Truss Through Tied Arch Bridge

Lauren Champlin, Anna Jackson, Jordan Olszewski

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Mr. McMillan and Mrs. Cybulski

Table of Contents
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Summary . 3

Introduction . 4

Body 6

Conclusion .. 13

Acknowledgements .... 14

Bibliography ... 15

Appendix A. Scheduling...... 16

Appendix B. Daily Journal...... 17

Summary

2
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

The task we were presented with was to develop a truss through tied arch bridge that was

to be tested for strength-to-weight ratio. Our group spent five weeks researching, designing, and

building a bridge that fit the criteria using the three materials we were allowed and given by the

Michigan Department of Transportations TRAC program: balsa wood, wood glue, and kite

string.

First, we needed to research truss through tied arch bridges to gain a deeper

understanding of their design, structure, and architectural purpose. After designing and testing

our own models using the ModelSmart program, we were able to conclude which elements of

our designs worked and which elements needed to be refined. From there, we began building. We

spent two weeks in class refining our design, measuring and cutting pieces, and assembling our

model.

After our bridge was fully built, it needed to be tested. We measured the total weight of

our bridge, then tested how much weight it could hold, to find the total strength-to-weight ratio.

In the end our bridges ratio was 1,145.7. We were successful in building a bridge that weighed

26.6 grams and held 30,457.7 grams without breaking.

Introduction

3
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

In choosing our team name, Aqueducks, we took into consideration the type of bridge we

would be building and the history behind it. The truss through tied arch bridge can be considered

a cross between an arch bridge, truss bridge, and a suspension bridge, taking elements from all

three architectural designs. In researching the history of bridges, arch bridges specifically

considering the arch is a significant element in our design, we decided to take inspiration for our

team name from the original bridge architects: the Romans. One of the most innovative devices

built by ancient Rome was the aqueduct, a system of channels that carries water, usually in the

form of an arch bridge (Cartwright). Considering this fact, we decided to design a logo that

mixed the elements of the truss arch bridge, a system that carries water, ancient Roman culture,

and a cute animal mascot, creating the Aqueducks. The Aqueducks is comprised of three

members: Lauren Champlin, Anna Jackson, and Jordan Olszewski.

Lauren is a junior at Cousino High School and Macomb Mathematics Science

Technology Center (MMSTC). She loves writing and painting, and she likes incorporating these

creative elements into math and science projects at MMSTC, such as designing the team logo.

Jordan is a junior at South Lake High School and MMSTC. She likes music and plays

many instruments, including the trumpet and ukulele. She also enjoys math and science classes

as well as building.

Anna is a junior at South Lake High School and MMSTC. She is the captain of the South

Lake High School robotics team. She also participates in band, playing the flute and ukulele. Her

hobbies are reading and listening to music.

While all three of us attend two different home high schools in two different cities, we

spend half of our school days together at MMSTC in Warren. MMSTC is a math, science, and

technology program that many students from schools around Macomb County test into, and

4
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

attend for half of their school days to take faster-paced classes and better prepare themselves for

their futures.

5
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Body

Scientific Principles:

The main scientific principles behind our bridge design are tension and thrust. Tension is

the force that is exerted by a rope, cable, or string when it is stretched tight. When a load is

placed on the bridge deck, the cables connecting it to the arch are stretched. In the case of our

bridge, tension builds in the string. The strings then pull up on the deck, preventing it from

collapsing. When the strings pull upward on the deck the ends of the arch push outwards,

creating thrust. Thrust is the force exerted horizontally when a vertical load is placed on an arch

bridge (Bridge Thrust). In response to the thrust, the ends of the bridge deck exert a balancing

force toward the center of the bridge. These forces, tension and thrust, work together to support

the load put on the bridge.

In our design, the load is distributed throughout the bridge deck. The angled supports on

the sides of the truss distribute the weight of the load in two directions, rather than vertically. The

supports across the bridge deck increase the area over which the weight of the load is supported.

Each arch of the bridge is composed of two separate pieces, a bottom arch and a top arch,

connected by triangular truss elements. This design means that more force is needed to create the

trust on the end of the arches because they are stronger. The criss-cross design in the string was

used on our bridge because it supported the most weight in the ModelSmart designs. The string

was also braided, which increases the tension of the string.

Design Challenges:

In the beginning of the design process, our groups biggest obstacle to overcome was

deciding which bridge model we wanted to go through with. We had multiple designs in mind,

and after testing all of them using the ModelSmart program, we were able to conclude which

6
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

elements of our design contributed to the best model. Some of these elements include the height

of the truss, the height of the arch, the distances between the ties, and distance between the

supports. We took those elements that had the greatest effect on the overall weight the bridge

could hold and put together in a final design. Included below in Figure 1 are photos from our

ModelSmart designs and in Table 1 on the next page, the trials conducted from our six designs,

along with a sample calculation from one of our trials.

