Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Kimberly Riegel

EDSGN 100
December 9, 2015

Wind Resistant Tower

Background and Introduction:

Standing at 2717 feet tall the Burj Khalifa in Dubai is the tallest building in the world. Its
towering height may seem like an incredible achievement but actually is not its biggest feat.
Dubai, located in the United Arab Emirates, rests in a desert region of the Middle East bordering
the Persian Gulf. The combination of desert terrain and coastal winds is notorious for stirring up
sandstorms. Extreme high winds can prove detrimental for tall standing structures. The Burj
Khalifas aerodynamic design deters and reflects strong winds coming from any direction. This
clever feat of engineering inspired us to create our own building that could maximize structural
integrity in adverse elements. Our project implements two different designs that prioritize wind
resistance. One with multiple curved sides inspired by Burj Khalifa and another with airshafts
allowing wind to pass straight through. Through our design and tests we were able to determine
which design was more aerodynamic and structurally sound, and overall which design would be
more wind resistant if actually build.

Materials and Methods: Designing and Building

The construction of our two towers was a rather simple design and build. Tower 1 was designed
as an inverted hexagon, with each side curved allowing the wind to come at the tower but curve
away. This allowed the tower to be able to withstand a higher pressure of wind coming at and
directly hitting it. It was constructed using Popsicle sticks, construction paper and hot glue. The
base, center and top of the tower was constructed using six popsicle sticks arranged in a hexagon
shape, double layered, allowing for the sturdy frame. Then a Popsicle stick was glued to the
inside of each end of the base and center, creating a vertical structure running up the middle of
the tower. Construction paper was then used to curve around the outside of the structure to create
the inverted curves. That made possible having the Popsicle sticks on the outside curved around
the structure. This method of building and construction made it so the tower was able to
withstand the tests of air force, pressure applied to the top of the structure, and the amount of
turns in the vice grip until the tower cracked. Tower 2 had a completely different construction
and design than Tower 1. With Tower 2 the design was a three tier building, with vertical slits in
the outer edges which allowed the wind to flow through the building, rather than only hitting it
directly. The design also features four curves edges, which like Tower 1 allowed the wind to
curve away from the building. Tower 2 was constructed using Popsicle sticks and hot glue. The
tower was made by gluing the sticks in a square, which was then replicated two times in a
smaller scale to show the two other tiers. This construction and design was shown not to be
effective, since the way of construction did not allow the vertical slits to be made for air to flow
through. Also because of the design, when the Tower 2 was put through the three tests that were
previously mentioned, it collapsed and broke early on during each test. In the end it was
concluded that Tower 1 was the better design, having a greater structural integrity, design
effectiveness and resistance to wind than Tower 2.

Procedure: Design, Build and Test

One of the most important aspects of creating a design is the procedures one must take. The
procedures we included into our project was the design, the building process, and the testing of
the two designs. For our project in particular the design was the most challenging procedure to
tackle. This was due to the severity of how well the design had to be in order to actually work.
We needed something that was capable of high wind speeds so the design was a major part in
helping to accomplish such a task. We as a group came up with two designs. They had similar
purposes, but just different build designs. Once we got the designs out of the way we had to start
the procedures for building the two different designs. The procedures we followed for the
designs were to make them the same height roughly, and to make them the same style which was
to have points at each section of the building so that wind would brush off the walls of the
design. In order to test the results we had to figure out a way to test how sturdy and strong each
building was. To do this we used vice grip to test the stability of the design itself and then we
also added weight to the top of each one so we knew the strength of the buildings. Without these
procedures we would have never been able to create these designs which we then built and
tested.

Results and Discussion: Qualitative and Quantitative Data

The following data tables were collected from the test results and surveys. The goal was to build
a tower structurally strong and resistant to wind. The results from the tests and survey were used
to decide which tower was better.

On a scale from 1-10, 1 being least wanted and 10 being most


wanted.

How important is it: 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Structural integrity: 8.6 9.8 7 9.6 9.4 8.88

Visual Appeal: 1.6 7.6 2.2 7 5.8 4.84

Cost Efficiency: 6.8 7 6.6 8.5 9 7.58

Design Effectiveness: 5.8 8 6 9.3 7.2 7.26

Eco Friendly: 5.2 8.6 3.4 6.4 5.8 5.88

Maximum Capacity: 4.8 7.8 5.2 7.8 7.6 6.64

Resistance to Wind: 7.8 9.6 7.2 9 7.2 8.16

Maximum Height: 2.8 7.4 7 7 6.4 6.12

Base Area: 1.6 7.4 2.6 6.4 5.6 4.72


Overall
Avg. 6.675556
Criteria Tower 1 Tower 2
Wind resistance >20psi Fell at 10psi

Structural integrity (lateral) 9.5 vice grip turns 1.5 vice grip turns

Structural integrity (vertical) 15kg 3.1kg

Amount of resources (weight) 341.5g 73.6g

Length 9.5in 3.5in


Width 9.5in 4in
height 9.5in 14.5in

Tower 1 overall proved to be the better tower proving better in all the test results. Tower 1 held
about 12 kg more than Tower 2, withstood 8 more turns on the vice, and was able to withstand a
20 psi wind blast compared to Tower 2 which fell at 10 psi. Tower 1 proved to have the better
design because of an increased base area and decreased height that improved structural strength
and resistance to wind. This is mainly because Tower 1 used almost 5x as many resources as
Tower 2. The qualitative data in chart 1 shows that cost efficiency scored a 7.58 but the two most
important aspects were still structural integrity with a score of 8.88 and resistance to wind which
scored an 8.16. Even though Tower 2 was cheaper, the design and build of Tower 1 still proved
to be better during testing and Tower 1 was the better design.

Conclusion:

After performing all the tests devised to test the criteria, we came to a conclusion that Tower 1
was the better choice. Ultimately, the nature of Tower 1 is what helped the tower greatly in the
wind test and the vertical pressure test. The wider base yielded greater stability and allowed
pressure to be dispersed over a larger area. Tower 2 was taller and thinner which led to its failure
in all of the tests performed, it almost worked well as the status quo tower to be tested against.
So the question arises whether to altogether abandon the competition of making the worlds
largest tower in favor of making buildings that are shorter and wider. The answer to that is no.
Unfortunately in our modern growing cities where sprawling is already a problem, we cant
afford the sacrifice of land to make our towers any wider than they have to be, so we have to
continue our pursuit upward. The skies are almost unlimited compared to the space we have near
the ground so we have to keep pushing higher, the key is battling high winds. In the end, one can
conclude that the concaved faces might be the missing key as they are effective in channeling the
wind into another direction gradually rather than acting as the flat slate that represents a regular
tower.

Вам также может понравиться