Goin' Deep

The hardest thing about doing analysis for a Bridge Design, is the old principle of not falling into "Paralysis by Overanalysis". All of you reading this (most likely not too many), take these words to heart: If you are creative, build it well, and practice hard, you will be successful. The best analyzed designs don't win, it's the most determined and detail oriented Team's that win.

UF - 2005 (above) - Width in Chord members means better rotational resistance, means better stability, means better stiffness, means better efficiency.


NDSU - 2004 (above) - By cutting the 15'-6" span off "near-pier" with their overtruss, The Bison were able to cut their truss members to 5 and keep their efficiency. This is probably not advisable for single span bridges ala 2005-2007, but for the dual span and corresponding 2K4 loading, it was a good idea. Note also the light/deep deck sections, and "battered" steel piers for stability during construction and rotational/frictional foundation resistance during load.


Michigan - 2004 (above) - Again, cuttin off the span for the 5 member overtruss. A different deck philosophy than NDSU (who finished 1st overall 2004, Go Blue! finished 2nd...after taking the 2003 championship ;-), the steel is located on the top side, which between chords sees less tension and more compression under load, though both flanges are essentially in tension. Michigan was far less deep than NDSU over their long span, though with their 4 person crew (UC Davis did not witness -- we were eating lunch arggghhhhh!) they managed to maintain both economy and efficiency, narrowly being beat out by the Bison, and coming as close as Chico State in 1999-2000 (2nd, 1st respectively). Michigan Champs in 2003, 2nd in 2004, good stuff donde estaban en el ano dos mil y seis Universidad de Michigan? Mas libre que no?