Truss Through Tied Arch

TK3

Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center

Thomas Kettler, Tianna Kilgore, Tyler Knight

Rose Cybulski and Greg McMillan

2/1/2017
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 1

Table of Contents

Summary.2

Introduction... 3
Body
Science.....5
Design Challenges..........6
Data and Calculations.......7
Bridge CAD Drawings...9
Testing and Improvements....9
Building Challenges.10
Bridge Building Process...11
Conclusion and Recommendations........17
Acknowledgements..19
Bibliography.20
Appendices
Appendix A...22
Appendix B...22
Appendix C...23

Summary
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 2

The purpose of creating this bridge was to analyze the structure of a truss through tied

arch bridge. The goal was to create a bridge that could withstand the greatest amount of weight

while having as small a mass as possible. Before building, rough designs were tested using the

ModelSmart 2D software. In addition, a number of bridges of this type were researched, such as

the Fort Pitt bridge and the Fremont bridge. After a rough idea for the bridge had been gathered,

rough sketches were created to get an idea of how to start the bridge. After a decent design was

created, the production of the bridge began while other parts of the project were completed.

During construction, a number of observations were made that could help future bridge attempts.

Finally, after construction was complete, the Bentley Microstation PowerDraft software model

design was updated to accurately reflect the final bridge. After the completion of the bridge, it

was then broken using a near identical situation to the situation that would occur in the actual

competition to collect data on how the bridge hold up to the stress of added weight.

Introduction

Team TK3 is a group of three juniors from the Macomb Mathematics Science and

Technology Center (MMSTC) located in Warren, Michigan. The members, Thomas Kettler,
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 3

Tianna Kilgore, and Tyler Knight, all have the initials of TK, thus TK3 since there are three of us

in the group. The members all attend MMSTC because of their love of math, science,

engineering, or computer technology. In addition to MMSTC, all of the group members attend a

home school for the remainder of the day. Two members, Thomas Kettler and Tyler Knight,

attend Lake Shore High School in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, whereas Tianna Kilgore attends

Cousino High School in Warren. The community at MMSTC is one that is very close, since the

junior class in the morning attends all classes together and therefore have formed a very close

bond. MMSTC is located in Warren, Michigan nd is a part of Macomb County.

Thomas Kettler is a hardworking individual from Lake Shore High School and attends

the Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center (MMSTC), as mentioned above.

Thomas loves dogs and is involved in a number of extracurricular activities. Thomas is on the

varsity swimming team at Lake Shore High School. He also is a part of the Science Olympiad

club, and competes once a year in a competition. Thomas is thinking about majoring in civil

engineer at Northern Michigan University.

Tianna Kilgore is a very intelligent and motivated student from Cousino High School

who also attends the MMSTC, as mentioned above. In addition to school, Tianna is also a part

of the Cousino varsity tennis team and the Warren Consolidated Schools robotics team. She is

also a part of the Warren Student Advisory Committee, which does volunteer and outreach work

for the local community. Tianna loves reading and musicals, such as Hamilton. In the future,

Tianna hopes to attend the University of Michigan and major in nuclear engineering.

Tyler Knight is a student from Lake Shore High School who attends MMSTC as well.

Some of Tylers extracurricular activities include bowling on varsity bowling team, the Science

Olympiad club, robotics, and archery all through Lake Shore. Tyler also attends the Lakefront
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 4

Environmental Committee meetings once a month as a student liaison from Lake Shore High

School. In the future, Tyler hopes to attend a college in Michigan, some options being Michigan

Tech, Lawrence Tech, and Wayne State. Although he is not sure yet, Tyler hopes to go to school

for either engineering or to major in science.

Body
Science:
A truss through tied arch bridge is a modified version of the tied arch bridge. A tied arch

bridge is also known as a solid ribbed arch because that is what it looks like, a regular arch with

bars from the top of the arch to the base of the road. A truss through tied arch bridge has 4 main

parts; the arch, the ribbings (ties), the trusses beneath the road, and the road itself. The arch

handles the majority of the stress, as it takes energy to stay arched and not return to its original

position, straight. This energy is provided from the force of gravity on the road. It takes most of
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 5

the force of the mass of the cars on the road, transferred partially through the ribbings placed

periodically throughout the length of the bridge, and partially from the ends where it connects the

the road and the ground or platform. The trusses beneath the road help to distribute the weight of

the cars as well, incase of excess weight, making this bridge very stable.

