Pasta Bridge Report

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick
Chakanyuka-Tom Tarlton-Richard Matkins
University of Brighton
The Pasta Bridge Challenge
Engineering Design
XE221/Level 5/Year 2
Group 14
Date of Submitting: 13/11/2012
Page 1

Abstract
The aim of the report was made to design a pasta bridge (which should weigh
maximum one kilogram and one metre gap) that can hold certain weight under
tension and compression forces. The bridge must be self-supporting between two
tables 1metre apart. The weight must be applied at the center of the bridge. The
structure must stand, laden; for more than 20 sec and an appropriate amount of
glue must be applied (Glue Bridge was not accepted for the final testing). In
theory the bridge was used for travelling across obstacles and has the ability to
hold a large weight over a distance. The design can hold up to 81 kilograms. The
pasta strands was glued together using super liquid glue. There were many types
and shapes of bridges built before, for example: (arc bridges, suspension
bridges, triangular bridges joined together in the middle, normal truss bridges,
etc...). The choice that the group came up with was of the materials used to build
the pasta bridge; four types of pasta were tested in the university labs (E14). Two
different tests were carried out compressive and tensile to make the choice of
the pasta to use in the construction to fulfil the objectives determined. Readings
of the pasta were recorded and compared against costs and durability and the
group made the choice of the pasta that was cheaper with favourable results.
The choice of the pasta bridge was made according to its materials that were
cheaper and durable. The component design was to fulfil the maximum weight
that we got when carried out the Hopkins analysis. The pasta bridge prototype
was completed in the E14 lab. It was tested and the results were positive and
within the expectations of the group. The design was broken and repaired thus
losing the right dimensions before testing it and on the testing day the design
failed to show the strength of the bridge, so the group couldnt obtain the results.
From beginning to the end of the whole project everything went smoothly within
the group expectation but unfortunately the results were not pleasing because
the bridge collapsed during the setting up for testing.
Page 2

Contents:
Abstract:.................................................................................... 2
Introduction:.............................................................................. 4
Brief:.........................................................................................4
The Group tasks:.......................................................................5
Theory and research:................................................................. 5
Method:................................................................................... 12
The Risk Assessment:...........................................................19
Discussion and calculation:.....................................................21
Test day and Results:...............................................................25
Conclusion:.............................................................................. 26
Reference:...............................................................................29
Page 3

Introduction:
Our task was to build a bridge from up to 1Kg of pasta; it could be any type of
pasta. The bridge would need to span a distance of 1 metre across two tables
and carry as much weight as possible at its mid-point. The current (as of
23/11/2012) world record for pasta bridges was set in 2009 in Okanagan; the
bridge could hold 443.58Kg. Our own University of Brighton record breaking
bridge held a weight of 96Kg.
The rules of the pasta bridge challenge were simple and are as follows:
It must be self-supporting between two tables 1m apart.
The weight must be applied at the centre of the bridge.
The structure must stand, laden, for more than 20 seconds.
You may not build a Glue Bridge.
A Glue Bridge was to be judged by our peers but in a way it means we could not
as a group cover our bridge in glue to strengthen the bridge. Glue was only used
in our bridge to connect bits of pasta together and at joints.
Brief:
The main aim of the project was to design a pasta bridge that covered a 1m gap,
predict its weight correctly through a series of testing and calculations, then
write a report of the design process in regards to time management and results.
Through this process we must show the ability to:
To refine planning and working within limits,

To improve co-operation and communication within groups,
To develop mechanical design skills,
To develop an appreciation of stresses and structures.
The introduction of finite element analysis and Bows notation
A set of rules were in place to create competition and creative restraints.
Innovation (using engineering knowledge and research) was a key idea in this
project as the rules were very restrictive.
It must be self-supporting between two tables 1m apart.

