Spaghetti​ ​Tower​ ​Lab​ ​Report

An​ ​Nguyen​ ​and​ ​Nikola​ ​Skerl

Post-Calculus
6​ ​October​ ​2017
TABLE​ ​OF​ ​CONTENTS
Abstract​ ​ ​…………………………………………………………………………………......​ ​ ​pg.​ ​3
Introduction​ ​ ​……………………………………………………………………………....…​ ​ ​pg.​ ​4
Materials​ ​ ​……………………………………………………………………………………​ ​ ​pg.​ ​4
Methods​ ​ ​……………………………………………………………………………….​ ​ ​pgs.​ ​4​ ​-​ ​11
Analysis​ ​ ​…………………………………………………………………………………....​ ​ ​pg.​ ​12
Conclusion​ ​ ​………………………………………………………………………………...​ ​ ​pg.​ ​13
References​ ​ ​………………………………………………………………………………....​ ​ ​pg.​ ​14

2
ABSTRACT
The​ ​goal​ ​of​ ​this​ ​study​ ​was​ ​to​ ​construct​ ​a​ ​spaghetti​ ​tower​ ​at​ ​least​ ​40​ ​cm​ ​tall​ ​that​ ​could​ ​support​ ​2.6
kg​ ​of​ ​weight.​ ​For​ ​this​ ​end,​ ​six​ ​different​ ​designs​ ​were​ ​tested;​ ​this​ ​trial-and-error​ ​provided​ ​lessons
in​ ​theoretical​ ​engineering​ ​both​ ​general,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​triangles​ ​are​ ​the​ ​most​ ​stable​ ​shape​ ​and​ ​lots​ ​of
points​ ​of​ ​connection​ ​between​ ​parallels​ ​help​ ​reduce​ ​strain​ ​on​ ​any​ ​given​ ​point​ ​and​ ​thus​ ​is​ ​more
stable,​ ​and​ ​more​ ​specific​ ​to​ ​the​ ​materials​ ​on​ ​hand,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​the​ ​best​ ​way​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​bending​ ​is
either​ ​to​ ​increase​ ​thickness​ ​or​ ​decrease​ ​length.​ ​It​ ​also​ ​gave​ ​practical​ ​lessons,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​how​ ​best​ ​to
account​ ​for​ ​imprecisions​ ​inherent​ ​in​ ​transferring​ ​a​ ​design​ ​to​ ​reality​ ​and​ ​how​ ​best​ ​to​ ​troubleshoot
during​ ​construction​ ​when​ ​those​ ​inaccuracies​ ​do​ ​arise.​ ​The​ ​study​ ​culminated​ ​into​ ​an​ ​eight-layered
tower​ ​with​ ​an​ ​equilateral​ ​triangle​ ​as​ ​a​ ​base.​ ​On​ ​each​ ​side​ ​of​ ​every​ ​layer,​ ​struts​ ​linked​ ​opposite
corners​ ​and​ ​a​ ​vertical​ ​strut​ ​was​ ​placed​ ​down​ ​the​ ​center.​ ​The​ ​final​ ​tower​ ​fell​ ​short,​ ​supporting
only​ ​2​ ​kg​ ​before​ ​collapsing​ ​due​ ​to​ ​practical​ ​error​ ​-​ ​the​ ​top​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​was​ ​not​ ​level,​ ​making​ ​it
impossible​ ​to​ ​balance​ ​even​ ​a​ ​clipboard​ ​on​ ​top,​ ​much​ ​less​ ​evenly​ ​distribute​ ​weight.​ ​The​ ​2.6kg
textbook​ ​thus​ ​exerted​ ​more​ ​force​ ​on​ ​one​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​building,​ ​causing​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​tower​ ​to​ ​bend
and​ ​eventually​ ​snap.​ ​The​ ​tower​ ​should​ ​have​ ​been​ ​constructed​ ​layer​ ​by​ ​layer​ ​to​ ​better​ ​account​ ​for
variations​ ​in​ ​height​ ​arising​ ​from​ ​construction.

