A​ ​Technical​ ​Report​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Design​ ​and

Development​ ​of​ ​an​ ​Effective​ ​Cardboard

Crane​ ​Through
Problem​ ​Solving

Authors
Abigail​ ​Oliver
Sara​ ​Sohmer
Thatcher​ ​Stevens
Lunet​ ​Yifru

Submitted​ ​To
Alicia​ ​Anderson
Engineering​ ​101-​ ​H06
Freshman​ ​Engineering
Statler​ ​College​ ​of​ ​Engineering​ ​and​ ​Mineral​ ​Resources
West​ ​Virginia​ ​University
Morgantown,​ ​WV

September​ ​27,​ ​2017

Signatures:​ ​ ​By​ ​signing​ ​this​ ​we​ ​agree​ ​that​ ​we​ ​have​ ​not​ ​committed​ ​any​ ​academic​ ​dishonesty​ ​or
received​ ​outside​ ​help​ ​in​ ​any​ ​aspect​ ​of​ ​completing​ ​this​ ​project.​ ​ ​We​ ​have​ ​each​ ​read​ ​and​ ​edited​ ​this
report.

Abigail​ ​Oliver:​ ​Was​ ​a​ ​part​ ​of​ ​writing​ ​the​ ​following​ ​sections-​ ​Introduction
______________________________________________

Sara​ ​Sohmer:​ ​Was​ ​a​ ​part​ ​of​ ​writing​ ​the​ ​following​ ​sections-​ ​Methods​ ​and​ ​Materials,​ ​Conclusion,
and​ ​Future​ ​Work
______________________________________________

Thatcher​ ​Stevens:​ ​Was​ ​a​ ​part​ ​of​ ​writing​ ​the​ ​following​ ​sections-​ ​Results​ ​and​ ​Discussion
______________________________________________

Lunet​ ​Yifru:​ ​Was​ ​a​ ​part​ ​of​ ​writing​ ​the​ ​following​ ​sections-​ ​Abstract
______________________________________________
Abstract

The​ ​cardboard​ ​crane​ ​project​ ​aimed​ ​at​ ​constructing​ ​a​ ​crane​ ​using​ ​only​ ​cardboard,​ ​sticky

tape,​ ​white​ ​glue,​ ​natural​ ​fiber​ ​string​ ​and​ ​a​ ​one-inch​ ​paperclip.​ ​This​ ​crane​ ​must​ ​have​ ​the​ ​ability​ ​to

lift​ ​a​ ​minimum​ ​of​ ​20oz​ ​of​ ​weight​ ​from​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​up​ ​to​ ​a​ ​height​ ​of​ ​12.0in,​ ​rotate​ ​this​ ​weight​ ​90°

and​ ​release​ ​it​ ​into​ ​the​ ​cargo​ ​bed​ ​of​ ​a​ ​toy​ ​truck.​ ​The​ ​crane​ ​must​ ​also​ ​weigh​ ​under​ ​20.0oz,​ ​and​ ​it

must​ ​fit​ ​into​ ​a​ ​box​ ​with​ ​dimensions​ ​of​ ​2.0ft​ ​by​ ​2.0ft​ ​by​ ​2.0ft.​ ​ ​After​ ​thorough​ ​research​ ​on​ ​various

models,​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​was​ ​built​ ​with​ ​three​ ​major​ ​parts.​ ​The​ ​base​ ​was​ ​constructed​ ​by​ ​attaching​ ​five,

5.0in​ ​by​ ​5.0in​ ​square​ ​cardboards​ ​glued​ ​on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​one​ ​another,​ ​and​ ​sticking​ ​those​ ​on​ ​a​ ​different

set​ ​of​ ​five,​ ​10.0in​ ​by​ ​5.0in​ ​rectangle​ ​cardboards​ ​stacked​ ​upon​ ​each​ ​other​ ​in​ ​the​ ​same​ ​manner.

The​ ​arm​ ​was​ ​made​ ​with​ ​interlocking​ ​sides​ ​(Basa),​ ​and​ ​the​ ​bottom​ ​rested​ ​on​ ​nine​ ​stacked​ ​circular

disks​ ​with​ ​a​ ​diameter​ ​of​ ​2.0in​ ​surrounding​ ​a​ ​dowel​ ​to​ ​implement​ ​a​ ​rotation​ ​of​ ​90°.​ ​ ​The​ ​crank

was​ ​designed​ ​as​ ​to​ ​wind​ ​a​ ​string​ ​around​ ​a​ ​2.0in​ ​diameter​ ​spool​ ​supported​ ​by​ ​circles​ ​of​ ​diameter

3.5in​ ​and​ ​rectangles​ ​with​ ​3.5in​ ​by​ ​4.5in​ ​one​ ​on​ ​each​ ​side​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​each​ ​other​ ​by​ ​90°​ ​brackets

on​ ​top​ ​and​ ​a​ ​dowel​ ​inserted​ ​through​ ​the​ ​center.​ ​ ​The​ ​locking​ ​mechanism​ ​functioned​ ​as​ ​two

dowels,​ ​180°​ ​apart,​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​the​ ​supporting​ ​rectangle​ ​on​ ​the​ ​right​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​spool,​ ​were

inserted​ ​into​ ​one​ ​of​ ​four​ ​holes,​ ​each​ ​90°​ ​apart,​ ​on​ ​the​ ​circle​ ​on​ ​the​ ​right​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​spool.​ ​By​ ​the

end​ ​of​ ​construction,​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​had​ ​a​ ​material​ ​cost​ ​of​ ​$16.14​ ​and​ ​weighed​ ​8.0oz.​ ​The​ ​crane​ ​went

through​ ​two​ ​tests:​ ​the​ ​efficiency​ ​test​ ​and​ ​the​ ​max​ ​load​ ​test.​ ​During​ ​the​ ​efficiency​ ​test,​ ​the​ ​crane

met​ ​all​ ​its​ ​initial​ ​objectives​ ​by​ ​lifting​ ​20.0oz​ ​of​ ​weight​ ​up​ ​a​ ​height​ ​of​ ​12in​ ​in​ ​6.84​ ​seconds.​ ​For

the​ ​max​ ​load​ ​test,​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​exceeded​ ​the​ ​base​ ​stipulations​ ​by​ ​suspending​ ​a​ ​weight​ ​of​ ​76.4oz

