1

2019 Deck Arch Truss Bridge Challenge

Tough Pretzels 2.0

MMSTC

Brian Le - Samuel Andrzejewski - Duane Pretzer

Mr. May
 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 2

Table of Contents

❖ Summary​………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

❖ Introduction​………………………………………………………………………………..4

❖ Body​……………………………………………………………………………………….5

❖ Design and Build​…………………………………………………………….…….5

❖ Testing​……………………………………………………………………………..8

❖ Results​……………………………………………………………………………10

❖ Conclusion and Recommendations​……………………...…….………………………....11

❖ Acknowledgments​………………………………………………………………………..12

❖ Bibliography​…………………………………………………………………………….. 13

❖ Appendix A: Schedule​…………………………………………………………………... 14

❖ Appendix B: Journal​…………………………………………………………………….. 15

❖ Appendix C: Bridge Design​………………………………………………...…………....16

 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 3

Summary

For the 2019 Deck Arch Truss Bridge Challenge, the team has been working to make a

sturdy deck arch truss bridge that holds vastly greater weight than that of its own. The prototype

was designed, built, and tested in eight days over a span of two weeks to meet the competition

requirements. The process was delayed and interrupted many times due to snow days. The first

step to make the bridge is to make the arch to build the sides around. It was decided to make an

arch 16.5” wide and 4” tall. A triangular truss spanning 19” is connected to the top of the arch

and vertical supports are added every 1.25” form the ends until it is 3.25” from the center. The

two sides are connected with horizontal 3” pieces of balsa wood on top and on the very bottom at

the points where the bridge will be touching the testing block. Additional cross supports are

added to the vertical supports and 2.5” more inward to help distribute the weight. After the

bridge was built, it was tested on a testing apparatus made by one of the classes at MMSTC.
 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 4

Introduction

Team Name:​ Tough Pretzels 2.0

Purpose: ​Because of our participation in the 2016 Vertical Lift Bridge Competition, and our

previous name, Tough Pretzels, we decided to name our team Tough Pretzels 2.0 in

reference to our participation freshman year.

Team Members:​ Brian Le, Samuel Andrzejewski, and Duane Pretzer

Brian Le:​ 17 y/o

Background:​ Attends Sterling Heights High School and MMSTC. Currently the lead

programmer on FRC Team 818 (experience with various software and CAD)

Samuel Andrzejewski:​ 17 y/o

Background:​ Attends Cousino High School and MMSTC. Previously on robotics Team 818

(experience with building and CAD)

Duane Pretzer:​ 18 y/o

Background:​ Attends Cousino High School and MMSTC. Currently on robotics Team 818

(experience with building)

 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 5

Body

Design and Build​:

To begin designing a deck arch truss bridge, the team had to find the definition of what

this specific bridge is. We went onto pghbridges.com to find the definition of a deck arch truss

bridge, which is a bridge that uses “vertical members to transmit the load which is carried by the

arch” (Bridge Basics). The team noticed that other teams were using diagonal supports, which

would make the bridge a cantilever bridge. We were not sure if diagonal supports are allowed, so

only vertical supports were used to be safe. The design of the bridge was built around an arch

spanning 16.5” and 4” high. A triangular truss measuring 1” tall and 19” wide is connected to the

top of the arch. Each triangle has a height and base of 1”. Triangle trusses were used in the

bridge because triangles are very efficient in distributing the weight. Fewer joints in the support

structure would provide fewer points of possible failures, so cross supports were not used here.

Vertical supports are then added every 1.25” form the ends until it is 3.25” from the center to

connect the arch to the truss. Diagonal supports are added to the very ends which connect 2 of

the vertical supports. The sides are connected with horizontal 3” pieces of balsa wood on top and

on the very bottom at the points where the bridge will be touching the testing block. The top

pieces are held in place with four 19” pieces of balsa wood spaced one inch apart. To help

distribute the weight, additional cross supports are added to where the vertical supports are and

ever 1.25” in for 2.5”. These crosses are not four separate segments, but are two pieces that form

a cross, but do not actually touch. The exception to the crosses are the very ends, where there are

two crosses instead of just one. This design was based roughly off of the New River Gorge

Bridge in West Virginia. The drawings of the bridge design are provided in Appendix C.
 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 6

Due to time constraints, we weren’t able to test multiple designs of our bridge prototype,

so we settled with our original design throughout testing.

