![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Bridge Building 2016
-
- Member
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:13 pm
- Division: C
- State: NJ
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Bridge Building 2016
Both bridges I tested were low mass and they got 1st and 2nd. The scores will remain a mystery until somebody
tells me the Union efficiencies....
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
-
- Coach
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:00 pm
- Division: C
- State: FL
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 21 times
Re: Bridge Building 2016
noobforce wrote:Both bridges I tested were low mass and they got 1st and 2nd. The scores will remain a mystery until somebodytells me the Union efficiencies....
I think that is fair...
-
- Member
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:41 am
- Division: C
- State: CA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Bridge Building 2016
Can someone provide the link to the checklist for Bridge event? I remember seeing one (on this website) where it had info on how each tier will be decided on a pdf document few months back. I can't locate it now.
If anyone has access to the official checklist that would be used, pl provide. Thanks.
If anyone has access to the official checklist that would be used, pl provide. Thanks.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 4319
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:48 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: GA
- Has thanked: 222 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Bridge Building 2016
It's on soinc.org (here it is)VansBuilders wrote:Can someone provide the link to the checklist for Bridge event? I remember seeing one (on this website) where it had info on how each tier will be decided on a pdf document few months back. I can't locate it now.
If anyone has access to the official checklist that would be used, pl provide. Thanks.
-
- Member
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:25 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: NJ
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Bridge Building 2016
I already sent you a message which you've never responded to. At any rate, my high school alma mater got first and second too AND beat out like WWPHSN and South Brunswick in the event. So I'm pretty confident without even sharing scores.noobforce wrote:Both bridges I tested were low mass and they got 1st and 2nd. The scores will remain a mystery until somebodytells me the Union efficiencies....
Re: Bridge Building 2016
Hi my name is Frank Herman and I am competing in Science Olympiad Bridge building. I am having a hard time building bridges. If you guys have any useful tips or tricks, and or bridge designs, It would be much appreciated if you would share them.
Thanks,
Frank
Thanks,
Frank
-
- Member
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:59 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: CA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Bridge Building 2016
FrankHerman wrote:Hi my name is Frank Herman and I am competing in Science Olympiad Bridge building. I am having a hard time building bridges. If you guys have any useful tips or tricks, and or bridge designs, It would be much appreciated if you would share them.
Thanks,
Frank
Read through the entire Bridge building forum this year and last year, which seems like a daunting task, but you can probably tell which posts to thoroughly read and which ones to skip over. There is a lot of good information in those posts right at your fingertips. The wiki page on this site is also a good place to start if you are just beginning. It's hard to give you tips if you don't have a specific problem.
Good luck and have fun!
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 4319
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:48 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: GA
- Has thanked: 222 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Bridge Building 2016
Threads from previous years about this event rotation (Boomilever, Towers or Tower Building, & Elevated Bridge) are also helpful, especially in more general matters like gluing effectively.FrankHerman wrote:Hi my name is Frank Herman and I am competing in Science Olympiad Bridge building. I am having a hard time building bridges. If you guys have any useful tips or tricks, and or bridge designs, It would be much appreciated if you would share them.
Thanks,
Frank
-
- Member
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:25 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: NJ
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Bridge Building 2016
So someone correct me if I'm wrong (I'm a biomathematics major, although one with a strong interest in engineering), but I had a sudden pop into my mind that I'm rather curious about.
Does this year's rules with regards to the test support actually affect division B more and thus pose a bigger challenge to them than division C? Like, by nature of the rules, division C bridges are longer than division B bridges because of a longer mandated span. Consequently, the test support creates a larger angle of inclination for division B bridges than division C bridges. I'm going along the lines of simple geometry. For division C, it's a "rise" of 5 cm to a "run" of 45 cm. For division B, it's about a rise of 5 cm to run of 35 cm.
Thus, doesn't this create a larger change in the direction of forces and stress for division B than division C compared to last year? In other words, don't division B teams have more to change in their designs than division C with regards to changing truss designs, thickness of members, etc.?
I emphasize, however, that regardless of division, the test support doesn't seem to be changing the problem that much. But the question I ask is does division B technically have more to deal with than division C in terms of change?
Does this year's rules with regards to the test support actually affect division B more and thus pose a bigger challenge to them than division C? Like, by nature of the rules, division C bridges are longer than division B bridges because of a longer mandated span. Consequently, the test support creates a larger angle of inclination for division B bridges than division C bridges. I'm going along the lines of simple geometry. For division C, it's a "rise" of 5 cm to a "run" of 45 cm. For division B, it's about a rise of 5 cm to run of 35 cm.
Thus, doesn't this create a larger change in the direction of forces and stress for division B than division C compared to last year? In other words, don't division B teams have more to change in their designs than division C with regards to changing truss designs, thickness of members, etc.?
I emphasize, however, that regardless of division, the test support doesn't seem to be changing the problem that much. But the question I ask is does division B technically have more to deal with than division C in terms of change?
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 2416
- Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:12 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: WA
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 179 times
- Been thanked: 758 times
Re: Bridge Building 2016
I don't have an answer at this hour but the different spans brings up another question: does the "tilt" have more of an effect for a large angle change involving a short span or a smaller angle involving a longer span? Does span or angle affect the challenge more? I would guess the span's added challenge dramatically increases with greater spans, with greater angles adding more challenge but with less of a magnitude. Just a guess coming from a sleepy person though.nxtscholar wrote:So someone correct me if I'm wrong (I'm a biomathematics major, although one with a strong interest in engineering), but I had a sudden pop into my mind that I'm rather curious about.
Does this year's rules with regards to the test support actually affect division B more and thus pose a bigger challenge to them than division C? Like, by nature of the rules, division C bridges are longer than division B bridges because of a longer mandated span. Consequently, the test support creates a larger angle of inclination for division B bridges than division C bridges. I'm going along the lines of simple geometry. For division C, it's a "rise" of 5 cm to a "run" of 45 cm. For division B, it's about a rise of 5 cm to run of 35 cm.
Thus, doesn't this create a larger change in the direction of forces and stress for division B than division C compared to last year? In other words, don't division B teams have more to change in their designs than division C with regards to changing truss designs, thickness of members, etc.?
I emphasize, however, that regardless of division, the test support doesn't seem to be changing the problem that much. But the question I ask is does division B technically have more to deal with than division C in terms of change?
"One of the ways that I believe people express their appreciation to the rest of humanity is to make something wonderful and put it out there." – Steve Jobs