6.0in​ ​above​ ​ground​ ​indefinitely​ ​while​ ​the​ ​wheel​ ​is​ ​locked​ ​and​ ​no​ ​form​ ​of​ ​human​ ​contact​ ​was

made​ ​with​ ​the​ ​crane.​ ​These​ ​conditions,​ ​overall,​ ​were​ ​put​ ​into​ ​calculations​ ​and​ ​had​ ​earned​ ​the

i
crane​ ​a​ ​total​ ​efficiency​ ​score​ ​of​ ​0.087,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​performance​ ​score​ ​of​ ​6.01.​ ​The​ ​crane​ ​was

competent​ ​during​ ​testing,​ ​and​ ​ranked​ ​second​ ​place​ ​as​ ​compared​ ​to​ ​other​ ​projects​ ​engineered​ ​with

the​ ​same​ ​purposes​ ​and​ ​restraints.

ii
Contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................i

1​ ​Introduction.......................................................................................................................1

1.1​ ​Problem​ ​Statement.........................................................................................................1

1.2​ ​Background....................................................................................................................2

1.2.1​ ​Interlocking​ ​Sides......................................................................................................2

1.2.2​ ​Rotating​ ​Arm..............................................................................................................2

1.2.3​ ​Locking​ ​Drum.............................................................................................................3

1.2.4​ ​Equations.....................................................................................................................3

2​ ​ ​Methods​ ​and​ ​Materials.....................................................................................................5

2.1​ ​Materials........................................................................................................................5

2.2​ ​Methods..........................................................................................................................5

2.2.1​ ​Base.............................................................................................................................5

2.2.2​ ​Arm.............................................................................................................................5

2.2.3​ ​Crank...........................................................................................................................8

2.2.4​ ​String​ ​Assembly..........................................................................................................9

3​ ​Results.............................................................................................................................11

4​ ​ ​Discussion......................................................................................................................13

5​ ​Conclusions.....................................................................................................................15

5.1​ ​Future​ ​Work.................................................................................................................15

6​ ​References.......................................................................................................................17

iii
1​ ​Introduction
The​ ​team​ ​was​ ​challenged​ ​with​ ​designing​ ​and​ ​building​ ​an​ ​operable​ ​crane​ ​within​ ​the

realms​ ​of​ ​everyday​ ​materials​ ​and​ ​in​ ​a​ ​set​ ​of​ ​definite​ ​parameters.​ ​ ​This​ ​was​ ​done​ ​to​ ​develop​ ​a

more​ ​efficient​ ​crane​ ​design​ ​that​ ​would​ ​use​ ​less​ ​costly​ ​materials​ ​to​ ​perform​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​task.​ ​ ​The

following​ ​sections​ ​of​ ​this​ ​report​ ​will​ ​better​ ​outline​ ​and​ ​explain​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​research,​ ​methods​ ​of

construction,​ ​and​ ​performance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​new​ ​design​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cardboard​ ​crane.

1.1​ ​Problem​ ​Statement

The​ ​objective​ ​was​ ​to​ ​design,​ ​construct​ ​and​ ​test​ ​a​ ​crane,​ ​using​ ​only​ ​cardboard,​ ​sticky​ ​tape,

white​ ​glue,​ ​ ​natural​ ​fiber​ ​string​ ​and​ ​one-inch​ ​paperclips,​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​lift​ ​a​ ​minimum​ ​of​ ​twenty

ounces​ ​twelve​ ​inches​ ​off​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​as​ ​quickly​ ​as​ ​possible,​ ​then​ ​rotate​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​90°​ ​and

discharge​ ​it​ ​into​ ​the​ ​bed​ ​of​ ​a​ ​toy​ ​truck.​ ​ ​The​ ​total​ ​weight​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​could​ ​not​ ​exceed​ ​twenty

ounces​ ​and​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​had​ ​to​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​fit​ ​in​ ​a​ ​two​ ​foot​ ​by​ ​two​ ​foot​ ​by​ ​two​ ​foot​ ​crate.​ ​ ​The​ ​string

that​ ​attached​ ​ ​to​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​had​ ​be​ ​wound​ ​by​ ​hand.​ ​ ​While​ ​winding​ ​the​ ​string​ ​to​ ​lift​ ​the​ ​weight,

only​ ​one​ ​member​ ​of​ ​the​ ​team​ ​could​ ​have​ ​hands​ ​on​ ​the​ ​crane.

The​ ​crane​ ​was​ ​tested​ ​to​ ​see​ ​how​ ​much​ ​weight​ ​it​ ​could​ ​hold​ ​without​ ​falling​ ​apart​ ​or

breaking.​ ​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​test​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​weight​ ​that​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​could​ ​hold,​ ​the​ ​design

had​ ​to​ ​have​ ​a​ ​locking​ ​mechanism​ ​that​ ​kept​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​six​ ​inches​ ​off​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​while​ ​more

weight​ ​would​ ​be​ ​added.​ ​ ​No​ ​member​ ​of​ ​the​ ​team​ ​could​ ​be​ ​in​ ​contact​ ​with​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​while​ ​the

weight​ ​is​ ​being​ ​added.

1
1.2​ ​Background

Individual​ ​research​ ​of​ ​different​ ​concepts​ ​and​ ​designs​ ​that​ ​could​ ​be​ ​modified​ ​and​ ​used​ ​to

complete​ ​the​ ​cardboard​ ​crane​ ​with​ ​the​ ​specified​ ​restrictions​ ​that​ ​could​ ​complete​ ​the​ ​previously

stated​ ​tasks​ ​(see​ ​1.1​ ​Problem​ ​Statement)​ ​was​ ​done.

1.2.1​ ​Interlocking​ ​Sides​ ​(Basa)

One​ ​design​ ​of​ ​a​ ​cardboard​ ​crane​ ​used​ ​an​ ​interlocking​ ​technique​ ​to​ ​secure​ ​the

sides​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​and​ ​arm​ ​together.​ ​ ​The​ ​four​ ​identical​ ​sides​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​were

rectangular​ ​with​ ​notches​ ​cut​ ​evenly​ ​down​ ​the​ ​length.​ ​The​ ​notches​ ​lined​ ​up​ ​so​ ​that​ ​when

the​ ​sides​ ​were​ ​put​ ​together​ ​to​ ​form​ ​a​ ​rectangular​ ​prism​ ​the​ ​protruding​ ​edges​ ​left​ ​from

cutting​ ​the​ ​notches​ ​fit​ ​perfectly​ ​into​ ​the​ ​notches​ ​of​ ​the​ ​other​ ​pieces.​ ​ ​The​ ​sides​ ​of​ ​the

researched​ ​crane​ ​were​ ​then​ ​stabilized​ ​with​ ​hot​ ​glue​ ​where​ ​the​ ​sides​ ​connect.

