Advanced Computational Design
Wednesday 6 April 2016
CODE 2121
Week 3 – Vertical Stabilizer
For week three we had to create a reasonably high
tower than would withstand a ‘blow test’. The aim was to build the tower as
tall as possible and as stable as possible. We had a deck of cards and paper
clips to complete this task. Our group decided to waffle the design, believing
that this would enable us to reach a reasonable height and construct something
that would be reasonable stable.
How and where the structure failed? The structure
was quite stable and withstood two ‘blow tests’, however it was not very tall.
Dimensions?
Height - 450mm
Base dimensions - 150mm x 150mm
Diagram
Height/Width of Base?
450/150 = 3
VIDEO LINK
Height - 450mm
Base dimensions - 150mm x 150mm
Diagram
Height/Width of Base?
450/150 = 3
VIDEO LINK
CODE 2121
Week 2 –
Horizontal Spans
Structure 1
Similar to week 1, we needed to generate a
structure using sate sticks and hot glue; however, this time the structure
needed to be 2 cm tall and sit flat on the ground. After brainstorming possible
ideas, we decided to weave or hatch the design and glue the joints together. The
design was approximately 2.6cm off the ground.
Weight? 67g
Weight it held? Approximately 157kg
How and where the structure failed? The design didn't fail after a mass of 157kg was applied on top. This design was extremely successful.
Weight of supported load/weight of structure?
157000.00g / 67.00g = 2343.28g
Structure 2
We again used the weaving method for construction
however instead of glue, we grouped 10 sate sticks together to generate height
(2cm) and strength. We then joined them together with rubber bands and nylon. Using
nylon and rubber bands allowed the joints to be flexible and reminiscent of a
pin joint.
Weight? 75g
Weight it held? Approximately 90kg
How and where the structure failed? This design was
quite successful, similar to the first structure, however it did fail. The
structure was squashed by about 2mm, due to the sate sticks being forced into
the ground. This was because of the flexible materials holding the sticks
together; the flexibility allowed for movement and therefore the sticks to be
pushed to the ground.
Diagrams
Weight of supported load/weight of structure?
90000.00g /
75.00g = 1200.00g
Structure 3
Structure three could only be created using purely
paper. For this task, we decided to use the same design as week one as we
believed it to be successful. In week one we folded numerous pieces of paper
that had a length of 40cm when folded and a height of 5cm. They were then
grouped together to make a dense structure.
Weight? 51g
Weight it held? Approximately 197kg
How and where the structure failed? The structure collapsed
at its weakest point on one side, this may be due to the weight not being distributed
evenly.
Diagrams
Weight of supported load/weight of structure?
197000.00g/51.00g = 3872.55g
CODE2121
Week 1 - Horizontal Support
Structure
1
The first structure was generated using sate sticks and hot glue. After
looking at examples of bridges during the week 1 lecture, our team believed a
triangular structure would be the most suited design using these materials. We
also believed that building the bridge with a small amount of height would be
beneficial as a flat bridge may cave in on itself in the centre.
Weight? The weight of the
structure itself was approximately 65g.
Weight it held? The bridge itself
had no damage, but the weight fell off the top at approximately 6kg.
How and where the
structure failed? The bridge may have failed due to the top being too narrow; the plate on
top barely balanced before any mass was applied. Another possible reason would
be the materiality. The sate sticks where very thin and quite flexible. This enabled
the bridge to bend when weight was applied, making the bridge fall over. There
was also a lack of triangulation in the structure. For the bridge to be
successful, it should have resembled a space frame structure; however a lack of
materials and a time frame made that concept unrealistic.
Diagrams
Weight of supported
load/weight of structure?
6000.00g /
65.00g = 92.30g
Structure 2
Again after viewing bridges in the lecture, we
attempted to create a suspension bridge using sate sticks, rubber bands and
mono filament. We thought that the use of triangulation in the first structure was
the correct idea, it just wasn’t executed properly. Therefore, we decided to
generate a triangular base for the plate to sit on. Originally, the design was
flipped the other way; however, we decided to flip it the way it is shown as it
utilised the mono filament and generated more tension and therefore generated a
better solution.
Weight? Approximately
120g
Weight it
held? 12kg, we then ran out of paper reams and used our own body weights to
push down on the structure (approx. 30kg)
How and
where the structure failed? The structure failed due
to the way the sate sticks where connected. The sticks were purely connected
with rubber bands and once a force was pushed into the middle, these connections
snapped.
Diagrams
Weight of supported
load/weight of structure?
42000.00g / 120.00g = 350.00g
Structure 3
Structure three was created from paper only. This bridge design was difficult
due to the lack of materials involved. The structure needed to be dense due to
the bridge having to span the full 30cm without collapsing on itself, and hold
up some weight. We cut and folded numerous pieces of paper that were 5 cm high
and when folded where approximately 40cm long. We then grouped these together
as close as possible to create a dense structure.
Weight? 50g
Weight it held? Approximately 6 kg
How and where the structure failed? It appears that one folded piece
collapsed when the last weight was applied, making all the other pieces of
folded paper be unbalanced and fall. This may be due to the weights not being
placed on the plate carefully, or one of the folded pieces being weaker than
the others.
Diagrams
Weight of supported
load/weight of structure?
60.00g / 50.00g = 1.20g
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)