Cantilever Through Truss Bridge

Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center

Andrew Meesseman - Jacob Nadolsky - Ian Rasch

The Dragon Designers

Physics/IDS

Mr. McMillan and Mrs. Cybulski

19 February 2016

II. Table of Contents

Abstract.3

1
Introduction...4

Body..5

Conclusions/Recommendations12

Acknowledgments13

Bibliography.13

Appendices14

III. Summary (Abstract)

In this project, our group designed a bridge that could support the most weight while

minimizing mass. To do this, we first used ModelSmart software to find a 2D design that held the

2
most weight. We then used the Bentley software to create a 3D model, and based the real-life

model off of that. The real-life model was made of balsa wood sticks and glue.

The first wooden model was tested by clipping a bucket to the bottom, and slowly

scooping sand into the bucket until the bridge snapped. Then, using the weight held and the mass

of the bridge, the strength to weight ratio was calculated.

We designed the bridge with more triangulation near the truss, because the weight would

apply a greater downward force where there were no supports. This triangulation distributed the

weight evenly around a somewhat arched midsection, and the outer portions were left emptier to

keep the mass of the bridge down.

When tested, our bridge held a total of 1966.2 grams, and when divided by the mass had

a strength to weight ratio of 153.61. However, we believed that our design had higher potential:

the test bridge was somewhat crooked, and wobbled slightly on its legs. Thus, when the final test

bridge was designed, we did not change the actual design of the bridge, just the precision with

which we pinned and glued it.

This project taught us about the forces that act on bridges, and how to maximize the load

a bridge can hold while keeping its mass down (which is how it is done in the real world, to

minimize material costs). The project also forced us to practice our time management because we

completed it in a shorter time window than intended.

IV. Introduction

The Dragon Designers team is composed of three eleventh grade students, Ian Rasch,

Jacob Nadolsky, and Andrew Meesseman.

3
 Ian Rasch is a student of Fraser High School in Fraser, Michigan. He also attends the

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center. He is interested in robotics and would like to

attend Kettering University post-graduation. Ians dream job is something in the field of

computers, computer science, or engineering.

Jacob Nadolsky is a student of Cousino High School in Warren, Michigan. He attends the

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center as well. When he graduates high school, he

wants to attend Valparaiso University and earn a degree in meteorology. His dream job is either

an on-air meteorologist or an architect.

Andrew Meesseman is a student of Sterling Heights High School in Sterling Heights,

Michigan. He attends the Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center with the rest of the

team. He plays travel hockey and is set on going to a university and getting a major in

neuroscience to become a neurosurgeon.

V. Body

The cantilever bridge generally features two large piers in the water, tall enough to have

girders attached to the top that run down to the bottom, similar to the suspension bridge. In

bridges containing a truss through the middle, the truss is held in place by compression from the

4
two cantilevers, tension from the girders going upwards, and metal supports underneath the

roadway. In some cantilevers, the girders on top are mirrored on the bottom, to combat the

tension of the beams on top. Our design absorbed tension and redirected down an arch-like

pattern, where the weight rested on the supports instead of on the members of the bridge.

Figure 1. Force Diagram of Cantilever

Figure 1 above shows a sample load on a cantilever-through-truss bridge, with the load

located in the truss. Compression in the piers and lower girders (or, in some cases such as this,

just the piers) offsets the tension in the top girders, bringing the net force acting on the bridge to

zero and keeping the bridge stable. Also acting on the load are gravity and the normal force.

Designing the bridge was no easy task, there were some challenges. The one big

challenge was finding a design that would have a good strength to weight ratio. The big

challenge was getting the bridge to weight a little amount but still hold a high weight. We had

rebuild the bridge multiple times with less and less members. The other problem was making the

design hold a vast amount of weight. After hours of rebuilding and redesigning a model was

finalized with the ability to hold a lot of weight and, after removing a ton of members, a lower

weight.

