tension
ion Force ion Force Force
Force (N) Safety Factor
10 1056.98 24.38134
0
0?
10
0
0
0
0 n/a
10
0
0
831.4619.179274
2
10
0
0
831.4619.179274
2
10
0
0
814.3918.785521
2
10
0
0
814.3918.785521
2
10
0
0
0
0 n/a
11.175
773.7617.848309
0
0
4
11.175
773.7617.848309
0
0
4
10
930.7721.470056
0
0
4
10
930.7721.470056
0
0
4
11.175
734.1516.934626
0
0
4
11.175
734.1516.934626
0
0
4
10 1003.84 23.15556
0
0?
15
19.240.4438088
0
0?
20
0
0
632.84 14.59771 ?
20
23.23 0.535846
0
0?
20
0
0
632.84 14.59771 ?
15
19.240.4438088
0
0?
14.15
0
0
928.6321.420693 <2
14.15
0
0
978.7422.576579 <2
22.35
441.8 10.190993
0
0
10
22.35
0
0
417.249.6244681
2
22.35
32.510.7499076
357.82 8.253828
2
22.35
402.19 9.27731
15.040.3469274
6

Scaling:
The scaling calculation were done as follows:
Paper width (mm) = Steel width (mm) / 40
Paper length (cm) = Steel length (meter) * (100 cm/ meter) / 40
Paper Force (tension or compression) = Force (tension or compression) * 98.1 / ( 3480 + (weight
of bridge (kg) * 9.81 N/kg * 1.25 * 1 kN/1000N))
Scaling for length is simple to explain, we are simply sizing everything down by 40. The
force conversion is more complicated. Essentially the equation is this: Paper Member force/ Steel
member force = Paper total load / steel total load. By multiplying both sides by steel member
force the paper member force is obtained. So the part of the equation in red is the same as the
stuff to the right of the equation I just wrote. Since we are putting about 5kg of mass on the
bridge during testing (minimum) and we want a safety factor of 2 the load on the paper bridge
will be about 98.1 N. The load on the steel bridge is equal to the live load, the cement load and
the truss load. From the bridge design program the values for the live load and cement load can
be easily found, and total 3480 kN. The weight of the truss is given in kg from the program so it
is converted to kN with a safety factor of 1.25 included. This is added to the weight of the other
stuff. Then dividing the paper bridge total load by the steel bridge total load gives a constant
ratio. Simply by multiplying by the recorded steel member load will then give the corresponding
paper member load.

Hamilton, Aidan 11
Fig 6: A picture of the final bridge after collapse

Discussion:
Prior to the assembly of the bridge our group decided to scale up all of the vertical bars to
15 by 10's. This was not a significant deviation from the design constructed on the bridge design
program. This was primarily motivated by convenience in construction, all members would have
the same width, and secondarily by the desire to reinforce those members that were thought to be
most likely to fail. We also scaled all of the other tubes left to 10 by 10's, for convenience of
construction ( all members would be the same width). When doing the cross-bracing our group
followed the plan used in activity 1, simply because we didn't see any reason not to. We covered
the entire top of the bridge in cross-bracing because more cross-bracing increases the strength of
the bridge, and even when cross-bracing the entire top there was still a large enough opening in
the bridge for a hand to fit through to set up the testing apparatus.
Testing Results:
When testing our bridge our team did not know what to expect. As we had made a risky
decision in having members that were well outside the range tested in activity 2, we had no
information about their safety factors. Even though the bridge design program showed the bridge
being extremely strong with a large safety factor, without information on how to translate that
into our physical cardboard bridge, it was difficult to predict how much weight the bridge would
hold. When the bridge did fail it failed at the ends of the bridge. After watching our slow motion
video of the bridge it appeared that the bridge failed first on one of the bars of the bridge due to
excess tension force. This is very different from how I expected the bridge to fail, as I thought
the bridge would fail on one of long members in spite of their large cross-sectional area. Because
we mistranslated from the designer program into the file folder components, most bars had a
safety factor less than 2, making it plausible for the failure to have been in one of the bars at the
end of the bridge. The weight at which the bridge collapsed was 25 pounds, it successfully held
20 pounds of force. As our design was out of the tested range in activity 2 it is difficult to
determine what the designed load of the bridge was, and so it is impossible to determine if the

Hamilton, Aidan 12
physical bridge held more or less than the designed load. If the bridge did in fact fail at one of
the bars then increasing the width of those bars would have allowed the bridge to sustain more
weight.
Conclusion: In this project our group designed and built with file folders, a bridge that could
carry at least 10 pounds. Our bridge was risky in that we had members that were outside of the
range tested in activity 2. So we could not predict whether or not those members would hold
when scaled into the file folder model. After testing the bridge, which collapsed at 25 pounds and
successfully held 20 pounds, it was clear that those members that were outside of the tested
range were not the members responsible for the collapse. The members responsible for the
collapse were bars meant to hold tension forces that were not scaled correctly from the computer
model to the physical model, and had safety factors below 2. If those members were scaled
correctly the bridge may have held much more weight.
Reflection: The process of this project is difficult for me to comment on because I do similar
things (in terms of process) nearly every day working in one of the nano-tech labs at psu that it's
mundane to me. I didn't learn much from the project as a whole, save from how to cut a glue file
folders to make different structures. The only part I would have learned from this project would
have been the physics of bridges, but we never covered that topic in depth that exceeded my
previous knowledge. The analytical aspects of the project I also do similar things nearly
everyday, and in fact the analytical aspects of this project were much simpler than the
calculations I'm accustomed to doing. Our team performance was adequate, occasionally team
members would not complete the tasks they were assigned to do at home which set the group
back, but every group seemed to have that difficulty. The only difficult part of our team
performance was that one of our group members seemed to have dropped the class half-way
through the project. So our group had to do the work of four people with only three. But that was
manageable and our team got through the project. It's obvious how this project related to the unst
goals. The project tied into the collapse of the I-35W bridge by giving people a greater insight
into how bridges are designed, so that ties into social responsibility. This documentation works
on our communications skills and the analytical side of the bridge gives us training in
quantitative literacy.