The Cantilever Through Truss Bridge Challenge

The Rat Pack

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Joshua Ahearn, Abigail Gonzales, and Mahima Rahman

Rosemarie Cybulski and Greg McMillan

 Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Body... 2

Conclusion.... 13

Acknowledgements.. 13

Bibliography. 14

Appendix A: Scheduling.. 15

Appendix B: Daily Journal.. 16

 Summary

The goal of this competition was to design and build a cantilever through truss bridge that

would weigh as little as possible while holding as much weight as possible. Our team was

required to test several designs that each of us came up with for our bridge in a software program

called ModelSmart. After testing the various designs and choosing the one that had the best

strength-to-weight ratio, we created a designed drawing of it using Bentley PowerDraft CAD

software. Then we proceeded to construct the bridge using the materials provided to us in the

TRAC Challenge Entry Kit. This kit consisted of balsa wood, wood glue, and a Power Draft CD.

Our completed prototype bridge, which weighed approximately 33.7 grams, ended up holding

three times its weight: 3,155.3 grams. From this, we learned what we would have to do a second

time around in order to make our bridge stronger and more durable. This entire process was

important because it gave us a greater understanding of all the work that goes into constructing

something that we are able to utilize every day. In addition, it gave us a glimpse into what a

possible career in civil engineering would be like and whether or not we would consider

pursuing a career in that field.

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 1

Introduction

Hello! We are the Rat Pack and our members consist of Joshua Ahearn, Abigail

Gonzales, and Mahima Rahman. Joshua Ahearn is a sixteen year old junior who attends both

Cousino High School and the Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center (MMSTC). He

is member of the National Honors Society (NHS) and a member of the Student Advisory

Committee to Jim Fouts, the mayor of Warren, MI. After high school, he plans to attend a four

year university with his eyes set on Boston University to pursue a pre-medical track to eventually

reach his goal of becoming a plastic surgeon. Abigail Gonzales is a sixteen year old high school

student at both Lakeview High School and MMSTC. She attends MMSTC to be academically

challenged and because of the great people. Some of the extracurricular activities she is involved

in are NHS and both travel and high school soccer. She does not know exactly what she wants to

do in life yet, but she is considering the pursuit of a career in biology. Mahima Rahman attends

Warren Mott High School and MMSTC and is also a member of NHS. She plans to attend a four

year university after she graduates high school and study in a health related field. All of our team

members are hardworking, conscientious workers who put their time into getting a good

education and contributing to our community. We challenge ourselves by attending MMSTC, a

rigorous program for advanced math and science, while taking honors and AP classes at our

home schools. Taking on the challenge to build a cantilever through truss bridge was an

interesting collaborative experience and a great learning opportunity.

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 2

Body

Background

Bridges are classified in many ways, and the four primary components used to describe

them are their span, material, placement of the travel surface in relation to the structure, and their

form. Of the many types of bridges, there is a specific one called a cantilever through truss

bridge. A cantilever through truss bridge consists of cantilevers spans -- which can be

constructed from two beams, girders, or trusses -- but in this case trusses. Some cantilever

through truss bridges also have a suspended span in the middle of the other two spans or

cantilever arms to fill in the gap. Out of materials such as stone, concrete, or metal, cantilever

through truss bridges are made out of metal. Truss bridges and bridges that do not consist of a

simple span are usually constructed using metal. In a cantilever through truss form of a bridge,

the arch or cantilever truss, extends above the deck, or some cases below as well. Arches that

are actually cantilever trusses are composed of diagonal braces.

In slightly more structural detail, a cantilever through truss bridge is comprised of an

anchored beam which is connected to the land on one end only, and support beams which are

placed in the water. To connect the two cantilever beams, a suspended beam is placed between

the cantilever arms, or the outer spans. Some cantilever through truss bridges have four

cantilever beams, two of which are anchored to land and are known as the outer spans, and two

which face away from each other and are attached to a foundation in the middle of the bridge.

These can be referred to as anchor arms. Suspension bridges, or cantilever trusses are placed in

the remaining gaps to complete the full length bridge.