The weight must be applied at the center of the bridge
The structure must stand, laden, for more than 20 sec
You may not build a Glue Bridge
Secondly the rules on materials available for use:
Page 4

The only materials allowed are:
1kg of Pasta
Glue
Taking these rules into consideration, we were allowed to use any type of
pasta or glue we required. Moreover, it was added, the weight of the bridge
itself must be 1kg or less, including the glue. This rule was confirmed in our
brief. A glue bridge was defined as a bridge that consisted mainly of glue
and gained its structural integrity from the glue rather than the pasta.
Groups consisted of up to 6 members from mechanical and electrical
and/or design courses.
The deadline for the test was 5th of November 2012, the report deadline
was13th November 2012
The Group tasks:

Chris Goulding
Lead report writer, Log making, group communications,

construction overview, materials supply sourcing.
Ahmad Abdul-Hamid
Material testing, lead data logger, design coordinator,

component construction.
Gareth Davies
Lead coordinator, task delegator, materials tester,

bridge design overview, component design, prototype
tester, bridge calculations, report writing overview
Patrick Chakanyuka
Material testing and review, component construction,

log making, report writer, bridge construction.
Tom Tarlton
Design researcher, theory researcher, lead component

constructer
Richard Matkins
Lead design researcher, theory researcher, lead

component constructer.
Page 5

Theory and research:

A bridge is a structure built to span over objects such as water, valley,
road or other objects generally for the purpose of travelling across however in
our case just for the ability to hold a large weight over a distance.
History of bridges:
The bridges were made by nature by things as simple as a log falling over
a river and the first bridges made by humans were probably the exact same as
this. Technology would have slowly increased to things such as cut pieces of
wood into planks and eventually stones.
http://images.ookaboo.com/photo/m/Arkadiko2_m.jpg 11/11/2012
The prettiest bridges in our opinion were built by the romans such as the AlcanTara Bridge in Spain. This was an arch bridge and spans 194 metres.
Page 6

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Alcantara_bridge_in_the_night.jpg
11/11/2012
Types of bridges:
A beam bridge consists of horizontal beam supported at each end by
piers. The weight of the beam pushes straight down on piers. The farther apart
its piers the weaker the beam becomes, hence, why the beam bridges rarely
spans more than 250 feet.
Truss bridge:
These consist of connected elements that form a triangle. These elements
may be compressed, put under tension or sometimes both. These are one of the
oldest types of the modern bridge. They are usually economical to construct
and normally made from straight steel bars.
Arch bridge:
Arch bridges have a great natural strength, originally built from stone or
brick however these days a greater span is possible by reinforcing with steel or
concrete. The way the arch bridge works is by transferring the downwards force
across the curve and down onto the supports at each end.
Page 7

Drawing by Chris Goulding 11/11/2012

Suspension bridge:
Suspension bridges can span the greatest distances out of all the bridge of
up to 2000 to 7000 feet. They tend to have a truss system underneath the
roadway system to resist bending and twisting. In their simplest form they were
original made from rope and wood. However, modern bridges are made of steel
cables and steel bars. One single steel cable 0.1 inch thick can supports over half
a ton without breaking. The suspension bridge is the opposite of an arch bridge
and purely based on tension. The suspension bridge is generally very light and
very efficient at saving material costs. The main problem with a suspension
bridge is the fact it is purely tension as shown in 1940 with the Tacoma narrows
bridge. The third longest bridge in the world at the time however although
designed for winds up to 120 mph it collapsed at 42mph. this is due to
resonance, where the natural frequency matched the winds frequency causing
double the size of the wave causing it to collapse.
Here is a Pasta Bridge (below) which is a mix of a truss bridge and an arch
bridge. The trigonometry of the truss section is simple to calculate and
straightforward to understand. The upper arch has similar trigonometric features
but requires greater detail in calculating the loads each section is carrying. We
wanted to take this idea of simple calculations but have a strong design.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh152/joshyb91/EngineeringBridge067.jpg 11/11/2012
Here is another arch bridge. This is one of the Brighton bridges from last
years contestants (2011) this design relied heavily on tension and the stability
of the arch. However, it was proven to be highly successful and carried an
Page 8

impressive 48kg before breaking. This showed that pasta was very strong in
tension.
http://www.brighton.ac.uk/cem/images/news/pasta_winners.jpg
http://library.thinkquest.org/J0113129/DB~1.HTM - 11/11/2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss_bridge - 11/11/2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alc%C3%A1ntara_Bridge - 11/11/2012
http://www.design-technology.org/suspensionbridges.htm - 11/11/2012
Figure 1
The red bridge in Fig1 is a prime example for a suspension bridge.

