2016 Michigan Design and Build Bridge Challenge

Building Proposal:

Vertical Lift Bridge

Team Pasta

School:

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Students:

Rico Encabo - Nathan Dobranski - Paul Havern

Teacher:

Kimberly Gravel
Table of Contents:
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Body……………………………………………………………………………………………. .4
Scientific Principles……………………………………………………………………… 4
Design Challenges/Problems……………………………………………………………5
Observed Data…………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Figure 5………………………………………………………………………………………8
Figure 6……………………………………………………………………………………...9
Bridge Design……………………………………………………………………………..10
Finalized Bridge…………………………………………………………………………..11
Building Challenges/Problems………………………………………………………...14
Safety………………………………………………………………………………………14
Conclusion & Recommendations…………………………………………………………15
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………….16
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………..16
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………...17
Scheduling………………………………………………………………………………..17
Daily Journal……………………………………………………………………………...18

Summary:

Our challenge is to make a vertical lift bridge with the materials provided in the

TRAC tube. Using the Bentley Cad software also has to play a very important role in

testing the design so that we know if it will be a success or not. As well as constructing

the bridge with the glue and piece of kite string to do the vertical lifting. Some of the

results were the software bridge being significantly weaker than the vertical lift bridge

created by hand. This is probably the case for a lot of groups due to the two

dimensional software not having a base, but a side view. The reason we’re performing

this project is mainly to get a background in building, and learning how to use programs

we haven't had a chance to experience before. Our end goal would be to create a

vertical lift bridge that meets the competition requirements while also being able to

support at least one-hundred times its own weight. In order to to make achieve these

goals. We’ll be dividing the project up into several parts with each team member taking
on a separate lead to hopefully achieve the maximum amount of efficiency. Lastly, as

always, we see this as an opportunity to not only expand our learning curriculum but

also as an opportunity to have fun and try something that we wouldn’t have been able to

do without joining this competition.

Introduction:

Our team is a group of three individuals, all attend both Warren Mott High

School, and the MMSTC program. Team Pasta is composed of Paul Havern, Rico

Encabo, and Nathan Dobranski. All with advanced mathematical backgrounds and an

understanding of how different types of programs and technologies operate. We’ll be

attempting to accomplish the goal of making a non-resource intensive bridge design that

will be able to lift the most possible weight.

Paul has a background that involves building with LEGO Bricks which are

commonly thought of as an introduction into construction. These not only gave him a

sense of architecture, but also demonstrates the ability to follow specific rules. He has a

large family that consists of 10 brothers and sisters, in which he is the ninth oldest. He is

an outgoing hard worker that loves to go that extra mile to make anything that is of

significance in his life perfect. Out of the three of us, the architectural involvement of the

actual development of the model will be lead by him.

 Rico has ambitions to potentially be an engineer one day in the future, so his

main role in the team will be learning how to use the 2D/3D model software that we’ve

been provided with in order to make a rough model for our bridge design. Rico loves

learning about computers and is quite a tech savvy person.

Nathan’s primary background consists of both working with various programs,

some of which resembling the ones used to create the model, and also keeping a paper

neat and organized. For those reasons he’ll be taking the lead on the research

collection and data interpretation that will transition into writing the final proposal.

Scientific Principles:

For the basic principles of what was done and how we did it, we relied on the

foundation of the scientific method. To start, we found a problem, which so happened to

be building a vertical lift bridge that had few specific qualifications such as lifting the

base at least four inches. With that information, we had to hypothesize how we wanted

to go about fixing the problem. The next step was actually performing the experiment by

building the bridge in real life, instead of just in a program. Once that was done it came

down to collecting data from the finished prototype bridge. In order to create an equal

amount of weight being distributed across as much surface area as possible, we’ll be

using equilateral triangle designs to support the bridge.

Design Challenges/Problems:

There were several challenges that had to be conquered during the construction

of this vertical lift bridge such as the part when the pieces of wood had to be cut and

were not completely cut to exact precision. This was a challenge because when the

bridge was being constructed, the measurements were off by a bit leading to the bridge

not being built to full perfection. Also, in the first few days there was a late start due to

an issue with the software in some parts that were difficult to understand. But, that was

overcome and the process of designing the vertical lift bridge began.

