2017 Michigan Design and Build Bridge Challenge

Truss Through Tied Arch Bridge

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Nathan Frazier, Johanna Lund, and Sara Schultz

Mr. McMillan and Mrs. Cybulski

Table of Contents
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Abstract..3

Introduction4

Scientific Principles..6

Tied-Arch Bridges.....8

Testing..13

Design..18

Construction.

21

The Final Bridge.....27

Safety Precautions.....30

Challenges...31

Conclusion...33

Acknowledgments..34

Bibliography.35

Appendices.....36

Abstract

2
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Bridges are a key technological advancement in the modern world, and with new

technology, current bridge designs can be taken further than ever before. Throughout

the course of this project, the team used the provided materials to create a truss

through tied arch bridge that yielded a high strength-to-weight ratio. The dimensions

and design of the truss through tied arch bridge finalized for this proposal were

determined after multiple tests were conducted digitally using ModelSmart 2D software.

With the data from these tests and additional research, the group members constructed

their bridge with balsa wood and tested it to find the strength-to-weight ratio. In

preparation for the competition in April, the group members plan to test a variety of

bridge designs and build a final bridge that will yield the highest strength-to-weight ratio.

Introduction

The team , pronounced gfyra, did not just participate in the 2017

3
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Michigan Design and Build Bridge Challenge because it was a classroom requirement.

Each member of the team is continually seeking out opportunities for hands-on learning,

experience, and exposure to mathematics and science in the real world. They

understand that there is a need for constant improvement both in themselves and in the

engineering of modern architecture.

The team name is simply bridge in Greek. This name was chosen for

the a reason none other than to be unique - a characteristic embodied by the team

members. The team consists of Nathan Frazier, Johanna Lund, and Sara Shultz. All of

which are juniors attending the Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

(MMSTC). MMSTC is a math and science center that selects students based on a test

as well as teacher recommendations. Students that attend MMSTC are a close group of

individuals that enjoy learning together and work together like a family.

The First group member is Nathan Frazier. Nathan spends his time outside

school avidly engaged in the sports of soccer and basketball. He handles extracurricular

activities and his academics exceptionally well, putting his greatest effort into both. He is

the president of the schools math club and leads the club through fun and difficult

problems on a monthly basis. He is in the National Honor Society and is deeply

connected with his church because he loves to make an impact in his community.

Nathan enjoys the study of science and math and hopes to become either an electrical

or aerospace engineer in the future.

The second group member is Sara Schultz. She enjoys learning and expanding

her knowledge. Sara is a captain on her Robotics team as well as a mentor of a middle

school robotics team. She is passionate about serving those whom she mentors and

4
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

making sure the whole team is maintaining strong work ethic and enthusiasm. Sara is

also a proud member of her schools Band program where she plays French Horn. She

also enjoys playing softball. Sara hopes to become an Biomedical Engineer or a

Mechanical Engineer.

The final group member is Johanna Lund. She likes to ski by winter and play

ultimate Frisbee in the summer. This past summer, she flew to Alaska and attended the

Alaska Summer Research Academy for the Biomedicine module. She had a

phenomenal experience and was able to significantly expand her knowledge in the

medical field. She hopes to become a Cardiothoracic Neonatal surgeon or Biomedical

Engineer. Also, Johanna selflessly volunteers at the local hospital for three hours every

week. Johanna participated in the 2016 Design and Build Bridge Competition as a

sophomore.

The team members have many different interests, yet they all share a passion

knowledge and experience, allowing them to come together in creativity and

inspiration to produce an excellent bridge that can be submitted to this competition.

Scientific Principles

The triangle is the strongest geometric shape. Lynn Daniel, a successful

business woman, studied the strength of triangles. She stated, If a triangle buckles

under pressure, the fault lies in the material used to construct the triangle, and not in the

5
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

triangles design (Daniel 1). A triangle is designed to withstand pressure by equally

distributing the forces of compression and tension. The balance of forces is illustrated in

Figure 1. Unlike a parallelogram, a triangle is incapable of leaning to one side or the

other under pressure. Each segment reinforces the other two by holding them together

at a constant distance apart; therefore, if the bottom segment of the triangle is

undergoing tension, it will only stretch as far as the other sides will allow.

