lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Problem 1 (100 points) Size the members of the bridge shown in the accompanying figure for a
case in which traffic is backed up with a total of four trucks equally spaced on the bridge. A
typical truck has a payload weight of 64,000 lb and a cab weight of 8000 lb. As a starting point,
you may use one cross section for all beam elements. You may also assume one cross section
for all truss members. The roadbed weighs 1500 lb/ft and is supported by I-beams. Use
standard steel I-beam sizes. Design your own truss configuration. In your analysis, you may
assume that the concrete column does not deflect significantly. Submit the analysis report
discussing how you came up with the final design.

EGR329 Intro to FEA, Summer 2018, First Exam, June 21, 2018 Page 2 of 2

1
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

EGR-329 – Exam #1

FEA Analysis Report

Submitted to Dr. Joo

By

07-03-2018

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Grading Rubric

Category Grade Comments

Summary /14

Study Description /14

Boundary Conditions /12

Part information / Material Details /5

CAD Simplifications / Meshing Detail /10

Convergence Study /15

Plots of each Load case /10

Risks and Limitations /5

Conclusions and Recommendations /15

Total Out of 100

3
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Revision

Revision Description Created Checked Date

A Initial creation 06/29/2018 06/30/2018 06/30/2018

B Secondary Creation 07/02/2018 07/03/2018 07/03/2018

4
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Summary

Objective
• To come up with a design which includes truss supports for a a bridge that is
200ft long, which will be subjected to a load of four trucks that each carry a
payload in a trailer that weights 8,000lbs and 64,000 lbs respectively, and
supports a total distributed load of the road of 1,500 lbs/ft.
• The main objective is to ensure that there is not any significant deflections as
well as ensuring stress levels are within the specifications of the material.
• The primary concerns are due to the maximum deflection of the beam that
supports the total weight as well as the maximum stress levels that such
experiences.

Load Case Name 1: Four trucks with a weight of 8,000lbs and with a payload of
64,000lbs, and a 1,500lbs/ft

Conclusion and Recommendations

• The main solution after testing for three different beam came to be the use of
a W12X96 standard I beam with the 3X2 in tubing used as truss, giving a
maximum direct stress of 8935 psi giving a factor of safety of 4.02.
• For further development, the more economical set-up would then need to be
determined by setting up a smaller factor of safety depending what other
external forces the bridge could be subjected to

5
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Preliminary Analysis

Theoretical Analysis
• No preliminary Analysis

6
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Study Description

• Description matches the later forces

• All forces are applied in the negative Y direction
• Force A represents the total force of the trailer and the payload
• Force B is the linear pressure along the whole I beam

7
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Boundary Conditions

• FEA model details

– Linear : no large deformations
– Static
– Geometry is Fixed
– No friction
• Fixed loads are shown in the images
– Support A is located at the bottom of the truss and it connects the truss to the
concreate column which was assumed to have no deflection
– Support B are fixed supports located at each end of the I beam. These are as well
supported by concreate.

8
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Part Information

Part Description File Name Material Type Image

I -Beam Problem 1-1.wbpj Structural Steel Angle

Problem 1-1.wbpj
Tube Structural Steel Angle

9
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Material Details

ASTM A36 Steel

Material Type Steel

Yield Strength (psi) 36300

Ultimate Strength (psi) 58000-79800

Shear Modulus (ksi) 11500

Strain at Break (%) 20

Elastic Modulus (ksi) 29000

Poisson's Ratio 0.26

10
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

CAD Simplifications (Including Symmetry)

• Simplifications to the CAD model include beam analysis modeled as lines with
an I beam cross section applied.
• The cross section for the truss used was a circumference with a hole in the
center.
• The total force applied by the payload and the cab where combined in order
to just have 4 force points instead of 8 force points.
• Symmetry does not apply. This is due to the un-even weight distribution by the
trucks and the payload.
• The cross section of the I beam used was assumed to not have flange. This
reduces the meshing process and therefore reducing the simulation time