Because we will not be having a road surface in our bridge will look
slightly different to Fig1. (Please note the weight will not be placed on the
red arrow but in the middle of the bridge).
Bridge Cables:
Page 9

Cables in new bridges are never just one solid lump of steel but are made
up from many different stands or wires as shown in Fig2 and Fig3.
Figure 2
Figure 3
Taking Fig3 as an example we can see that it is made up from

multiple cables. Each coloured part is a group of 7 cables and there are
multiple groups of cables inside the outer casing of the cable itself.
Recreating this using pasta was the first idea. It would create a
flexible cable which is stronger in tension and compression and it would
maximise the usability of spaghetti. Testing the effects of increasing the
strands/cables to increase strength verses the weight was the next step
after figuring out a way to connect them.
Connecting the pasta:

Joining the pasta together will be a massive challenge. Not just end to end
but also because to force to pasta to hold the weight under tension we
must hang the pasta down. This means that the joint to the table is very
important too.
Page 10

Fig4 shows one of the cables joining to one of the columns in the Forth
Road Bridge.
Figure 4
In this bridge the cables are bolted into this lock to keep them in
places and stop them from moving. In our bridge design we will have to
implement this concept without the use of bolts (or welding) so glue will
have to be used. Moreover, rigatoni was a good way to hold the strands
at a contact point. The hollow cylinder creates a guiding line and a
strengthening.
Bridge type matrix:

Tension based
Compressions
based
Cost
Ease to
construct
Weight
Materials
Innovation
Page 11
Bridge 1
6
3
Bridge 2
5
5
Bridge 3
9
6
7
8
6
7
5
6
7
7
1
6
6
5
5
5
8

Bridge three scored the highest with 44 points. It looks ideal because
being tension based it is ideal for the material we are using while retaining
good compression. The down sides are weights issues, and construction.
Bridge 2 is an all-rounder at 40 points, a lot easier to construct but may be
limited by its capabilities.
Bridge 1 scored the lowest with 39, it has none of the benefits of bridge 2
and none of the benefits of bridge 3 however it is cheap and very simple.
http://blog.wolfram.com/images/sw/bridges2.gif fig 5
Bridge type 3 was the design we chose but it had a few issues to deal
with. This bridge type used a vast amount of materials compared to the
other bridges. So, to reduce the material usage without reducing its
integrity we reduces the hanging strands to 2 each side and split them
across the centre to create 4 strands joining at a midpoint.
Pasta Max Compression, tension and price:

Type of pasta
Tension Max (N)
Price per Kg
(Pounds)
31.5
Compression
max (28 pieces)
(N)
240
Sainsburys
Basic
Sainsburys
Premium
Rigatoni
Sainsburys
Whole grain
32.8
274
1.55
0
22.8
500.31
0
3.10
1.90
0.80
Pasta type matrix

Factor
Viability of
design
Page 12
Basic
10
Whole
0
Premium
10
Rigatoni
2

Compression
strength
Tensile strength
Cost
8
9
0
2
9
4
0
2
We did not test different glues as the cheapest glue we found when glued
to the basics spaghetti for tension testing the pasta broke before the
bonds of the glue broke therefore there was no need for stronger glue.
Method:
To be able to produce effective and efficient pasta bridge the group carried out both
compressive and tensile tests on four different types of pasta and spaghetti to make a choice
on which ones to use that satisfy the requirements of the choice of the pasta bridge to be
made. Different results were obtained as shown on the diagram below and a choice was made
accordingly. To do the measurements we used the strain gauge and the tensile testing
machines in the main workshop in E14. The diagrams, models and serial numbers of the
machines used are attached below and an explanation on how it was done is given under each
machine for clarification.
During the test the results of four different types of pasta were observed and recorded as in
the table below. All the materials used were purchased in a local super market Sainsburys.
Type of Pasta
Sainsburys Basic
Sainsburys Premium
Rigatoni
Sainsburys Whole Grain
Tension Max
(N)
31.5
32.8
0
22.8
Compression Max
(28 pieces) (N)
240
274
500.31
0
Price Per Kg /
0.80
1.55
3.10
1.90
HOW TESTING WAS CARRIED OUT:

TENSILE TEST
This test was done by a tensile testing machine in the workshop E14 and the serial number
the machine is 33100277.
Page 13

Before the test is done the group members assigned for that job made sure the machine is
zeroed. One grain of each type of pasta was inserted into the machine, and then the machine
is made to run whilst observing until the grain breaks. At this time that is when the reading is
taken. This process was repeated three times for each type to verify the results and the results
were the same for each type and for all the three times. We could not find the maximum
tension of the rigatoni as the clamp would not attach to the rigatoni for testing.
COMPRESSION TEST
This test was also carried out in the workshop in E14 using a strain gauge and the machine
does not have a serial number.
In this test the Sainsburys whole grain were put into bundles of twenty eight pieces because
of the machine mechanism. We only tested the spaghetti as twenty eight pieces together so it
would not crush under the weight of the clamp. This also gave us a chance to evaluate the
ability and performance of the types of glue on the spaghetti.
Page 14

The Whole grain just shattered just under the clamp therefore was useless for any type of
compression.
The Premium spaghetti was a lot harder to glue though very compressive. The basics held
less weight than the other two as shown on diagram above but much cheaper and generally
better for the overall construction of the bridge.
During the test the results of four different types of pasta were observed and recorded as in
the table below. All the materials used were purchased in a local super market Sainsburys.
1. From the beginning we started planning on which pasta to use,
firstly we found all the tensile and compression strengths of the
pasta using the machine in the workshop.
Here is what we found using 4 different types of pasta found in the local
super market.
We could not find the maximum tension of the rigatoni as the clamp would
not attach to the rigatoni for testing.
For the compression testing we could only test the spaghetti by putting 28
pieces together so it would not crush under the weight of the clamp, this
also gave us a chance to see the ability of glue on the spaghetti.
The Wholegrain just shattered just under the clamp therefore is useless
for any type of compression.
The Premium spaghetti was a lot harder to glue and the basics cheaper so
even though it held more weight is was generally better for the overall
construction of the bridge.
2. Now we knew the costs and strengths we put these into matrix
diagram to help us decide which type of bridge to build
The Premium spaghetti was a lot harder to glue and the basics was
cheaper so even though it held more weight the basics is was generally
better for the overall construction of the bridge therefore we chose the
Sainsburys basics pasta.
3. From here we looked into how we were to build our suspension
bridge, as shown in the theory and research we decided to use a
group of spaghetti joined together. This is vital for our design as we
need extremely strong cables to connect the base to the bases on
the table.
4. After deciding on how we were going to build the bridge we made a
prototype, an extremely useful part of our method as it showed us
Page 15

where the weak points of our design were and where we could
improve on.
Constructing the Bottom Base of the Bridge
Figure 6
5. Once the prototype was build we were set onto making our actual
bridge, we started by deciding to make all the individual
components such as the 2 side bases and 4 cables as well as the
individual parts of 14 spaghetti and 3 rigatoni for the centre base.
Therefore we could simply put everything together quickly and
efficiently without putting strain on a half made bridge.
6. We joined up the parts by each individual member holding a piece
and another member gluing these fixed pieces. The bottom base
was built once the 4 cables were joined together as shown.
Page 16

The Bridge without the Bottom Base
Figure 7
7. The base of the bridge was built from here using the pieces built
previously of 14 strands and 3 Rigatoni.
Page 17

The Design has been completed in the
Workshop
Figure 8
Page 18

Log Write up:

Date of
activity
October 2nd
October 3nd
October 10th
October 18th
October 19th
October 22nd
October 25th
October 29th
October 30th
November 1st
November 2nd
November 5th
Page 19
Phone numbers were exchanged and we all attempted the

Pontifex bridge design package.
Facebook page was created.
When we had our first group meeting. Jobs to be done were
established and divided amongst the group members.
Feedback on any development to be communicated to the
group and the construction to be finished within the
stipulated time frame. Generally meetings were held on
Mondays and Thursdays for two hours.
Materials to use were deliberated and bought, and kicked off
the construction by testing the pasta, glue and spaghetti for
compression and tensile. All the results were recorded for
different types of materials and the group made its choice
basing on the results and the design they wanted.
Different components of the bridge were made. On schedule
Different components of the bridge were made. On schedule
The group put together all the required procedures and
equipment to use for the construction. Slightly behind
schedule but an extra few hours later in the evening meant
time was caught up and back on schedule
The prototype bridge was constructed and the results were
super. 12Kg in testing. Slightly behind schedule again but
this was due to group members prior commitments.
Construction of parts of the Final bridge
The actual pasta bridge was constructed and left to dry
overnight.
The final touches were done on the bridge and unfortunately
when the bridge was being transported to the store room it
was broken and later taken home by one of the members for
repairs over the weekend.
The Pasta Bridge testing day, on the way to the testing hall
the bridge broke again. Repairs were done but could not
help because it broke again during mounting on the stage
for testing and the test was over.

The Risk Assessment:

-The basis of British health and safety law is the Health and Safety at
Work act 1974.
The Act sets out the general duties which employers have towards
employees and members of the public, and employees have to
themselves and to each other.
-The HSE leaflet five steps to risk assessment will give you more
information. Besides carrying out a risk assessment, employers also
need to:
1-Make arrangements for implementing the health and safety
measures identified as necessary by the risk assessment.
2-Appoint competent people (often themselves or company
colleagues) to help them to implement the arrangements.
3-The health and safety law had done Setting up emergency
procedures.
4-Provide clear information and training to employees.
5-The H&S Law implies employers to work and share the same
workplace.
-Health and Safety Legislation:
Social Security Act

Management of Health and Safety at Work
Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare
Provision and use of Work Equipment
Personal Protective Equipment
Manual Handling Operations
Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences
Page 20

-The things that should be dealt with according to the legislation of the
risk assessment regulations:
Building regulations, Chemicals, confined spaces, constructions, asbestos,
lead, pesticides, Control of Substances Hazardous to health, Electricity,
Fire, Gas, Display screen equipment, safety signs and signals, radiation,
first aid, employee information and consultation, noise, protective
equipment, pressure systems, reporting injuries . . .
-The risk assessment also includes:
1-Control of Substances Hazardous to Health
2-Fire Training
3-Recycling of materials (glass, cardboard, plastics...etc.)
Specific to building pasta bridges:
Try not to allow the super glue to
touch your hands as it potentially
could pull skin off
If this occurs wash hands

thoroughly with soap and possibly a
bit of white spirit
The superglue under no

circumstance can be allowed to get
on eyes and mouth
Glue guns can get very hot as well
as the hot glue itself can cause
extreme burns (as one of our
members found out the hard way)
If so wash immediately and contact

a doctor
Do not leave weights lying around

as they could be a tripping hazard
Clear area and work in a hazard free

zone
Page 21
If need be contact a doctor

otherwise keep bandaged and apply
medicine called: (Salvon)

Chris Goulding's Hand Injury
Figure 9
Discussion and calculation:

Based on the geometry of the shape and a combination of test data and
component analysis we can predict the total load achievable by the bridge
and where it should break at its peak load limit.
Firstly, we divided the bridge into 3 sections:
Section one is the side support base for the bridge;
Page 22

