Cantilever Through Truss Bridge

Amanda Conlon, Sara Nevedal, and Paige Redlin

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

IDS/Physics 11A
Cybulski and McMillan
19 February 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 1
Introduction

Body

4
Scientific Principles

Design Challenges

Test Data and Calculations

Construction of Bridge

How We Tested Our Design

13

Building Challenges

14

Safety

14

Conclusion

15

Acknowledgments

16

Bibliography

17

Appendix A: Scheduling and Accomplishments

18

Appendix B: Daily Journals

19

Appendix C: Bentley Microstation PowerDraft Drawings

22

SUMMARY
Upon beginning this project, we felt it was important to learn about cantilever through
truss bridges. Understanding the principles behind the structure and the uses of the bridge in real
life situations helped us to gain a deeper understanding of the bridge. The research we conducted

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 2
helped us in designing our bridge with meaningful purpose instead of just guessing on designs
and checking how well they work. Once we had finished our research and decided on a design
we felt would be successful, we began to construct our bridge. This was done in our physics class
using the materials given in by TRAC in our tube. In addition to the materials given, we used
pins to hold the pieces together while the glue was drying. We also used shears to cut the balsa
wood pieces cleanly, this resulted in being able to glue the pieces together more easily. After our
bridge was completely constructed, we then continued on to testing it. We felt our bridge was
pretty successful, placing in 2nd within our class for those with the most strength. Our bridge
weighed 24.4 grams and held 1,851 grams, giving us a strength ratio of 206.4/1 grams/grams.
While testing our bridge we observed which pieces of our bridges broke first, in our case this
being the middle of our bridge. Thus in designing our final bridge we focused on creating a
stronger middle or truss portion of our bridge. We also felt we could improve our strength ratio
by making our bridge lighter. This was accomplished in our final design by taking out
unnecessary pieces on the sides of our bridge to reduce weight.

INTRODUCTION
The name of our team is Bridge Buddies, inspired by the friendship shared between us
previous to this project. Our team logo is representative of all three members of our team
working in unity to build this bridge. The members of Bridge Buddies include Amanda Conlon,
Sara Nevedal, and Paige Redlin. Amanda Conlon attends Lake Shore High School. She is a
Junior and is a student athlete currently playing varsity basketball. Sara Nevedal also attends

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 3
Lake Shore High School as a junior. She is a manager for the football team and spends much of
her time babysitting for family friends. The last member of Bridge Buddies, Paige Redlin goes to
Lake Shore High School as a Junior as well. She is the yearbook editor and also plays classical
piano on her free time. As well as attending Lake Shore, all three of us attend the Macomb Math
Science and Technology Center in the 11A class. It is at MMSTC where we have Physics Honors
and Interdisciplinary Studies courses in which our bridge was designed and tested.

BODY
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES
Both compression and tension were included throughout the design of our bridge. We
attempted to balance the forces to create the strongest bridge possible. Tension, or tensile force,
is a force that acts to expand or lengthen the object it is acting on; While, compression, or
compressive force, is a force that acts to compress or shortens the object it is acting on.
Along with the use of tension and compression, the strategy of equilateral triangles,
which is proven the strongest shape, was strongly pursued in our bridge design. For example, If

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 4
you push down on top of the square, its 90 degree angles collapse and it becomes a simple
rhombus, which is a type of parallelogram. Triangles are less likely to collapse because the
angles are fixed based on the opposite side length. Other shapes are can be deformed due to the
fact that the side lengths are not fixed.
After researched, it was ruled that these two scientific principles will be beneficial to the
bridges design; Therefore, these strategies were incorporated into our preliminary and final
bridge designs.

Figure 1. Force Diagram.

The figure above shows a force diagram of our preliminary bridge with tension and
compression forces labeled. Compression forces are located on the bottom of the bridge,
indicated by the red lines. Tension forces are located on the top of the bridge, indicated by the
blue lines.
DESIGN CHALLENGES
During the process of designing our bridge, we encountered a few obstacles. The initial
problem we faced was figuring out how to use the Bentley MicroStation PowerDraft software.
Having no familiarity with this software, it set us back a day time wise due to the fact we needed
to learn the software before we could effectively design a bridge with it. Once the software was

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 5
understood, the next problem we faced was calculating how to make our bridge as equally
spaced as possible. We learned from research that equilateral triangles provide for the strongest
structure, so making sure all the equal wood pieces fit together symmetrically on each side,
within the size restrictions posed a challenge. We had to experiment with a few different sizes to
make the wood, but eventually we resolved our issue in making our bridge almost perfectly out
of equal pieces constructing equilateral triangles.

