Difference between revisions of "Project 2, Team B3"

From ENGR005 2008
Jump to: navigation, search
(Report)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
==Synopsis of bridge scores==
 
==Synopsis of bridge scores==
 
*α squad score: 2.104718 × 10-6
 
*α squad score: 2.104718 × 10-6
*Ω squad score: 2.54109 × 10-6
+
*Ω squad score: 2.534392 × 10-6
 
*Current best team score: 2.104718 × 10-6
 
*Current best team score: 2.104718 × 10-6
  
 
==Team members==
 
==Team members==
  
[http://wikis.swarthmore.edu/ENGR005_2008/index.php/User:Esilver1 Elan Silverblatt-Buser]
+
[[User:Esilver1| Elan Silverblatt-Buser]]
  
 
[[User:Zweiner1| Zach Weiner]]
 
[[User:Zweiner1| Zach Weiner]]
Line 13: Line 13:
 
[[User:Dsaltz1|David Saltzman]]  
 
[[User:Dsaltz1|David Saltzman]]  
  
[http://wikis.swarthmore.edu/ENGR005_2008/index.php/User:Xwilli1 Xavier Williams]
+
[[User:Xwilli1| Xavier Williams]]
  
 
==Report==
 
==Report==
In making our design, we experimented with different techniques.  We found that arcs and circles tended to work better, so as we created new designs we moved towards more of those.  In our final design, we used only circles and found that that was the most effective design.
+
We started by making many random designs and seeing how well they worked.  We experimented with many different techniques, each producing independent designs. We discussed with each other how well the different techniques worked.  We found that arcs and circles tended to be more effective in the composite score of surface area and displacement so as we created new designs we used more circles.  In our final design, we used only circles and found that that was the most effective design. Our initial thoughts were that triangles were the strongest structure because that is what is normally seen in bridge design. However, because we were scored based on only surface area and displacement, the circles yielded less surface area and greater support than the traditional triangle.  Our group experienced a lot of technical problems using solidworks regardless of the caliber of design engineered. 
  
 
[[Image:Bridge1.jpg]] Intermediate 1
 
[[Image:Bridge1.jpg]] Intermediate 1
  
[[Image:Bridge2.5.jpg]] Intermediate 2
+
[[Image:best design so far(but not team best).jpg]] Intermediate 2
  
[[Image:b3_bridge.jpg]] Final Design
+
[[Image:Bridge2.5.jpg]] Intermediate 3
 +
 
 +
[[Image:b3_bridge.jpg]]
 +
 
 +
Final Design
  
 
[[Bridge_Section | ← Back to Bridge Section project page ←]]
 
[[Bridge_Section | ← Back to Bridge Section project page ←]]

Latest revision as of 15:52, 22 September 2008

← Back to Bridge Section project page ←

Synopsis of bridge scores

  • α squad score: 2.104718 × 10-6
  • Ω squad score: 2.534392 × 10-6
  • Current best team score: 2.104718 × 10-6

Team members

Elan Silverblatt-Buser

Zach Weiner

David Saltzman

Xavier Williams

Report

We started by making many random designs and seeing how well they worked. We experimented with many different techniques, each producing independent designs. We discussed with each other how well the different techniques worked. We found that arcs and circles tended to be more effective in the composite score of surface area and displacement so as we created new designs we used more circles. In our final design, we used only circles and found that that was the most effective design. Our initial thoughts were that triangles were the strongest structure because that is what is normally seen in bridge design. However, because we were scored based on only surface area and displacement, the circles yielded less surface area and greater support than the traditional triangle. Our group experienced a lot of technical problems using solidworks regardless of the caliber of design engineered.

Bridge1.jpg Intermediate 1

Best design so far(but not team best).jpg Intermediate 2

Bridge2.5.jpg Intermediate 3

B3 bridge.jpg

Final Design

← Back to Bridge Section project page ←