Week 8: Developing Bridge

Week 7: Features

Busker driven space: Structural megaphone and stations of amphitheatre


Links for inspiration:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=cable+stayed+suspension+bridge&rlz=1C1CHFX_enAU655AU655&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=947&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7mcrHxqHMAhUB6mMKHcz_BX0Q_AUIBigB

AAMI Park
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=amy+park&rlz=1C1CHFX_enAU655AU655&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=947&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFyr-Hx6HMAhVRwmMKHcjdBH4Q_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=aami+park&imgrc=3sxersvojdHHWM%3A

Space Frame
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=space+frame&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=947&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipluzLx6HMAhUM_mMKHeASClsQ_AUIBigB

Week 4

Tensegrity Structure:

This structure helped me realise the balance of forces between compression and tension members. What I had to understand was that each member was subjected a force of gravity and that played into how the ends of the member would travel, so and the cabling system was a counteracting system that went against this nature force to find equilibrium.

Week 3:

Activity: Card Tower
• The base was well fortified to prevent reasonable tipping over
• The middle structure was constructed using two cards that had slits within them to help with efficiency and structural integrity at each floor.
• This helped to minimise the amount of cards needed and get height.
• However what we found in the end was that it was too weak and when it went through the wind simulation, it was easily blown down.
• What was needed for this model was additional bracing through the use of string connecting the height points to the base
• The base and its connection to the tower could have been improved also.
• If the interior was developed more, the possibility of the tipping can be reduced
• The slits connection was efficient yet meant the whole structure was modular and so resistance would be compromised.
• In designing a tower, it should start with high surface area on the bottom and gradually reduce surface area towards the top.

Week 2:

• Week 2:  Vertical Load

• Glue-Gun:
• Our group attempted to have an efficient structure by minimising the amount of material we were using. We opted for a triangulated form braced from the corners to adjacent bridging members.
• The structure was rigid and held up well to an extent. However since the joints were heavily secured, the structure was lacking a way to transmit fluidly the forces towards the entire structure and so with nowhere for the force to be transmitted to other members, the skewers snapped.

• Tension:
• The Bracing held up to an extent. However the make-shift pin joints wasn’t not secure enough and so the structure was vulnerable to deformation with a simple rotation.
• The bracing however worked well and the whole structure deflected and adjusted with the simulation of the weight test.
• The pint joints allowed for slight movement to occur and so the energy being transferred could fluidly be dispersed around the structure and not have choke points where all the stress was isolated in one area.
• However the problem again was that to an extent if the stress was too much, the pin joints would rotate too much and so the whole structure would enter a twisting motion and fail
• If in returning to this model, I would secure a way to have a limit on the pin-joint rotation and hopefully avoid the twist.

• Paper:
• The structure worked quite well. The honeycomb of paper utilised the notion of going against the grain giving more structure from materiality. As the weight was placed onto the model, the cylinders began to deform and compress and that deformation increased the radius of the cylinders and the whole model collectively. To counterbalance this, the band of paper worked to contain this and so underwent tension from physical expansion from the cylinders. These two systems worked together to give a homogenous and well structure model.
• However where the model failed was bracing, so the overbearing weight began to tilt, the vertical structure failed and collapsed on its side. In thinking about re-doing it, I would apply walls or bracing support around the outside to prevent the rotating of the cylinders

Week 1:

Activity 1:

Glue-Gun:

·        The Truss system held up considerably considering the aim was for height and a restriction on material amount

·        We opted for a warren truss like structure that was braced through triangulated.
s  The weight ontop of the horizontal structure was distributed through the frames and concentrating force at the joints. However the joints could not hold up to an extent. Because the joint werent secured properly, the joints ended up failing and the slightest rotation caused it to fail.
The triangulation of the trusses supported each adjacent member and spreading deformatioin from the edges.

Activity 2:

Tension: 

·        The back span of the bridge began to deform and bend as the tension cables started to flex. The cables from the centre to the posts were supporting the centre. My thought was as the centre began to deformation and dip downwards, the posts would be dragged towards the centre, and the posts, would then be held up from the strings that are connected to the back end of the structure. This didnt turn out as the deformation caused the tension in the middle cables to be lost and lose structural integrity. It did hold up to a certain weight but failed ultimately

Activity 3:

Paper:

·        We wanted to go against the grain in manipulating and a structure that supported each. We looked into multiple strips that first went against the structure. What we found was that the strips if linear and straight deformed from rotational and no bracing. To fix this we made zig zag pattern to distribute the load and prevent the structure support from falling on its sides.