Construction of the Top Bases
Figure 10
The Joints of the Top Bases
Figure 11
This is made up of several layered components of 14 pieces of spaghetti

with pieces of rigatoni, one at each end and one in the middle, stacked
across each other. In testing, a single component survived up to 25kg of
compressive forces before it started to fracture and lose integrity. This
idea is similar to that in the research with a group of multiple cables
stacked together and the rigatoni holding them in place to make them
stronger.
Therefore; the top layer which consisted of 4 components can take
100kg of spread-out weight before failing. The layer below this consisted
of 5 components which makes it 1.25* stronger, expecting to fail at 125kg.
Page 23

We tried using clamps however they did not spread the load across
the cables well enough without the cables snapping.
Section Two is the group of hanging cables;
The Organization of the Pasta Bridge Design
Figure 12
This photo shows how we attached the strands together using half of the
spaghetti slide forward attached to another strand with half the spaghetti
slide backwards causing it to interlock where the rigatoni slides over the
two attached pieces for extra strength.
The 4 main strands consist of 3 components interlaced together at
the tips and glued together inside a piece of rigatoni. Under testing each
cable withstood 30kg under tension. Therefore, in combination, the 4
cables should hold 120kg of tension forces before failure.
Section Three is the suspended base in the middle of the bridge
Page 24

The 4 Cables of the Pasta Bridge
Figure 13
The base consisted of 8 components arrange to combine the 4 main

cables and create base across the gap to allow a weight to be applied for
testing. Two components held 2 cables together. From testing the (30kg
under tension) we know these 2 components hold 60kg across the two
cables. Double this for the other 2 components across the other two
cables and you find a total of 120kg. The four remaining components were
used to create a base. Each component was considered rigid after extra
rigatoni was used to reinforce the center, reducing the buckling and
bending moment. Therefore; based on testing the four components it
could hold 100kg of compression forces. This would be the predicted load
100kg
Page 25

If our bridge was made perfectly it would hold our predicted load,
however spaghetti deteriorates because of the acidic glue. It is not a
perfect geometric cylinder which we based our design on. Taking this into
consideration 10% will be taken off the max predicted load. Also the
bridge may not be made perfectly straight so another 10% will be taken
off due to potential twisting forces ripping the ridge apart.
Predicted load including safety factors

100kg * 0.9 *0.9 = 81kg
John Hopkins Bridge Builder Design shows (by drawing) how to obtain the
maximum and minimum tension and compression from the design of the bridge.
This was a useful tool to determine the failure and success of the design, in
addition to the strengths and weaknesses of the bridge.
The John Hopkins Bridge Builder Design gave these results which proved that
most of the tension was on the 4 long Cables and this matched the properties of
the pasta used to build the bridge. The basic that been used was good in tension
and weak under compression therefore it was suitable for the cables. The bottom
base had shown that the compressive forces were greater than the tension
forces, so to have good base was added more rigatoni to reinforce the
Page 26

compression. By that process, a strong component was formed (which was the
brick). The other top bases were based on the same process as the bottom base.
The re-fixing of parts consisted of two half strand of rigatoni gluing the
broken section together as shown in this photo
The Re-Fixing for 1 of the 4 Cables for the Design
Figure 14 1
Test day and Results:

On test day sadly after our bridge breaking three times before even
getting it into the hall because of transportation, we didnt manage to put
any weights. We did try to fix the bridge in the hall however we went to
put it between the two tables and the gap was a lot larger than a metre
from the last group, in the rush of realising this, the bridge snapped at the
point of the last breakage. We did manage to weigh the bridge after this
though and it came to a satisfying 950 grams, leaving 50 grams to play
with if need be. Going back to the prediction of the weight, we predicted it
to weigh 930g however it came out as 950 grams; this extra weight must
have been glue weight and possibly a small amount from fixing the parts
that broke with extra spaghetti.
Unfortunately our test day result was 0kg. However, in prototype testing
our first bridge managed to safely hold 12kg before braking. Compare this
to our prediction of 100kg.
Page 27