Figure 1. Tied Arch Bridge Force Diagram

Figure 1, on the previous page, shows the force diagram for a tied arch bridge. As

shown, the bridge may bow due to the stress. This could harm the road, so a truss beneath the

road could prevent this bowing. The stress is distributed through the ribbing to the arch and

eventually to the ground. A truss would distribute the bowing stress so it would be able to

maintain its shape.

 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 6

Figure 2. Truss Bridge Force Diagram

Figure 2, above, shows the force diagram for a regular truss bridge. While this is not the

main component of the truss through tied arch bridge, it does help prevent it from bowing and

support higher weights on the road. This would be located under the road.

The force diagram of a truss through tied arch bridge would be a combination of the two

force diagrams shown above, with the tied arch bridge on top and the truss part of the bridge

below, distributing a smaller amount of weight.

Design Challenges:

Some of the biggest challenges encountered when designing the bridge were the

limitations of the software. While many ideas were formed and rough sketches were made, the

limitations of the ModelSmart software prevented us from creating accurate representations of

those ideas. These limitations included the detrimental inability to make actual arches, therefore

a variety of straight edges created the illusion of trusses. In addition, there was no way to insert

the string that would be used in the actual design, so vertical balsa wood beams were used

instead. However, this is a very inaccurate representation for how the bridge would actually hold

up under pressure, so the results were not taken too seriously. The ModelSmart software was

also really difficult to use, as the mechanics were easy to learn but extremely inconvenient if any

mistakes were made.

 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 7

Data and Calculations:

For the data and calculations, a bridge model was created in the ModelSmart 2D software

(see Appendix C for the actual designs). These bridge designs were then tested under a number

of loads until they broke. From this, a maximum load to bridge weight ratio was calculated and,

in theory, the bridge with the largest maximum load to weight ratio would be designed. However,

the extreme imperfections in the software caused the data to be unhelpful, with the designs

aiding only in the design for the base.

Figure 3. Sample Calculation

Figure 3, above, shows a sample calculation for calculating the ratio of maximum load to

bridge weight. Line one shows the formula for calculating the ratio, along with the appropriate

method for converting the load from pounds to grams. Line two shows substituted values which

came from the data for bridge number one in the table below. These values were then used to

solve for the ratio seen in line three.

Table 1. Bridge Design Testing Data

Bridge Bridge Maximum Ratio
Number Weight (g) Load (lbs) (lbs:g)
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 8

1 11.583 14.679 574.832

2 10.823 11.540 483.642

3 12.397 16.506 603.936

4 7.761 15.745 920.218

5 2.554 5.237 930.095

6 6.132 29.796 2204.051

7 8.505 12.477 665.429

8 9.703 22.320 1043.407

Table 1, above, shows the data collected from the bridges. The most effective bridge was

bridge 6, which had one of the smallest weights but the largest weight held, was used to help

model our final design. However, during the construction of the actual bridge it came to the

constructors attention that it had no actual trusses, and the balsa wood bridges in the design

could not be transferred to the actual design. Instead, right angle trusses were constructed to try

and replicate the same effect that the bridge had in the preliminary design, and the long balsa

wood beams were replaced with braided string. This should, in theory, help make the bridge

stronger as the string would support more than the balsa wood could before snapping, however it

could not be properly tested until the actual bridge was created.

Bridge CAD Drawings:

When the bridge was first designed, a preliminary drawing was first made in Bentley

MicroStation PowerDraft. This preliminary drawing, which can be seen as the first attached

Bentley page, was created using the base of one of our ModelSmart designs and an arch which

complied with MDOT rules. However, after testing our preliminary bridge, it was discovered that

while the current design worked well, it was too short and differed slightly from the instructions

in the MDOt manual. Knowing this, a new, final drawing was made, which can be seen as the
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 9

second attached Bentley page. This final drawing has the same design as the original, the only

difference being that the the length of the bridge has gone from 18 inches to 20 inches. This

gives the bridges more leverage on the testing station, and makes it so that the length from the

midpoint between the upper and lower arch on the right to the one on the left is 18 inches. This

change was made become of the added support it gave, but also so that it complied with the

bridge outline specified in the MDOT manual.

