1 / 34

“Float” Cardboard Vessel Contest November 1999

“Float” Cardboard Vessel Contest November 1999 James Martin Lisia Rivera Lab Section 2 Outline/Overview: Introduction Objectives Constraints Approach Decision Preliminary Sketches Calculations Outline/Overview Cont: Prototype Refinement Implementation Results Conclusion

RexAlvis
Download Presentation

“Float” Cardboard Vessel Contest November 1999

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Float” Cardboard Vessel ContestNovember 1999 James Martin Lisia Rivera Lab Section 2 Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  2. Outline/Overview: • Introduction • Objectives • Constraints • Approach • Decision • Preliminary Sketches • Calculations Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  3. Outline/Overview Cont: • Prototype • Refinement • Implementation • Results • Conclusion • Improvements • Acknowledgements Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  4. Introduction: Buoyancy Force • Forces acting on object in water: • upward force: buoyancy force • downward force: weight force • Certain amount of water is displaced • The buoyancy force = volume of the displaced water Captain + Vessel Weight Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific (water)

  5. Main Objectives: • To create a floatable vessel with only: • Corrugated, brown cardboard • Duct tape • Survive/optimize both the speed and endurance tests Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  6. Other Objectives: • Optimize endurance: • Durable design that will last in the water • Optimize speed: • Sleek with least amount of drag • Optimize size: • Just large enough for captain to fit in Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  7. Constraints: • Vessel can only weigh 30 lbs. • Paddled by captain’s arms and legs • Only 50 ft of duct tape • No pre-constructed materials • Less than 5 feet width (lane markers) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  8. Constraints Cont: • Captain’s life vest must not go below water level for 3 seconds • Must complete 2 laps of UOP pool • Must survive the endurance test after completing laps Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  9. Approach:Idea #1: Pontoon vessel • Advantages: • Traps air • Keeps vessel afloat • Disadvantages: • Water fill inside quickly • Hard for captain to navigate (example of vessel—2D bottom view) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  10. Approach:Idea #2: (example of vessel—2D bottom view) Boat-type vessel: • Advantages: • Minimize water drag • Very stable • Disadvantages: • Large size: hard for captain to navigate • Hard to build Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  11. Decision: (Idea #2—Boat type vessel) • Because of the first structure’s weaknesses, we went with our second idea • will hold up longer in the pool • better balance, control, and speed • Less bulk weight Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  12. Decision Cont: Key Features: • Front pointed and sloped upward: • Less water drag = faster speed • Wide body: • Easy to balance = faster speed • Tall sides: • Prevent water from flowing in = better endurance • Tall rear wall: • Prevent water from flowing in = better endurance Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  13. Preliminary Sketches: 3D-Rear sketch (meters) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  14. Preliminary Sketches Cont: 2D Bottom Sketch (meters) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  15. Preliminary Sketches Cont: 2D Top View (meters) 3D Side View (meters) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  16. Final Calculations: • Buoyancy Force (force of water): • Equal to total weight (captain + vessel) • Buoyancy Force = (63.6kg +3.2kg) • Buoyancy Force=66.8kg Captain + Vessel Weight Buoyancy Force (water) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  17. Calculations Cont: • Submerged Volume (in water): • Bf=Liquid density * gravity * submerged volume • Bf=66.8kg • Liquid density of water = 1000 kg/m3 • Gravity = 9.81 m/s2 • Solve for Volume: • 66.8kg=(1000kg/m3)(9.81m/s2)(volume) • Volume = 0.0068 m3 Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  18. Calculations Cont: • “Float” base area (in water): • Total Base area =(length*width) of square on vessel • Front nose doesn’t touch water, its area is excluded • Area = (0.79m*0.74m) • Area = 0.58m2 Length (0.74m) Width (0.79m) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  19. Calculations Cont: • Minimum height of vessel • Min height=submerged volume/base area • Volume =0.0068m3 • Base area = 0.58m2 • Min height=(0.0068m3)/(0.58m2) • Minimum height = 0.12m • Our vessel height = 0.3 m, thus meeting this criteria Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  20. Testing Prototype: • Prototype = 1/3 scale of vessel • Wrapped prototype in plastic • Tested in pool with heavy rocks (50 lbs) • Vessel survived • Needed improvements • Sides, dimension, layers Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific (Prototype being tested)

  21. Prototype Pictures Cont: Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific (Testing out Prototype)

  22. Refinement/Changes: • Too wide: • Width 0.79m instead of 1.1m • Length 1.0m instead of 1.1m • Sloped rear upward: • Help with captain’s weight and balance 0.79m width (“Float” side view) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific 1.0m length

  23. Refinement/Changes Cont: • Layered bottom and sides: • More strength • Better endurance • Decreased side height: • Side walls: 0.3m instead of 0.5m • Rear wall: 0.27m instead of 0.3m • Help captain use his legs • Based on calculations 0.27m height Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific 0.3m height

  24. Implementation: • The vessel took approximately seven hours to complete • Built the vessel in the basement of Casa Werner (Side view of “Float”) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  25. Implementation Cont: (Top view of “Float”) (Bottom view of “Float”) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  26. Implementation Cont: (Prototype and “Float”) (Side view of “Float”) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  27. “The Big Day” Results: • “Float” completed 2 laps: • Speed: 1 minute, 11 seconds: 1st in heat • Endurance: 16 minutes, 13 seconds • Fulfilled all criteria and constraints (Pre-competition gathering) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  28. “The Big Day” Cont: (“Float” starting off the two laps, testing out speed) (The return trip back) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  29. “The Big Day” Cont: (Captain Mike testing out “Float’s” endurance) (The endurance competition) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  30. Conclusion: • Float fulfilled specified constraints • Weighed 3.2kg (7 lbs) • Used under 15.2m (50 ft) of duct tape • Was constructed with corrugated, brown cardboard only (“Float” side view) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  31. Conclusion Cont: • Front sloped end: • Provided less drag=faster time • Back sloped end: • Provided both strength and durability in holding captain • Layered bottom: • Kept water out • Strength for endurance test (“Float” bottom view) Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  32. Conclusion Cont: • Layered sides: • Extra strength for endurance test • Efficient use of duct tape: • Held “Float” together • Kept water out as long as possible • Small size: • Easy maneuverability • Lightweight • Optimized structure strength Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific (“Float” top view)

  33. Possible Improvements: • Better visibility: • Hard for captain to see, sitting backwards • More layered cardboard in front: • More strength, longer endurance • More layered cardboard in corners: • Better strength, longer endurance Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

  34. Acknowledgements: • Other members of our group: • Xiaojin Gan • Captain Mike: keeping “Float” floating for as long as possible • Hector Rivera for cardboard • Melanie Badinski for pictures of competition and use of scanner Cardboard Vessel Contest ENGR 5-University of the Pacific

More Related