1. Problem Definition: Design and construct a model bridge that can support the weight of a Vex car and three bricks using limited materials.
2. Although we understand that alternative concepts are fundamentally different, each of our decisions, both big and small, undoubtedly affected the performance of our final design. At the beginning of our project, we were faced with the decision of whether to build a truss bridge, suspension bridge, or arch bridge. These alternative bridge concepts are vastly different in terms of their benefits and drawbacks. Conversely, we spent sufficient time contemplating the width of our road. We understood that the bridge would be more stable if its width was smaller; however, we contemplated whether the bridge should be four of five planks in width. When first considering this dilemma, four planks was obviously more favorable because it conserved materials and would be easier to support. Although this was the case, we also recognized that we would have to spend additional time re-designing our Vex car, which was already designed for a road that was five planks in width. During our construction process, we were deciding whether each member and beam should be made of one, two, or three balsa wood sticks. This seems like a minute decision; however, our choice could potentially deplete the amount of materials left over.
3. We chose to build a truss bridge because it was the most practical design. Although suspension bridges and arch bridges uses less material, they seemed too troublesome to construct. Suspension bridges are popular in the real world because their reliability is heavily attributed to being anchored to the ground, which was not a feasible option for this project. We did not choose to build an arch bridge because we did not want to bend balsa wood. Ultimately, a truss bridge was the most reliable and practical design due to its rigidity and lateral bracing. We chose to use five planks instead of four planks for the width of our road. We made this decision because we did not want to waste time re-designing our Vex car. Finally, we decided that most of the members and beams should be made of one balsa wood stick with the exceptional of a select few that needed the extra support. One of the reasons why we made this decision was because we did not have enough materials to make each member and beam out of two or three sticks. Additionally, our design does not rely heavily on the strength of individual components; instead, it relies on the cohesiveness and concept of the design itself.
4. For this project specifically, detailing the design took a substantial amount of time. We spent a long time finding an optimal design using the bridge simulator. After tracing the outline of the bridge and its members, we scaled the drawing to one foot and provided measurements for the group that built our prototype. Then, we scaled our measurements to five feet to accommodate the size of the actual bridge. During this process, we realized that the bridge simulator provided the measurements of individual members, so we adjusted all of our measurements to be more precise. This process was extremely time-consuming and tedious because we converted between the US Imperial System and the Metric System. Additionally, each of our members are different lengths, so we individually converted each piece.
5. Our group had a few academic disputes regarding the design of the bridge and the Vex car, but they did not inhibit our productivity. Through our controlled debates, we magnified the drawbacks of different design concepts. We also defended our designs to the team that built our prototype. We had to explain our sketches and measurements which allowed us to self-examine our design.
6. Manufacturing our design was the most time-consuming step. We split the group into two and work on separate components of the project. One group worked on the Vex car and the other worked on measuring and cutting all the pieces for the bridge. The construction of the Vex car was difficult because we had to search for missing materials. The bridge members were tedious to prepare because each piece was a unique length and our design was extremely intricate. We did not test our design because we did not want to wear down our bridge.
7. Our design successfully satisfies the problem definition. It is elaborate and intricate, yet practical. Our calculations and preemptive planning allowed us to utilize the materials optimally. In fact, we still have materials left over. Despite a few debates, our group worked very well together and displayed positive communication skills.
8. This is our final design report.