1.2.2​ ​Rotating​ ​the​ ​Arm​ ​(Interesting​ ​Engineering)

The​ ​design​ ​of​ ​a​ ​tower​ ​crane​ ​made​ ​of​ ​wooden​ ​sticks​ ​and​ ​thread​ ​spools​ ​had​ ​an​ ​arm

that​ ​could​ ​easily​ ​rotate​ ​by​ ​resting​ ​on​ ​a​ ​spool​ ​on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tower.​ ​ ​A​ ​cylindrical​ ​thread

spool​ ​was​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​with​ ​a​ ​wooden​ ​dowel​ ​through​ ​the​ ​middle​ ​securing​ ​it

to​ ​the​ ​tower.​ ​ ​The​ ​arm​ ​was​ ​centered​ ​and​ ​placed​ ​over​ ​the​ ​spool​ ​with​ ​the​ ​rest​ ​of​ ​the​ ​dowel

going​ ​through​ ​it.​ ​ ​The​ ​smooth​ ​round​ ​surface​ ​of​ ​the​ ​spool​ ​allowed​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​to​ ​freely​ ​rotate.

2
1.2.3​ ​Locking​ ​Drum​ ​(LastStandGamers)

In​ ​an​ ​image​ ​from​ ​a​ ​three​ ​dimensional​ ​generated​ ​catapult,​ ​the​ ​outermost​ ​walls​ ​of

the​ ​cylindrical​ ​winch​ ​drum​ ​on​ ​said​ ​catapult​ ​were​ ​perforated​ ​with​ ​circular​ ​slots,​ ​and​ ​in

corresponding​ ​positions​ ​mounted​ ​to

1.2.4​ ​Equations

To​ ​evaluate​ ​the​ ​crane’s​ ​performance,​ ​calculations​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​made​ ​from​ ​data​ ​points

collected​ ​during​ ​the​ ​crane’s​ ​testing.​ ​ ​Specifically,​ ​its​ ​efficiency:

(maximum weight lif ted(oz))
(time to lif t 20 ounces 12 inches)(material costs)(weight of crane (oz)))
,​ ​tension: mass × g ravity ,​ ​raise

velocity:​ ​ distance
time
,​ ​torque​ ​on​ ​connection​ ​point:​ ​ F × d ,​ ​and​ ​torque​ ​on​ ​crank:​ ​ T × r .

In​ ​the​ ​efficiency​ ​equation​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​weight​ ​lifted​ ​is​ ​the​ ​terminal​ ​weight​ ​the

crane​ ​can​ ​indefinitely​ ​suspend,​ ​the​ ​time​ ​to​ ​lift​ ​20​ ​ounces​ ​twelve​ ​inches​ ​is​ ​the​ ​resulting

time​ ​of​ ​the​ ​displacement​ ​test​ ​and​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​(oz)​ ​variable​ ​is​ ​the​ ​physical

mass​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​in​ ​ounces.​ ​ ​The​ ​material​ ​cost​ ​was​ ​to​ ​be​ ​calculated​ ​by​ ​summing​ ​the

numeric​ ​values​ ​of​ ​each​ ​material​ ​type​ ​used​ ​per​ ​unit.​ ​Each​ ​ounce​ ​of​ ​cardboard​ ​costs​ ​$2.00,

each​ ​paperclip​ ​used​ ​costs​ ​$.02,​ ​each​ ​inch​ ​of​ ​string​ ​costs​ ​$.01​ ​and​ ​each​ ​inch​ ​of​ ​clear​ ​tape

costs​ ​$.01.

Within​ ​the​ ​tension​ ​equation,​ ​mass​ ​is​ ​the​ ​mass​ ​of​ ​the​ ​20​ ​oz​ ​weight​ ​times​ ​gravity,

acting​ ​as​ ​the​ ​constant​ ​9.8 sm2 .​ ​ ​To​ ​convert​ ​the​ ​final​ ​tension​ ​to​ ​pound-feet​ ​(lb*ft)​ ​use​ ​of​ ​the

conversion​ ​ 16oz = 1lbf .

3
 Inside​ ​the​ ​velocity​ ​equation,​ ​the​ ​distance​ ​is​ ​the​ ​constant​ ​of​ ​d,​ ​determined​ ​from​ ​the

point​ ​of​ ​contact​ ​to​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​bearing​ ​end​ ​during​ ​raising​ ​test,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​time​ ​is​ ​the​ ​time​ ​in

seconds​ ​it​ ​takes​ ​to​ ​perform​ ​the​ ​displacement.

The​ ​torque​ ​on​ ​connection​ ​point​ ​equation’s​ ​variables​ ​are​ ​F​ ​and​ ​d,​ ​standing​ ​for

force​ ​experienced​ ​and​ ​distance​ ​respectively.​ ​ ​The​ ​torque​ ​on​ ​crank’s​ ​variables​ ​are​ ​T​ ​and​ ​r,

which​ ​stand​ ​for​ ​tension​ ​(collected​ ​from​ ​the​ ​tension​ ​equation)​ ​and​ ​radius​ ​of​ ​the

spindle/winch​ ​respectively.

4
2.1​ ​Materials

The​ ​allowed​ ​materials​ ​are​ ​corrugated​ ​cardboard​ ​from​ ​appliance​ ​boxes​ ​and​ ​a​ ​shoebox,​ ​a

dowel​ ​rod,​ ​elmer’s​ ​glue​ ​and​ ​one​ ​inch​ ​paperclips.​ ​ ​8.0​ ​ounces​ ​of​ ​cardboard​ ​and​ ​elmer’s​ ​glue

combined,​ ​46.5​ ​inches​ ​of​ ​string,​ ​0.5​ ​inches​ ​of​ ​tape,​ ​and​ ​one​ ​paperclip​ ​were​ ​used​ ​in​ ​the

construction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane.

2.2​ ​Methods

2.2.1​ ​Bas​e

The​ ​base​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​was​ ​built​ ​by​ ​stacking​ ​5,​ ​5.0in​ ​by​ ​5.0in​ ​squares​ ​of​ ​cardboard

on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​one​ ​another​ ​and​ ​gluing​ ​them​ ​together.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​a​ ​ 14 in​ ​diameter​ ​hole​ ​was​ ​cut​ ​in​ ​the

center​ ​of​ ​the​ ​stack​ ​of​ ​squares​ ​so​ ​that​ ​a​ ​dowel​ ​could​ ​be​ ​placed​ ​through​ ​it​ ​later.​ ​The​ ​stack

of​ ​squares​ ​was​ ​then​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​a​ ​stack​ ​of​ ​5,​ ​5.0in​ ​by​ ​10.0in​ ​rectangles​ ​of​ ​cardboard

attached​ ​to​ ​each​ ​other​ ​and​ ​the​ ​squares​ ​using​ ​elmer’s​ ​glue.​ ​ ​The​ ​rectangle​ ​stack’s​ ​5.0in

side​ ​was​ ​lined​ ​up​ ​with​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​stack​ ​of​ ​squares’​ ​sides​ ​so​ ​that​ ​the​ ​edges​ ​were​ ​flush​ ​with

each​ ​other.​ ​ ​This​ ​created​ ​a​ ​thick​ ​base​ ​that​ ​would​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​be​ ​held​ ​by​ ​the​ ​C​ ​clamps.