Figure 1. Forces in a Triangle

Figure 1 shows the distribution of tension and compression forces in a triangle

that is bearing a vertical load. The base of the triangle undergoes tension or a pull. The

other two sides are compressed. As the sides push into the base, tension causes the

base to stretch.

There is a necessity that the force of a load applied to a bridge is distributed so

that every member bears some of the weight. When the force is slanted toward one end

or area of the structure, it can collapse resulting in the loss of many lives. For this

reason, the design of the final tied arch bridge in this proposal features many triangles,

especially in the truss supporting the top and bottom chords of the arch.

6
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Tied-Arch Bridges

Structure and Use:

Tied-arch bridges, also known as bowstring-arch bridges, originate from the idea

of a thrust arch bridge, pictured below.

7
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Figure 2. Thrust-Arch Bridge

When a load is placed on the deck, tension, borne by the cables, pulls down on

the arch causing it to flatten. The ends of the arch push outward with a strong horizontal

force and are refuted by both vertical and horizontal barriers through foundations that

are often built deep into firm ground. Tied-arch bridges (see Figure 3) are similar to

thrust arch bridges, but they have a different design so that they can be used in areas

where there is unsupportive ground for bridge foundations. Instead of the arches going

below the surface and having their movement restrained by foundations. The arches are

connected, also know as tied, to a bottom cord. The bottom cord can be a tie-rod or

the bridge deck itself. The bottom chord bears the horizontal force from the movement

of the arch as tension. Because the tied-arch bridges do not rely on outside horizontal

compression forces such as rock to stabilize them, they can be used when the

surrounding soil is soft and unstable.

Figure 3. Tied-Arch Bridge

As shown in Figure 3, another feature of many tied-arch bridges is that they have

a fixed end and a free end. This concept is prevalent with many other types of bridge

designs because it allows for safe thermal expansion of the bridge making the bridge

8
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

more adaptable to an environment that is unpredictable or constantly changing in

geography and climate.

Examples:

The Blue Water Bridge located in Port Huron, Michigan and Point Edward,

Ontario across St. Clair River is an example of a tied arch bridge. This bridge was built

in 1938, spans 6,109 feet across and is 233 feet above the water.

The Tyngsborough Bridge is the 2nd oldest steel rib through arch bridge in

Massachusetts and crosses the Merrimack River. This bridge is also an example of a

tied arch bridge. It was built in 1930 and spans 656 feet across the river.

9
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Difference In Bridges:

There are many other types of bridges than the truss through tied arch bridge.

Some other examples of bridges that are frequently used are a beam bridge, a

suspension bridge, and a cantilever bridge. There are different advantages and

disadvantages for each of these bridges which are explored in this section.

A beam bridge is the simplest form of bridges and is simply a beam connecting

two different points. When little kids lay an old log across a little dip in the ground, they

build a simplified version of this kind of bridge. These bridges are used to cover short

distances. The force of the weight is transferred to the two opposite sides of the bridge

and in turn if enough weight is in the center of the bridge, it could bend. These bridges

are best used for short distances and in places where heavy loads are not applied.

A suspension bridge uses cables between towers to transfer the forces and hold

the road up. There are two different, important jobs of the cables that are required to

keep the bridge up. One is to connect to the road and transfer the weight of the load up

into the towers. The second job is to transfer the forces from the towers off the bridge

and into the ground. These type of bridges are the most earthquake-proof and they are

the easiest to add onto.

10
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

A cantilever bridge uses structures that are rooted on each side of the bridge and

project horizontally into space to hold the weight of the load. The downward force is

taken to either side of the bridge and into the ground. Many of these bridges carry

utilities across their spans in dense urban areas.

Force Diagram:

11
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Figure 4. Force Diagram

Figure four above shows various force diagrams for a Truss-Through Tied arch

bridge. It shows how adding a load will cause forces to act. For example, in the last

bridge shown, the arch kicks out as a result of all the force that was applied to the

bridge. The diagram also shows how the tension of the tie balances that trust.