3
INTRODUCTION
The​ ​overarching​ ​goal​ ​of​ ​this​ ​study​ ​was​ ​to​ ​construct​ ​a​ ​tower​ ​out​ ​of​ ​spaghetti,​ ​with​ ​limits
on​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​material,​ ​that​ ​was​ ​at​ ​least​ ​40​ ​cm​ ​tall​ ​and​ ​could​ ​support​ ​2.6​ ​kg​ ​of​ ​weight;​ ​the
process​ ​and​ ​analysis​ ​thereof​ ​was​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​teach​ ​further​ ​lessons​ ​about​ ​engineering,​ ​both​ ​in
theoretical​ ​design​ ​and​ ​practical​ ​construction,​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​technical​ ​writing.
As​ ​those​ ​lessons​ ​were​ ​meant​ ​to​ ​arise​ ​organically​ ​from​ ​experimentation,​ ​research
specifically​ ​pertaining​ ​to​ ​spaghetti​ ​structures​ ​was​ ​prohibited.​ ​However,​ ​inspiration​ ​was​ ​taken
from​ ​real-life​ ​engineering​ ​examples;​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​most​ ​ambitious​ ​designs​ ​tested​ ​was​ ​based​ ​not​ ​on​ ​a
tower​ ​but​ ​a​ ​bridge.​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​already-established​ ​truss​ ​designs​ ​like​ ​Howe,​ ​Pratt​ ​and​ ​Warren,
were​ ​studied​ ​and​ ​used​ ​(“Truss”).

MATERIALS
30​ ​pieces​ ​of​ ​spaghetti​ ​were​ ​allotted​ ​to​ ​each​ ​group,​ ​each​ ​approximately​ ​25​ ​cm​ ​long,​ ​and
an​ ​unlimited​ ​supply​ ​of​ ​hot​ ​glue,​ ​though​ ​the​ ​latter​ ​could​ ​be​ ​used​ ​only​ ​to​ ​connect​ ​pieces​ ​of
spaghetti​ ​at​ ​key​ ​points;​ ​coating​ ​spaghetti​ ​in​ ​hot​ ​glue​ ​was​ ​not​ ​allowed.​ ​A​ ​sheet​ ​of​ ​paper​ ​or​ ​a​ ​thin
piece​ ​of​ ​cardboard​ ​was​ ​allowed​ ​for​ ​use​ ​as​ ​a​ ​base.​ ​The​ ​spaghetti​ ​pieces​ ​were​ ​able​ ​to​ ​handle​ ​a
surprising​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​vertical​ ​force​ ​before​ ​snapping;​ ​however,​ ​before​ ​the​ ​break​ ​itself​ ​the​ ​pieces
had​ ​a​ ​tendency​ ​to​ ​bend,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​snap​ ​occurring​ ​at​ ​the​ ​vertex​ ​of​ ​the​ ​curve.​ ​The​ ​shorter​ ​the​ ​pieces
were,​ ​the​ ​less​ ​they​ ​bent​ ​and​ ​thus​ ​could​ ​handle​ ​more​ ​force​ ​before​ ​breaking.​ ​The​ ​hot​ ​glue​ ​served
as​ ​an​ ​effective​ ​connector,​ ​but​ ​also​ ​added​ ​a​ ​thickness​ ​that​ ​could​ ​throw​ ​off​ ​calculations​ ​and
de-align​ ​precisely​ ​cut​ ​pieces​ ​of​ ​spaghetti.

METHODS
Throughout​ ​the​ ​course​ ​of​ ​this​ ​study,​ ​six​ ​different​ ​designs​ ​for​ ​the​ ​spaghetti​ ​tower​ ​were
trialled.
The​ ​first​ ​consisted​ ​of​ ​tetrahedrons​ ​stacked​ ​on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​one​ ​another,​ ​connected​ ​at​ ​the​ ​vertex.
Each​ ​layer​ ​of​ ​two​ ​tetrahedrons​ ​was​ ​approximately​ ​15cm​ ​tall;​ ​a​ ​total​ ​of​ ​three​ ​layers​ ​were​ ​planned
in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​surpass​ ​the​ ​40cm​ ​height​ ​requirement.​ ​The​ ​bases​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tetrahedrons​ ​were​ ​to​ ​be
connected​ ​by​ ​pillars.​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​the​ ​first​ ​two​ ​layers​ ​were​ ​planned​ ​to​ ​have​ ​buttresses