Observed Data:

Ratio Pieces of Wood Time it Took to Build

Actual Bridge 386.843 40 5 Hours appx.

Software Bridge 62.551 10 30 minutes

Figure 1. Recorded Data

In Figure 1, the pieces of wood and the ratio are shown for both bridges. It is

clearly seen that in the two dimensional software the ratio is a lot smaller because when

you have the two dimensional software you can not measure the strength of the base.

This is significant because when we added two more pieces of wood to our base of the

actual bridge it seemed to hold a much more significant amount of weight than it would

have if the two pieces of wood were added.

Figure 2. Weight Mechanism

To find the ratio, it is the amount the bridge can hold divided by the weight of the

bridge. When the piece of wood is slid across the middle of the bridge, that is already

weight of the bridge and therefore finding the weight of the wood is necessary. The

weight of the wood in Figure 2 is 249 grams. In all, the ratio is equivalent to Figure 3.
𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝐻𝑒𝑙𝑑 + 249
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑔𝑒

Figure 3. Finding The Ratio

Figure 3 explains how to find the ratio. Our bridge held 6,421.6 grams which

when divided by 16.6 (the mass of the bridge) the ratio comes out as 386.834. The

other ratio for the two dimensional bridge was calculated to be 62.551.
Figure 4. Mechanism to Find Ratio

To measure the amount the bridge can hold, after the block of wood was slid

across the middle of the bridge, the string in Figure 2 was put down in the center of the

bridge and attached onto the handle of a bucket. Then, sand was slowly added until the

bridge broke or pieces of wood broke. Although, even if one piece of wood breaks in

half or just a bit, that qualifies as the bridge breaking. So, the actual bridge does not

have to reach total destruction to be measured, it is just when part of the bridge breaks.

This may seem clumsy at first, but think about if just one of those pieces break a

pedestrian could have been there if this was a real bridge.

Bridge Design:

Figure 5. Page 8

There are four parts of the bridge that our group built separately and put

together, which is the end of the bridge, the top, the base and the side. Our sketch of

the base of the bridge has three equilateral triangles of 7.3 inches on each side. After

the base was completed it came to realization that the base was not able to lift up 4

inches, because it was glued to the sides and therefore would lift the whole bridge up.

Since the due day was just the day after the next, a clever idea was to make the three

equilateral triangular base the top part of the bridge, which means creating a whole new

base. Rico suggested to make the base have multiple straight lines. An addition of 1

inch was added to the corners of the base so the corners of the base could attach to the

sides. After making the base and the top part of the bridge,it was necessary to hold the

top upright, which ended up the creation of the sides. The sides of the bridge are 7

inches high. An agreement was reached to not add any triangles or straight lines to the

‘ends’ of our bridge because when put into a ratio, the sides will just add into the weight

of the ratio. The sides of our bridge had a huge equilateral triangle which took up the

middle. Each of the sides measured near equivalence 7.3 inches. In total, the top and 2

sides consist of 3 triangles. Equilateral triangles were used in order to distribute the

maximum amount of weight across the bridge supports to give it resistance from

potential breaking.
Figure 6. Page 9

The final bridge turned out exactly what we wanted it to, with the new base and

everything. The only minor problems we had was the measurements and the angles.

We didn’t cut everything to precision and the angles were a bit off, which made the

bridge structure shift a bit to the side, which made one side stronger than the other. We

tied long piece of string to the middle of the base and took the two ends, and tied it to

the top.

Finalized Bridge:

Figure 7. Original base

In Figure 7 the first part of the bridge was built. In theory, we were going to use

this section as the base that would end up holding majority of the base. In our finished

design, this piece ended up becoming the top part of the bridge instead.
Figure 8. Basic Bridge

In Figure 8, we completed the basic foundation for the bridge. It was also at this

time where the mistake became apparent that the base wouldn’t be able to lift up. After

this point in time, construction on a new base of the bridge was started.

Figure 9. Completed Bridge

In Figure 9, the completed bridge is shown. All pins and supports have been

removed and it is standing completely on it’s own with only the provided glue used to

keep it together. The only item not shown is the string that is used for the actual vertical

lift bridge function.