Result/Prediction * 100%
12/81 * 100% = 14.81%
This is a drastically poor result, which may have many reasons for
the poor result. Firstly, it was assumed that the joints would hold the
compressive forces and convey tension down the main cables. The
prototype broke at the upper joints where the cables were ben slightly and
experienced twisting the introduction of your report should establish the
history and background of the Project, that is, why it was done. It is vital
to state clearly the reasons for the project and
The objectives of the report g forces, more rigatoni would have
solved this problem, if it was know that there was room for extra weight
this would have been fixed. Spaghetti was very easily broken by bending
forces and needed reinforcing. Secondly, the glue may have weakened the
spaghetti. Our super glue was slightly acidic, over time this would erode
the spaghetti causing it to lose its strength and integrity. Moreover, the
heat from using a hot glue gun may have caused
Conclusion:
Sadly even after all of the hours put into the bridge it broke a lot due
to the transportation, we knew before we built the bridge that
transportation would be a problem as the bridge is purely a tension based
bridge. It is not designed to cope with compression or bending moments
on the cables of the bridge but we did not think it would be as fragile as it
was, we assumed we would just have to be extra careful. A storage cradle
or special support would have aided in transportation, however there
wasnt enough time to create one. We made a quick prototype in the
workshop which we tested where we built it and this held 12 kilograms
and we assumed the final product would hold a lot more as the prototype
was not built as efficiently and to the standard of the final product. The
prototype was destroyed in testing. A better idea would have been to
build a copy of the bridge in case the original broke before testing. In real
life a bridge would not be transported however if we were to do the
project again we would suggest making a bridge that is a lot less fragile.
Generally we are happy with the design, no other group made one like
ours and although we knew it would be a challenge we are all very proud
of what we built. As a group we worked together very well, we had
frequent group meetings which lead to fresh innovative ideas being
discussed to solve various issues that arose. As a final comment, our
group worked hard and put in maximum effort but it didnt create our best
final product or results.
Page 28

The Gantt chart:
Page 29

Page 30

Reference:
-https://studentcentral.brighton.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-568733-dtcontent-rid-2461127_1/xid-2461127_1
- Fig1. http://www.technologystudent.com/struct1/cable1.htm
-Fig2. http://mercerislandblogger.wordpress.com/tag/commuting/
-Fig3. http://regex.info/blog/2008-12-09/1021
-Fig4. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mike-hume/4067337605/
-Photos Courtesy by: Chris Goulding
-Hopkins Analysis: http://www.jhu.edu/virtlab/bridge/bridge.htm
Page 31

Pasta Bridge Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pasta Bridge Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Chakanyuka-Tom Tarlton-Richard Matkins

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Theory and research:................................................................. 5

The Risk Assessment:...........................................................19

Discussion and calculation:.....................................................21

Test day and Results:...............................................................25

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

It must be self-supporting between two tables 1m apart.

The weight must be applied at the centre of the bridge.

The structure must stand, laden, for more than 20 seconds.

You may not build a Glue Bridge.

To refine planning and working within limits,

It must be self-supporting between two tables 1m apart.

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

The Group tasks:

Lead report writer, Log making, group communications,

Material testing, lead data logger, design coordinator,

Lead coordinator, task delegator, materials tester,

Material testing and review, component construction,

Design researcher, theory researcher, lead component

Lead design researcher, theory researcher, lead

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Theory and research:

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Drawing by Chris Goulding 11/11/2012

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

The red bridge in Fig1 is a prime example for a suspension bridge.

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Taking Fig3 as an example we can see that it is made up from

Connecting the pasta:

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Bridge type matrix:

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Pasta Max Compression, tension and price:

Tension Max (N)

Pasta type matrix

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

HOW TESTING WAS CARRIED OUT:

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Log Write up:

Phone numbers were exchanged and we all attempted the

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

The Risk Assessment:

Social Security Act

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

If this occurs wash hands

The superglue under no

If so wash immediately and contact

Do not leave weights lying around

Clear area and work in a hazard free

If need be contact a doctor

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

Discussion and calculation:

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick

This is made up of several layered components of 14 pieces of spaghetti

Group 14 Members: Chris Goulding-Ahmad Abdul-Hamid-Gareth Davies-Patrick