Meeting 4/21/15

Mark Odorizzi, Daniel Synoski, John Vargo                                                                                    

4/21/2015

Group 42 Section 940

Week 4, Meeting 7

Objectives

Finalize a Constraints list

Discuss placement of shelter within site

Propose structural designs

Procedure

The group started to create a final list of constraints with seating given that seating may be the most important part in determining the future design of the shelter. This was relatively easy to come to a conclusion with. The group figured that eight to twelve seats should cover the average occupancy and that a 2’x2’ seat would provide ample room. Next, the group discussed the AV Display. A simple 3’x1’ design on the south wall will show the arrival time and current time. It will be LED and waterproof. Inside the shelter a map and schedule information will be posted. Music will be playing at certain times of the day. There will be four AC outlets and an emergency call box for Drexel Police. The shelter will be lit.

The meat of the meeting came in discussing the design. John proposed a starting point of 16’x8’ design to give around 128 sf inside the shelter. There was a consensus that the shelter would have two entrances five feet in width. The path to the entrances created debate, however. Three path designs were proposed. First, John suggested that there be two paths to each door to provide more green space in front of the shelter and add to the aesthetics of the area. Next, Mark suggested to cut out the whole space in front of the shelter and put sidewalk in to keep people off of the sidewalk if they can’t fit in the shelter. Finally, Dan combined the two proposals and suggested that next to the building, there would be all sidewalk, but next two the passing sidewalk there would be a garden space. These three figures are shown respectively in Figure 7-1.

Figure 7-1: Path Proposals

The group agreed that the structure should be able to withstand the standards that Dr. Mitchell provided in week two (category 1 hurricane, 25 lb/sf of vertical load, 20 lb/sf of horizontal load). For the roof, the group said that the roof will have an arched design with Mario the Dragon on top.

Obstacles

The group differed on many opinions regarding the design, but successfully came to a conclusion for the constraints list. It was difficult to come to a logical conclusion for each criterion without having doubts.

Progress Against Schedule

The group has concluded its shelter research and made strides with structural design. The group scrapped the environmental report and will put any environmental impacts in the final report.

Questions for Dr. Mitchell

Which path do you think will work best in terms of aesthetics and practicality?

Are there any constraints that are not included in the list?

What is the next step in design?

Goals for next meeting

Check off the constraints list

Learn more about load bearing calculations

Meeting 4/15/15

Mark Odorizzi, Daniel Synoski, John Vargo                                                                                    

4/15/2015

Group 42 Section 940

Week 3, Meeting 6

Objectives

Present criteria matrix for location to Dr. Mitchell

Discuss potential design criteria based on online research

Determine the next step in structural design

Procedure

Upon review, Dr. Mitchell approved the criteria matrix. He suggested more considerations for location had this been a longer project, but said that this was sufficient for a 10 week project. Dan presented the AutoCAD site plan to Dr. Mitchell for approval and then the group began discussion on design.

In continued discussion about design criteria and constraints, Dr. Mitchell provided a few things to think about.

• Comfortable Seating
• How many seats?
• What defines comfort?
• AV Display
• What is displayed?
• How big is it?
• Where is it placed?
• How many displays are there?
• Can it be seen from outside of the shelter?
• Is it shaded from the sun?
• Is it protected from vandalism?
• Amenities
• Trash can?
• Route map leaflets?
• Sound?
• Lighting?

Dr. Mitchell said that for next week, the group needs to have a set list of criteria for design.

Next, the group discussed structural design with Dr. Mitchell. He said to design in 2D and 3D simultaneously. In other words, when designing a floor plan always have a 3D vision in mind. Here the group showed Dr. Mitchell the research they had done online and discussed the benefits of each design.
Finally, Dr. Mitchell gave a brief introduction to beam theory and suggested that the group look up Beam Deflection online. Dr. Mitchell also gave the group links to various videos regarding Beam Theory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K27dJqGpf8[2]; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af2i7OihAbc[3]). Figure 6-1 shows the basic concepts that Dr. Mitchell Introduced in the meeting.

Figure 6-1: Load (a), Shear (b), and Moment (c) Diagrams[4]

Obstacles

There were no obstacles to report this meeting.

Progress against Schedule

The survey is complete, design is starting and research on bus shelter continues. The group has not yet completed its design criteria and constraints so it is behind schedule on that portion. However, there is more that goes into the constraints list than what was previously predicted. This will be completed by the end of the week.

Goals for next meeting

The group will have a set list of criteria and have designs to propose to Dr. Mitchell. Structure/beam research will continue. The group will think about how the shelter can be layed out on the site.

Meeting 4/11/15

Mark Odorizzi, Daniel Synoski, John Vargo                                                                                    

4/11/2015

Group 42 Section 940

Week 2, Meeting 5

Objectives

Finalize location criteria

Determine location

Survey site

Procedure

The group met in the Papadakis Integrated Science Building (PISB). At the start of the meeting, the group wrote the criteria needed for a location. Some of the criteria included: proximity to the stop, space available, obstructions, and green space. The grape rated these criteria from 1-3 while viewing three possible sites locations; garden bed on the face of PISB, the sidewalk, and the grass bed next to the 33rd St. trolley station. The criteria were inputted into a criteria matrix where each criterion was weighted from 1-5 (Table 5-1). With a final score of 47, the garden bed won.

