Is My Spaghetti Bridge Design Ideal for Maximum Weight Support?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on designing a spaghetti bridge that maximizes weight support while adhering to specific guidelines. The main design considered is an inverted triangle, as it utilizes spaghetti's strength in tension. Suggestions include incorporating arches for better load distribution and considering a bow truss design for improved stability. Key points emphasize the importance of minimizing buckling in compressive members and maximizing the distance between the top and bottom chords to enhance resistance to bending stresses. Overall, the advice aims to refine the bridge design for optimal performance in the assessment.
Marghk
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I need a bit of help here. I have an upcoming assessment towards bridge design. The task is to create and construct a bridge made out of dried spaghetti sticks. The bridge is to be as light as possible while holding the most weight.

I currently have 1 main design I'm leaning towards, but I'm unsure that it would be successful. I don't want to construct the bridge to find out it collapses on me.

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/9060/bridgeif7.png

I believe that the triangle, upside down would serve me better. Though I'm still unsure about the whole design of it. I just basically want to know if this would be an idealistic plan to making a bridge, or if any other designs could easily top mine.

The KEY guidelines are below, in which the bridge must follow.

Key Guidelines:
- The span of the bridge cannot exceed 648mm
- The roadway (width) of the bridge must equal roughly 80mm
- The bridge must NOT exceed 1000g

If anyone can offer advice about my plan, it would be highly appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
why upside down? I'm not a CE, but I'm guessing spaghetti is stronger in tension than compression. And the center truss is under compression where buckling failure might be an issue. Now if you stick a big bundle of strands here, might do fine. This is the wrong thread to post such a problem but caught my eye.
 
That's a good basic and simple design; however, if you want to elaborate on it and make it hold up well. Take a page from the Romans and create arches (smaller triangles).
 
Last edited:
The problem I see with this is the end reactions/support. I would consider a bow truss, not inverted. The thing to remember in trusses is that the further away the top chord is from the bottom chord, the more resistance you will have to bending stresses. Also, to prevent buckling of the compressive members, use short or built up pieces.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top