TEST DATA AND CALCULATIONS

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 6

Figure 2. Preliminary Bridge Design

Above shows the preliminary design for our bridge constructed in the ModelSmart 2D
software. This software was used to estimate how heavy and how much weight each design
would hold.
Table 1
Test Data
Mass of Bridge (g)

Strength of Bridge (g)

Ratio (g/g)

9.0

1,851.0

206.4/1

The table above represents data that was collected in the test of our preliminary bridge
design shown above in Figure 1 using the ModelSmart 2D software.

Mass Bridge Supposedly Holds Mass of Bridge=Strength Weight Ratio

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 7
1850.657 8.966=Strength Weight Ratio
206.4083=Strength Weight Ratio

Figure 3. Preliminary Calculations with Data from ModelSmart 2D Software.

Above shows the calculations completed to acquire the Strength to Weight Ratio. The
mass of how much the bridge supposedly holds in grams was divided by the supposed mass of
the bridge to calculate this.
Table 2
Test Data
Mass of Bridge (g)

Strength of Bridge (g)

Ratio (g/g)

24.4

15,197.2

622.8/1

The table above represents the data that was collected in the test of our preliminary
bridge once it was constructed.

Mass Preliminary Bridge Mass of Preliminary Bridge=Strength Weight Ratio

24.4 15,197.2=Strength Weight Ratio

622.8=Strength Weight Ratio

Figure 4. Preliminary Calculations with Data from Tested Bridge.
Figure 4 shows the calculations completed to acquire the Strength to Weight Ratio. The
mass of how much the bridge holds in grams was divided by the mass of the bridge to calculate
this.

PRELIMINARY AND FINAL BRIDGE DESIGNS

After testing our preliminary bridge (Appendix C), we observed that the center was the
significantly weak portion of the bridges structure. The sides of our bridge displayed no signs of

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 8
stress or destruction after the preliminary test; Therefore, we decided to redesign the side
portions. We made the side portions of the bridge lighter by removing some of the crossed joints
that we ruled unnecessary. We then addressed our weak portion, the center. Due to the fact that
the most amount of stress and breakage was shown in the middle portion, we developed a design
in which the center is more durable. We created crossed joints in place of the simple Z design
that we decided on in the preliminary design to complete this task.
The rest of our preliminary design was kept due to its endurance and maximum strength
it held. It was decided to make these changes due to our strength ratio, 622.8 /1 grams/grams,
and keeping the initial strength still in the bridge. By taking away and adding joints to the
structure, we believe the bridge could hold much more without changing the weight of the bridge
drastically. The usage of multiple lap joints created strength throughout the structure of our
preliminary and final bridge design; Very few butt joints were used in the designs to avoid
unstable joints. Overall, we believe that our final design is a much stronger and more successful
version of our preliminary design (Appendix C).

DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 9

Figure 5. Bridge Construction

Above Sara and Paige are shown gluing the side parts of the bridges together. Amanda is
shown working on the proposal.

Figure 6. Bridge Construction

The picture above shows Amanda gluing on a piece to the bridge to connect the side parts
together.

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 10

Figure 7. Bridge Construction

The above pictures show Amanda and Paige adding supports to the bridge to put the side
parts of the bridge together.

Figure 8. Bride Construction

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 11
The above picture shows Paige gluing the top pieces of the center of the bridge. Amanda
is shown cutting the large balsa wood into the smaller pieces that would fit where Paige was
glueing. Sara is shown working updating the daily journal.

Figure 9. Bridge Construction

Figure 6 shows Paige gluing the pieces that Amanda cut onto the bottom of the center of
the bridge. Sara is shown working on the proposal.

Figure 10. Bridge Construction

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 12
Amanda, Paige, and Sara are shown adding final touches to the bridge including adding
the final pieces and adding extra glue where there was not enough.

Figure 11. Top View of Final Bridge Design.

Above represents the top portion of the final bridge design. We constructed lap joints that
went on top of the bridge because it spreads the pressure out to the rest of the bridge better than
butt joints.

Figure 12. Front View of Final Bridge Design.

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 13
The picture above displays the side view of our bridge. You can see our use of cross
joints through the sides and middle to create more strength.

Figure 13. Side View of Final Bridge Design.