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 3

Figure 1. Cantilever Through Truss Bridge Structural Diagram

Figure 1 is a structural diagram of the unique components that make a bridge a cantilever

through truss bridge. The outer spans can also be referred to as the back (or anchor) spans and

the middle section of the bridge where the suspended span lies between the inner cantilever arms

can be referred to as the main span.

Cantilever through truss bridges were originally built this way for multiple reasons. For

one thing, they were able to span distances over 1,500 feet which was a big feat in the 17th

century when these kinds of bridges were first built. In addition, they were easier to construct

over difficult crossings with little to no temporary supports. They are mainly designed to handle

road and railroad traffic but have many other uses as well, such as providing a means of

transportation for pedestrians and the like.

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 4

Figure 2. Cantilever Through Truss Bridge Force Diagram

Figure 2 above is a visual representation of how forces act upon a cantilever through truss

bridge. The central span rests on the cantilevered anchor arms extending from the outer spans; it

carries vertical loads like a simply supported beam or a truss that is, by tension forces in the

lower chords and compression in the upper chords. The cantilevers carry their loads by tension in

the upper chords and compression in the lower ones. Inner towers carry those forces by

compression to the foundation, and outer towers carry the forces by tension to the far

foundations. If a load is stationed on the bridge, normal force and gravity keep it in place and its

weight causes an increase in compression and tension on the trusses.

Science Behind our Design

Out of the several designs each team member came up with, the prototype that was

constructed was designed after the bridge that came out as the strongest and lightest when being

tested in ModelSmart. We decided that the latticework would be more intricate, so we used

smaller pieces that could withstand more force and be more difficult to break. The many

diagonal pieces throughout the bridge helped to distribute the weight of the forces more evenly

amongst it, demonstrating the multiple spots that cantilever through truss bridges are supported
 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 5

by. Our bridge was designed to look more wider than it was tall, and this was because we wanted

our bridge to weigh as little as possible; the taller it was, the heavier it would be meaning the

force of gravity on it would be greater as well.

Challenges While Designing

During the designing process, there were various obstacles that we had to overcome.

Initially, we had to determine how we would come up with our final design. We decided that in

order to get the best bridge possible, we would each sketch a design and decide which one to use.

The individual difficulties we all came across when sketching out our designs were determining

the dimensions, what shape to make our bridge out of, and what the general shape of the bridge

should be. Deciding how many beams would be in the trusses was also a challenge; more beams

would correspond to more weight, but there had to be enough to make the bridge as strong as

possible. We were not sure what angles the beams should be set at, or what the optimal angle

would be. Moreover, designing the bridge was difficult because picking the right specifications

would determine whether the strength of our bridge would be optimized or not.
 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 6

Testing the Designs

Figure 3. Bridge Design One in Testing Software

Figure 4. Bridge Design Two in Testing Software

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 7

Figure 5. Bridge Design Three in Testing Software

Table 1. Bridge Testing Results

Bridge Design Weight of Bridge (g) Breaking Load (g) Ratio (Load/Weight)

1 9.655 4202.08 435.22

2 12.696 584.23 453.59

3 4.926 11184.23 2270.45

Figures 3, 4, and 5 show three different bridge designs being tested in the 2D

ModelSmart software. Table 1 shows the results of the testing software, complete with the

weight of the bridge, the breaking load, and the strength-to-weight ratio of the bridge. Just by

glancing at the results of the table, namely the ratio column, it is clear to see that bridge design

three is the best design, with the lowest weight out of all three bridges, and the highest breaking

load of all three of the bridges. This design was the design that we used to model our preliminary

and final bridge.

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 8

Calculations

After we were finished building our preliminary bridge design, it was time to test it. We

started by weighing it, resulting in a weight of 33.7 grams. After this occurred, the bridge was

placed on wooden blocks to simulate the Pitsco Tester Supports. A wooden block weighing 249

grams was placed on the truss of the bridge and sand was added to a bucket attached to this

wooden block via string and carabiner. When the bridge buckled, weight was no longer added,

and the mass of the sand of the bucket was recorded. The mass of the sand that the bridge held

was 3155.3 grams.