4
perpendicular​ ​to​ ​the​ ​sides​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tetrahedrons​ ​that​ ​connected​ ​to​ ​the​ ​paper​ ​base;​ ​the​ ​buttresses
were​ ​to​ ​connect​ ​to​ ​the​ ​main​ ​structure​ ​at​ ​the​ ​vertex​ ​in​ ​the​ ​middle​ ​of​ ​each​ ​layer.​ ​One​ ​layer​ ​of​ ​this
design​ ​(see​ ​figure​ ​1.1)​ ​was​ ​built​ ​before​ ​abandoning​ ​it.​ ​Imprecisions​ ​resulting​ ​from​ ​cutting
spaghetti​ ​and​ ​hot​ ​glue​ ​adding​ ​unaccounted​ ​for​ ​height​ ​meant​ ​the​ ​tetrahedrons​ ​did​ ​not​ ​connect​ ​at
the​ ​vertex,​ ​with​ ​about​ ​a​ ​0.5cm​ ​gap​ ​between​ ​them.

Figure​ ​1.1.​ ​First​ ​layer​ ​of​ ​initial​ ​design.

Given​ ​how​ ​much​ ​force​ ​would​ ​be​ ​directed​ ​towards​ ​the​ ​vertices​ ​and​ ​the​ ​inevitable​ ​inaccuracies​ ​in
construction​ ​that​ ​would​ ​mean​ ​aligning​ ​those​ ​points​ ​properly​ ​would​ ​be​ ​nigh​ ​impossible,​ ​the
design​ ​was​ ​deemed​ ​impractical.
To​ ​alleviate​ ​the​ ​problem​ ​of​ ​the​ ​design​ ​resting​ ​on​ ​a​ ​few​ ​key​ ​points​ ​of​ ​weakness,​ ​the​ ​next
design​ ​featured​ ​several​ ​connection​ ​points​ ​in​ ​the​ ​form​ ​of​ ​struts​ ​within​ ​layers.​ ​Triangles​ ​were
chosen​ ​to​ ​be​ ​the​ ​basic​ ​shape​ ​made​ ​by​ ​the​ ​struts,​ ​as​ ​they​ ​did​ ​not​ ​deform​ ​under​ ​pressure​ ​like
squares,​ ​which​ ​had​ ​a​ ​tendency​ ​to​ ​cave​ ​in​ ​or​ ​tilt.​ ​Also,​ ​a​ ​square​ ​base​ ​was​ ​used​ ​as​ ​triangles​ ​had
been​ ​difficult​ ​to​ ​construct​ ​precisely​ ​without​ ​encasing​ ​the​ ​vertices​ ​in​ ​glue​ ​to​ ​make​ ​up​ ​for​ ​any
variation​ ​in​ ​spaghetti​ ​length.​ ​To​ ​save​ ​on​ ​spaghetti​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​make​ ​the​ ​base​ ​stronger​ ​in
comparison​ ​to​ ​the​ ​rest​ ​of​ ​the​ ​layers,​ ​the​ ​layers​ ​were​ ​designed​ ​to​ ​shrink​ ​in​ ​base​ ​from​ ​top​ ​to
bottom,​ ​while​ ​staying​ ​at​ ​a​ ​constant​ ​height​ ​(see​ ​figure​ ​2.1).​ ​This​ ​design​ ​never​ ​made​ ​it​ ​past​ ​the
blueprint​ ​phase,​ ​as​ ​a​ ​combination​ ​of​ ​rough​ ​sketches​ ​and​ ​indecision​ ​of​ ​how​ ​to​ ​lay​ ​out​ ​the​ ​trusses
in​ ​each​ ​layer​ ​and​ ​exactly​ ​how​ ​much​ ​the​ ​base​ ​should​ ​shrink​ ​each​ ​time​ ​made​ ​it​ ​impossible​ ​to

5
calculate​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​design​ ​was​ ​feasible.​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​while​ ​the​ ​shrinking​ ​bases​ ​made​ ​sense​ ​in
2D,​ ​in​ ​3D​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​side​ ​lengths​ ​of​ ​the​ ​base​ ​would​ ​have​ ​to​ ​remain​ ​constant​ ​in​ ​order​ ​for​ ​the
layers​ ​to​ ​actually​ ​touch​ ​the​ ​layer​ ​below,​ ​further​ ​complicating​ ​calculations​ ​as​ ​different​ ​sides​ ​of
the​ ​layer​ ​would​ ​require​ ​different​ ​amounts​ ​of​ ​spaghetti.

