Graces Part

Phase 1 summary
Introduction
In 2015, there were 160 reported natural disasters in the Asia-Pacific region,
accounting for 47% of the worlds 344 disasters (United Nations ESCAP, 2015). The
destruction of infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, that occurs due to a
catastrophic event makes many routes impassable. The first 48 hours after a
disaster is when the most number of lives can be saved (Boon & Yu Hung, 2012).
However, the impaired service of transportation routes poses a serious barrier to
servicing the urgent need after a disaster. Sorellanza Consulting has been selected
by Southeast Asian governments and relief organizations to design a remedy for
these emergency situations. The chosen solution is to design a temporary bridge
that can be installed quickly to enable the transport of people and aid in and out of
post-disaster regions.
The final bridge design aims to mitigate the inability of people, goods, and services
to cross impaired routes in the event of damaged infrastructure, specifically
focusing on the application to disaster-stricken areas in Southeast Asia. The
alternatives were designed with the following key criteria in mind: safety, ease of
installation, weight, geometry, and cost. The bridges were designed to Canadian
codes and standards of safety. The installation methods were considered for each
design, as this is a critical factor in emergency situations. The weight and geometry
were designed to minimize weight and geometry for ease of handling and
transportation.
Design Methodology
Each alternative was created considering the design criteria and the base conditions
determined through literature review. Through the literature review, it was found
that a 15 m span is suitable with a 2.5 m width deck. The selected vehicle for
loading and space considerations is a Tuk-tuk; these three-wheeled vehicles are
commonly used in many Southeast Asian countries. From the 500 kg Tuk-tuk weight
found in the literature review, and the conservative estimated cargo weight of 500
kg, the vehicular weight was set at a minimum of 1000 kg. Considering the
maximum bridge self-weight of 1000 kg (established through the maximum
capacity of helicopters), a design load of 10 kN was distributed uniformly along the
span.
Although the loading, span, and width are identical across all alternatives, the
geometry allowed for different member forces. Based on the designs geometry, the
preliminary sizing was completed based on the worst case member in tension,
compression, and Euler buckling. The deck was then designed considering strength
and deflection criteria with the worst case scenario. All selected material and sizings
were input in SAP 2000 to check deflection under dead and live loading. Finally the
weight and cost of the trusses and deck were estimated for each alternative.
Design Alternatives

Three design alternatives were considered in Phase 1: Fan, Jaws, and Accordion.
Each had unique folding mechanisms, and different advantages and disadvantages.
The Fan design is modelled after the mechanism of a hand fan, where all the
members fan out from the middle member which is rigidly attached to the base of
the truss at the deck. The installation of this bridge would involve unfolding the
bridge on land after transport, locking all the moving pieces, then flying it over the
crossing to secure it in place.
Jaws is a simple truss bridge that flat-packs the trusses onto the same plane as the
deck, then folds the deck and trusses in an M shape. The installation of this bridge
would also involve unfolding and locking on land, then flying it over the crevice to
secure it in place.
Accordion uses a different folding mechanism for the trusses and the deck, where
the trusses follow a scissor-like mechanism, and the deck hinges similar to Jaws.
This separate unfolding mechanism allows for the in place unfolding of the bridge,
making a helicopter no longer necessary for installation.
Evaluation of Alternatives
Each design alternative was evaluated on technical performance, ease of
installation, weight, geometry, and cost. Then, the alternatives were given a score
in each category, and conglomerated using a weighted decision matrix.
The technical performance score was based on two factors: maximum member
forces and maximum deflection. The Accordion was found to have the best overall
technical performance (with the lowest maximum forces and deflection), and Fan
performed the worst.
Ease of installation was determined based on the estimated number of people
needed to install the bridge, and the required equipment. Both are difficult to
quantify, but the estimates were used as a relative comparison measure between
the different alternatives. In this regard, Fan performed the worst, and Accordion
had the easiest installation.
The estimation of each alternatives weight and geometric bounding box were then
used to score each design, with the ideal characteristics being a minimization of
both parameters, for ease of transport and handling. Jaws performed the best in
both weight and geometry, and Fan the worst.
Lastly, material cost estimates were made for the three alternatives. Note that the
material cost only considered the deck and trusses, not including any connections,
assembly, maintenance, storage, transportation or salvage costs. The Accordion
performed the best at roughly $2000, and Jaw the most expensive, at roughly
$8500.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Accordion was the recommended design due to its excellent technical
performance, ease of installation, weight, geometry, and cost. This bridge had the

lowest maximum compression and tension member forces, as well as the smallest
maximum deflection of 19 mm. Due to the mechanism of the installation, the
Accordion does not require a helicopter to install it, and needs no heavy equipment
such as scissor lifts. The Accordion was the heaviest at 760 kg, but is well within the
1000 kg limit, with compact geometry at 3 x 3 x 2.5 m. Lastly, due to the material
choices, the material cost was low at roughly $2000. The Accordion was designed
with a timber deck and aluminum truss members.
Phase 2 technical approach connections/hinges
Due to the nature of the design, the mechanism of how the bridge folds depends
strongly on the connection and hinge details. Phase I focused on the overall folding
method, but did not detail the exact hinges, sizing, or locking pins. After the final
member sizes are calculated, the detailed connections will be designed, satisfying
structural, physical, and movement requirements. The major connections of interest
are the following: truss hinge-pins (allowing the scissor-like unfolding), locking
mechanism from top chord to diagonal truss members, force-transferring
connections from deck to diagonal members (to transfer the tension to the deck,
acting like the bottom chord), deck hinges, and the sliding connection between the
end diagonal truss members and the end posts (allowing the height change in the
trusses as they elongate).
The proposed method to design these connections is by first considering the range
of motion required. Once this is complete, a literature review on existing
connections must be completed to see the availability and applicability, ensuring
that the general shape and size can fit into the bridges design physically. After
confirming the general type of connection, the connection calculations will be
completed based on the expected loading transferred to the connection, for
example the sizing of connector bolts, strength of adhesive, or required depth of
connection. Time and resources permitting, certain key connections may be
modelled in a finite element program to ensure the viability of the connection. Once
all finalized connections are completed, the weight and cost will be estimated to
account for the connections in the overall bridge.