Bridge Designer Weight of Bridge (g) Weight to Break (lb) Strength:Weight

5
Ian 7.328 49.996 3094.679

Andrew 3.441 6.765 1560.810

Jacob 4.819 11.178 1053.084

Table 1
First Bridge Design Data

Table 1 shows the data for the first three preliminary bridge designs by each group

member. With the highest strength to weight ratio, Ians design was chosen. A few slight

modifications were made afterward, leading to the final design seen below.

Weight
Weight Ratio= Break (lbs)453.592
Weight of Bridge(g)

49,996453.592
Weight Ratio=
7.328

Weight Ratio=3094.679( g)

Figure 2. Weight Ratio Calculation

Figure 2 shows how the weight ratio was calculated for each of us. The weight required

to break the bridge was converted into grams from pounds by multiplying the weight in pounds

by 453.592.

6
Figure 3. Preliminary Bridge Design

Figure 3 shows one of the original bridge designs along with the weight, breaking load

that it holds, and which members are holding the most weight (darkest color members).

Figure 4. Final Bridge Design

7
 Figure 4 shows the final design of the bridge with the weight, breaking load, and which

members are holding the most weight (darkest color members).

Figure 5. Final Bridge Design With Dimensions

Figure 5 shows the final design of the bridge with all the sides and angles dimensioned.

See appendix C for actual printed drawings.

Figure 6. Side View of Bridge

8
Figure 7. Top View of Bridge

9
Figure 8. Front View of Bridge

10
Figure 9. Before Construction of Bridge

Figure 9 shows the day Ian (left) calculated the lengths of the wooden pieces, and Jacob

(center) cut those pieces out.

Figure 10. Beginning of Bridge Construction

Figure 10 shows the first side of the bridge being pinned down, prior to gluing.

11
Figure 11. End of Bridge Construction

Figure 11 shows Jacob (left) and Ian (right) gluing the two halves of the bridge together.

The bridge model was tested by clipping a bucket to the block of wood that was slid into

the center. Then, sand was slowly added into the bucket, adding downward force to the bridge,

until the bridge collapsed. Then, the sand and bucket were massed to determine how much

weight the bridge held. This value was added to the mass of the 14in x 2in x 1in block. Below

are the calculations to determine the strength to weight ratio.

mtotal = mwood + (mbucket + msand)

mtotal = 249 + 1717.2

mtotal = 1966.2 g

Figure 12. Calculations for Mass Held

r = mtotal / mbridge

r = 1966.2 / 12.8

r = 153.61

Figure 13. Calculations for Strength to Weight Ratio

12
 There were many challenges when constructing the bridge. One challenge was that the

wood was very brittle and at certain times when trying to pin them they would split in half and

new ones were cut. Another problem was when gluing the wood together, they would shift

around causing the bridge to not want to glue together properly. As a result the bridge was

finished with some imperfections.

During construction, several safety precautions were followed. The balsa wood sticks

were cut with trimmers that had a safety latch, which kept them closed when they were not being

used. Pins were kept in one jar to prevent scattering, and when the bridges were tested, the tester

wore safety goggles to protect himself from flying splintered wood.

VI. Conclusion

When all the eleventh grade bridges were tested, our groups ratio of 153.61 placed 11th

out of 25 groups. While this is in the top half, our group recognized the fact that we would need

to pay closer attention to the precision of the bottom supports, since the bridge broke when the

bottom legs went crooked and collapsed. On the modeling software, the bridge maintained an

ideal ratio of over 1700. Obviously, it is impossible to attain this ratio in real life, but we know

that we can do better if the bridge is more structurally sound.

One other factor that may have contributed to a lower ratio was the inexact measurement

of the pieces. Even a small variation in length or set angle can cause problems, and when lengths

are not rational numbers it is impossible to measure them perfectly on a ruler.

As mentioned in the abstract, we learned about the forces that act on bridges and how

real-life engineers maximize their ratios, as well as time management and constraints that bridge

builders experience.

VII. Acknowledgments

13
Greg McMillan - Oversaw the design and construction processes. Previously taught the forces

involved in bridge stability and tested the bridges to see how much weight they could hold.

