|
Our bridge,
loaded and ready to go.
|
|
Laid out in the
competition area at UConn.
|
|
WPI’s bridge.
|
|
UMass Amherst’s bridge.
|
|
UVM’s bridge.
|
|
UConn’s bridge, awaiting assembly.
|
|
Load testing UConn’s bridge.
|
|
Umass Amherst’s assembled bridge.
|
|
UMass Amherst’s bridge failed during load testing.
|
|
The culprit was
an inadequately welded tension connection.
Assembling UVM’s bridge. Bonus points for high socks.
|
|
Load testing the
UVM bridge. This bridge was exceptionally rigid due to UVM’s
use of a deep cross-section and angle bars.
|
|
Load testing Northeastern’s bridge. This bridge was later
disqualified for being too short.
|
|
Northeastern
built their bridge with a camber.
|
|
Hinge-style
connections allowed Northeastern to assemble their bridge in a mere 1:56.
UConn’s bridge featured a similar type of connection.
|
|
Load testing WPI’s bridge. This bridge was disqualified for being
too long.
|
|
Assembling the
Tufts bridge.
|
|
Dropping one of
the main spans into place on the pier.
|
|
The Tufts steel
bridge team with our assembled bridge. Assembly took 2:09.
|
|
Weighing our
bridge. Our bridge’s weight of over 300 lbs was the main reason we fell to
third place.
|
|
Load testing. Our
mid-span deflection was about 0.5”.
|
|
One final
photo-op before heading home.
|