Testing

The builders understood that in order to develop a strong bridge, each aspect of

the bridge design had to be rigid, stable, and strong. To accomplish this, ModelSmart

2D software was used to digitally calculate the strength-to-weight ratio of any two-

dimensional constructed bridge. Various designs of just one element were tested to

determine how the design affected the structural strength. The elements focused upon

in testing were the truss between the top and bottom cord of the arch, the truss of the

road, the pattern of cables, etc. In this section of the paper, a few trials and their

12
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

conclusions will be explained. For all variations of elements tested in the trials to follow,

the basic dimensions of the bridge were kept the same to limit confounding and lurking

variables. For example, the base was always 20 units long. This allowed the builders to

clearly see which elemental designs yielded the largest strength-to-weight ratio. There

were several bridge designs tested that are not discussed in the following trials, for they

did not have a significant contribution to the development of the final design. The

builders kept the style of the trusses constant in each trial to limit confounding or lurking

variables.

The first apparent challenge in the design process of the bridge was the

incapability of the ModelSmart 2D software to allow a bridge to have a continuous arch.

To improvise, various segments had to be connected end-to-end to make an overall

shape of an arch. Solid members of the bridge could only be discrete lengths and

connect at intersections of the grid lines. This inaccuracy was accounted for when

constructing the real bridge. Also, editing any design was frustrating and time

consuming because it was impossible to delete a specific bridge member that was next

to many others. Careful actions were taken to save work and prevent this from

disrupting the design process.

The first element the group focused on was the design of the bridge deck. They

questioned whether having a box truss beneath the bridge deck would significantly

benefit the structural strength of the bridge. The results of the two bridge deck designs

compared, one having a box truss and

the other without, are as follows.

13
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Figure 5. Trial 1 - Box Truss

Figure 6. Trial 2 - Without Box Truss

Figures 5 and 6 show the visual construction and appearance of the bridges

tested in the first and second trials. A bridge with a box truss under the bridge deck was

used for the first trial. In the second trial, the bridge deck did not have a truss beneath it.

In both cases, the base of the bridge was 20 units long with the highest points of the top

and bottom chords of the arch being 12 and 10 units above the bridge deck

respectively. The red arrows pointing downward indicate the vertical force administered

by the load onto the bridge. The truss rests on supports for the purpose of testing and to

model the suspension present in the 3 dimensional product. The following tables depict

the results of the two trials.

Table 1

14
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Strength-to-Weight Ratio of Trial 1

Table 2
Strength-to-Weight Ratio of Trial 2

Tables 1 and 2 give the results of the first and second trials conducted using the

ModelSmart software. Each table displays the weight of the load that the bridge held,

the weight of the bridge itself, and the calculated strength-to-weight ratio. The weight of

the load was divided by the weight of the bridge to calculate the strength-to-weight ratio.

The strength-to-weight ratio yielded in the first trial was 1217.10 software. Thegrams.

This means that for every gram the truss weighed, it was able to hold 1217.10 grams of

additional weight. The strength-to-weight ratio computed from the second trial was

1442.36 grams. Thus, the bridge that did not have a box truss beneath the bridge deck

held approximately 220 grams more per gram of its weight. As a result of this data, the

group decided to have a bridge deck without a box truss in their final design.

The second element, the design of the cables that stretch from the bridge deck to

the arch, was analyzed throughout trials 3 and 4. The goal was to determine whether

vertically stretched cables or cables at an angle would give the highest strength-to-

weight ratio. The results of the two cable designs compared are as follows.

15
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Figure 7. Trial 3 - Vertical Cables

Figure 8. Trial 4 - Cables at an Angles

Figures 7 and 8 show the visual construction and appearance of the bridges

tested in the third and fourth trials. The cables in the third trial were vertically angled and

the cables in the fourth trial were stretched vertically. In both cases, the base of the

bridge was 20 units long with the highest points of the top and bottom chords of the arch

being 12 and 10 units above the bridge deck respectively. The following tables depict

the results of the two trials.