During the building process, we measured out the necessary lengths for each portion of

our bridge frame and glued all of the pieces together on a large sheet of cardboard. Each piece

was held in place when drying with pins to ensure the placement of each wood beam was

precise. To create the arch, we wet a full piece of balsa wood, bent it into shape, and pinned it

down. Those pins are removed when the vertical supports are glued in to maintain the shape.

Then the excess wood is trimmed off.

Figure 1. Side Frame

The figure above shows the frame from one of the sides of the bridge. The frame was

constructed by first drawing out the design onto a piece of cardboard and then by pinning and

gluing the pieces together. The pins were just used to hold the pieces of wood in place while they

dried.
 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 7

Figure 2. Finished Side of the Bridge

The triangular supports can be seen in Figure 2 above. Triangular supports were added

above the arch to ensure a great amount of weight dispersion when testing the bridge. During this

phase of construction, we ran into problems when gluing our pieces together, as the frame would

stick to the cardboard relatively easy and had to be pried off with a tool each time something was

to be added.

Figure 3. Completed Bridge

The final phase of construction consisted of building the top of the bridge and connecting

the two side frames together. Once this was accomplished, internal cross supports were then

added throughout the inner portion of the bridge to ensure extra support, as shown in Figure 3

above.
 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 8

Testing​:

With the bridge designed and built, we move onto the testing phase. We first measured

the mass of the bridge on a scale. The constructed bridge weighed 32.9 grams or 0.0329

kilograms. This number will be used later to calculate the ratio of how much the bridge held until

breaking and the bridge’s mass. The bridge is then placed onto the testing apparatus shown

below.

Figure 4. Testing Apparatus

The figure above shows the bridge constructed placed onto a testing apparatus. This

testing apparatus was made by students in Mr. May’s class at MMSTC. The portion the bridge

sits on was made to fit the specifications detailed in the rules and guidelines. Not shown in the

picture is a bucket which holds sand to increase the weight.

Once placed onto the testing apparatus, the metal rod is placed through the center of the

bridge and a 16” wood block is secured with a washer and wingnut. A bucket is then connected
 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 9

to the bottom end of the rod with a carabiner. The testers wear safety glasses in order to protect

their eyes if any stray balsa wood is launched when the bridge collapses. One of the team

members records the bridge while another member slowly pours sand into the attached bucket.

Sand is continually added until any part of the bridge breaks. The bridge was able to hold the

first bucket when it was filled with sand, so the team members had to switch to a larger bucket.

At one point, the bridge started to creak, so the members left the bridge alone to see if it would

break or not, which it did as shown below.

Figure 5. Testing the Bridge

The figure above shows the bridge after it had collapsed under the weight of the sand.

The team members noticed that only the very last fifth of the bridge collapsed so they observed

the broken parts. They saw that the glue on some of the supports had not fully dried, so they

believed this to be the cause of the collapse.

After the collapse, the bucket of sand, the wood block, and all of the fasteners are weighed to get

the hold/mass ratio. The final weight held by the bridge is 44.106 pounds.
 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 10

Results​:

Currently, the mass of the bridge and the weight the bridge held is in different units, so

the weight held is converted from pounds to kilograms using the following equation:

Mass​kg​ = Weight​lbs​ / 2.2046

The equation above shows that one kilogram is equal to one pound divided by 2.2046.

The mass that the bridge held is 20.006 kilogram. The hold/weight ratio can be found with the

following equation:

Ratio = Mass​Hold​ / Mass​Bridge

The equation above shows that the ratio was calculated by dividing the mass that the bridge was

able to hold by the mass of the bridge. The ratio calculated for our bridge was 608.1, indicating

our bridge could hold 608.10 times its own weight.