Rosemarie Cybulski - Oversaw the design and construction processes. Kept things moving to fit

limited time window and recorded data when bridge was tested.

VIII. Bibliography

"Bridge Construction." UD Dept. of Civil Engineering. University of Delaware, 13 Apr.

2003. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.

<http://www.ce.udel.edu/courses/CIEG%20486/Bridge.pdf>.

Bruce, Gina. "Bridges." Technology, Drafting, and Engineering. Ohio University, 10

Dec. 2008. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

<http://www.ohio.edu/people/Final%20Site/Gina%20Bruce

%20Site/Info.pdf>.

Cridlebaugh, Bruce C. "Bridge Basics." Allegheny County Tunnels and Bridges.

Pennsylvania Historical Society, 03 June 2008. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.

<http://pghbridges.com/basics.htm>.

IX. Appendices

14
Appendix A: Timeline of Events

Figure 14. Timeline of Project

Appendix B: Daily Journal

Monday, January 25
Project and its qualifications/requirements introduced. Group members looked at pictures of
cantilevers and trusses to get an idea for the design of the bridge type.
Tuesday, January 26
Andrew: Researched cantilever-through-truss bridges
Ian: Researched cantilever-through-truss bridges
Jacob: Researched cantilever-through-truss bridges and began preliminary research essay
Wednesday, January 27
Andrew: Continued researching bridges and watched tutorial video for Bentley design software
Ian: Experimented with ModelSmart MicroStation PowerDrive softwares for bridge designs
Jacob: Worked on preliminary research essay and created works cited page
Thursday, January 28
Preliminary essay due
Andrew: Sketched a possible design for bridge. Created a cover page for essay.
Ian: Sketched a possible design for bridge. Designed logo for cover page.
Jacob: Sketched a possible design for bridge. Finished the essay.
Friday, January 29
Andrew: Researched force diagrams of cantilever bridges
Ian: Tested the three separate designs on ModelSmart software
Jacob: Recorded test information in Table 1.
Monday, February 1

15
Andrew: Finalized design for bridge: held 9.764 pounds and weighed 6.528 g.
Ian: Finalized design for bridge: **this design was chosen, holds 48.96 pounds and weighs 6.9 g.
Jacob: Finalized design for bridge: held 17.531 pounds and weighed 7.328 g.
Tuesday, February 2
Andrew: Sorted wood pieces by length for easy construction
Ian: Measured and solved for angles and lengths of pieces of bridge
Jacob: Cut pieces of wood to correct size for bridge construction
Wednesday, February 3
Andrew: Started gluing the first half of the bridge after it was pinned
Ian: Pinned first half of bridge and part of the second half of the bridge
Jacob: Started gluing the first half of the bridge after it was pinned
Thursday, February 4
Andrew: Finished gluing first half of bridge
Ian: Finished pinning second half of bridge
Jacob: Finished gluing first half of bridge
Friday, February 5
Andrew: Pinned and glued second half of bridge
Ian: Jointed first half of bridge
Jacob: Pinned and glued second half of bridge
Monday, February 8
Andrew: Absent (sick)
Ian: Finished jointing the second side of the bridge
Jacob: Updated the journal using handwritten notes and glued horizontal beams onto first half
Tuesday, February 9
Andrew: Recorded, watched, and analyzed bridge test/collapse video
Ian: Began working on final design drawings in Bentley design software
Jacob: Recorded, watched, and analyzed bridge test/collapse video

Wednesday, February 10
Andrew: Uploaded photos into the proposal essay
Ian: Worked on top, side, and front view drawings on Bentley software
Jacob: Began typing up final proposal paper.
Thursday, February 11
Andrew: Worked on proposal
Ian: Finished the design drawings on the Bentley software
Jacob: Worked on proposal
Friday, February 12
Final proposal essay due
Andrew: Worked on final proposal essay
Ian: Worked on final proposal essay
Jacob: Worked on final proposal essay

16
Appendix C: Bentley Drawings

(See next page)

17