Table 3
Strength-to-Weight Ratio of Trial 3

16
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Table 4
Strength-to-Weight Ratio of Trial 4

Tables 3 and 4 give the results of the third and fourth trials conducted using the

ModelSmart software. The weight of the load was divided by the weight of the bridge to

calculate the strength-to-weight ratio. The strength-to-weight ratios calculated in the

third and fourth trials are 1089.14 and 1217.10 respectively. Therefore, the bridge that

had vertically stretched cables was stronger than the bridge that did not. As a result of

this data, the group ensured that vertical cables were used in the final bridge design.

Design

After further use of the ModelSmart 2D software to determine the strength of

various bridge designs as well as the acquired knowledge from testing various

elemental designs, the final bridge design was chosen for creating the physical bridge

out of balsa wood as completed at the end of this proposal. As noted during the testing

section, the final bridge did not have a box truss under the bridge deck, and the cables

were vertical. These decisions were made in furtherance of having the most structurally

efficient design.

17
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Figure 9. Final Bridge Design

Figure 9 displays shows the digital design, in ModelSmart 2D, of the final bridge

that the group decided to build out of balsa wood and test. This image is not perfectly

to-scale because ModelSmart did not allow wood members of the bridge to be

constructed to specific lengths or angles. Thus, this image was not used for building

purposes, but rather, for conceptualizing of the design. One the other hand, the Bentley

MicroStation PowerDraft software was advanced and fitting for all dimensioning and

scaling needs.

The final dimensions were as respectively. Forfollows: the base of the bridge was

20 units long with the highest points of the top and bottom chords of the arch being 5.75

and 4.25 units above the bridge deck respectively. For the purpose of testing at the

competition, a block of wood 16 inches long by 2 inches wide by 1 inch must be able to

be pushed across the bridge deck. Because of this, the width of the road was designed

to be 4 inches. A scaled and detailed drawing of the final bridge design was completed

by Johanna Lund using the provided Bentley MicroStation PowerDraft software and was

18
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

as follows (next page). All dimensions are in the unit of inches.

19
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

The Bentley Drawing will go in place of this blank page. I cannot post it in this

document. We will add it when we print the final paper (The directions for the

bentley drawing are specific)

Construction

The construction process was a tedious task. The builders knew that in order to

create a strong and balanced bridge, the pieces that were cut needed to be similar and

sturdy. Precise measurements were taken with each piece of wood cut. Certain tools,

such as a pair of snips with an angle plate, were used to make sure that each piece of

balsa wood was the same. In order to insure that the balsa wood was sturdy, the

builders tested how flimsy the balsa wood was. In order to do this, a piece of wood was

picked and then slightly bent. If the piece bent too easily, the builders knew a new piece

needed to be selected.

20
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

The process for building the bride took multiple steps. The builders started with

the base, or the road, of the bridge. The vertical pieces of the balsa wood were

laminated and then glued to a horizontal piece of wood. After that triangles were cut to

place on top of the laminated pieces. (Figure 10) Next, the arches were constructed.

Four pieces of balsa wood were placed in water to soak for 24 hours and then bent into

the shape of the arches desired. As shown in figure 9, the arches were taped down so

that they would stay in place to dry. After the arches were dry, multiple pieces were cut

at sixty degree angles to formulate the triangles inside the arches. This process was

completed twice, once for each arch. After the arches were dry, they were glued to the

road of the bridge. The last step to complete the bridge was to tie the cables from the

arches to the base of the bridge. In order to make the string stronger, it was folded over

four times.

The string placement is shown below in figure 13.

21
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Figure 10. Drying the arch

Figure 10 above shows the process used to make sure that the arches of the

bridge were the shape that the builders desired. Tape was placed onto the balsa wood

to keep it in place.

22
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Figure 11. Base of the bridge.

Figure 11 above shows the base of the bridge. The vertical and horizontal pieces

of balsa wood are laminated, but the triangles are not.

23
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Figure 12. Constructing the Arch

Figure twelve above shows the construction of one on the arches of the bridge.

Both arches were made the same way. Balsa wood was cut and then glued in the

appropriate place.

24
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Figure 13. String placement.

Figure thirteen above shows first half of the bridge after the string was tied from

the arch to the base of the bridge.

25
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Figure 14. Final bridge.

Figure fourteen above shows the final bridge after it was completely constructed.