Testing and Improvements:

After constructing a preliminary bridge model, the next step was to test the bridge. First,

the bridge had to be weighed on a scale so that value could be used for the final ratio. Next, the

bridge was tested using a model Pitsco Tester. The model Pitsco Tester we used was a board

approximately 20 inches long and 5 inches wide which had a support on either end. These

supports were approximately 3 inches high, 5 inches long, and 2 inches wide. The way this

worked was the bridge was laid across the supports, then a block of wood 16 inches long, 2

inches wide, and 1 inch high was put on top of the bridge deck. A length of paracord, which was

connected to the wooden block through a hole in the center, was then fed through the bottom

truss of the bridge. A hook was then added onto that paracord, and a bucket was secured to the

hook. Then, sand was poured into the bucket until the bridge broke. The amount of sand in the

bucket was then measured, and the maximum load to bridge weight ratio was then calculated.

The preliminary bridge design broke under a maximum load of 19,361.8 grams and

weighed 44.5 grams. This gave the preliminary design a maximum load to bridge weight ratio of

435.09 grams to grams. Overall, the group was satisfied with this ratio. In fact, the only thing

that needed to be changed was the length of the bridge. The length of the bridge was increased

from 18 inches to 20 inches so that it created better leverage on the model Pitsco Tester and so
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 10

that it complied more with the bridge specifications outlined in the MDOT manual. Other than

that, the improvements that needed to be made to the bridge were caused by building challenges

which can be found below.

Building Challenges:

Through the building of the bridge, a number of challenges arose that had to be

overcome. First, it was very difficult to bend the wood into a curve because the arches broke very

easily after being soaked, so they had to be gently bent and taped down in an estimated curve to

avoid creating small cracks that would become detrimental later on. We ended up tacking the

arches to a piece of cardboard, however this still left a little room for error. The braided string

was also a challenge because it was difficult to make a tight braid using such a long length of

string. Also it was hard to estimate how much shorter the string would be after braiding, because

the preliminary bridge, there was not enough string to tie the arch down securely. Therefore, we

ended up having to tie the arch down fairly loosely. Finally, the most difficult building challenge

was finding a good way to cut the balsa wood without getting bad cuts or just squishing the wood

together. These imperfections caused our measurements, and the overall bridge, to be off. The

only solution to this issue ended up being going back and redoing parts of the bridge.

Bridge Building Process:

Before the bridge was built, a few safety precautions were taken. Some of these

precautions included using caution and not playing with the balsa cutters, using a stick to spread

the glue to prevent any sort of accident glue, and using wax paper and laminated paper to prevent

the bridge from sticking to the table. In addition, the balsa wood was cut carefully to prevent the

wood from accidentally flying off and possibly hitting somebody. While there were not very
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 11

many actual safety precautions, in the future goggles used when cutting the wood would be a lot

safer than just trying to be careful. The bridge building began with a simple sketch, which has

since been altered many times through further testing of bridges using the ModelSmart software.

All of the wood was cut after being measured multiple times. While the glue was drying, tape

was used to keep the balsa wood together, and to make sure the glue created a tight fit. The first

thing that was built was the base, which started off as a rectangle with trusses going back and

forth to prevent it from collapsing in on itself, but also to support the block where weight would

be added to break the bridge. The base has two parts, the road and the bottom, both being two

rectangles with alternating trusses, and then being laminated together.

Figure 4. Road Construction

Figure 4, above, shows Tianna gluing and taping the trusses to the first rectangle of the

road.
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 12

Figure 5. Vertical Truss Connection

Figure 5, above, shows Tyler starting the vertical trusses while Tianna created the other

trussed rectangles. This was done before the rectangles were laminated to each other. This was

the step that caused the most error, and had to be redone multiple times as the vertical trusses

would often slide with the glue and the sizes would vary slightly, throwing everything off in the

end. These vertical trusses, with laminated supports at the corners and in the middle, helped to

connect the bottom part to the road and provided a little support so the road didnt just snap with

the slightest pressure.

 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 13

Figure 6. Redoing Trusses with Final Base

Figure 6, above, shows the final design for the base. Tianna is redoing some of the

trusses that didnt dry correctly, causing them to not fit perfectly or even touch the road from the

base. As seen, there are criss-crossed horizontal trusses to prevent the bridge from collapsing on

itself from the sides, and also to support the block that weight would be added to. Due to a lack

of time, some trusses were given a very small piece of balsa wood so they would connect the

bottom to the road and provide some support. This should not have affected the integrity of the

trusses on the base. While this was going on, Tyler was beginning to design in the Bentley

software and Thomas was beginning to create the arches, one of the most important parts of the

bridge.

