Project Summary

For this assignment, we were tasked (individually or as small groups), to create a research-based structure able to withstand 10 seconds of reasonably vigorous shaking from both lateral directions. The resources allocated to us were 20cm, flimsy spaghetti strands, and blu-tac, not the most ideal construction materials. Given a budget of only $60, (1x 20cm strand of spaghetti/$1, and 1g blu-tac/$1), we needed to be both innovative and calculated in terms of design, build, and use of supplies. The project moved through multiple phases, incorporating a research and design period, and a prototype test and reflection, before we tested the final structure.

Overview of Engineering Process

Initially, we began by allocating roles to each group member. I was designated as speaker, and reporter, whereas Alex was equipment manager, and Marcus, project manager. These positions were decided based on our individual strengths, and ability to contribute and work as a cohesive team.

Next, we researched past effective earthquake-resistant structures. We analysed these, breaking them down into core components/features that help them withstand seismic movement. We spent a few periods, on this, then moved onto the design phase. Here, we incorporated numerous, researched elements into the prototype, such as cross-bracing and shear walls.

After factoring in the budget, we created the initial prototype. However, testing revealed multiple structural flaws, and we evaluated, re-researched and re-designed our building.

We made a few structural modifications, such as a more compact base with a better centre of gravity, a tapered/tiered flooring system, and additional cross-bracing. Hence, our structure was a lot sleeker and stronger, able to withstand 10 seconds of vigorous shaking from either lateral direction.

Changes to the engineering process:

To improve overall cohesion and group functionality, we would have spent more time on the initial research and design phase. As we were eager to start creating, we skimped over crucial elements of research that prevented our first prototype from passing the earthquake simulation. We would also have done more research and evaluation throughout the construction of the buildings, allowing us to incorporate, new earthquake-resistant elements into our forming structure.

Also, being clearer and more direct when communicating to group members (as miscommunication and vague instructions detract from productivity) would help, improving collaboration, communication, and overall work-efficiency. Implementing these changes would definitely improve the outcomes for our group in the future.

Teamwork and Collaboration

Each group member was responsible for a different component/sector of assignment work, according to their individual strengths and abilities.

Marcus (Project manager) organised the group, led design elements, and understood the brief.

Alex (Equipment manager) was situationally aware, knew the science lab well, and was able to help out gathering materials, resources, and aiding in prototype construction

Myself (Speaker and Reporter): I was able to communicate any queries to the teacher or class, research, and help the group achieve the project within the given deadline (organising)>

Overall, each group member collaborated effectively, and contributed uniquely to the groups ensuing success.

Conclusion

Overall, this science project was an engaging, interactive and challenging experience teaching us the structural necessity of earthquake resistant buildings (and how they’re able to withstand seismic waves), within modern society.