2016 Vertical Lift Bridge Challenge

Tough Pretzels

MMSTC

Duane Pretzer – Samuel Andrzejewski – Brian Le

Mrs. Gravel
 Andrzejewski – Pretzer – Le 1

I. Table of Contents

Summary ..........................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2

Body .................................................................................................................................................2

Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................................................................4

Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................5

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................5

Appendix A ......................................................................................................................................6

Appendix B ......................................................................................................................................7

II. Summary

For the 2016 Vertical Lift Bridge Challenge, the team has been working to make a

functional and sturdy bridge that will hold a much greater weight than that of its own. The

prototype was designed, built, and tested in a period of about 16 days and every precaution was

deemed necessary to make sure it met the team’s requirements. The first instinct when beginning

the project was to include a sturdy base in the design. It was later proved to be incredibly strong

when it was tested initially, as well as during both trials. The towers and pulley system were

designed and built next. The pulley system consisted of a circular piece of wood attached to the

top of the towers. The sides and base of the towers and the base of the bridge were both given the

most strength. Next, supports were needed on the sides of the base to strengthen it even more.

After research and design, it was agreed that they should be equilateral triangles. The assembling

process started and a finished prototype was manufactured. To finish it off, strings were tied to

the bridge portion and wrapped around the pulleys, thus completing the prototype. It was deemed
 Andrzejewski – Pretzer – Le 2

successful in both trials, and hopefully could make it to the MDOT Bridge Building

Competition.

III. Introduction

Team Name: The Tough Pretzels

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

Duane Pretzer: 15 y/o

Background: Has experience in Engineering and computer software design.

Samuel Andrzejewski: 14 y/o

Background: Currently on a Robotics team (FRC Team 818) (engineering/programming)

Brian Le: 14 y/o

Background: Also currently on a Robotics team (FRC Team 818) (engineering/programming)

IV. Body

Design: (add calculations)

When designing the prototype, certain problems were faced. One of which was figuring

out where and how the wood pieces could be connected together without exceeding the 3/8 inch

limit or “laminating” them together. Another problem was faced when learning and using the

program provided to model the finalized design. Few difficulties were had with adding in the

correct measurements and making it look as close to the actual prototype as possible.

The prototype was based on different basic bridge designs. The base of the prototype was

a continuous span and the supports of the prototype were based on a warren truss design. The

entire bridge was built on a trough truss design. The equilateral triangles from the warren truss
 Andrzejewski – Pretzer – Le 3

base will spread the weight throughout the bridge. The base of the prototype used continuous

spans to support the ends of the bridge due to there being no beams to hold onto the other span

types. A truss type design was chosen over an arch or suspension bridge because the suspension

bridge needed pillars to rest on, which will not be on the testing platform, and an arch bridges

would need to push into the ground, which would not happen with the given materials and the

testing method.

These models can be found in Appendix B.

Tweaking and Testing:

To test the prototype, a simple bridge tester was made. The bridge tester used the

schematics of the tester that would be used in the competition. The two blocks that held the

bridge were 1 1/4 inches long by 4 1/2 inches wide, and their centers were placed16 inches away

from each other. The first step was to weigh how much the prototype was. To test how much

weight the prototype could hold, a block of wood (with measurements of 14 inches by 2 inches

by 1 inch) with a hole in the center was placed onto the bridge. The next step was to put a string

through the hole and attach it to a scrap of metal that was bigger than the hole to stop it from

going back through the hole. From there, a bucket was attached to the string via a clip and sand

was slowly added to the bucket until a part of the prototype broke. After the said part of it broke,

the weight of the bucket, sand, and the wood block that was held by the prototype would be

measured on a scale and then added together to find the total amount held. To find the ratio of

how much the prototype could hold to how much it weighed, the weight of the bridge was

divided from the amount it was able to hold before collapsing. After testing the prototype the

first time, it was allowed to be adjusted and tested again. In our case, one part on the bottom of
 Andrzejewski – Pretzer – Le 4

the prototype’s towers had broken, so for the next trial, the broken and deemed unnecessary

pieces were removed.