Figure 7. Arches

Figure 7, above, shows two of the arches used after they were soaked for approximately

45 minutes. The tape ensures that they retain their shape for later use. A total of six arches were

used, two of which snapped when attempting to add a curve.

 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 14

Figure 8. Arches to Road

Figure 8, above, shows the arches being connected to the road. The longer strands of tape

made sure that the arches didnt fall over and the glue dried straight. The road was taken off in

order to fix the vertical trusses between the bottom and the road, which was redone many times.

This helped the final bridge as the work could be divided up more easily.
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 15

Figure 9. Trusses in Arch

Figure 9, above, shows the supports that were used in between the two arches. While the

trusses arent shown, this is the majority of the bridge excluding a few horizontal supports to

make the trusses, and some horizontal beams between the arches to make sure they didnt fall

over. As in the other gluing steps, tape was used to make sure the parts stayed in place while the

glue dried completely.

 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 16

Conclusion

In the end, the preliminary bridge tested very well. With a maximum load to bridge

weight ratio of 435.09 grams to grams, our group was satisfied with the results. During the actual

testing of the bridge, we found out that the base was very sturdy but it was the arch that was

weak. This was evident through the way that the middle of the base gave out and the arches bent,

yet the base of the frame remained in tact. Therefore, once improvements are applied, we are

confident that the final bridge will perform better than our preliminary one.

By participating in this project, we learned a number of useful skills. The most important

skill that we could learn was teamwork. Early on we noticed that if all of us were working on the
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 17

bridge at once, there usually was not enough work to keep all of us occupied. However, once we

noticed this we started dividing the work up so two people would work on the bridge at a time

and the other would work on the CAD drawing in Bentley MicroStation PowerDraft.Finaly, our

group learned that planning is crucial to any task that you do. Without having a solid

ModelSmart design to base our preliminary bridge off of, we would have just been winging it,

which would have resulted in a lot more problems. Luckily, by learning to divide our time

wisely, we were able to come up with a solid idea for building the bridge before we got very far

into building the base of it. This allowed for our measurements to be a little more accurate and

for it to closely resemble our Bentley model.

In future projects, namely our final bridge design, there are a number of things we would

do differently. First off, we would like to cut the trusses were more consistently in size and

angle, so that gaps and errors could be avoided. This could be done by simply sharpening our

original cutting tools or purchasing better ones. The arches would also be cut at a more uniform

angle and bent in a more reliable manner. This could be done by bending the soaked wood

around a curved objected and tacking it in place. This would make the arches uniform and

prevent the arch from changing shape while drying. We would also like to use better software

that could accurately create joints and model the string tied design of the bridge. Lastly, we

would like to increase the length of the final bridge from 18 inches to 20 inches to help give the

base of the bridge more leverage on the testing device,

 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 18

Acknowledgments

Mr. Greg McMillan helped to oversee the construction of the bridge, and provided us

with the workspace and the tools needed to complete the construction.

Mrs. Rose Cybulski helped to figure out the Model Smart software, and helped with some

researching sources.

Each other, for always doing their part in some way, always contributing to the building

or the project as often as possible.

 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 19

Bibliography

"Beam Bridge." Encyclopdia Britannica. Encyclopdia Britannica, Inc., n.d. Web. 08 Jan.

2017.

"Bridge Basics - A Spotter's Guide to Bridge Design." Bridge Basics - A Spotter's Guide to

Bridge Design. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Jan. 2017. <http://pghbridges.com/basics.htm>.

"Cantilever Bridge." Encyclopdia Britannica. Encyclopdia Britannica, Inc., n.d. Web. 08 Jan.

2017.

"Fremont." Willamette Light Brigade. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Jan. 2017.

<http://www.lightthebridges.org/bridge/fremont/>.

"How Bridges Work." Explain That Stuff. N.p., 26 Mar. 2016. Web. 08 Jan. 2017.

Lamb, Robert, and Michael Morrissey. "How Bridges Work: The Beam

Bridge."HowStuffWorks Science. HowStuffWorks, n.d. Web. 05 Jan. 2017.

<http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/civil/bridge3.htm>.

