P1M3 memo

docx

School

Northeastern University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1501

Subject

Mechanical Engineering

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

13

Uploaded by BrigadierWolfPerson91

Report
To: Prof. Schulte Grahame From: Sean Huang, Stacked Cornerstone Student Date: February, 9, 2024 Subject: Pasta Bridge Project Results CC: Ava Prober, Joseph Luevanos, LuLu Ransom Attachments: #1, Appendix G Four of us have built our bridges and tested them out under the loading apparatus. Ava's bridge, despite being too wide and causing uneven weight distribution leading the top lever to fall, performed the best among all designs. Its triangular truss formation proved sturdy, with a load capacity of 20 lbs and the greatest strength-to-weight ratio of 81.54 (see Appendix D) among the four of us. Sean’s bridge truss bridge took the greatest weight of 21.4 lbs (see Appendix D). Weak triangular side beams, composed of only 4 spaghetti pieces each, caused its failure (see Appendix A). The bottom was sturdy because he used I beams, but the additional weight led Sean’s bridge to second place in strength-weight ratio, 61.67 (see Appendix D). Joseph’s bridge, the lightest among our designs at 0.072 lbs, slanted in one direction and proceeded to slip in one direction until it no longer held on the loading apparatus during the test (see Appendix A). Unbalanced sides and weak joints were the causes of collapse. His bridge’s strength-to-weight ratio was 57.74 (see Appendix D). Lulu’s bridge scored 90 in aesthetics (see Appendix D). Her bridge failed when the roadway cracked in the middle and then the center beams failed (see Appendix A). It failed because the bridge didn't properly meet constraints and didn’t distribute weight to the bridge ends but only in the middle. This resulted in the least strength-to-weight ratio, 45.17 (see Appendix D). We combined the strengths of Ava, Sean, and top winners to achieve the optimal triangular truss structure in our final bridge design. Joseph pointed out the need to position triangular side beams upward for even weight distribution (see Appendices B and C). Lulu's bridge aesthetics and gluing techniques were applied for our bridge appearance (see Appendix C). Not only did we get 3rd place in aesthetics, but our bridge strength-to-weight ratio significantly improved, increasing 54.77 points from Ava’s bridge (see Appendix D). This improvement relies on the truss structure we chose and the strength breams. The failing point was on the left vertical beam and certain joints. The beams were of slightly different lengths, which made them unable to balance to weight evenly. Joints were cracked during the test, suggesting that we didn’t connect the beams strongly enough (see Appendix C). We believe quality construction and precision are keys in a full-scale bridge success. Truss bridges built in lightweight, compact design, and durable joints offer the best strength-to-weight ratio.
Appendix A: Individual Bridge Test Figure 1: Ava’s Bridge before Test, 2/2 Figure 2: Ava’s Bridge after Test, 2/2
Figure 3: Sean’s Bridge before Test, 2/2 Figure 4: Sean’s Bridge after Test, 2/2
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
Figure 5: Joseph’s Bridge before Test, 2/2 Figure 6: Joseph’s Bridge after Test, 2/2
Figure 7: Lulu’s Bridge before Test, 2/2 Figure 8: Lulu’s Bridge after Test, 2/2
Appendix B: Final Group Design Bridge Figure 9: Final Bridge Force Distribution Model Figure 10: Final Bridge Force AutoCad Sketch
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
Appendix C: Final Bridge Test Figure11: Final Bridge before Test, 2/6 Figure 12: Final Bridge after Test, 2/6
Appendix D: Result Summary Table Figure 13: Excel Summary Table of all Tests Results , 2/6
Appendix E: Completed Handouts Figure 14: First Competition Reflection Front , 2/2
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
Figure 15: First Competition Reflection Back , 2/2
Figure 16: Second Competition Reflection , 2/6
Appendix F: Gantt Chart with Hours Log Figure 17: Screenshot of Gantt Chart as of 2/8 Figure 18: Screenshot of Hours Log as of 2/8
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
Appendix G: Link to Our Digital Notebook Attachment #1 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D1ly6criNj_eBxXC09VMRtc4PGEcrusllBh9hT_S8K8/ edit?usp=sharing