Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bridge Proposal
Bridge Proposal
Abstract
Bridges exist all over the world, and while they are appreciated, they are often
overlooked. Bridges are much more complicated than they appear to the naked eye. They require
consideration of where they will be used, how they will be built, and who will be using them. In
this case, the type of bridge and its use was provided by the bridge building competition. All that
was required of us was to design and build a Cantilever Through Truss Bridge. The design of the
bridge came from hours of research and some creativity. Each part of the bridge was taken into
symmetrical design in order to conserve mass. After researching the best truss type, and
preforming tests on various bridge designs, we decided to use a modification and combination of
Pratt and warren truss structures. The Pratt cantilever design was slightly altered to have more
beams that supported the compression and tension on the bridge, in order to carry more weight.
The warren truss was chosen due to its high recommendation through research and its results
when tested on a virtual testing software, ModelSmart, which confirmed that it would be a good
design. Once the bridge was constructed, it was tested for its strength to weight ratio. When
testing it, the bridge held more weight than we hypothesized, given its small size. The total mass
of the bridge was 12.5 grams, which had a total strength of 4,394 grams, and a strength ratio of
354.4 grams. While breaking the bridge, a support connecting the suspended truss portion of the
bridge to the cantilever portion snapped, causing the remainder of that part of the bridge to snap
as well. Because of this, we updated the design by adding a additional support underneath the
Introduction
1
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
The team name we chose for this challenge was I Double A. This was taken from the first
letters of each of the member's names. The members of this team include Isabel Fiori,
Aleksandra Gryko, and Alexandra Korabiewski. Each of us attends Warren Cousino High School
and the Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center (MMSTC), a STEM program
within the Warren Consolidated School (WCS) district. At the MMSTC, we have gained
experience in advanced mathematics, science, and technology using devices and programs such
as Java Programming, Solid Works, Game Maker, Lab Quest, TI-Nspire, and various Microsoft
Office programs. We also have gained experience in conducting formal research, preparing lab
reports, analyzing data using statistical tests, and giving professional presentations about the
research.
Body
The Science:
supported by cantilevers and connected in the middle by a truss. The structure of a cantilever
through truss bridge is made up of many different parts. The span, or horizontal space between
two supports, of the bridge is constructed of two units supported on only one end, and sometimes
a third unit, or a suspended span, in the middle. The two extended portions of the span come
together in the center to form the bridge. The other ends of the bridge are anchored at either a
cantilever, which lends support to either side of the bridge, or the land that the bridge connects
to. The surface configuration of the bridge is 'through truss' which means the structure surrounds
the road by stretching above and around the road on all sides. It is possible for the structure to
also extend beneath the deck of the bridge. When the structure is only above the deck it is called
a superstructure, when both above and below the road, it is called a symmetrical structure. The
2
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
that form triangular parts. Trusses are the ideal structure to be used due to their ability of
supporting heavy loads while also being lightweight and using minimal amounts of material.
Overall, the structure of a cantilever through truss bridge allows it to extend across long gaps
A cantilever through truss bridge is unique for many reasons. As mentioned in the
previous paragraph, cantilever bridges can usually achieve long spans. Other bridges, such as
beam bridges, cannot travel across such spans for as their length increases, they become weaker.
A cantilever through truss bridge takes care of this issue with the use of cantilevers to support the
deck of the bridge over certain increments of length. Because of this, cantilever bridges do not
need false works, temporary structures, when building like other bridges may require. This
makes them perfect for deep or rocky water where having false work could be hazardous.
Cantilevers are also used to support and counterbalance the middle of the bridge. This along with
having very dense decks, makes cantilever through truss bridges suitable for heavy loads.
3
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
Figure 1 shows our finished prototype and the forces that work on it when a weight in
placed on the deck. The weight is represented by the arrow pointing down. The green arrows that
point inwards represent compression, and the red arrows that point outwards represent tension.
Tension is a force that happens because of pulling, therefore most of the diagonal members are
under tension. The bottom of the bridge experiences tension because the load pushes down on it
making it bend. The members of the bridge that are straight experience compression because
they are getting pushed by the top of the bridge and the supports. Compression occurs in the
diagonal members labeled 1 and 2 as they are pushed by the cantilever, pulled in by the weight of
the block against the truss which supports the members. This design shows a good balance of
Design Challenges:
We have overcome many struggles throughout the process of designing the bridge. First,
we had no prior experience with the history and science of bridge engineering, so we spent a
great amount of time doing research. All of the bridge designs were new and complex to us, so
we had to look into each different type of bridge and determine which would be the best for our
model. To determine what design would be best, we tested many different variations of bridges
we wanted to focus on achieving a light but strong bridge. We also had to take into account the
amount of resources available and the different requirements for the bridge construction. While
designing, we made a mistake by making the cantilevers 5 inches tall when the truss was only
two inches tall, this was a mistake because the packet clearly states that the cantilever section
needs to be twice the height of the truss. In order to correct this error, we redesigned that portion
4
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
of the bridge, giving it different length members and different angle measures. This major
We also had to make sure the correct number of joints were coming together at the same
point because of the joint thickness requirements. The research we did helped us find the
strongest type of truss which we found to be a Warren structure with vertical supports then, we
designed our cantilever based on the tension and compression of the bridge and a modified Pratt
structure. During more virtual model testing we came up with a basic design and then tweaked it
Data:
5
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
Figure 2, above, shows the first design we tested. It had a warren type truss and a Pratt
cantilever structure. It held 13.00 pounds and weighed 2.60 grams. Its strength to weight ratio
was 2,699.