Table 5-1: Criteria Matrix for Location

Mark and John then used the surveying equipment that Dr. Mitchell provided to find where every landmark was. Dan drew a rough sketch of the site with dimensions from various perspectives (Figure 5-1).

Figure 5-1: Site plan sketches

Throughout the week, the group continued to proposed various designs. Mark did research of bus shelters around the world and the group discussed the advantages of each design.

Obstacles

During the survey, the group discovered a communications cover in the ground of the bed. It is unclear how large it is and if there are more throughout the site. Further subterranean research will be done.

Progress Against Schedule

CADD drawings are starting after the meeting beginning with an AutoCAD site plan done by Dan. The group is researching beam theory and continues to propose design ideas. The survey is done meaning the group is on track with the schedule.

Questions for Dr. Mitchell

Does the criteria matrix have a reliable amount of criteria for determining the site location?

What are the benefits of each of the bus stops that we have researched?

What should we start on next?

Goals for next meeting

Dan will have a site plan done for Dr. Mitchell. The group will develop a set of possible design criteria to propose to Dr. Mitchell. The group will know more about beam theory.

Site Location/Planning

Posted on 4/22/15

Throughout the week of 4/6/15, the group decided upon the location for the bus shelter. This decision was made by considering environmental constraints on the location of the bus stop as well as criteria that the group imposed on the shelter itself. These constraints and criteria were weighted by importance and ranked within a criteria matrix, as discussed previously. The matrix used to determine the location is shown below:

Figure 1: Weighted Criteria Matrix

As shown in the Total row of the matrix, the option best suited for the shuttle shelter is Site 1, the flower bed located outside of the Papadakis Integrated Science Building, near the 33rd Street building entrance. This sight is shown here:

Figure 2: Selected shelter site

Upon making this decision, the group headed to the project site on Saturday, April 11th to survey the site and take measurements of the dimensions and constraining elements present on the site (trees, meters/signs on sidewalk, etc.) The measurements taken were compiled into a preliminary site plan, drawn in AutoCAD by Daniel Synoski. A few screenshots displaying different layers of the plan are shown below.

Figure 3a: Site Plan with all dimensions shown

Figure 3b: Basic dimensions of project site

Figure 3c: Dimensions to be considered in design of shelter

Moving forward, the group intends to begin implementing research on existing shelters coupled with their own ideas to come up with preliminary designs for the shelter. Meanwhile, instruction is being provided by Professor Mitchell in order to begin the structural analysis of the shelter. Further research will also begin regarding subsurface conditions.

Meeting 4/8/15

Mark Odorizzi, Daniel Synoski, John Vargo                                                                                    

4/8/2015

Group 42 Section 940

Week 2, Meeting 4

Objectives

Present design proposal to Dr. Mitchell

Discuss location of the shuttle shelter with Dr. Mitchell

Seek guidance regarding the next step of the project

Procedure

The first order of business was to present the design proposal to Dr. Mitchell. In comparison to other design teams, Dr. Mitchell predicted, the design proposal was far more in depth and prepared. However, if he were to be grading harshly, he had some suggestions. The proposal had allocated the correct amount of time to structural analysis and the 3D model. It did not, however discuss the time it would take to learn about load calculations and 3D modeling software. Dr. Mitchell suggested that the group research these subjects soon. The specifics came later in the meeting.

The next order of business was regarding the site and design itself. Dr. Mitchell knew that the group had a site location in mind already, but suspected that the deliberation process was thin. For both the location and ultimate design decisions, Dr. Mitchell suggested that the group create a criteria matrix. An example is shown in Table 4-1.:

Table 4-1: Criteria Matrix Example

	Weight	Solution 1	Weighted 1	Solution 2	Weighted 2	Solution 3	Weighted 3
Criteria 1	1	2	2	5	5	3	3
Criteria 2	1.2	3	3.6	4	4.8	4	4.8
Criteria 3	2	1	2	2	4	5	10
Criteria 4	1	4	4	5	5	5	5
Criteria 5	1	2	2	4	4	1	1
Total Score			13.6		22.8		23.8

The matrix should be filled out using a 1-5 scale with 1 being poor and 5 being great. Each criterion should also be weighted based on importance. The solution with the highest score gives a projection of what the best solution is. There is room for error and double checking each criteria weight, but it gives a relatively accurate result.

Dr. Mitchell then started a brief overview on structural analysis. He told the group that a structure should have a load strength around two to three times the average load expected. To demonstrate the compressive strength of a material Dr. Mitchell used steel as an example.

Figure 4-1: Stress-Strain Diagram of Steel [1]

This curve shows how materials act like like a spring as the stress increases linearly with the strain. Steel, especially is extremely elastic and will return to its original shape until the strain reaches its proportional limit. At this point the material will distort and not revert to its original shape and strength. This is the point that engineers get materials compressive strength.

The second problem the group is going to face structurally, according to Dr. Mitchell, is buckling. This is when a beam starts to bend and create more non-linear strain. This theory, called beam theory, is complex so Dr. Mitchell suggests that the group should start researching it in the next week.

At the end of the meeting Mark Odorizzi checked out surveying supplies from Dr. Mitchell’s office for the next weekend meeting.

Obstacles

The group faced problems thinking about the engineering problems holistically. Thankfully, Dr. Mitchell saw that there were potential difficulties ahead and warned the group to start researching now. There are no other obstacles to report.