2.2.2​ ​Arm

The​ ​arm​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​was​ ​built​ ​by

first​ ​cutting​ ​out​ ​two​ ​identical​ ​pieces​ ​as

shown​ ​in​ ​Figure​ ​1.​ ​ 12 ​ ​in​ ​by​ ​about​ ​ 16

1
in

rectangles​ ​were​ ​cut​ ​out​ ​of​ ​the​ ​piece​ ​ 14 in​ ​up

5
from​ ​the​ ​bottom,​ ​starting​ ​ 14 in​ ​from​ ​each​ ​side​ ​then​ ​alternating​ ​by​ ​ 12 ​ ​in​ ​as​ ​shown​ ​in​ ​Figure

2.​ ​ ​On​ ​the​ ​other​ ​piece,​ ​ 14 in​ ​by 12 ​ ​in​ ​notches

were​ ​cut​ ​from​ ​the​ ​bottom​ ​of​ ​the​ ​piece

every​ ​ ​ 12 ​ ​in,​ ​except​ ​for​ ​the​ ​end​ ​two​ ​pieces

which​ ​were​ ​ 14 in​ ​by​ ​ 14 in​ ​as​ ​shown​ ​in

Figure​ ​3.

The​ ​third​ ​piece​ ​used​ ​to​ ​create​ ​the

arm​ ​was​ ​a​ ​5.0in​ ​by​ ​1 34 in​ ​rectangle​ ​with

the​ ​small​ ​rectangles​ ​cut​ ​out​ ​from​ ​one

side​ ​and​ ​the​ ​notches​ ​cut​ ​out​ ​from​ ​the

other.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​a​ ​small​ ​triangular​ ​notch​ ​was​ ​cut

from​ ​the​ ​center​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bottom​ ​of​ ​the​ ​rectangle​ ​if​ ​the​ ​rectangle​ ​holes​ ​are​ ​on​ ​the​ ​left​ ​and​ ​the

notches​ ​are​ ​on​ ​the​ ​right.

The​ ​back​ ​of​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​was​ ​created​ ​using​ ​three​ ​trapezoids​ ​with​ ​vertical​ ​symmetry.

Each​ ​of​ ​their​ ​bottom​ ​bases​ ​are​ ​3.0​ ​in,​ ​and​ ​each​ ​of​ ​their​ ​top​ ​bases​ ​are​ ​1.5​ ​in.​ ​ ​Their​ ​height

is​ ​2.0in.​ ​ ​Each​ ​of​ ​the​ ​trapezoids​ ​is​ ​extended​ ​at​ ​the​ ​top​ ​base​ ​by​ ​ 34 in​ ​so​ ​that​ ​each​ ​trapezoid

has​ ​an​ ​attached​ ​rectangle.​ ​ ​Each​ ​trapezoid​ ​was​ ​placed​ ​adjacent​ ​to​ ​the​ ​next,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​7.0in​ ​by

1.0in​ ​piece​ ​of​ ​cardboard​ ​was​ ​bent​ ​at​ ​2.0in​ ​and​ ​5.0in.​ ​ ​The​ ​2.0in​ ​length​ ​sections​ ​of​ ​the

piece​ ​of​ ​cardboard​ ​were​ ​glued​ ​to​ ​trapezoids​ ​that​ ​were​ ​parallel​ ​to​ ​each​ ​other.​ ​ ​The

trapezoid​ ​perpendicular​ ​to​ ​the​ ​two​ ​others​ ​was​ ​secured​ ​using​ ​glue​ ​to​ ​the​ ​other​ ​two

trapezoids.

6
 To​ ​attach​ ​the​ ​pieces​ ​of​ ​the​ ​arm,​ ​the​ ​three​ ​long​ ​pieces​ ​were​ ​assembled​ ​using​ ​their

notches​ ​and​ ​holes,​ ​and​ ​they​ ​were​ ​interlocked.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​the​ ​three​ ​trapezoids​ ​were​ ​attached

by​ ​gluing​ ​each​ ​of​ ​their​ ​extended​ ​rectangles​ ​ ​to​ ​the​ ​longer​ ​pieces​ ​of​ ​the​ ​arm.​ ​ ​Finally,​ ​a

5.0in​ ​by​ ​2.0in​ ​piece​ ​of​ ​cardboard​ ​was​ ​glued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​back​ ​strip​ ​of​ ​cardboard​ ​that​ ​secured

the​ ​parallel​ ​trapezoids​ ​so​ ​that​ ​it​ ​stood​ ​above​ ​the​ ​rest​ ​of​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​by​ ​2.0in.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​a 14 in

diameter​ ​hole​ ​was​ ​cut​ ​in​ ​this​ ​strip​ ​of​ ​cardboard​ ​in​ ​the​ ​center,​ ​1.0in​ ​from​ ​the​ ​top​ ​of​ ​the

piece​ ​of​ ​cardboard.

A​ ​ 14 in​ ​diameter​ ​hole​ ​was​ ​then​ ​cut​ ​into​ ​the​ ​center​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bottom​ ​long​ ​piece​ ​of​ ​the

arm​ ​4.0in​ ​back​ ​from​ ​the​ ​notch.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​a​ ​3.0in​ ​long​ ​piece​ ​of​ ​dowel​ ​was​ ​inserted​ ​into​ ​the

hole​ ​until​ ​it​ ​was​ ​flush​ ​with​ ​the​ ​top​ ​the​ ​arm.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​a​ ​stack​ ​of​ ​nine​ ​2.0in​ ​diameter​ ​circles

were​ ​cut​ ​out​ ​from​ ​cardboard,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​ 14 in​ ​diameter​ ​hole​ ​was​ ​cut​ ​into​ ​the​ ​center​ ​of​ ​each​ ​of

them.​ ​ ​They​ ​were​ ​each​ ​added​ ​to​ ​the​ ​dowel​ ​until​ ​the​ ​last​ ​one​ ​was​ ​about​ ​ 14 in​ ​from​ ​the​ ​edge

of​ ​the​ ​dowel.​ ​ ​Then​ ​the​ ​circles​ ​were​ ​glued​ ​together​ ​and​ ​to​ ​the​ ​dowel,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​itself

7
was​ ​still​ ​able​ ​to​ ​rotate​ ​around​ ​the​ ​dowel.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​the​ ​bottom​ ​circle​ ​was​ ​glued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​top​ ​of

the​ ​stack​ ​of​ ​squares​ ​as​ ​the​ ​remaining​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the​ ​dowel​ ​was​ ​inserted​ ​into​ ​the​ ​ 14 in​ ​diameter

hole​ ​in​ ​the​ ​center​ ​of​ ​the​ ​squares.​ ​ ​The​ ​entire​ ​draft​ ​of​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in

Figure​ ​4.

2.2.3​ ​Crank

Two​ ​vertical​ ​supports​ ​were​ ​created​ ​by​ ​cutting​ ​out​ ​four,​ ​4.0in​ ​by​ ​3.0in​ ​rectangles

and​ ​gluing​ ​them​ ​together​ ​in​ ​pairs.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​two,​ ​3.0in​ ​diameter​ ​circles​ ​were​ ​cut​ ​out​ ​to​ ​be

supporting​ ​circles.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​a​ ​2.0in​ ​diameter,​ ​1.0in​ ​long​ ​spool​ ​was​ ​created​ ​by​ ​wrapping

about​ ​a​ ​6.3in​ ​by​ ​1.0in​ ​piece​ ​of​ ​paperboard​ ​into​ ​a​ ​cylinder​ ​that​ ​was​ ​1.0in​ ​long.​ ​ ​The​ ​spool

was​ ​then​ ​centered​ ​and​ ​glued​ ​on​ ​each​ ​side​ ​to​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​supporting​ ​circles.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​a​ ​ 14 in

diameter​ ​hole​ ​was​ ​cut​ ​into​ ​the​ ​center​ ​of​ ​each​ ​supporting​ ​circle,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​ 14 in​ ​diameter​ ​hole

was​ ​cut​ ​1 34 in​ ​up​ ​from​ ​the​ ​bottom​ ​in​ ​the​ ​center​ ​of​ ​the​ ​vertical​ ​supports.​ ​ ​A​ ​3.0in​ ​piece​ ​of

dowel​ ​was​ ​then​ ​inserted​ ​into​ ​each​ ​of​ ​the​ ​holes​ ​with​ ​the​ ​vertical​ ​supports​ ​on​ ​the​ ​outside

and​ ​the​ ​spool​ ​with​ ​supporting​ ​circles​ ​on​ ​the

inside.

Then,​ ​four​ ​ 14 in​ ​diameter​ ​holes​ ​were​ ​cut​ ​ 14

in​ ​from​ ​the​ ​edge​ ​of​ ​the​ ​supporting​ ​circle​ ​each​ ​90°

apart.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​these​ ​holes​ ​were​ ​lined​ ​up​ ​to​ ​the

adjacent​ ​vertical​ ​support,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​ 14 in​ ​diameter

hole​ ​was​ ​cut​ ​where​ ​they​ ​lined​ ​up.​ ​ ​A​ ​ 12 in​ ​long

piece​ ​of​ ​dowel​ ​rod​ ​was​ ​inserted​ ​into​ ​the​ ​vertical

support​ ​hole​ ​and​ ​glued​ ​in​ ​place,​ ​sticking​ ​out​ ​on

8
the​ ​inside​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crank​ ​mechanism.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​the​ ​spool​ ​and​ ​the​ ​supporting​ ​circles​ ​were​ ​fixed

to​ ​the​ ​dowel​ ​using​ ​glue​ ​so​ ​that​ ​they​ ​would​ ​rotate​ ​with​ ​the​ ​dowel​ ​and​ ​the​ ​dowel​ ​could

slide​ ​between​ ​the​ ​vertical​ ​supports.​ ​ ​The​ ​crank​ ​was​ ​centered​ ​on​ ​the​ ​shorter​ ​half​ ​of​ ​the

base,​ ​or​ ​the​ ​half​ ​without​ ​the​ ​extra​ ​stack​ ​of​ ​squares.​ ​ ​The​ ​vertical​ ​supports​ ​were​ ​then

secured​ ​to​ ​the​ ​base​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​using​ ​six​ ​90°​ ​brackets​ ​that​ ​were​ ​1.0in​ ​by 12 in.​ ​ ​These

were​ ​glued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​base​ ​and​ ​the​ ​sides​ ​of​ ​the​ ​vertical​ ​supports.​ ​ ​Four​ ​were​ ​glued​ ​to​ ​the

outside​ ​corners​ ​of​ ​the​ ​vertical​ ​supports​ ​and​ ​the​ ​base,​ ​and​ ​two​ ​were​ ​glued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​inside

centers​ ​of​ ​the​ ​vertical​ ​supports​ ​and​ ​the​ ​base.​ ​ ​The​ ​back​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crank​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​Figure

5,​ ​along​ ​with​ ​its​ ​vertical​ ​supports,​ ​supporting​ ​circles,​ ​spool,​ ​locking​ ​mechanism,​ ​and​ ​the

90°​ ​brackets.

2.2.4​ ​String​ ​Assembly

After​ ​the​ ​three​ ​main​ ​pieces​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane

were​ ​attached,​ ​base,​ ​arm,​ ​and​ ​crank,​ ​the​ ​string

used​ ​to​ ​hold​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​was​ ​added​ ​to​ ​the​ ​crane.

First,​ ​the​ ​one​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the​ ​string​ ​was​ ​glued​ ​to​ ​the

spool​ ​in​ ​the​ ​crank​ ​and​ ​allowed​ ​to​ ​dry.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​the

length​ ​of​ ​the​ ​string​ ​was​ ​estimated,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​string

was​ ​cut​ ​a​ ​few​ ​inches​ ​longer​ ​than​ ​this​ ​estimation.

Then,​ ​the​ ​string​ ​was​ ​fed​ ​through​ ​the​ ​ 14 in​ ​diameter

hole​ ​in​ ​the​ ​piece​ ​of​ ​cardboard​ ​standing​ ​above​ ​the

rest​ ​of​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​the​ ​string​ ​was​ ​placed​ ​into​ ​the​ ​notch​ ​in​ ​the​ ​bottom

panel​ ​of​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane.​ ​ ​The​ ​string​ ​was​ ​then​ ​pulled​ ​downward​ ​unwound​ ​from​ ​the

9
spool​ ​and​ ​cut​ ​to​ ​46.5in,​ ​including​ ​the​ ​length​ ​of​ ​string​ ​glued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​crane.​ ​ ​Then,​ ​the​ ​very

end​ ​of​ ​the​ ​string​ ​was​ ​tied​ ​to​ ​a​ ​1.0in​ ​paperclip.​ ​ ​The​ ​path​ ​of​ ​the​ ​string​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in

Figure​ ​6.

10
3​ ​Results

The​ ​primary​ ​objectives​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​were​ ​to​ ​be​ ​tested​ ​via​ ​an​ ​efficiency​ ​test​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​a

max​ ​load​ ​test.​ ​ ​The​ ​measurement​ ​taken​ ​during​ ​the​ ​efficency​ ​test​ ​was​ ​time​ ​to​ ​displace​ ​the​ ​weight

one​ ​foot​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​gather​ ​a​ ​sense​ ​of​ ​how​ ​well​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​worked​ ​in​ ​comparison​ ​to​ ​construction

cost​ ​and​ ​overall​ ​weight.​ ​ ​The​ ​measured​ ​time​ ​was​ ​substituted​ ​into​ ​the​ ​efficiency​ ​formula​ ​given​ ​in
(maximum weight lif ted(oz))
the​ ​problem​ ​statement, (time to lif t 20 ounces 12 inches)(material costs)(weight of crane (oz)))
,​ ​as​ ​(time​ ​to​ ​lift​ ​20

ounces​ ​12​ ​inches)​.​ ​Additionally,​ ​the​ ​max​ ​load​ ​test​ ​yielded​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​weight​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​could

suspend​ ​indefinitely​ ​without​ ​dropping​ ​said​ ​weight,​ ​measured​ ​in​ ​ounces.​ ​All​ ​data​ ​points​ ​were

collected​ ​to​ ​formulate​ ​Table​ ​1​ ​(below),​ ​whereas​ ​the​ ​crane’s​ ​data​ ​exists​ ​in​ ​the​ ​fifth​ ​data​ ​row.

When​ ​the​ ​efficiency​ ​and​ ​max​ ​load​ ​tests​ ​were​ ​performed​ ​on​ ​the​ ​crane,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​found​ ​that

the​ ​crane​ ​met​ ​all​ ​the​ ​requirements​ ​of​ ​the​ ​projects​ ​and​ ​exceeded​ ​the​ ​base​ ​stipulations​ ​of​ ​the

problem​ ​statement.​ ​ ​It​ ​was​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​could​ ​lift​ ​twenty​ ​ounces​ ​one​ ​foot​ ​in​ ​ ​6.84

seconds,​ ​whilst​ ​only​ ​weighing​ ​8​ ​ounces​ ​itself..​ ​ ​The​ ​crane​ ​was​ ​found​ ​to​ ​hold​ ​a​ ​maximum​ ​mass​ ​of

76.4​ ​ounces.​ ​ ​With​ ​use​ ​of​ ​the​ ​efficiency​ ​formula,​ ​as​ ​seen​ ​above,​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​performed​ ​with​ ​a

efficiency​ ​score​ ​of​ ​.087.

Additionally,​ ​when​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​was​ ​stressed​ ​to

its​ ​limit​ ​in​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​load​ ​test,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​found​ ​to

be​ ​capable​ ​of​ ​indefinitely​ ​suspending​ ​76.4​ ​ounces

of​ ​weight.

In​ ​comparison​ ​to​ ​other​ ​projects

engineered​ ​with​ ​the​ ​same​ ​goals​ ​and​ ​under​ ​the

same​ ​stipulations,​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​performed​ ​second

11
best.​ ​ ​As​ ​shown​ ​in​ ​Table​ ​1,​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​was​ ​the​ ​second​ ​lightest​ ​weighing​ ​crane​ ​of​ ​those​ ​tested.​ ​ ​The

table​ ​also​ ​shows​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​possessed​ ​a​ ​relatively​ ​middle-of-the-road​ ​material​ ​cost,​ ​the​ ​second

lowest​ ​time​ ​to​ ​lift​ ​value​ ​and​ ​the​ ​third​ ​lowest​ ​maximum​ ​weight​ ​held.

The​ ​distance​ ​from​ ​point​ ​of​ ​contact​ ​to​ ​weight​ ​bearing​ ​load​ ​was​ ​determined​ ​to​ ​be​ ​12​ ​inches

and​ ​the​ ​radius​ ​of​ ​the​ ​winch​ ​as​ ​1​ ​inch​ ​during​ ​the​ ​efficiency​ ​test.

Using​ ​the​ ​tension,​ ​raise​ ​velocity,​ ​torque​ ​on​ ​connection​ ​point​ ​and​ ​torque​ ​on​ ​winch

equations,​ ​it​ ​has​ ​been​ ​calculated​ ​that​ ​tension​ ​in​ ​the​ ​cable​ ​is​ ​1.25​ ​foot​ ​pounds,​ ​the​ ​raise​ ​velocity​ ​is

1.75​ ​inches​ ​per​ ​second,​ ​the​ ​torque​ ​on​ ​connection​ ​point​ ​is​ ​15​ ​inch​ ​pounds​ ​and​ ​torque​ ​on​ ​winch​ ​is

1.25​ ​inch​ ​pounds​ ​(graphically​ ​represented​ ​in​ ​table​ ​2).

Tension Raise​ ​Velocity Torque​ ​on​ ​point​ ​of Torque​ ​on​ ​winch

connection

1.25​ ​lb​f 1.75​ ​in/sec 15​ ​in*lb​f 1.25​ ​lb​f

12
4​ ​Discussion

The​ ​crane​ ​exceeded​ ​its​ ​base​ ​requires​ ​of​ ​lifting​ ​20​ ​ounces​ ​across​ ​12​ ​inches.​ ​ ​The​ ​crane

held​ ​almost​ ​4​ ​times​ ​the​ ​required​ ​weight​ ​and​ ​nearly​ ​10​ ​times​ ​its​ ​own​ ​weight.​ ​ ​The​ ​strategy​ ​to

make​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​more​ ​lightweight​ ​and​ ​lift​ ​less​ ​weight​ ​overall,​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​have​ ​it​ ​lift​ ​a​ ​much

higher​ ​weight​ ​proportional​ ​to​ ​its​ ​own​ ​was​ ​effective.

As​ ​with​ ​most​ ​modern​ ​structures,​ ​the​ ​weakest​ ​point​ ​of​ ​this​ ​construct​ ​is​ ​its​ ​joints.

Throughout​ ​testing,​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​arm​ ​flexed​ ​on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​the​ ​pivot​ ​and​ ​the​ ​weight-bearing​ ​end​ ​flexed

down​ ​towards​ ​the​ ​ground

(recreated​ ​in​ ​Figure​ ​7​ ​below).

That​ ​said,​ ​the​ ​design​ ​allowed

for​ ​all​ ​the​ ​tension​ ​to​ ​be​ ​placed

linearly​ ​along​ ​the​ ​crank​ ​and

arm​ ​shaft,​ ​which​ ​split​ ​the

resistance​ ​between​ ​pivot​ ​and

crank,​ ​allowing​ ​the​ ​whole

crane​ ​to​ ​work​ ​against​ ​the

tension,​ ​thereby​ ​increasing​ ​the

maximum​ ​weight​ ​held.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​The​ ​precise,​ ​interlocking​ ​edge​ ​design​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​arm​ ​lead​ ​it​ ​to​ ​be​ ​the​ ​strongest

portion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane.​ ​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​the​ ​90°​ ​brackets​ ​that​ ​held​ ​winch​ ​to​ ​the​ ​platform​ ​hardly​ ​flexed

during​ ​the​ ​testing.

13
 The​ ​locking​ ​mechanism​ ​performed​ ​to​ ​expectation​ ​by​ ​keeping​ ​every​ ​ounce​ ​of​ ​weight​ ​in

position,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​attributed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​2-peg​ ​system​ ​mounted​ ​inside​ ​the​ ​barrel​ ​of​ ​the​ ​winch.​ ​ ​The

stress​ ​overwhelmed​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​at​ ​a​ ​staggering​ ​weight​ ​in​ ​comparison​ ​to​ ​its​ ​own,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​true

mechanic​ ​failure​ ​resides​ ​in​ ​the​ ​connection​ ​hook​ ​between​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​and​ ​crane.​ ​ ​At​ ​the​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the

test,​ ​the​ ​hook​ ​bent​ ​and​ ​dropped​ ​the​ ​max​ ​load,​ ​despite​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​the​ ​structure​ ​itself,​ ​ ​should​ ​the

hook​ ​be​ ​improved,​ ​could​ ​have​ ​potentially​ ​held​ ​much​ ​more​ ​weight.

The​ ​cost​ ​of​ ​construction​ ​materials​ ​for​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​was​ ​also​ ​on​ ​the​ ​lower​ ​for​ ​the​ ​comparable

projects.​ ​Due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​crane’s​ ​smaller​ ​stature,​ ​less​ ​materials​ ​were​ ​needed,​ ​overall​ ​creating​ ​a​ ​more

proportionally​ ​efficient​ ​crane.​ ​The​ ​strength​ ​of​ ​the​ ​winch​ ​along​ ​with​ ​its​ ​lock​ ​lent​ ​itself​ ​to​ ​allowing

the​ ​crane​ ​to​ ​hold​ ​the​ ​high​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​weight.​ ​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​the​ ​linear​ ​design​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane’s​ ​layout

allowed​ ​it​ ​to​ ​space​ ​out​ ​the​ ​stress​ ​on​ ​the​ ​cable​ ​to​ ​multiple​ ​points​ ​of​ ​contact,​ ​thereby​ ​decreasing

the​ ​stress​ ​on​ ​each​ ​individual​ ​piece​ ​and​ ​increasing​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​weight​ ​it​ ​could​ ​lock

and​ ​hold​ ​indefinitely.

The​ ​torque​ ​calculations​ ​(in​ ​Table​ ​2)​ ​show​ ​an​ ​interesting​ ​data​ ​point​ ​in​ ​the​ ​torque​ ​on​ ​point

of​ ​connection.​ ​ ​15​ ​foot​ ​pounds​ ​of​ ​force​ ​is​ ​considerably​ ​high​ ​opposition​ ​to​ ​the​ ​turning​ ​motion​ ​of

reeling​ ​in​ ​the​ ​weight.​ ​ ​Had​ ​the​ ​length​ ​of​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​been​ ​decreased​ ​or​ ​that​ ​torque​ ​overall​ ​been

drastically​ ​reduced,​ ​the​ ​rise​ ​velocity​ ​could​ ​have​ ​been​ ​affected​ ​considerably.

14
5​ ​Conclusion

Each​ ​of​ ​the​ ​building​ ​constraints​ ​was​ ​met​ ​by​ ​the​ ​crane,​ ​allowing​ ​it​ ​to​ ​compete​ ​in​ ​the

testing.​ ​ ​The​ ​crane​ ​also​ ​completed​ ​both​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tests​ ​without​ ​receiving​ ​a​ ​‘no​ ​score’,​ ​so​ ​an

efficiency​ ​score​ ​was​ ​able​ ​to​ ​be​ ​assigned.​ ​ ​Because​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​weight​ ​lifted​ ​was​ ​76.4oz,​ ​the

time​ ​to​ ​lift​ ​20oz​ ​was​ ​6.84s,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​was​ ​8.0oz,​ ​the​ ​efficiency​ ​score​ ​was

0.087.​ ​ ​Because​ ​the​ ​performance​ ​score​ ​was​ ​calculated​ ​by​ ​dividing​ ​the​ ​efficiency​ ​by​ ​the​ ​best

efficiency​ ​and​ ​multiplying​ ​by​ ​10,​ ​the​ ​performance​ ​score​ ​was​ ​6.01.​ ​ ​This​ ​score​ ​means​ ​that​ ​this

crane​ ​design​ ​performed​ ​60.1%​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​best​ ​crane​ ​in​ ​the​ ​class.​ ​ ​The​ ​performance​ ​score​ ​and

efficiency​ ​score​ ​for​ ​this​ ​design​ ​were​ ​the​ ​second​ ​highest​ ​in​ ​the​ ​class.

The​ ​strongest​ ​parts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​design​ ​were​ ​the​ ​base​ ​and​ ​the​ ​crank,​ ​which​ ​did​ ​not​ ​fail​ ​or​ ​even

falter​ ​during​ ​testing.​ ​ ​The​ ​base​ ​was​ ​stable​ ​because​ ​it​ ​was​ ​design​ ​to​ ​include​ ​5,​ ​and​ ​in​ ​some​ ​places

10,​ ​layers,​ ​which​ ​gave​ ​the​ ​C​ ​clamps​ ​more​ ​to​ ​hold,​ ​dispersing​ ​the​ ​stress​ ​of​ ​the​ ​C​ ​clamps​ ​and​ ​the

weights​ ​pulling​ ​in​ ​opposite​ ​directions.​ ​ ​The​ ​crank​ ​was​ ​strong​ ​because​ ​of​ ​the​ ​90°​ ​brackets​ ​used​ ​to

attack​ ​it​ ​to​ ​the​ ​base.​ ​ ​This​ ​gave​ ​more​ ​surface​ ​area​ ​for​ ​contact​ ​with​ ​the​ ​base,​ ​providing​ ​stability.

The​ ​crane’s​ ​ultimate​ ​demise​ ​was​ ​the​ ​interface​ ​between​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​and​ ​the​ ​weights,​ ​or​ ​the

paperclip​ ​hook,​ ​which​ ​bent​ ​under​ ​the​ ​weights​ ​it​ ​was​ ​holding.

5.1​ ​Future​ ​Work​ ​and​ ​Recommendations

Two​ ​necessary​ ​improvements​ ​for​ ​this​ ​particular​ ​crane​ ​became​ ​visible​ ​immediately​ ​after

testing​ ​the​ ​crane.​ ​For​ ​one,​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​could​ ​have​ ​its​ ​mass​ ​decreased​ ​by​ ​using​ ​less​ ​glue​ ​on​ ​the​ ​base

to​ ​attach​ ​the​ ​layers,​ ​which​ ​would​ ​improve​ ​its​ ​efficiency​ ​score.​ ​ ​Another​ ​immediate​ ​improvement

that​ ​could​ ​be​ ​made​ ​would​ ​be​ ​to​ ​bend​ ​the​ ​paperclip​ ​that​ ​attached​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​to​ ​the​ ​weights​ ​to​ ​the

15
crane​ ​around​ ​the​ ​string​ ​a​ ​few​ ​more​ ​times,​ ​allowing​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​to​ ​lift​ ​more​ ​weight.​ ​ ​The​ ​parts​ ​for

this​ ​design​ ​that​ ​could​ ​remain​ ​the​ ​same​ ​would​ ​be​ ​the​ ​base,​ ​except​ ​for​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​glue​ ​used,

and​ ​the​ ​crank.

In​ ​the​ ​future,​ ​the​ ​design​ ​could​ ​be​ ​revisited,​ ​especially​ ​in​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crane,​ ​which

could​ ​be​ ​shorter​ ​or​ ​even​ ​be​ ​eliminated,​ ​depending​ ​on​ ​the​ ​crank​ ​design.​ ​ ​The​ ​torque​ ​experienced

on​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​was​ ​very​ ​high​ ​because​ ​of​ ​the​ ​length​ ​of​ ​the​ ​arm.​ ​ ​This​ ​caused​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​to​ ​bend

downward​ ​slightly​ ​during​ ​testing.​ ​ ​This​ ​problem​ ​could​ ​be​ ​solved​ ​in​ ​future​ ​designs​ ​by​ ​shortening

the​ ​arm​ ​length,​ ​which​ ​decreases​ ​the​ ​torque.​ ​ ​The​ ​crank​ ​could​ ​also​ ​be​ ​improved​ ​by​ ​increasing​ ​the

radius​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crank​ ​and​ ​adding​ ​a​ ​mechanism​ ​for​ ​make​ ​turning​ ​it​ ​easier.​ ​ ​With​ ​these

improvements,​ ​the​ ​raise​ ​velocity​ ​could​ ​be​ ​faster,​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​a​ ​more​ ​efficient​ ​crane.​ ​ ​Another

possible​ ​improvement​ ​could​ ​result​ ​from​ ​experimenting​ ​with​ ​the​ ​use​ ​of​ ​tape​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​friction​ ​in

pulling​ ​the​ ​string.​ ​ ​Tests​ ​could​ ​be​ ​done​ ​to​ ​see​ ​if​ ​placing​ ​tape​ ​smooth​ ​side​ ​up​ ​on​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​at​ ​points

of​ ​contact​ ​with​ ​the​ ​string​ ​would​ ​increase​ ​the​ ​raise​ ​velocity.

Should​ ​this​ ​design​ ​be​ ​replicated​ ​on​ ​a​ ​larger​ ​scale​ ​using​ ​industrial​ ​materials​ ​such​ ​as​ ​steel

and​ ​motorized​ ​mechanics,​ ​the​ ​crane​ ​has​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​to​ ​successfully​ ​tow​ ​trapped​ ​vehicles​ ​or​ ​pull

objects​ ​from​ ​underground​ ​such​ ​as​ ​minerals​ ​or​ ​water.​ ​ ​Because​ ​of​ ​the​ ​linear​ ​design,​ ​a​ ​large-scale

industrial​ ​version​ ​would​ ​be​ ​best​ ​at​ ​pulling​ ​large​ ​vehicles​ ​at​ ​an​ ​angle.​ ​ ​Also,​ ​because​ ​the​ ​crane

does​ ​not​ ​stand​ ​on​ ​a​ ​vertical​ ​tower,​ ​pulling​ ​objects​ ​from​ ​a​ ​negative​ ​distance​ ​to​ ​ground​ ​level​ ​would

work​ ​best​ ​for​ ​a​ ​larger​ ​scale,​ ​industrial​ ​crane​ ​modeled​ ​after​ ​this​ ​crane.

16
6​ ​References

Anderson,​ ​Alicia.​ ​“Data​ ​from​ ​Engr​ ​101​ ​Crane​ ​Design​ ​Project.”​ ​Data​ ​from​ ​Engr​ ​101​ ​Crane

Design​ ​Project,​ ​PowerPoint,​ ​2017.

Basa,​ ​Luigi.​ ​“Cardboard​ ​Crane.”​ ​Instructables.com,​ ​Instructables,​ ​19​ ​Sept.​ ​2017.

www.instructables.com/id/Cardboard-Crane/

Interesting​ ​Engineering.​ ​“Mom​ ​and​ ​6-Year-Old​ ​Build​ ​Ingenious​ ​Tower​ ​Crane​ ​from​ ​Sticks​ ​and

Thread​ ​Spools.”​ ​Interesting​ ​Engineering,​ ​16​ ​Sept.​ ​2016.

interestingengineering.com/mam-6-year-old-build-ingerious-crane-sticks-thread-spools/

LastStandGamers,​ ​director.​ ​Medieval​ ​Engineers​ ​-​ ​Block​ ​Damage,​ ​Locking​ ​Rope​ ​Drum.

YouTube,​ ​YouTube,​ ​26​ ​May​ ​2015,​ ​www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bMzPI22J6U​.

17