Group met on Sunday, April 15th.
Building the span was easy because we used West Point Bridge Designer for inspiration. When the span was build and ready to be tested.After the first load test we found that the due to faulty joints, the bridge was unable to hold the load.
Order of Operations:
- Construct stable piers
- Best methods to construct blocks
- Build span
- Select best joints for span
- Load test
- Optimize joints
- Make it cost effective
Construct Stable Piers and best methods to construct blocks:
We started off with the pier building by comparing structures of basic cubes. and figuring out what was the strongest one. Along with some minor load testing we narrowed down to a few choices.
Building the Span:
Building the span was easy because we used West Point Bridge Designer for inspiration. When the span was build and ready to be tested.After the first load test we found that the due to faulty joints, the bridge was unable to hold the load.
Select best joints for span:
We started of with simple cheap joints. These joints were unable to support any weight. After various orientations of the same cheap joints, the load size it supported was not enough for the competition. After various iterations and testing, a simple solution was found. If the joints are giving way when weight is being put from top, then the opposite will happen if the weight is being put from bottom. So we flipped the entire span of the bridge using the strongest of the weak joints. And as predicted, the weight put on the bridge, forced the joints together causing them to stabilize and support more weight than ever tested.
Load Testing:
For loads, we used empty laundry detergent bottles and converted the ounces to pounds so match the weight of the real load test. these loads helped us accurately model the weight that was used in class. Load testing was done throughout the build process. It was an accurate way to help us see how the weight was being distributed across the bridge and put on or take away pieces that weren't helping.
Optimizing joints:
To strengthen the bridge while keeping the price low, we planed on stabilizing the joints. After taking a closer look at each type of joint provided, we saw the pros and cons for each joint. Where some sacrificed stability, they made up for in versatility degrees. When some gave way when they were pushed in one dimension, there counter part with more degrees made up for with extra stability. After changing joints of the span of the bridge, we were able to optimize the strength and stability of the bridge while keeping costs as low as possible.
After optimizing joints the joints we found that some pieces were no longer taking the weight. But adding more to the bridge's weight itself. To take some of those out without damaging the integrity of the bridge, we planned on removing them as a lighter load rested on the bridge. After shaving off a significant amount, we ran another full scale load test by putting on 20 pounds. After having it securely hold, and using only the most essential pieces. We were successful in constructing the most cost effective and load bearing bridge that was fully optimized to the given constraints.
We started of with simple cheap joints. These joints were unable to support any weight. After various orientations of the same cheap joints, the load size it supported was not enough for the competition. After various iterations and testing, a simple solution was found. If the joints are giving way when weight is being put from top, then the opposite will happen if the weight is being put from bottom. So we flipped the entire span of the bridge using the strongest of the weak joints. And as predicted, the weight put on the bridge, forced the joints together causing them to stabilize and support more weight than ever tested.
Load Testing:
For loads, we used empty laundry detergent bottles and converted the ounces to pounds so match the weight of the real load test. these loads helped us accurately model the weight that was used in class. Load testing was done throughout the build process. It was an accurate way to help us see how the weight was being distributed across the bridge and put on or take away pieces that weren't helping.
Optimizing joints:
To strengthen the bridge while keeping the price low, we planed on stabilizing the joints. After taking a closer look at each type of joint provided, we saw the pros and cons for each joint. Where some sacrificed stability, they made up for in versatility degrees. When some gave way when they were pushed in one dimension, there counter part with more degrees made up for with extra stability. After changing joints of the span of the bridge, we were able to optimize the strength and stability of the bridge while keeping costs as low as possible.
Making it cost effective:
After optimizing joints the joints we found that some pieces were no longer taking the weight. But adding more to the bridge's weight itself. To take some of those out without damaging the integrity of the bridge, we planned on removing them as a lighter load rested on the bridge. After shaving off a significant amount, we ran another full scale load test by putting on 20 pounds. After having it securely hold, and using only the most essential pieces. We were successful in constructing the most cost effective and load bearing bridge that was fully optimized to the given constraints. 
No comments:
Post a Comment