Week 7: Analysis Desires

One of the differences between WPBD software and Knex is the “Block box” answers. The “Block Box” provided with values associating with compression and tension of each membrane of the bridge design. These numeric values were very useful in terms of studying and understanding the strength and weakness in the design of the bridge. In addition, the software highlights the membranes that failed the bridge after each load testing. These were great beneficial features because it allowed us to analyze our bridge design effectively. As a result we were able to construct a serviceable bridge design that satisfied all the constraints and remained in low budget. Working with Knex would be more resourceful if there was a system to calculate the tension and compression of each membrane as it goes through the load testing. I would recommend using the VideoPoint software which can be used to record the testing and analyze the footage. VideoPoint with VideoPoint Capture allows you to gather position vs. time data of a QuickTime movie. The collected data can be viewed in a table and plotted to examine the design of the bridge.

During the previous week in class, our group was able to make little modification to the original bridge. While we modified our bridge, we were quickly able to come to a hypothesis that our grooved gusset plates and the long chord were worn-out from constant remodeling. From the testing we were able to conclude that our bridge design was very weak because it was only able to hold about 5 pounds. During the class discussion we were very interested by one of the groups who decided to design a bridge without any grooved gusset plates and produce good results. Therefore, we decided to redesign the bridge by completely replacing the grooved gusset plates with other connectors. This week in lab we will conducting more truss analysis and learning about the joint method and the importance of free body diagram.