11
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Meshing Detail

– Mesh type Coarse

– Global mesh size 0.5ft
– Local mesh refinements not applied
– Convergence was achieved

12
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Convergence Study

• The Deflection converged to went under 3% at an approximate mesh size of 0.5 ft

• The Direct stress converged to under 3% at an approximate mesh of 0.5 ft
• Convergence study for all three cases: 4 trailers and 4 trucks with a total load of
72,000 lbf separated by the same distance along the I beam, a distributed load of
1,500lb/ft across the I beam

Deformation Convergence of W36X302 Deformation Convergence of W8X58

Max
Global Mesh Max Direct Global Mesh Max Max Direct Change
Deformation Change (%) Change (%) Change (%)
Size (ft) Stress (psf) Size (ft) Deformation (ft) Stress (psf) (%)
(ft)

999 2.12E-02 - 6.53E+04 - 999 1.2866 - 4.50E+05

-
50 5.51E-02 159.14 74775.00 14.49 50 2.6645 107.10 584850.00 29.91

40 5.51E-02 0.00 74775.00 0.00 40 2.6645 0.00 584850.00 0.00

1 5.80E-02 5.38 1229900.00 1544.80 1 3.0825 15.69 1367800.00 133.87

0.5 5.78E-02 -0.43 1242000.00 0.98 0.5 3.0374 -1.46 2460100.00 79.86

0.1 5.76E-02 -0.25 1249000.00 0.56 0.1 3.0356 -0.06 6078500.00 147.08

Deformation Convergance of W12X96

Max
Global Mesh Max Direct
Deformation Change (%) Change (%)
Size (ft) Stress (psf)
(ft)

999 0.36714 - 2.73E+05

50 0.77453 110.96 414970.00 -

40 0.77453 0.00 414970.00 0.00

1 0.88542 14.32 1257200.00 202.96

0.5 0.87567 -1.10 1286700.00 2.35

0.1 0.87498 -0.08 1739600.00 35.20

13
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Forces in I beam

• The dimension of each truck is 10ft and the length for each trailer is of 35 ft. All
four trucks are equally distributed along the beam.
• It was assumed that the sum of the 8,000lb from the cab and the 64,000lb from
the payload where combined and a equally spaced distribution of the loads
where made across the I beam. Each force was of 72,000 lb and can be
shown as bellow.

Force Force Force Force

14
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Distributed Load

• Roadbed Weight
– Along the whole 200ft the I beam is subjected to a distributed load of 1,500 lbs/ft

15
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Fixed support

• Fixed Supports
– At each end of the I beam, the beam is being fix supported by a concreate block
witch is assumed to have no deflection and, the bottom truss has a fixed support as
well

Fixed Support by Concrete

16
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

W36X302 – Cross Section

• The I beam used for the first case was the W36X302, made out of
structural steal, which was used for the top of the assembly of the
bridge. This I beam was utilized for the first case.

17
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

W12X96 – Cross Section

• The I beam used for the first case was the W12X96, made out of structural
steal, which was used for the top of the assembly of the bridge. This cross
section was utilized for the second case.

18
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

W8X58 – Cross Section

• The I beam used for the first case was the W8X58, made out of structural steal,
which was used for the top of the assembly of the bridge. This cross sectional
beam was used for the third case.

19
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Truss Cross section

• A 3in outer diameter and 2in inner diameter tubing cross section was utilized
for all three cases. Made out of structural steel, this cross section was utilized for
the truss setup done in the bottom of the I beam.

20
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Connections

• Since the two elements ( I beam and truss) where treated as separated cross
sections, the use of connections was intender. This provided a connection
between the I beam and the truss, making It possible to provide accurate
data from the simulation. Because by creating contact, it eliminates unrealistic
bending or rotation about a joint.