Design 1 Design 2 Design 3

Design 4 Design 5 Design 6

Figure 1. Bridge Designs

Figure 1, above, shows six of our ModelSmart bridge designs.

454 Maximum Load

Ratio=
Bridge Mass

454 25.449

9.631

= 1199.652

Figure 2. Sample Ratio Calculation

Figure 2 shows a sample calculation done to find the strength-to-weight ratio of our first

ModelSmart design, Design 1.

7
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Table 1.
ModelSmart Design Trials
Structure Weight Breaking Load Strength-to-Weight
(g) (lbs) Ratio

Design 1 9.459 24.530 1177.357

Design 2 9.631 25.449 1199.652

Design 3 11.567 26.259 1030.654

Design 4 9.804 19.971 924.810

Design 5 11.079 19.956 817.066

Design 6 13.760 35.546 1172.811

Table 1 above shows the strength-to-weight ratios for six of our ModelSmart designs.

Based on these trials conducted in the ModelSmart program, Design 2 had the greatest strength-

to-weight ratio of 1199.654, and we can conclude that this design with a greater distance between

the ties and an arch height of 3 inches contributed to the best bridge model. These numbers wont

be representative of our actual bridge model, as the ModelSmart program only accounts for the

front face of our model and not the other 3 faces of our 3D model. The weight of our 3D model

will be much more than the weight shown in the ModelSmart design, therefore giving our 3D

model a greater strength-to-weight ratio than the ones displayed in

Table 1 on the pervious page.

For preliminary designs, ModelSmart was used instead of the Bentley software. The final

design was started near the end of the build. The final Bentley design is attached on the next

page. For the End View, both the arch and truss are included in the drawing.

8
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

9
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Figure 4. Beginning of Construction

Figure 4, above, includes two photos taken during beginning phases of the construction

process. Pictured in the first photo is two of our group members working on the sides of the

truss. In the second photo, the base of our bridge is almost complete, and the arch is just

beginning to be built. We made a drawing of our arch to scale on a piece of cardboard, so that we

could guarantee that our measurements were exact when we built it. After gluing the pieces

together, we applied tape on the sides to ensure that the supports didnt shift overnight while they

dried.

Figure 5. Middle of Construction

10
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Figure 5 includes a photo taken during the middle portion of our construction phase. At

this point, the truss and arch were both completed and glued together, and our team captain was

planning where to place the supports between the arches to ensure the greatest strength and keep

the arches balanced with each other.

Figure 6. Completed Bridge

Figure 6, above, includes two photos taken after the string ties were incorporated and our

bridge was fully completed. The first photo was taken from a front angle and the second from a

side angle to show all sides of the bridge.

Testing:

To test our final bridge model, we placed it on a wooden testing apparatus with the ends

rested on either peg. Next, we slid a two-inch-wide block of wood though the bridge. That

wooden block was used to hold the sandbag that acted as the load. After testing our bridge, we

decided that we would make improvements to the truss and the arch in our next model, if we

were to be accepted to the TRAC competition in the spring. For the truss, we would add more

triangular supports across the bottom. For the arch, we would tie them together better to prevent

them from pulling apart and twisting, which was a big portion of why our bridge broke.

11
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Building Challenges:

One of the main obstacles we had to overcome during the building process of our bridge

was time management. Because the wood glue took so long to dry, and we often had to leave our

pieces to dry overnight, we had to carefully plan out what tasks we would complete on a given

day. Some tasks we could do together on the same day, as they were mutually exclusive to each

other, such as completing the arch and braiding the ties, but some tasks we could not do on the

same day, as their completion depended on the completion of another task, such as placing the

supports in the arch design and attaching the arch to the main truss. Another challenge related to

time was the length of time it took to braid the ties. Two of our group members spent almost five

class periods braiding the kite string to create the ties on both of the arches.

Another challenge we encountered in the building process of our bridge was cutting

pieces to the exact measurements that we needed. Because we estimated the angles the truss

supports would need to be when cutting, we didnt always cut every piece at the exact angle. For

the most part, this wasnt an issue, but on a few occasions, we needed to add extra wood glue to a

few of the shorter pieces to fill the gap between the support and the truss.

Considering the fact that we were only allowed to use balsa wood, wood glue, and string

to build our bridges, there werent many issues regarding the safety of our team mates during the

building process. The only safety precaution we would recommend when cutting the balsa wood

pieces, if someone were to cut them with scissors as we did, is to wear safety glasses. When we

cut the sticks, small pieces of wood would shoot across the table and could have potentially hit

someone in the eye. Wearing safety glasses would eliminate the possibility of this risk.