Figure 10. Bridge After Testing (1)

In Figure 10, the bridge immediately after testing is shown. Shown in this image

is where the bridge actually broke and fell apart. This gives us information on how the

bridge can be improved when we build it next time around.

Figure 11. Bridge After Testing (2)

In Figure 11, another angle of the bridge after testing is shown. In this image, the

base is shown in more detail. Upon close inspection it is in fact shown where and

perhaps why the base broke in the specific way it did.

Building Challenges/Problems:

For the most part, building the bridge went smoothly and without flaw. The

biggest problem that caused a setback would have been accidentally attaching our

moveable base to a stationary object, this resulting in the base not being movable. We

quickly fixed this issue by deeming the old base a new piece of stationary wood and

creating a new base which the second time around, we didn’t mess up. Our 2D/3D

designs were switched to match the new model. Apart from that, we ran into issues with

waiting for the glue to dry, however we combated this by using pins as a place holder to

keep everything in place, then removing them once the pieces were adhered properly or

at least to a reasonable state.

Safety:

During the process of design and concept creation, safety precautions were

taken by not opening our capsule containing building supplies until it was sure of what it

exactly was that was in the capsule and what would be done with it. When it came time

to actually build our design, we used standard scissors that were able to cut the

provided wood without problem, and avoided any potential injury if we would had been

using a sharper a tool. While testing the bridge, safety goggles were used in the

potential case that a piece snapped off and flew towards a bystander's face. This

proved to be a necessary component as when we did get to testing, many pieces of

wood snapped off the bridge.

Conclusion & Recommendations:

 In conclusion, the bridge did better than expected, but there are needed parts

that can be improved. The blueprint of the bridge could have been better, since the

structure of the bridge was not very strong, and there was not much support. An

ingenious idea was make the bridge light, making the ratio better, and when comparing

several bridges,it is obvious to see the unneeded parts that were on a bridge which

brought the ratio down. Also, grasping the concept that measurements have to be very

precise was extremely essential, because once the base for the bridge was completed

and it was ready to be tested, with a simple look the base perceived to be too large. In

order for the bridge to be tested requirements meant to whittle a small piece of wood by

a millimeter in order for it to fit. In the end though, the ratio of the actual bridge weight

carried to the weight of the bridge was ≈ 346.843, and it consisted of 40 pieces of wood.

The software bridge which was later changed only had 10 pieces of wood with a ratio of

≈ 62.551. Once the test started for the actual bridge, the base held on with the rest of

the bridge. After many cups of sand, the structure of the base didn’t immediately break

off. Team Pasta learned when making a bridge to assemble your base abundantly

sturdy, because if it isn’t, then the strength the bridge will drop significantly, and the

supports won’t help very much. Also, Team Pasta learned that to always test the two

dimensional model the bridge before testing the actual actual bridge. Because we had

to improvise and build a new bridge with a new top, we couldn’t really determine the

ratio. In the end though, when we tested the strength of the bridge, it actually surprised

lots of bystanders and even Team Pasta ourselves. It turns out that the bridge didn’t

break when the long block was put on it. It could actually hold a lot of weight, which

totaled the ratio up to 386.843, and after testing ours. It was also notable that a potential
flaw shown in other groups was that their bridges with a strong foundation were able to

hold more weight, however, because they weighed so much the overall all ratio was

often lower than expected. Lastly, Team Pasta learned that without time management,

building the bridge can become a real struggle to finish.

Acknowledgements:

Team Pasta would like to acknowledge Mrs. Gravel, who gave us advice on how

to set up our bridge. Also, without the help of our peers our bridge wouldn’t of been as

good as it was without their advice as well.

Bibliography:

1. Abc Teach. abcteach.com ed. N.p.: n.p., 2014 Author Unknown

http://static.abcteach.com/content_preview/f/forkbwunlabeled_pw.jpg

2. Read White Think. Readwhitethink.org ed. N.p.: n.p., 2015. I.R.A.

http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/interactives/timeline_2/

3. PicMonkey. Picmonkey.com ed. N.p.: n.p., 2008. Author Unknown

https://www.picmonkey.com/photo-editor/add-text-to-photo
Appendices:

A. Scheduling:

1/28: (Thursday) Receive materials including multiple pieces of wood, two bottles

of glue, and kite string. Survey to make sure everything was included, and begin

managing time effectively.