The Final Bridge

26
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

As time was expeditiously running out, the team had to work efficiently to finish

their final prototype for this proposal. After it was finished, it was tested on a wooden

mechanism comparable to the Pitsco Structures Testing Instrument. Sand and weights

(in grams) were added in order to test the strength of the bridge.

Figure 15. Final Bridge

Figure 15 pictures the assembled final prototype. The prototype is resting on two

supports in preparation for testing. Weights were applied with the addition of sand to a

five-gallon bucket hanging from a block of wood that is on the deck of the tied arch

bridge.

Table 5

27
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Strength-to-Weight Ratio of Final Bridge

Table 5 displays the results of the test run on the final prototype balsa wood

bridge. The bridge weighed 34.3 grams and was able to uphold 52,142.30 grams of

weight before it buckled under the pressure; therefore, the strength-to-weight ratio was

1,520.18 - calculated by dividing the weight of the load by the weight of the bridge. This

means that for every one gram the bridge weighed, it was able to hold 1,520.18 grams

of load weight.

28
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Figure 16. Post Test

Figure 16 depicts the bridge after it was tested to its breaking point. Some

noteworthy members that broke were the base. The arch structure of the bridge was

completely unharmed during the testing process. These accessible results allowed the

group members to recognize that the bridge deck was a crucial point of weakness that

must be addressed and strengthened in the bridge used at the competition in April.

Safety Precautions

Safety is always a great concern. The group members agreed to have

awareness of those around them when using sharp tools to cut the wood or pins to hold

joints together during the gluing process. Also, while testing the final bridge, all group

29
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

members wore their safety glasses to avoid the balsa wood or any other substance from

making contact with their eyes.

Challenges

One of the challenges the builders faced was determining whether to laminate

the balsa wood being used. In order to determine this, it was decided to compare the

strength-to-weight ratio of a piece of balsa wood with a piece of laminated balsa wood.

30
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Given that, two pieces of balsa wood were laminated and then tested to see how much

sand it could hold. The same test was then done with a regular piece of wood. When

the two pieces of wood were compared, the builders determined that the laminated

balsa wood had a stronger ratio than the regular balsa wood,, but it was not significant

enough to use for the entire bridge. So, the builders decided to only laminate the vertical

pieces on the road of the bridge.

Some other problems that occurred during the process of building this bridge was

trying to build the arch. We soaked the wood in water overnight to soften it and allow for

an easier bending process, butbuy some of the wood either crushed or broke when we

bent it. It took some more time and resources to be able to find the right pieces of balsa

wood that would still remain strong after soaking and bending.

The last problem that occurred during the building process was that our parts

would stick to our protection work areas. We worked on top of cardboard boxes to

prevent damaging the table and to allow us to stick pins into, to hold the bridge in place

when gluing. The problem occurred when we tried to remove our parts of the bridge

from the cardboard. The bridge would frequently stick to the cardboard, requiring us to

use an exacto knife to separate the two. We worried about compromising the strength of

the bridge when trying to pry it apart from the cardboard.

31
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Conclusion

Throughout the course of this project, the builders learned a lot about the design

process. Building this bridge was a great way for the builders to experience a real life

example of engineering. The builders were able to learn more about the design process

and problem solving. This is very helpful because all of the builders would like to go into

engineering or a science related career.

32
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

The overall building experience was successful. The builders were able to create

a bridge that could hold a significant amount while having a reasonable weight.

If the builders were to redo the competition, they would most likely try to be more

precise when cutting wood. It was difficult to get the wood cut the same each time but it

never hurt to try and be more accurate. Another improvement would be to make the

road of the bridge stronger on the two farthest ends. While testing, the builders found

that the main spot that caused the bridge to break was the middle part of the road

caving in as more weight was added. We knew that the arches were not a problem

because they stayed together even after the base of the bridge was broken.

The builders are more than pleased with their results. They currently hold the

highest record for the strength-to-weight ratio (1,520.18 grams) out of all bridge teams

from the Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center.

Acknowledgements

Mr. Greg McMillan - Mr. Mcmillan thoroughly explained the project requirements and

graciously gave the group a generous amount of class time to work on the project. He

also allowed the group to using the space of the physics lab to build. Mr. McMillan was

very helpful when the group had questions during the building process.

