This past week in lab we discussed and reflected upon the most recent assignment, which involved the making of the “best” bridge in West Point Bridge Designer (WPBD). Here, we define “best” as being cheap yet serviceable. Each individual entered the data for their bridge in a survey that would be used during class to compare each other’s work. Ultimately, the cost of the best submitted bridge was slightly above $260,000. I found this to be a wonder, seeing as my bridge cost closer to $425,000. Therefore, the goal for the lab was to create another bridge using WPBD and once again see who could achieve the lowest cost. Within my team, we had a bit of trouble figuring how to do so until the last 20 minutes of class. I feel that if we had discovered our method earlier that we could have had a cheaper result. Since I had the cheapest design between the three of us, we decided we should alter the materials to obtain a lower cost. Needless to say, it worked: we examined and altered which bars could either be of a smaller diameter and/or hollow. By the end of the class, the cost was significantly lowered by more than $100,000. This coming week, we will begin using Knex to make our bridges. I hope to experiment more with the design during this process.
West Point Bridge Designer has been a helping hand during these first few weeks of introduction to truss bridges. However, I believe there are many pros and cons to the program in terms of accuracy. Pros of the program include the analyzation of the design in terms of cost and tension/compression forces. These are features that would otherwise have had to been researched and examined in great detail and time consumption. Consequently, cons of the program include limitation in design and over-exaggeration. WPBD is very limited in the sense that it does not allow you to view the structure from all angles and incorporate top/lower truss connection beams. Also, structures are greatly exaggerated during test mode; WPBD may generate a structure that is stably sound that may not be in actuality. In my opinion, these are huge flaws because they negate aspects that must be considered in physical existence. While WPBD has been a helpful tool in terms of understanding the notion of cost and tension/compression forces, I don’t believe it is an accurate vision of an executed design in reality.
Chelsea Moss
West Point Bridge Designer has been a helping hand during these first few weeks of introduction to truss bridges. However, I believe there are many pros and cons to the program in terms of accuracy. Pros of the program include the analyzation of the design in terms of cost and tension/compression forces. These are features that would otherwise have had to been researched and examined in great detail and time consumption. Consequently, cons of the program include limitation in design and over-exaggeration. WPBD is very limited in the sense that it does not allow you to view the structure from all angles and incorporate top/lower truss connection beams. Also, structures are greatly exaggerated during test mode; WPBD may generate a structure that is stably sound that may not be in actuality. In my opinion, these are huge flaws because they negate aspects that must be considered in physical existence. While WPBD has been a helpful tool in terms of understanding the notion of cost and tension/compression forces, I don’t believe it is an accurate vision of an executed design in reality.
Chelsea Moss
No comments:
Post a Comment