 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 11

Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, the test bridge we made was a definite success. The bridge was able to

hold 608.1 times its own weight and turned out incredibly structurally sound. Most other teams

in our school had a ratio of around 300 to 400. Throughout the design and build processes, we

learned about weight distribution through different structures and shapes, and how to apply what

we had learned to our final bridge design. In the next iteration of our bridge, we would like to

add an additional arch in the center to help re-distribute the weight into the support blocks, and

we would add another truss onto the arch which would help again to re-distribute the weight into

the sides of the testing block so that not all of the force is pushing directly down on the structure.

We would also design the bridge with less horizontal braces, as many did not add to the

structural integrity of the overall bridge and added additional weight. This is why they were

removed from the final design. An important thing to remember is to wait at least an hour after

gluing to make sure the glue is dry before testing the bridge.
 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 12

Acknowledgments

The Tough Pretzels 2.0 would like to thank our Interdisciplinary Studies teacher, Mr.

May, for providing time to construct and design the bridge during the class period and for

providing any additional tools required for the construction process, including a heat gun, pins,

rulers and meter sticks, and snips. We would also like to thank the Junior class for constructing

the testing apparatus for the groups participating in the 2019 MDot Deck Arch Truss Bridge

Competition.
 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 13

Bibliography

“Bridge Basics.” ​Bridge Basics - A Spotter's Guide to Bridge Design,​ Bruce S. Cridlebaugh,

pghbridges.com/basics.htm

MDOT.​ State of Michigan, n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. <http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-

151-9623_38029_38059_41397---,00.html>.
 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 14

Appendix A: Schedule

Figure 6. Initial Schedule

Figure 6, above, shows our initial planned schedule for the competition, although this

schedule was ultimately changed due to snow days we had encountered. The build and testing

processes ended up being delayed by approximately two days. All of the team members were

able to attend every meeting except for Sam, who had missed the meetup held on the 18th of

February due to prior obligations.


Date Description
Began brainstorming bridge
2/7 ideas and read through the
manual.
Finalized our bridge design Added crosses to
connect the vertical
2/8 using MicroStation
supports in the
PowerDraft software
Began work on our bridge -
2/11 Started by wetting and
bending wood for the arch
Made the frame on each
2/13
side of the bridge
Filled in the trusses at the
2/14 top of each side of the
bridge
Connected each half of the
2/15
bridge together
Added internal support and
2/18 reinforced the top of the
bridge
2/19 Tested the final structure
Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 15
Appendix B: Journal
Comments
Brian Sam Duane
Vertical or diagonal Have a truss on the
Triangle or cross
supports on the bottom of the arch or
trusses?
sides? not?
Determined what form
Reinforced the very of support we would
top of the bridge use for the inside of
design. the bridge
Noticed that we were
Bending full sticks After the arches had
able to bend our arches
were easier than using dried, one side of the
farther than most
pre-cut pieces. bridge was off center
groups
After letting the glue Each side of the bridge
One of the arches dry, much of the did not line up exactly
were off centered. bridge had stuck to spot on with one
the cardboard below another
Since the center did
Connecting the arch Some of the triangles
not line up exactly
to the truss connected aren’t exactly the
center, we had to
over ½ an inch. We same size due to the
improvise with the
had to remove the way they were
triangular support
lamination. assembled.
placement
This process was a
One side drops down little awkward at Appeared to sit off
a little further in one first, but we had balance, but was found
corner than the rest. managed to work it to be extremely sturdy
out
Relied heavily on the
The crosses made a internal cross supports
cool pattern when N/A and the extra 19”
viewed from the ends. supports laid across
the top of the bridge
The bridge was a
Some of the glue did little bit heavier than Only one side of the
not fully dry when we we may have liked bridge collapsed while
tested the bridge. but held a lot of the rest was left intact
weight.
 Andrzejewski - Le - Pretzer 16

Appendix C: Bridge Design

The “Cross Section” referenced above represents one of multiple cross supports throughout the

bridge. These supports were placed every 1.25” along the bridge alongside the vertical supports

and travelled from the point at which they connect to the arch to the very top of the bridge.