Mrs. Rose Cybulski - Mrs. Cybulski kindly allowed the group to use class time for

working on the project.

33
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Bibliography

Daniel, Lynn. "The Strength of the Triangle." Empower Network. n.p., 05 July

2013. Web. 09 Feb. 2016. <http://lynndaniel.empowernetwork.com/blog/the-

strength-of-the-triangle>.

Masters, Bridge. "7 Iconic Bridge Designs (& Their Utilities)." Bridge Masters.

BMI, 12 Dec. 2016. Web. 09 Jan. 2017. <https://bridgemastersinc.com/resource-

center/bridge-design/7-iconic-bridge-designs-their-utilities/>.

34
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

"The Steel Construction Information System." Steelconstruction.info. TATA Steel,

n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2017. <http://www.steelconstruction.info/>.

"Tied-arch Bridges." Steelconstruction.info. United Kingdom, n.d. Web. 12 Feb.

2017. <http://www.steelconstruction.info/Tied-arch_bridges>.

Wiki. "Blue Water Bridge." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Dec. 2016. Web.

09 Jan. 2017. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Water_Bridge>.

Wiki. "Tied-arch Bridge." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Oct. 2016. Web.

09 Jan. 2017. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tied-arch_bridge>.

Wiki. "Tyngsborough Bridge." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Dec. 2016.

Web. 09 Jan. 2017. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyngsborough_Bridge>.

Appendices

Scheduling:

In order for the project to have organization, consistent progress, and timely

completion, the group members established and stayed true to the schedule and

deadlines as follows:

3 January 2017 Complete Preliminary Research. Start testing designs in

ModelSmart 2D software.
6 January 2017 Finish MicroStation PowerDraft software tutorials. Start

proposal.
13 January 2017 Have team name and logo picked. Format proposal.
27 January 2017 Pick final bridge design.

35
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

30 January 2017 Begin construction of bridge.

6 February 2017 Complete the following sections of the proposal: title

page, summary, introduction, acknowledgements, bibliography, and appendices.

10 February 2017 Complete Construction of the bridge.
12 February 2017 Complete body of proposal
13 February 2017 Test final bridge. Complete Final Proposal. Make table

of contents.
14 February 2017 Complete final edits on proposal.
15 February 2017 Summit proposal.

Daily Journal:

The following record gives a brief day-by-day account of the progress made with

the bridge project on the days that the group worked on it.

1/31/2017

Johanna Lund - Finalized design and started to build pathway of bridge, Nathan

Frazier - Finalized design and started to build pathway of bridge, Sara Schultz -

Finalized design and started to build pathway of bridge

2/2/2017

Johanna Lund- Tested the strength of laminated balsa wood compared to regular

balsa wood. She also started to laminate the wood for the base of the bridge, Nathan

Frazier- Worked on the digital design of the bridge and constructed the arched of the

bridge, Sara Schultz- Tested the strength of laminated balsa wood compared to regular

balsa wood. She also worked on the daily journal.

2/2/2017

36
 Nathan Frazier--Johanna Lund--Sara Schultz

Johanna Lund- Put together the base of the bridge, Nathan Frazier- Bent the

second set of arches, Sara Schultz- Worked on paper and helped Nathan bend the

second set of arches

2/7/2017 Johanna Lund- Finished the base of the bridge and started to braid the

string, Nathan Frazier- finished the first arch, Sara Schultz- helped finish the first arch

and tied string.

2/9/2017

All members worked on putting the arches of the bridge on. Johanna Lund and

Sara Schultz worked to tie the cables, previously attached to the arch, to the

bridge deck.

2/10/2017

All members worked on the finishing the final bridge.

2/11/2017

All members worked on finishing the proposal. Johanna Lund completed the

Bentley MicroStation Powerdraft drawing.

2/13/17

Today, the final balsa wood bridge was tested in class. However, the results of

the test were inconclusive because a part of the testing equipment broke.

2/14/17

Conclusive testing of the final bridge took place. Final edits were made to the

bridge proposal. The proposal was printed.

37