Figure​ ​2.1.​ ​Blueprint​ ​of​ ​second​ ​design.

To​ ​eliminate​ ​uncertainty,​ ​the​ ​next​ ​design​ ​was​ ​drawn​ ​to​ ​scale​ ​on​ ​a​ ​large​ ​whiteboard.​ ​The
basic​ ​plan​ ​was​ ​a​ ​giant​ ​trapezoidal​ ​prism,​ ​divided​ ​into​ ​four,​ ​10cm​ ​layers.​ ​Trusses​ ​were​ ​again​ ​laid
out​ ​to​ ​make​ ​triangles,​ ​while​ ​this​ ​time​ ​staggering​ ​the​ ​points​ ​of​ ​connection​ ​to​ ​the​ ​layer​ ​below​ ​and
thus​ ​distributing​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​to​ ​different​ ​areas;​ ​a​ ​central,​ ​vertical​ ​tie​ ​was​ ​meant​ ​to​ ​prevent​ ​any
bending​ ​in​ ​the​ ​center​ ​by​ ​horizontal​ ​spaghetti​ ​that​ ​were​ ​not​ ​connected​ ​to​ ​a​ ​truss​ ​because​ ​of​ ​that.
The​ ​main​ ​shell​ ​was​ ​to​ ​consist​ ​of​ ​doubled-up​ ​spaghetti​ ​to​ ​increase​ ​strength​ ​(see​ ​figure​ ​3.1).

Figure​ ​3.1.​ ​Diagram​ ​of​ ​third​ ​design,​ ​trapezoidal​ ​side.

6
Existing​ ​rectangular​ ​trusses​ ​such​ ​as​ ​Pratt,​ ​Warren,​ ​Howe,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​unique​ ​X-design​ ​were​ ​researched
to​ ​serve​ ​as​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​for​ ​the​ ​rectangular​ ​sides​ ​of​ ​the​ ​design​ ​(see​ ​figure​ ​3.2).​ ​The​ ​Pratt​ ​design​ ​was
chosen​ ​as​ ​it​ ​had​ ​the​ ​horizontal​ ​layers​ ​that​ ​matched​ ​the​ ​trapezoidal​ ​layout​ ​and​ ​was
spaghetti-efficient.​ ​For​ ​both​ ​theoretical​ ​and​ ​practical​ ​reasons,​ ​the​ ​design​ ​was​ ​abandoned.
Because​ ​the​ ​design​ ​was​ ​drawn​ ​to​ ​scale,​ ​the​ ​lengths​ ​of​ ​the​ ​diagram​ ​could​ ​be​ ​measured​ ​and
multiplied​ ​by​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​sides​ ​to​ ​determine​ ​how​ ​much​ ​spaghetti​ ​was​ ​used.

Figure​ ​3.2.​ ​Options​ ​for​ ​trusses​ ​for Figure​ ​3.2.​ ​Existing​ ​truss​ ​designs.
rectangular​ ​sides​ ​of​ ​third​ ​design. (Source:​ ​“Truss”)

7
 Figure​ ​3.3.​ ​Initial​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​rectangular​ ​side,​ ​where​ ​folding​ ​issue​ ​was​ ​discovered.
Calculations​ ​showed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​frame​ ​and​ ​rectangular​ ​sides​ ​would​ ​require​ ​over​ ​half​ ​of​ ​the​ ​allotted
spaghetti,​ ​410​ ​cm​ ​out​ ​of​ ​750cm,​ ​leaving​ ​little​ ​for​ ​the​ ​horizontal​ ​chords​ ​and​ ​almost​ ​nothing​ ​for
our​ ​planned​ ​trusses.​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​as​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​rectangular​ ​sides​ ​began,​ ​a​ ​structural​ ​flaw
quickly​ ​appeared:​ ​the​ ​truss,​ ​clearly​ ​meant​ ​for​ ​horizontal​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​vertical​ ​use,​ ​buckled​ ​and
folded​ ​along​ ​the​ ​horizontal​ ​chords​ ​(see​ ​figure​ ​3.3).​ ​With​ ​not​ ​enough​ ​spaghetti​ ​to​ ​even​ ​build​ ​the
original​ ​design,​ ​much​ ​less​ ​strengthen​ ​the​ ​rectangular​ ​sides,​ ​a​ ​brand-new​ ​design​ ​had​ ​to​ ​be​ ​created.