3155.3
Ratio = 33.7
= 93.7

Figure 6. Weight to Mass Ratio Calculation

Figure 6 shows the calculation used to show the ratio of weight held by the bridge to the

mass of the bridge. By dividing these two numbers, we can see that our bridge held 93.7 times its

own weight in our preliminary testing.

Preliminary and Final Bridge Designs

Drawings are attached to the end of this paper.

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 9

Bridge During/After Construction

Figure 7. Side View

Figure 7 is a side view photo of our finished bridge.

Figure 8. Top View

Figure 8 is a top view photo of our finished bridge.

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 10

Figure 9. Front View

Figure 9 is a front view photo of our finished bridge.

Figure 10. Bridge in Progress 1

Figure 10 above is a photo of us working diligently on our bridge. Josh is finishing one

side while Mahima and Abby start on the other.

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 11

Figure 11. Bridge in Progress 2

Figure 11 is another photo of us working hard on our bridge. Josh is gluing beams into

the suspended truss while Mahima and Abby work on the cantilevers.

Testing the Bridge and Making Improvements

We tested our bridge with the help of our supervisors. The first thing we had to do prior

to any testing was find out the mass of our bridge. Our bridges mass ended up being equal to

33.7 grams. After that task was complete, our supervisors had us put our bridge on top of

wooden blocks that mimicked what the actual Pitsco Tester Supports would be like. Then the

wooden block was placed onto our suspended truss with a string hanging down through the

bottom. Following this step, Mr. McMillan attached a bucket to the string with a carabiner. To

test how much mass our bridge could hold, he slowly poured sand into the bucket until our

bridge buckled. Right after the buckling of our bridge, our supervisors determined how much

mass our bridge held which ended up being equal to approximately 3155.3 grams, or 93.7 times

more its own mass. During the testing process, we were instructed to take a slow motion video to

see exactly where our bridge failed which would then help us determine what we needed to

improve. From the video, we saw that our bridge seemed to have broken at a weak point. This
 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 12

weak point was caused by the error of breaking our main beam during the building process and

having to glue it back on the best we could. To improve this, we plan on using more caution and

precision while building another bridge. Also, we believe that if we were to have added more

beams across the top and bottom of the bridge, the bridge would have been stronger.

Challenges While Building

There were many obstacles that we faced while building our bridge. The most prevalent

issue most likely had to be the pins. Throughout the building process, we would use pins to hold

parts of our bridge in place while the glue dried, but we would have to leave them in there until

the glue fully dried due to time constraints. This caused an issue because when we would go to

take the pins out, they would have dried with the glue into our bridge. Pliers then had to be used

to get them out of our bridge, and sometimes no matter how careful we were, parts would still

end up breaking, splitting, or coming out along with the pins. We attempted to solve this issue by

taking out the pins before the glue was fully dried. Also, keeping our dimensions true to our

design was challenging because again, due to time constraints, we were not able to be as precise

as we would have liked. We tried to fix this by compromising and just doing what we could to

keep our bridge as true to our design as possible.

Safety Precautions

The safety precautions we took while building our prototype consisted of adult

supervision at all times and careful handling of certain tools. Scissors, pliers, and pins were used

carefully and with caution.

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 13

Conclusion

Overall, our project was successful. We accomplished our goal of designing and

developing a cantilever through truss bridge and testing it. Although we expected our

strength-to-weight ratio to be larger, the ratio that we achieved satisfied us and was fairly

adequate for the hard work and thought that was put into the project. From the testing of our

prototype, we identified the flaws in our bridge and thought about possible improvements. By

taking part in this competition, each of us learned how to combine hands-on-skills with our

knowledge of science to develop an idea and bring it to life. We also learned about all the work

that goes into designing and building structures that we use every day. This project gave us an

idea of what a career in the field of architectural design or civil engineering would be like. Being

presented with a unique task such as designing and constructing a cantilever through truss bridge

gave us an opportunity to explore new subjects aside from what what we encounter in school

everyday. We applied our critical thinking skills and ability to collaborate with classmates to

fulfill this challenge. Furthemore, this project was a great way to learn about civil engineering

and building bridges using small scale models and computer aided design. To end, we are

grateful that we were presented with the opportunity to have done this and thoroughly enjoyed

our the experience.