1/29: (Friday) All members of the group watch basic tutorials on the 2D/3D

software incase our software lead is ever absent and a design is needed. Make sure

everyone understands the basics.

2/1: (Monday) Pitch ideas for the overall concept of how we want to build the

bridge. Decide what kind of design, the estimated amount of resources needed and

create a rough idea of measurements. Decide overall look.

2/2: (Tuesday) Use the proposal format guide in order to get a headstart on the

proposal so when the data we need is collected, we will easily be able to input it into the

layout and result in the paper being completed in a timely fashion.

2/3: (Wednesday) Make an necessary changes to building design, double check

that all rules are followed and all requirements are met. Get idea approved.
 2/4: (Thursday) Set up a work area and begin the process of building the

prototype bridge.

2/4-9: (Not including weekends) Building the decided upon design and starting

the building proposal.

2/9: (Tuesday) Last days of building, finishing touches, make sure all joints are

secured and the vertical lifting part of the bridge is functional.

2/10: (Wednesday) Test bridge, record final results and input data into the

proposal. Make any finishing touches necessary to the proposal and wrap up the

project.

2/11: (Thursday) Turn in final Proposal. Fix any last minute mistakes that went

unnoticed.

B. Daily Journal:

1/28: (Thursday) Looked through entire capsule to make sure all the materials

were inside and obtained, start laying out a possible timeline.

“We’ve received the materials, have them labeled and in a safe place to keep

them throughout the duration of the project” - Paul

1/29: (Friday) Watched the basics as well as have Rico watch and practice since

he will be our lead software designer. Nathan and Paul will be doing a bit of research on

force distribution in vertical-lift bridges.

“I’ll be taking the lead on the 2D/3D programs, however everyone else will also

watch the basic tutorials” - Rico

 2/1: (Monday) After Paul and Nathan brainstormed ideas, they were presented to

Rico for unanimous decision on which bridge design to create. Rico begins the building

process.

“My past experiences with building materials should prove useful in creating the

bridge” - Paul

2/2: (Tuesday) Nathan begins the layout of the proposal, Paul checks in with

Rico on the building design and Rico continues his software building.

“I’ve begun working on the proposal, today the basic layout of it was finished so

we’ll be able to finish it in an effectively short amount of time once we’ve collected the

data.” - Nathan

2/3: (Wednesday) The entire team all take looks at the bridge design to make

sure everything is on point as well measured correctly in the software. Whole team also

checks the software bridge to make sure it meets the requirements.

“I’ve finalized the the design, using both input from Paul and Nathan, I believe

we’ve made an effective bridge” - Rico

2/4: (Thursday) Whole group started building the actual bridge, which required

some time after school. Rico and Nathan build the sides while Paul measures and cuts.

“A place has been decided where we’d like to actually do the building and so far

the build process has gone extremely well” - Paul

2/9: (Tuesday) Last day to build in which all team members stayed after school to

check and double check the requirements as el as finish up some last minute touches.

“ The overall process of building went well. Only minor flaws occurred. Today

we’ve reglued all the joints to make sure it holds up well tomorrow” - Nathan
 2/10: (Wednesday) Team Pasta was the first group to go and appeared to do

much better than expected. Paul weighed the sand as Rico and Nathan took pictures

after the bridge was destroyed. Put the data in and the whole team stayed after to add

final touches.

“Testing the bridge went extremely well! It held much more weight than we really

could have anticipated and we’re ecstatic with the results.” - Rico

2/11: (Thursday) Last day before the day to turn it in, the whole grouped stayed

after, proof read everything and made a few changes. Looked over everything to ensure

requirements are set.

“The final touches have been added to the proposal, I’m really happy with what

we’ve accomplished and I’m looking forward to sending in our collected data!”- Paul

“Can’t wait to send the proposal, this bridge project was very enjoyable!”- Nathan