To​ ​avoid​ ​going​ ​over-budget​ ​with​ ​the​ ​spaghetti,​ ​a​ ​simpler​ ​design​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​initial​ ​idea
of​ ​a​ ​small,​ ​triangular​ ​base​ ​and​ ​a​ ​simple​ ​tower​ ​built​ ​on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​it​ ​was​ ​created.​ ​To​ ​alleviate​ ​the
bending​ ​problem​ ​with​ ​long​ ​spaghetti​ ​that​ ​required​ ​multiple​ ​trusses​ ​that​ ​had​ ​plagued​ ​the​ ​last
design,​ ​this​ ​design​ ​switched​ ​from​ ​four​ ​10​ ​cm​ ​layers​ ​to​ ​eight​ ​5​ ​cm​ ​layers.​ ​Each​ ​layer​ ​side​ ​was
designed​ ​with​ ​struts​ ​that​ ​would​ ​essentially​ ​create​ ​an​ ​isosceles​ ​triangle​ ​within​ ​each​ ​side.​ ​The​ ​idea
of​ ​shrinking​ ​layers​ ​to​ ​both​ ​save​ ​spaghetti​ ​and​ ​create​ ​a​ ​stronger​ ​base​ ​reemerged,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​base​ ​at
bottom​ ​starting​ ​as​ ​an​ ​equilateral​ ​triangle​ ​with​ ​7cm​ ​sides,​ ​shrinking​ ​until​ ​the​ ​top​ ​had​ ​just​ ​5cm
sides​ ​(see​ ​figure​ ​4.1).​ ​Again,​ ​blueprints​ ​were​ ​drawn​ ​to​ ​scale​ ​to​ ​act​ ​as​ ​a​ ​guide​ ​for​ ​both
calculations​ ​and​ ​cutting​ ​spaghetti​ ​to​ ​precisely​ ​the​ ​correct​ ​length​ ​(see​ ​figure​ ​4.2).​ ​This​ ​eventually

8
ran​ ​into​ ​the​ ​same​ ​problem​ ​the​ ​last​ ​design​ ​with​ ​shrinking​ ​layers​ ​encountered;​ ​if​ ​the​ ​layers
remained​ ​similar,​ ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​impossible​ ​to​ ​stack​ ​them​ ​on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​one​ ​another​ ​directly.

Figure​ ​4.1.​ ​Miniature​ ​diagram​ ​of​ ​fourth

design.

Figure​ ​4.2.​ ​To-scale​ ​drawings​ ​of​ ​each​ ​layer

side​ ​in​ ​fourth​ ​design.

To​ ​allow​ ​for​ ​the​ ​layers​ ​to​ ​shrink​ ​while​ ​still​ ​touching​ ​the​ ​layer​ ​below,​ ​every​ ​other​ ​layer
was​ ​rotated​ ​180​ ​degrees.​ ​Thus,​ ​while​ ​per​ ​layer​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​was​ ​virtually​ ​identical​ ​to​ ​the​ ​last
design,​ ​from​ ​above​ ​the​ ​design​ ​would​ ​resemble​ ​a​ ​6-pointed​ ​star​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​a​ ​triangle.​ ​After