Acknowledgements

Rose Cybulski- Mrs. Cybulski kept us on track and helped us to make sure that we met all the

necessary requirements.

Greg McMillan- Mr. McMillan supervised us while building and answered any physics questions

that we had along the way.

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 14

Bibliography

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

Bridge Design. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2016. <http://pghbridges.com/basics.htm>.

"Bridges of Dublin." Cantilever. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

"Bridges_notes." Kilmamolina -. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

<http://kilmamolina.wikispaces.com/Bridges_notes>.

"Cantilever Bridge." - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.

"Cantilever Bridge | Engineering." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica,

n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2016. <http://www.britannica.com/technology/cantilever-bridge>.

"History of the Forth Bridge | Forth Bridges." Forth Bridges Forum. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Jan.

2016.

HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

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

HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

<http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/civil/bridge5.htm>.

HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

<http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/civil/bridge6.htm>.

Metz, Laura, and Allegra J. Lingo. WiseGeek. Conjecture, n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

<http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-cantilever-bridge.htm>.

"Pont De Qubec." (Quebec Bridge). N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 15

Appendix A: Scheduling
 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 16

Appendix B: Daily Journal

Date Joshs Comments Abbys Comments Mahimas Comments

1/25/16 Chose groups; began Chose groups; started Competition was

researching cantilever research on cantilever introduced; went over
through truss bridges through truss bridges rules and deadlines;
chose groups; began
researching for
Cantilever Through
Truss Bridge paper

1/26/16 Continued mini-research Wrote about why Wrote introduction for

paper on cantilever cantilever through truss paper; wrote one body
through truss bridge; bridges are used and paragraph answering
finished introduction examples of them in the What is its structure
real world and why is it built that
way?

1/27/16 Finished paper Wrote about the science Wrote one body
behind cantilever and paragraph in paper
beam bridges and made answering What is it
the force diagram mainly used for?;
described and named a
few examples answering
How is it different than:
Beam, Arch, or
Suspension Bridges?;
included a force diagram
of a load on a cantilever
through truss bridge and
explained the science
behind the forces acting
on the bridge

1/28/16 Edited paper; designed Aided in editing and Wrote conclusion for
Rat Pack logo completion of our mini paper; created Works
research paper Cited/Bibliography
page; finalized paper and
turned it in; designed
team logo and chose a
team name

1/29/16 Sketched my own Sketched my design for Determined parameters

drawing for bridge a bridge and constraints for the
 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 17

design bridge; brainstormed

how we want to build
our bridge; sketched
individual drawings of a
Cantilever Through
Truss Bridge

2/1/16 Tested bridge designs in Tested all of our designs Began writing proposal;
ModelSmart software and chose mine to be our made title page and table
final of contents

2/2/16 Error was discovered in Tested all designs a Worked on introduction

testing method and second time and ended of proposal
corrected; designed up choosing mine again
prototype in Bentley
software

2/3/16 Preliminary bridge I started construction on Began to construct

building began and the first cantilever of prototype
our bridge

2/4/16 Bridge building Completed the first and Assisted in cutting and
continued; I assisted second cantilever on our measuring the pieces of
Abby and Mahima in the bridge wood to be used in the
construction building of the bridge

2/5/16 Stayed after school to Completed the first side Assisted in putting
complete bridge, but a and both cantilevers on together both sides of the
part fell off, and delayed the other; started the cantilever
us by one day suspension bridge

2/8/16 Stayed after school again Completed the Assisted in completion

to re-glue pieces and suspension bridge on the of the suspension bridge;
ensure completion; second side and connected both sides of
finished bridge building connected sides together the bridge together
to complete bridge

2/9/16 Tested bridge Part broke before testing Tested bridge

and had to attempt to fix
it before; tested bridge

2/10/16 Began working on final Began working on Began working on

bridge design in Bentley proposal paper proposal
software

2/11/16 Completed bridge design Completed the proposal Completed the proposal
 Ahearn - Gonzales - Rahman 18

in Bentley software; paper and went over final

assisted in completion of checklist and
proposal paper requirements