Figure 3 shows the second design we tested. It had a variation of a K-truss and a K
cantilever structure. It held 24.58 pounds and weighed 4.50 grams. Its strength to weight ratio
was 2,456.
6
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
Figure 4, above, shows the third design we tested. It had a K Type truss and a Pratt
variation cantilever structure. It held 9.81 pounds and weighed 2.33 grams. Its strength to weight
Figure 5 shows the fourth design we tested. It had a Warren Type truss and a Warren
cantilever structure. It held 11.20 pounds and weighed 2.08 grams. Its strength to weight ratio
was 2,447.
7
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
Figure 6, above, shows the fifth design we tested. It had a Warren Type truss and a
Pratt/Warren mixture cantilever structure. It held 8.03 pounds and weighed 7.50 grams. Its
Figure 7, above, shows the sixth design we tested. It had a Pratt Type truss and a
Suspension-based cantilever structure. It held 21.00 pounds and weighed 7.16 grams. Its strength
8
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
Figure 8, above, shows the seventh design we tested. It had a Pratt Type truss and
cantilever structure. It held 22.00 pounds and weighed 7.68 grams. Its strength to weight ratio
was 1300.
Bridge Design
Results
Bridge Strength (lbs) Weight (g) Ratio of Strength
to Weight
1 13 2.6 2,699
2 26 4.5 2,456
3 10 2.3 1,907
4 11 2.1 2,447
5 8 7.5 486
6 21 7.2 1,391
7 22 7.7 1,300
9
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
Table 1 above shows the data we collected on the various bridges using the ModelSmart
software. Each test corresponds with one of the bridge images above.
Calculations:
R=(p x 454)/ w
R = 1,300
Figure 9, above, shows the formula we used to calculate the strength to weight ratio, R, in
grams. It also gives a sample calculation of how to calculate R for the seventh bridge (Table 1).
The weight of the load carried by the bridge was given in pounds, represented by p in the
equation, in the modeling software but the weight of the bridge as given in grams, w in the
equation. To convert the pounds into grams the weight of the load, p, was multiplied by 454
which is the number of grams in a pound. This was then divided by the weight of the bridge, w,
10
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
Figure 10, above, is a picture of our research team, Isabel (left) Aleksandra (middle) and
11
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
Figure 11, above, shows our research team along with our completed preliminary bridge.
Figure 12, above, displays a side view of our completed preliminary bridge. Notice how
the left side is not fully touching the ground; this situation will be avoided in the final bridge.
Figure 13, above, depicts the top view of our completed preliminary bridge.
12
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
Figure 14, above is an image of the front view of our completed preliminary bridge.
Testing:
We tested the bridge by setting it on two blocks that were 16 inches apart and putting a
14-inch-long block inside of the bridge. Then, our teacher hung a bucket from the rope attached
to the block and began pouring sand into the bucket slowly. After about 2 minutes, the part of the
bridge that connected the cantilever to the truss snapped along with the bridge's deck resulting in
the bridge's collapse. The results of the bridge breaking are as follows: the mass of the bridge
was 12.5 grams, the strength of the bridge was 4,394 grams, and the strength ratio was 354.4
grams. Due to these faults in design, additional supports were added underneath the portion of
the bridge that caved in on itself and snapped to attempt to prevent this from happening again.
Building Challenges:
The building portion took us the shortest amount of time compared to all the research we
did on bridges, but building came with its own struggles. First of all, the design did not factor in
the thickness of the balsa wood or how it would change our measurements. There was so much
focus on the 2-D aspects of the bridge, that converting the 2-D design into a practical 3-D model
was not accounted for previous to the actual building of the bridge. Quickly, it was realized that
13
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
most joints would still be the length we cut but the pieces with butt joints would need to be cut a
bit shorter. The balsa wood was also much softer than expected, this was because we had no prior
experience with making models with this type of wood. The softness of the wood made it
difficult to hold joints together with pins and to remove the pins without breaking the bridge. On
a few occasions the wood broke, or split, because the pins were pulled out too aggressively.
Along with the thickness came the problem of arranging the joints in such a way so that no more
than three would overlap. We combated this by cutting the wood at a joints with more than three
intersecting members on a diagonal slant and placing them against the corners of the joint.
Safety:
Some safety procedures taken during the process of constructing the bridge included the
environment where the bridge was constructed and the use of proper tools. The bridge was built
in a well ventilated area to account for any glue fumes. The area was also well lit, and had a hard,
stable surface to cut different pieces for the bridge on. There was also caution when using sharp
tools such as the garden shears used to cut the wood and the pins used to hold the wood in place
while drying. While breaking the bridge, safety goggles were used to prevent different particles
Conclusion
All in all, this challenge has proven to have good results. The preliminary bridge was
successful and held up well to the challenge. Our bridge was fairly efficient because of its low
weight and high strength. Each member of our team gained knowledge and experience with
building bridges and scale models throughout the three weeks of working on this challenge.