A few challenges were encountered when it came time to assemble the prototype. One

such challenge was getting the parts of the bridge to dry properly. As certain parts of the

prototype were left to dry, they may have been bumped or moved by an additional source and

left shifted. These pieces had to be scrapped and remade. This problem was especially apparent

when building the towers that held the bridge and the pulley system that allowed it to lift up and

down. Another of which was getting the parts from the models made to actually fit in the

prototype. When going from the modeling software to actually building the bridge, a few parts

were off, mainly because when using the line drawing tool in MicroStation PowerDraft V8i, they

don’t appear with the proper thickness. This challenge was easily overcome however.

Few safety precautions were also taken when building and testing the prototype. During

the building process, safety scissors were used to cut the wooden pieces to size and avoid any

fatal injuries. When testing, the person pouring the sand into the bucket attached to the bridge

wore safety glasses to avoid any risks of the sand contacting their eyes.

V. Conclusion and Recommendations

When testing and designing the vertical lift bridge, the prototype was very successful.

During the first trial, the prototype (36.2 grams) was doing well until one wooden piece on the

base broke, at 4203.2 grams, which is a weight ratio of approximately 116.11 grams. During the

second trial however, the prototype (33.5 grams) managed to hold 11,085.8 grams, which is a

weight ratio of approximately 323.49 grams.

 Andrzejewski – Pretzer – Le 5

What was learned from this competition is that patience is a must. There was a lot of

waiting in the process after cutting the rods and waiting for them to dry. It took quite a while for

the glue to dry. Sometimes they dried in the wrong position, after being moved after they were

set to dry, and had to be entirely remade. A good source of judgement was also required for

determining how long the supports and base needed to be made. If this step was messed up,

which happened multiple times, the blueprint of the design would need to be revised.

Resourcefulness was also learned. Often, the needed lengths of the rods were miscalculated and

needed to be remade. However, these were saved for another part of the prototype. No parts went

to waste.

Overall, the team worked well together and reached the goals set. Due dates were hit

accordingly, multiple revised designs were made, research on the topic was performed, and

everyone’s creativity was used throughout this experience.

VI. Acknowledgements

The team would like to acknowledge Mrs. Gravel for helping with software troubles,

building measurement verification, and supporting us along the way. She also introduced the

class to this program and explained what the requirements were so that we would be successful

through this process.

 Andrzejewski – Pretzer – Le 6

VII. Bibliography

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

151-9623_38029_38059_41397---,00.html>.

Wow. AOL Inc., 22 Dec. 2015. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. <http://us.wow.com/wiki/Lift_bridge>.

Cridlebaugh, Bruce S. pghbridges.com. Ed. Bruce S. Cridlebaugh. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2016.

<http://pghbridges.com/basics.htm>.

VIII. Appendix A: Journal

Date: Description:

1/26/2016 We learned about the project and downloaded the software. We researched how

and what a vertical lift bridge should look like, and came up with some rough

ideas and concepts for our design.

1/27/2016 We began to use the 2D and 3D bridge building software that was provided for us

to test some of our designs.

1/28/2016 We continued to experiment with the 2D and 3D bridge building software.

1/29/2016 We tried to get the MicroStation PowerDraft V8i program to work.

2/1/2016 We began to build the bridge prototype.

2/2/2016 We continued building the bridge prototype.

2/4/2016 We continued building the bridge prototype.

2/5/2016 We continued building the bridge prototype.

2/8/2016 We continued building the bridge prototype and finalized our designs in the

software.

2/9/2016 We finished the bridge prototype.

2/10/2016 We tested the prototype and ended after cracking. We fixed the problem.
 Andrzejewski – Pretzer – Le 7

2/11/2016 We tested the prototype again.

IX. Appendix B: Designs