21
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

W36X302 – Displacement Plot

• Max displacement of 0.05771 in was achieved at the top

beam of the I beam

Study Name Material Spec. Failure Criteria Deformation Scale

W36x302 Roadbed and load Case ASTM A36 <250 MPa, <1% Strain, <5mm deflection> 1

22
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

W36X302 – Direct Stress

• Maximum direct stress of 1.242E6 psf or 8632 psi occurs in the top of
the truss when in contact with the I beam
• 8632 psi is well under the yield strength of 36,000 psi

Study Name Material Spec. Failure Criteria Deformation Scale

W36x302 Roadbed and load Case ASTM A36 <250 MPa, <1% Strain, <5mm deflection> 1

23
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Different I beams

• Since the deflection and maximum direct stress shown in the set-up done with
the W36-302 beam, the following changes where made to the I beam in order
to make them lighter and more flexible. Therefore reducing the cost of the
project and reducing the weight of the beam itself. The new cross sections can
be shown in pages 19,and 20, which results can be observed in ages 26-29.
• The geometry and the cross section of the tubing truss was kept the same for
all the three cases.

24
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

W12X96 – Displacement Plot

• A maximum displacement of 0.87567 ft occurred at the top of the I beam

Study Name Material Spec. Failure Criteria Deformation Scale

W36x302 Roadbed and load Case ASTM A36 <250 MPa, <1% Strain, <5mm deflection> 1

25
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

W12X96 – Direct Stress

• Maximum direct stress of 1.2867E6 psf or 8935 psi occurs in the top
of the truss when in contact with the I beam
• 8935 psi is well under the yield strength of 36,000 psi

Study Name Material Spec. Failure Criteria Deformation Scale

W36x302 Roadbed and load Case ASTM A36 <250 MPa, <1% Strain, <5mm deflection> 1

26
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

W8X58 – Displacement Plot

• A maximum displacement of 3.0374 ft occurred at the top of the I beam

Study Name Material Spec. Failure Criteria Deformation Scale

W36x302 Roadbed and load Case ASTM A36 <250 MPa, <1% Strain, <5mm deflection> 1

27
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

W8X58 – Direct Stress

• Maximum direct stress of 2.4601E6 psf or 17084 psi occurs in the top
of the truss when in contact with the I beam
• 17084 psi is well under the yield strength of 36,000 psi

Study Name Material Spec. Failure Criteria Deformation Scale

W36x302 Roadbed and load Case ASTM A36 <250 MPa, <1% Strain, <5mm deflection> 1

28
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Risks and Limitations

• Since the set-up done in ANSYS was done as a 2D model, any other external
forces casing it to buckle in the Z direction will cause other different results and
therefore the results obtain would not be valid.
• The simulation ran determined that the loads over the bridge are not in
motion. Moving loads will change the weight distribution and therefore
obtaining different results.
• The simulation obtained is limited due to not implementing or including the
analysis shear analysis of the pivot points. A different study of FEA would
determine the shear stress and strength of those pivot points in order to obtain
accurate data.

29
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|2591395

Conclusions and Recommendations

• After implementing the ANSYS software it was determined that all thee models
analyzed where under the yield strength, determining that all thee beams had
a factor of safety greater than 1.
• Factors that would improve the design of the bridge would be the
implementation of wider truss until it reaches almost half way before reaching
the point of maximum deflection. This way the bridge would have less of a
deflection and with the implementation of a smaller I beam the total weight
and cost of the set-up would reduce significantly.
• The convergence was achieved when the mesh size reached 0.5 ft. Therefore
the same mesh size was utilized for all three cases. Obtaining accurate data.
• No theoretical analysis was done to compare the results from the FEA
• Comparing the results of the 200ft bridge with a maximum displacement
achieved with the W8X58 I beam of 3.03 ft the golden bridge which is 8981ft
and its maximum displacement of 14 ft, we could say that if the golden bridge
was done the same way this bridge was designed, the maximum deflection
observed would be of 13.46ft. Making the I W8X58 a good choice for the
bridge.

• Sources
• Game, Thomas, et al. “Full Dynamic Model of Golden Gate
Bridge.” 2016, doi:10.1063/1.4961103.

30
2017 EGR-329-Section # Assignment # - Your Name

Downloaded by Luis Enrique Madureri (lemadureri@gmail.com)