Before we took on this project, we were unaware of the importance civil engineering had in our
14
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
daily lives. This challenge had us research the different types of bridges and all the components
that go into making a successful bridge. It also made us realize that not every bridge is the same
and that they are all built the way they are for specific reasons. After driving over countless
bridges throughout our lifetime, we knew the importance of bridges, but never really knew the
story behind each bridge. Each one is special and deserves to be recognized as a true feat of
engineering.
Acknowledgements
Throughout the course of this project we received guidance and help from our teachers at
the MMSTC. Mrs. Cybulski and Mr. McMillan provided tools for building, workspaces to build
our bridges, the setup for bridge breaking and testing, and cameras to record the bridge braking.
They also were helpful in calculating the results from our testing, and just overall guidance with
the project. We would also like to acknowledge The Michigan Department of Transportation -
Transportation and Civil Engineering Program for providing the tools necessary to create the
bridge including the Bentley PowerDraft CAD software and the balsa wood and glue needed to
Bibliography
15
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
"Advantages and Disadvantages of a Cantilever Bridge." Buzzle. Buzzle.com, 07 Feb. 2015. Web. 27 Jan.
2016. <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-a-cantilever-
bridge.html>.
"Bridge Construction." (n.d.): 1-16. University of Delaware Department of Civil and Environmental
Cotton, Robert, Gabriel Gehenio, and Clayton Miller. "Civil War Era Metal Truss Bridges." Landmark
<http://snocamp.s3.amazonaws.com/68676/uploads/files/cantilever_truss_bridges[1]ppt.pdf>.
Cridlebaugh, Bruce S. "Bridge Basics - A Spotter's Guide to Bridge Design." Bridge Basics - A
Spotter's Guide to Bridge Design. N.p., 16 June 2008. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
<http://pghbridges.com/basics.htm>.
Crystal Lombardo. "You Are HereMDOT Bridges, Borders and Ferries Blue Water Bridge." MDOT. N.p.,
22062--,00.html>.
Davies, A. "Beam Bridges." Beam Bridges. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2016. <http://www.design-
technology.org/beambridges.htm>.
Duan, Lian, and Wai-Fah Chen. "Bridge Engineering Handbook." BridgeEngineering Handbook
<http://igs.nigc.ir/STANDS/BOOK/HB- BRIDGE.PDF>.
16
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
"Heads Up: Blue Water Bridge Shrinks This Spring." Heads Up Blue Water Bridge Shrinks This Spring
blue-water-bridge-shrinks-this-spring/>.
"History of Bridges." Tunnels and Bridges History. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.historyofbridges.com/>.
Marchese, Shanya, and Doug Ensel. "Guide to Bridge Types." Bridgesnyc. N.p., 12 Nov. 2009. Web. 27
"The Quebec Bridge." The Quebec Bridge. National Trust for Canada, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
places/quebec-bridge>.
"Suspension Bridge." Encyclopedia.com. Gale Research Inc., 01 Jan. 2000. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Suspension_Bridge.aspx>.
Woodford, Chris. "Bridges and Tunnels." N.p., 2000. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.explainthatstuff.com/bridges.html>.
"You Are Here MDOT Bridges, Borders and Ferries Blue Water Bridge." MDOT. State of Michigan, nd.
22062--,00.html>.
17
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
Appendix A
Appendix B
18
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
Daily Journal
Date Isabel Fiori Aleksandra Gryko Alexandra
Korabiewski
1.25.16 researched bridge researched the researched truss
structure differences bridges
between different
bridges
1.26.16 researched studied the found a PDF of the
cantilever through differences Bridge Engineering
truss bridges, between bridges, Handbook and
different bridge found real world studied different
structures, and examples of bridge designs
practiced using cantilever through
the Bentley truss bridges, and
Microstation added the
software information to the
research paper
using OneDrive
1.27.16 wrote about the edited the wrote about the
structure of the introduction, uses, different forces
cantilever through and real world involved in bridges
truss bridge, and examples of and bridge joints,
helped edit the cantilever through found pictures of
introduction and truss bridges, and real life cantilever
conclusion also drew the force through truss
diagram of the bridges, edited the
cantilever through introduction,
truss bridge using conclusion, and
Microsoft Paint structure portions
of the paper, and
wrote the works
cited page
(bibliography)
1.28.16 designed the logo also drew two also drew two
for our team (IAA), bridge designs, bridge designs, the
and drew two one with a first a Warren truss
bridge designs, symmetrical superstructure,
one with a Warren truss and the second a
staggered Pratt structure, and the symmetrical
truss symmetrical other a structure with a
structure, and one symmetrical combination of the
with a Warren structure with a Warren and Pratt
truss combination of the truss
superstructure K-truss and Pratt
truss
19
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
20
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski
21