9
concerns​ ​about​ ​the​ ​overhanging​ ​triangles​ ​that​ ​resulted,​ ​vertical​ ​pillars​ ​were​ ​added​ ​to​ ​connect​ ​the
vertices​ ​of​ ​the​ ​alternating​ ​layers;​ ​to​ ​achieve​ ​this,​ ​the​ ​initial​ ​idea​ ​of​ ​shrinking​ ​layers​ ​was​ ​dropped
and​ ​each​ ​layer​ ​was​ ​identical:​ ​an​ ​equilateral​ ​triangle​ ​with​ ​a​ ​6​ ​cm​ ​base,​ ​5​ ​cm​ ​high,​ ​and​ ​an​ ​isosceles
triangle​ ​made​ ​from​ ​struts​ ​within​ ​each​ ​side​ ​(see​ ​figure​ ​5.1).​ ​An​ ​initial​ ​test​ ​of​ ​just​ ​one​ ​layer
showed​ ​that​ ​while​ ​the​ ​trusses​ ​bore​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​of​ ​a​ ​textbook,​ ​the​ ​wall​ ​pillars​ ​snapped​ ​(see​ ​figure
5.2).​ ​To​ ​solve​ ​this,​ ​the​ ​wall​ ​pillars​ ​were​ ​double-reinforced.​ ​While​ ​this​ ​design​ ​held​ ​a​ ​lot​ ​of
promise,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​abandoned​ ​after​ ​the​ ​first​ ​layer​ ​of​ ​the​ ​design​ ​was​ ​rebuilt​ ​with​ ​double-thickness
sides​ ​and​ ​one​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​base​ ​of​ ​the​ ​next​ ​layer​ ​was​ ​accidentally​ ​snapped​ ​(see​ ​figure​ ​5.3​ ​and​ ​5.4)
because​ ​it​ ​was​ ​too​ ​fiddly​ ​trying​ ​to​ ​match​ ​up​ ​layers​ ​with​ ​a​ ​five​ ​cm​ ​gap​ ​between​ ​each​ ​and​ ​to​ ​make
sure​ ​the​ ​overhanging​ ​triangles​ ​were​ ​equal​ ​on​ ​each​ ​side.

Figure​ ​5.2.​ ​Overhead​ ​and​ ​side​ ​view

Figure​ ​5.2.​ ​Remains​ ​of​ ​test​ ​of​ ​fifth​ ​design
diagrams​ ​of​ ​fifth​ ​design.
after​ ​pillars​ ​snapped​ ​under​ ​weight​ ​of
textbook.

This​ ​led​ ​to​ ​the​ ​final​ ​design,​ ​a​ ​combination​ ​of​ ​the​ ​previous​ ​two.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​a​ ​simple,
equilateral-triangle-base​ ​tower​ ​with​ ​6cm​ ​sides​ ​and​ ​each​ ​layer​ ​5cm​ ​tall,​ ​with​ ​a​ ​total​ ​of​ ​eight​ ​layers
to​ ​reach​ ​the​ ​required​ ​40cm.​ ​The​ ​pillars​ ​were​ ​also​ ​double​ ​thick​ ​on​ ​every​ ​other​ ​layer​ ​to​ ​preserve
strength​ ​while​ ​saving​ ​a​ ​bit​ ​of​ ​spaghetti.​ ​The​ ​struts​ ​were​ ​more​ ​inspired​ ​by​ ​the​ ​third​ ​design,
featuring​ ​the​ ​X​ ​trusses​ ​were​ ​had​ ​initially​ ​thought​ ​up​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​a​ ​central,​ ​vertical​ ​strut​ ​to​ ​make​ ​up

10
for​ ​the​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​contact​ ​in​ ​the​ ​middle​ ​of​ ​each​ ​horizontal​ ​chord​ ​and​ ​prevent​ ​those​ ​from​ ​bending
(see​ ​figures​ ​6.1​ ​and​ ​6.2).

Figure​ ​5.4.​ ​Overhead​ ​view​ ​of​ ​second

Figure​ ​5.3.​ ​Side​ ​view​ ​of​ ​second​ ​building​ ​of
building​ ​of​ ​fifth​ ​design,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the
fifth​ ​design.
base​ ​of​ ​second​ ​layer​ ​that​ ​snapped​ ​visible.

Figure​ ​6.2.​ ​Close-up​ ​on​ ​one​ ​layer​ ​of​ ​final

design.

