Our science engineering challenge was to design a build that would withstand a major earthquake. We had create a downsized model made from spaghetti and blue tack of an earthquake proof building. It had to be a minimum height of 60cm and a maximum base of 30 by 30 cm. It could be attached to the table but had to withstand 10 seconds of shaking in all different directions, as the simulation of an earthquake. The cost of the project couldn’t exceed 60$. Our aim was to create a model that fits these perimeters and show that we can work as a team and communicate effectively.
Our research and first concept designs
The Pictures above shows our research and first designs for our model. When we first started to construct the first design we ran into many problems. We were first struggling to get it to stand and go on an angle upwards, and we were running over budget without adding any cross bracing. We first had a pyramid formation as it could have a wide base and a small top to diffuse the vibration of the earthquakes. By having cross bracing as well, it allows the earthquake to distribute faster and allows the building to take less damage as the wide base and cross bracing evenly distributes the earthquake, making it stable and preventing major damage.
The designs and concepts above were our final design. We found that this was a lot better then the previous design for many reasons. e.g this design could stand, cost a lot less and we had money to spare, more stable and had lots of support, survived the testing with minimal to no damage. This design has a wide and stable base to, again, help distribute the earthquake, causing minimal damage, cross bracing on the sides of the frame and across the top of the square to help diffuse the earthquake faster and help mobilize the movement of the structure, a pyramid point on top to create a small point so the earthquake doesn’t crumble the structure from the top down and therefore having a smaller surface area on top. By having these features, we created a structure that could with stand an earthquake at many different magnitudes and allowed us to understand what buildings in city that are very prone earthquake have to look like/ structure like in order for them to be livable in those cities.
Communication
Through out this challenge i found that our communication was key when getting work done. Whenever there was a problem we would vocalise it and if there was something that someone wanted to add to the design we would listen and consider. Another thing we did well when communicating was when we had people away and they missed out on work, we made sure that they were up to date when they came back, and we communicated answers and helped each other finish the work that we missed out on. By doing this, it made sure that everyone was up to date with everything, we were all on the same page, and we all had a clear understand of what the challenge was wanting us to do. with out communication in these areas, we wouldn’t have been able to complete the challenge and come up with a design.
If we were to do this challenge again, I would suggest that we change a couple things in our process. First of all I would propose that, for our group, we would think realistically with our first initial design and thing about the reliability of it before we started building. Not having much money in our budget left and not being able to add cross-bracing were things that we should’ve thought about before we started creating. By doing this, it would’ve saved a lot more time and allowed us to plan the actual design that we used. The next change I would suggest to our process would be doing a lot more research. The research that we did do was ok but wasn’t great. We had some what of an understanding of what earthquake proof buildings look like but we weren’t completely educated. We could’ve gotten a lot more information before building and had a greater understanding of what earthquake proof building look like and are structure like. By doing this it would better our understanding of the challenge and what goes int building a structure like those buildings, therefore improving our overall project.
Teamwork
At the start of the challenge, my group and I allocated roles to each other to help us stay on track and keep everybody happy. These roles were the following:
Declan : reporter – makes sure that the presentation is ready by the deadline.
Matthew : material manger- gets the materials and keeps track of what we use and makes sure that we clean up after every lesson.
Ben : project manger – makes sure everyone understands the challenge and keeps the team on track.
Scarlett : spokesperson – seek help from the teacher and other class mates.
Although these roles seemed beneficial for our group and this challenge, I feel that through out the challenge we lost sight of these them. We kind of all just blurred into 1 role, however, it didn’t effect the way our group functions. Although some people pulled more weight than others, I feel that we all tried shared the work as evenly as possible and made sure that our end result was something that everyone was happy with. We did this by constantly talking with one another making sure that there wasn’t anything else that people wanted to add before testing or calling our design our “final product”. I feel that we all tried to play to each others strengths. for example, some people were better at drawing up our designs and research, others were better at coming up with answers to stile questions. Whatever our strengths were, we all tried to include it into the process no matter what stage we were at.