Figure 13 shows a view of the bridge from one of the ends. In this figure, you can see our
use of lap joints to increase strength.
HOW WE TESTED OUR DESIGN
The strength of our preliminary bridge was tested by recording how much sand could be
poured into a bucket suspended from a wooden block placed in the middle of it. This was done
by first placing our bridge on the testing area, the cantilever sections placed on the two highest
wood blocks shown in Figure above. Then we prepared to test our bridge by inserting the 14 x 2
x 1-inch wood block into the center of our bridge. This block contained a hole through the center
allowing a string to go through, being held in place on the top surface of the block with a washer.
This string was used to hang the bucket from that would hold the sand. Once everything was set,

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 14
sand was slowly poured into the bucket until the bridge snapped. The sand held within bucket
was then weighed to determine our strength to weight ratio.
BUILDING CHALLENGES
While building our bridge, we ran into some issues despite our good work ethics. One of
these main issues included pins that were used to secure the structure when drying. Often, when
these pins were strategically placed, the puncture created splits or tears in the wood. This could
have contributed to creating weak points in the structure. In addition to creating splits or tears in
the wood, we also often punctured our skin while placing the pins despite our efforts to avoid
this.
In addition, to the difficulties with the usage of pins, the glue to joint ratio was not
constant. At times, an excessive amount of glue was released from the bottle at once, overall
placing too much glue on the joint. This excessive glue problem was not consistent therefore
creating some joints to become weaker than others and some to have been too heavy.
SAFETY
While constructing our bridge, we always ensured safety was our first priority. While
using the pins to hold our bridge together, we were sure to make sure the pins were contained in
a bowl when not being used and if any were dropped on the floor there were immediately picked
up with precaution. Also, while using shears to cut our pieces of wood to appropriate size, we
made sure to stay seated and handle with care while using them and put them in a safe place
when not being used. Our team remained focused to build our bridge efficiently with safety in
mind.

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 15
CONCLUSION
Overall we feel our project was successful. Our team worked hard over the course of time
we were allotted to dedicate to this bridge and in the testing of our preliminary bridge, it paid off.
Our teams bridge held the most weight out of all the teams in our class and this leads us to feel
confident that with minor adjustments to weight and structure that we could be successful in
future competitions. We felt that from taking place in this projects we learned many different
things. First and foremost as a team we gained knowledge on different types of bridges and what
exactly makes them strong. Through research we also found how the forces of tension and
compression come into play when a bridge is in use, allowing us to construct a bridge with a
deeper understanding of what goes into determining the design of a bridge.
Also, from doing this project as a team, we learned how to efficiently divide tasks
between the three of us. Learning to work in an organized fashion resulted in a successful bridge.
Furthermore, we learned how to prioritize tasks in order meet deadlines. Our supervisors set
deadlines for certain portions of this project in an attempt to keep us on task and able to finish
our portfolio on time. This forced our team to make decisions on what was most important to
work on and at what times. In addition, to gaining knowledge about bridges and the scientific
principles behind it, this project helped us learn important skills that can be applied in situations
within school and beyond.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 16
In concluding this project, there are a few acknowledgments our team would like to
make. The first being Mr.Greg McMillan, our physics teacher. Mr. McMillan helped the group by
answering structural questions about the bridge design and supplying us with the materials to
efficiently construct our bridges. The second acknowledgment is to Mrs. Rose Cybulski, our
Interdisciplinary Studies teacher. Mrs. Cybulski helped our group by answering questions about
the formatting and content of the proposal. She also made sure we were aware of all the rules and
guidelines provided by TRAC. Completing this project would not have been possible without
these people.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
"Beam Bridge." PBS. PBS, Nov. 2000. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/china/meetbeam.html>.

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 17
"Bridge Basics - A Spotter's Guide to Bridge Design." N.p., 3 June 1007. Web. 26 Jan.
2016. <http://pghbridges.com/basics.htm>.
"Bridge Basics." PBS. PBS, 2000-2001. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/bridge/basics.html>.
"Bridges of Dublin." Dublin City Council, n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.bridgesofdublin.ie/bridge-building/types/cantilever>.
Cotton, Robert, Gabriel Gehenio, and Clayton Miller. "Cantilever Truss Bridges." (n.d.):
1-17. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.
Chinnis, Darcie, Amanda Guiliani, Scott Duckworth, and Malinda Schaefer Zarske.
"Triangles & Trusses." Teach Engineering. University of Colorado, 2013. Web. 26 Jan.
2015. <https://www.teachengineering.org/view_lesson.php?
url=collection/cub_/lessons/cub_trusses/cub_trusses_lesson01.xm l>.
Lamb, Robert, and Michael Morrissey. "How Bridges Work." HowStuffWorks.
HowStuffWorks.com, 1 Apr. 2000. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.
<http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/civil/bridge6.htm>.
Woodford, Chris. "Bridges and Tunnels." Explain That Stuff! N.p., 2000. Web. 26 Jan.
2016. <http://www.explainthatstuff.com/bridges.html>.