Lamb, Robert, and Michael Morrissey. "How Bridges Work: The Suspension

Bridge."HowStuffWorks Science. HowStuffWorks, n.d. Web. 05 Jan. 2017.

<http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/civil/bridge6.htm>.
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 20

"Suspension Bridge." Encyclopdia Britannica. Encyclopdia Britannica, Inc., n.d. Web. 08 Jan.

2017.

"The Point & Pittsburgh." Point Bridge Realty Advisors LLC. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2017.

<http://point-bridge.com/about-us/pittsburgh-the-point/>.

"Tied-arch Bridge Facts, History and Examples." Tied-arch Bridge - Facts, Design and

Examples of Tied-arch Bridges. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2017.

<http://www.historyofbridges.com/facts-about-bridges/tied-arch-bridge/>.

"Tied-arch Bridge Facts, History and Examples." Tied-arch Bridge - Facts, Design and

Examples of Tied-arch Bridges. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Jan. 2017.

<http://www.historyofbridges.com/facts-about-bridges/tied-arch-bridge/>.
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 21

Appendices

Appendix A. Schedule

In terms of bridge constructuction, there was no real schedule in place for when the

bridge would be built. This was due to the fact that the bridge was only worked on during any

possible class time. The main idea was having at least two people building while the third

member would do another part, such as modeling in the Bentley software or creating the ideas in

ModelSmart.

Appendix B. Daily Log

Date Thomas Tianna Tyler

January 4 Research for paper Research for paper Research for paper
January 5 Research Research Research
January 6 Research & write report Research & write report Research & write report
January 8 Research & write report Research & write report Research & write report
January 9 Write report Write report Write report
January 27 Sick Build base of bridge Build base of bridge
Build 2 designs in Build 2 designs in Build 2 designs in
January 30 ModelSmart 2D ModelSmart 2D ModelSmart 2D
January 31 Continue to build bridge Continue to build bridge Continue to build bridge
February 2 Build bridge Build bridge Build bridge
Work on preliminary
February 3 Bentley design Build bridge Build bridge
February 7 Work on paper Build bridge Work on paper
February 9 Create bridge arch Work on base of bridge Create bridge arch
February 10 Build bridge Build bridge Work on the paper
Create final Bentley
February 13 design Work on paper Finish Bridge
February 14 Test Bridge Test Bridge Test Bridge
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 22

Appendix C. Bridge Designs

Figure 10. Bridge Design 1

Figure 10, above, shows the first possible bridge design made in ModelSmart 2D. It was

not efficient. Also, the loads were not evenly distributed, they were only placed in the center,

which may have caused errors.

 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 23

Figure 11. Bridge Design 2

Figure 11, above, shows the second possible bridge design done in ModelSmart 2D. It is

not symmetric and is extremely inefficient. Also, the loads were not evenly distributed, they were
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 24

only placed in the center, which may have caused errors.

Figure 12. Bridge Design 3

 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 25

Figure 12, above, shows the third possible bridge design done in ModelSmart 2D. This

design was more capable of holding weight than the previous two. However, the loads were not

evenly distributed, they were only placed in the center, which may have caused errors.

Figure 13. Bridge Design 4

Figure 13, above, shows the fourth possible bridge design done in ModelSmart 2D. This

design had one of the higher strength-to-weight ratios of the designs. However, only one load

was placed in the center of the bridge, which may have caused errors.
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 26

Figure 14. Bridge Design 5

Figure 14, above, shows the fifth possible bridge design done in ModelSmart 2D. This

was the lightest design to be created, but also held the least amount of weight. It should be noted

that only one load was placed in the center of the bridge, which may have caused errors.
 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 27

Figure 15. Bridge Design 6

Figure 15, above, shows the sixth possible bridge design done in ModelSmart 2D. This

design had the highest strength-to-weight ratio of them all. However. only one load was placed in

the center of the bridge, which may have caused errors.

Figure 16. Bridge Design 7

 Kettler-Kilgore-Knight 28

Figure 16, above, shows the seventh possible bridge design done in ModelSmart 2D. This

design was very effective at holding multiple loads of weight, evenly distributed along the length

of the bridge.

Figure 17. Bridge Design 8

Figure 17, above, shows the eighth possible bridge design done in ModelSmart 2D. This

design had the second highest strength-to-weight ratio of them all.