In my previous entry, I discussed the advantages and disadvantages of using K’nex pieces to build a bridge. The points I made still stand. It would be much more convenient if there was more variety to the pieces, with more sizes instead of only the ones provided. Yet despite this, K’nex allows artistic freedom that is not present in the West Point Bridge Designer. K’nex has the option to be asymmetrical or changing cross-section styles. However, there were some factors that I did not take into account. K’nex bridges can stay intact until many pounds of weight without the pieces separating. In the same way, it takes a lot of physical effort to disconnect certain support members. While building the model my hands got very sore and it was stressful to take apart. Also, during lab periods, many people were building bridges so certain crucial members ran out and were no longer available. These issues never arise when building with the WPBD: there are unlimited available supplies and taking the bridge apart is as easy as pressing “delete”.
WPBD is more related to designing a real bridge than making a K’nex model. Real bridges are designed with similar software that virtually tests designs for structural problems and can automatically calculate cost. When a real bridge goes up it must be perfect. There cannot be multiple weight-testing trials until breakage, like with K’nex models, because building real-scale models is extremely expensive not to mention time consuming to build.
This week we constructed the first physical K'nex model that we will test in Week 6 lab. Next week our group will further analyze our K’nex bridge. During week 6 we will load weight until the truss breaks then fill out spreadsheets with information on cost, triangle angles, and trigonometric values of the design. If any beneficial alternatives are found then the bridge will be updated accordingly. Beneficial alternatives include options of removing certain members to cut costs or adding more angles for better
No comments:
Post a Comment