APPENDIX A: SCHEDULING AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

January 25

Established team and began to brainstorm for bridge paper

January 26 - 27

Wrote paper on cantilever through truss bridge background information

January 28 - 29

Sketched ideas for bridge designs

February 1 - 2

Tested bridge designs on Model Smart 2D Software

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 18
February 3 - 8

Constructed preliminary bridge

February 9

Tested preliminary bridge and observed results

February 10 - 12

Finalized portfolio

APPENDIX B: DAILY JOURNALS

January 25, 2016
The group researched the various facts needed for background information. Sara
researched the structure; Amanda researched the uses and examples of a cantilever
through truss bridge; and Paige researched differences from beam, arch, and suspension.
This gave the group a foundation on what a cantilever through truss bridge is.
January 26, 2016

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 19
Amanda, Paige, and Sara finished their research. Amanda and Sara started to put the
essay together. Paige drew the force diagram in Paint and started to put the sources that
were used in MLA format for the bibliography.
January 27, 2016
Amanda edited and proofread the research essay. Paige also began to explore software
used to design the bridge. The group brainstormed ideas for their name and came up with
Bridge Buddies, Sara then created a logo to go with it.
January 28, 2016
Amanda, Paige, and Sara made their cover page for their paper. They then each
brainstormed a design for the bridge individually.
January 29, 2016
Amanda, Paige, and Sara each tested out the bridge designs that they designed the day
before on the Model Smart 2D simulator.
February 1, 2016
Amanda, Paige, and Sara modified the bridge designs from the day before and created
new designs in the Model Smart 2D and Model Smart 3D simulators.
February 2, 2016
Amanda, Paige, and Sara began to build side piece of bridges. Paige and Sara glued
pieces together and Amanda used pins to hold pieces together while drying.
February 3, 2016
Amanda, Paige, and Sara put finishing pieces on side pieces of the bridge. Amanda cut
the pieces for the sides precisely. Sara and Paige glued the pieces on the bridge while
Amanda pinned them in place.

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 20
February 4th, 2016
Amanda cut pieces for the walkway of the bridge. Paige and Sara glued pieces to connect
the two side portions together. Pins were placed in the bridge by Amanda to keep the
bridge together while it drys.
February 5th, 2016
Top and bottom portions of the cantilevers were cut by Amanda and pieced together by
Paige and Sara. Pins were placed by Amanda, Paige, and Sara to hold the bridge in place
while it drys.
February 8th, 2016
Paige and Sara removed thefinal set of pins, breaking off two pieces in the process. While
Sara and Paige were gluing the pieces back onto the structure, Amanda reviewed the
introduction to the proposal and placed pins.
February 9th, 2016
Amanda, Paige, and Sara tested the bridge. Sara videotaped the bridge being tested with a
high-speed camera. Paige and Amanda assisted Mr. McMillan with weighing out the
sand.
February 10th, 2016
The group worked on finalizing the portfolio. Paige worked on completing the final
Bentley Design. Amanda and Sara worked on and mostly completed the majority
of the body of the proposal.
February 11th, 2016
The group once again worked on finalizing the portfolio. Paige created a force diagram of
their preliminary bridge analyzing forces such as compression and tension. Sara worked

Conlon-Nevedal-Redlin 21
on the formatting of the proposal along with figures and tables. Amanda wrote portions of
the proposal such as the conclusion, safety, and introduction.
February 12th, 2016
The group finalized and printed their proposal. Amanda proofread the proposal for
fluency and grammar while Sara finished the formatting. Paige created the table of
contents. Amanda, Paige, and Sara went through the checklist together to make sure no
part of the portfolio was missed.

APPENDIX C: BENTLEY MICROSTATION POWERDRAFT DRAWINGS

The first drawing represents the scaled and labeled drawing of the preliminary bridge
which was previously tested. The second drawing represents the scaled and labeled drawing of
the final bridge design which the group designed after noticing strengths and weaknesses in the
preliminary bridge.