12
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Conclusion

After testing our final bridge model, it held 30,457.7 grams and weighed 26.6 grams,

with a strength-to-weight ratio of 1,145.7. We were successful in building a bridge with the

materials we were provided that held a sufficient amount of weight. By taking part, we learned a

lot about tension, compression, ratios, and the importance of strength. Tension and compression

are extremely important in the design and build of bridges, and can determine if your bridge is

successful. The ratio is also really important; the bridge needs to hold a lot of sand, but have a

low weight. If there is a lot of weight, the ratio will be low. Finally, we learned that strength is

extremely important. Strength comes from a combination of all these things, and determines if

your bridge succeeds or fails. If we did this project differently, we would spend more time on

designs and testing on the computer. We would also draw out the bridge on cardboard or

something similar so that we could ensure all parts of the bridge are equal. We would add more

supports to better support the weight of the sand. With these improvements, the bridge may be

able to hold more sand without adding too much more weight.

13
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Acknowledgements

Designing, building, and testing our bridge isnt something we could have done without

the assistance and materials provided to us by our teachers at the Macomb Mathematics Science

Technology Center (MMSTC). We would like to acknowledge Mr. McMillan, our physics

teacher at MMSTC, who taught us the scientific principles behind our project that we need to

know to make a well-designed bridge. We also spent most of our class time building our bridges

in his classroom with his materials, such as meter sticks, cardboard, scissors, and masking tape.

We would also like to acknowledge Mrs. Cybulski, our IDS teacher at MMSTC, who

taught us how to use the ModelSmart computer program to design and test our bridge models.

Throughout this entire process, our group could rely on Mr. McMillan and Mrs. Cybulski to

answer any questions we had regarding the designing, building, and testing of our bridge and the

competition as a whole.

14
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Bibliography

"Bridge Thrust." What Is Bridge Thrust? Definition and Meaning. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2017.

<http://www.dictionaryofconstruction.com/definition/bridge-thrust.html>.

Cartwright, Mark. "Aqueduct." Ancient History Encyclopedia. N.p., 1 Sept. 2012. Web. 11 Feb.

2017. <http://www.ancient.eu/aqueduct/>.

15
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Appendices

Appendix A. Scheduling:

The timeline above shows how our group spent our time designing, building, and testing

our bridge in class over the course of about five weeks.

16
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Appendix B. Daily Journal:

Date Person Task

Jan 4 Lauren Researched bridge design
Jordan Researched bridge design
Anna Researched bridge design
Jan 5 Lauren Worked on research paper
Jordan Worked on research paper
Anna Worked on research paper
Jan 9 Lauren Made final edits to paper
Jordan Started designing bridge
Anna Made final edits to paper
Jan 25 Lauren Made bridge designs in ModelSmart
Jordan Made bridge designs in ModelSmart
Anna Made bridge designs in ModelSmart
Jan 26 Lauren Continued work on ModelSmart bridge designs
Jordan Continued work on ModelSmart bridge designs
Anna Continued work on ModelSmart bridge designs
Jan 27 Lauren Started bridge build
Jordan Started bridge build
Anna Absent
Jan 30 Lauren Edited ModelSmart designs
Jordan Edited ModelSmart designs
Anna Edited ModelSmart designs
Jan 31 Lauren Continued bridge build
Jordan Continued bridge build
Anna Continued bridge build
Feb 1 Lauren Edited ModelSmart designs
Jordan Edited ModelSmart designs
Anna Edited ModelSmart designs
Feb 2 Lauren Continued bridge build, completed base
Jordan Continued bridge build, completed base
Anna Continued bridge build, completed base
Feb 3 Lauren Continued bridge build
Jordan Continued bridge build

17
 Champlin Jackson - Olszewski

Anna Continued bridge build

Feb 6 Lauren Continued building bridge arch
Jordan Continued building bridge arch
Anna Continued braiding bridge ties
Feb 7 Lauren Continued building bridge arch, began proposal
Jordan Continued building bridge arch
Anna Continued braiding bridge ties
Feb 9 Lauren Continued working on proposal
Jordan Continued bridge build
Anna Continued bridge build
Feb 10 Lauren Continued working on proposal
Jordan Finished bridge build, continued working on proposal
Anna Finished bridge build
Feb 11 Lauren Continued working on proposal
Jordan Continued working on proposal
Anna Continued working on proposal
Feb 13 Lauren Tested bridge, finished proposal
Jordan Tested bridge, finished proposal
Anna Tested bridge, finished proposal

18