Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski

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

consideration while deciding on a design, for example, we chose a superstructure over a

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

piece that snapped.

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:

A cantilever through truss bridge is a bridge formed by two projecting structures

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

symmetrical or superstructures are made up of trusses, or an assortment of connected elements

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

while also being strong and durable.

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.

Figure 1. Force Diagram of Prototype

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

tension and compression without too much complexity in the design.

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

on the ModelSmart software. We decided to incorporate a superstructure to our design because

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

alteration set us back in the building of the prototype.

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

many times in order to find the strongest variation.

Data:

Figure 2. Bridge Design 1

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. Bridge Design 2

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.

Figure 4. Bridge Design 3

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

ratio was 1,907.

Figure 5. Bridge Design 4

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.

Figure 6. Bridge Design 5

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

strength to weight ratio was 486.32.

Figure 7. Bridge Design 6

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

to weight ratio was 1,391.

Figure 8. Bridge Design 7

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. Bridge Testing Data

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 = (22 x 454) / 7.7

R = 1,300

Figure 9. Sample Calculation of Strength to Weight Ratio

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,

to get the strength to weight ratio, R.

10
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski

Pictures During Construction:

Figure 10. Bridge Construction

Figure 10, above, is a picture of our research team, Isabel (left) Aleksandra (middle) and

Alexandra (right), constructing the bridge.

Figure 11. Completed Bridge

11
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski

Figure 11, above, shows our research team along with our completed preliminary bridge.

Figure 12. Side View

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. Top View

Figure 13, above, depicts the top view of our completed preliminary bridge.

12
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski

Figure 14. Front View

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

from entering the eye when the bridge broke.

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

construct the bridge itself.

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

Engineering. Web. 27 Jan. 2016. <http://www.ce.udel.edu/courses/CIEG%20486/Bridge.pdf>.

Cotton, Robert, Gabriel Gehenio, and Clayton Miller. "Civil War Era Metal Truss Bridges." Landmark

American Bridges (1993): 42-67. 1993. Web. Jan. 2016.

<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.,

n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2016. <http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9618_11070-

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

(2000): 1-908. CBC Press LLC. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.

<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

Comments. Truckers News, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2016. <http://www.truckersnews.com/heads-up-

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

Jan. 2016. <http://www.bridgesnyc.com/bridge-types/>.

"The Quebec Bridge." The Quebec Bridge. National Trust for Canada, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.

<https://www.nationaltrustcanada.ca/issues-campaigns/top-ten-endangered/2015-top ten endangered-

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.

Web. 27 Jan. 2016. <http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9618_11070-

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

1.29.16 tested each of the recorded the collaborated with


researcher's findings of each the other
designs with the bridge's weight researchers during
Model Smart 75 strength to weight the computer
software ratio testing and
recorded this
journal
1.30.16 Break from Project Break from Project Break from Project
1.31.16 Break from Project Break from project Break from Project
2.1.16 continued testing also tested various also tested various
the bridge designs bridge designs bridge designs
using the Model using the Model using the Model
Smart software Smart software Smart software
2.2.16 Absent finished testing finished testing
and chose and chose
preliminary preliminary
design, made design, helped
design using the determine lengths
Bentley of bridge
Microstation segments
software
2.3.16 edited final began Cut wood into piles
preliminary bridge constructing the organized by
design, and began first half of the length
constructing the bridge
second half of the
bridge
2.4.16 continued continued continued to cut
constructing the constructing the wood
second half bridge first half of the
bridge
2.5.16 finished finished finished cutting
constructing the constructing the wood, helped to
second half of the first half of the finish the second
bridge bridge half of the bridge
2.6.16 Break from Project Break from Project Break from Project
2.7.16 Break from Project Break from Project Break from Project
2.8.16 helped to helped to cut wood for the
assemble the deck assemble the deck deck and top of
and top of the and top of the the bridge, and
bridge, joined both bridge, joined both helped to
sides of the bridge sides of the bridge assemble the deck
and top of the
bridge, joined both
sides of the bridge
2.9.16 tested preliminary tested preliminary tested preliminary
bridge bridge bridge

20
Fiori-Gryko-Korabiewski

21

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen