In science this term, we have been given a task that includes building a structure from raw spaghetti and blue-tac. This structure must be able to withstand an earthquake that will be replaced by a shake test. We created a triangular-based structure with three triangles on each face, a pyramid placed on top of that, and then one strand of spaghetti to reach our 60cm height minimum. Building the structure was a lot more difficult than we had thought it would be. It was constantly falling apart and spaghetti pieces were snapping. We found that wrapping some blue-tac around the edge of the spaghetti held it in place a lot easier.

We chose to use a triangle as the base because it is one of the stronger shapes and can bear weight well. Our budget was $60, so we spent $45 on spaghetti which allowed us 450cm, and we spent $15 on blue-tac which allowed us 15g.

Our structure ended up being extremely durable and successfully survived the shake test very easily. Although our structure was successful, there are still several ways to improve and make our building less prone to collapse. We could be more cost-efficient by making the base smarter to save money on spaghetti, we could make the whole structure taller rather than having a weak piece of spaghetti on the top, and we could make it taller by making the base smaller and connecting the spaghetti.

Our second structure was very similar to the first one as it did not need many improvements. We made the base smaller, making the entire structure a lot taller, and instead of having a weak spot at the top, we just built a triangle on top and it still managed to reach the minimum height. This structure also survived the shake test very easily. We all had to put our communication skills into place and provide helpful ideas in order to create a structure worth while building. Each member of the group had contributed to the project in a specific way which allowed us to complete the task efficiently. Hayley was good at building and creating the structure, Phoebe was good at researching and finding the best way to make a durable structure, Sienna was good at providing constructive criticism and finding ways to improve our building and I was good at budgeting and making sure we wouldn’t go over the limit.