11
 Figure​ ​6.1.​ ​Completed​ ​tower​ ​using​ ​final,
sixth​ ​design.

ANALYSIS
The​ ​final​ ​tower​ ​did​ ​not​ ​manage​ ​to​ ​support​ ​the​ ​full​ ​2.6​ ​kg,​ ​instead​ ​supporting​ ​only​ ​2kg.
The​ ​main​ ​problem​ ​was​ ​that​ ​the​ ​top​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​was​ ​not​ ​level;​ ​it​ ​was​ ​impossible​ ​to​ ​balance​ ​a
clipboard​ ​on​ ​the​ ​top.​ ​Though​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​could​ ​sustain​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​of​ ​the​ ​two,​ ​1​ ​kg​ ​weight​ ​stacked
on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​each​ ​other,​ ​the​ ​additional​ ​force​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​this​ ​unevenness​ ​caused​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​not
to​ ​bend​ ​but,​ ​just​ ​to​ ​tilt.​ ​Because​ ​of​ ​this,​ ​during​ ​official​ ​testing​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​toppled​ ​over​ ​and​ ​was
still​ ​completely​ ​undamaged​ ​as​ ​the​ ​fall​ ​sent​ ​the​ ​weights​ ​flying​ ​and​ ​thus​ ​there​ ​was​ ​no​ ​force​ ​besides
that​ ​of​ ​gravity​ ​on​ ​the​ ​relatively​ ​light​ ​tower​ ​itself.​ ​However,​ ​when​ ​the​ ​2.6​ ​kg​ ​textbook​ ​was​ ​placed
onto​ ​the​ ​tower,​ ​the​ ​textbook​ ​toppled​ ​over​ ​before​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​did;​ ​the​ ​uneven​ ​surface​ ​meant​ ​the
textbook​ ​tilted​ ​onto​ ​the​ ​lower​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tower,​ ​placing​ ​more​ ​weight​ ​on​ ​that​ ​side.​ ​That​ ​caused
the​ ​tower​ ​itself​ ​to​ ​bend​ ​on​ ​the​ ​other​ ​side​ ​to​ ​compensate​ ​and​ ​eventually​ ​snap​ ​at​ ​the​ ​third​ ​layer
from​ ​the​ ​bottom.
Because​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​broke​ ​relatively​ ​cleanly​ ​throughout​ ​the​ ​layer,​ ​with​ ​breakage​ ​in​ ​both
the​ ​pillars​ ​and​ ​the​ ​struts,​ ​that​ ​demonstrates​ ​that​ ​there​ ​were​ ​not​ ​any​ ​major​ ​points​ ​of​ ​weakness​ ​in
the​ ​structure.​ ​Theoretically,​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​design​ ​worked​ ​well.​ ​Where​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​failed​ ​was​ ​in​ ​the
practical​ ​construction.​ ​During​ ​construction,​ ​the​ ​spaghetti​ ​pieces​ ​were​ ​cut​ ​to​ ​precise​ ​lengths
beforehand,​ ​and​ ​then​ ​assembled​ ​and​ ​bound​ ​with​ ​hot​ ​glue.​ ​However,​ ​the​ ​hot​ ​glue​ ​itself​ ​added​ ​a
level​ ​of​ ​thickness​ ​unaccounted​ ​for​ ​in​ ​the​ ​design,​ ​and​ ​pieces​ ​likely​ ​would​ ​not​ ​have​ ​been​ ​glued​ ​at
precise​ ​90​ ​degree​ ​angles​ ​as​ ​a​ ​glob​ ​of​ ​hot​ ​glue​ ​prevents​ ​precise​ ​alignment​ ​with​ ​the​ ​piece​ ​below.
Both​ ​of​ ​these​ ​factors​ ​would​ ​have​ ​varied​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​vertical​ ​height​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​from​ ​the
theoretical,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​vertical​ ​height​ ​would​ ​have​ ​varied​ ​on​ ​each​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​itself,​ ​creating
the​ ​unlevel​ ​surface​ ​that​ ​eventually​ ​meant​ ​the​ ​failure​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tower.
To​ ​improve​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​tower,​ ​modification​ ​of​ ​the​ ​construction​ ​process​ ​would​ ​be​ ​necessary.
Pieces​ ​of​ ​spaghetti​ ​should​ ​be​ ​cut​ ​as​ ​they​ ​were​ ​needed,​ ​so​ ​as​ ​to​ ​account​ ​for​ ​minor​ ​fluctuations​ ​in
height​ ​immediately.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​if​ ​the​ ​joint​ ​already​ ​has​ ​a​ ​large​ ​blob​ ​of​ ​hot​ ​glue,​ ​the​ ​next​ ​piece
should​ ​be​ ​cut​ ​slightly​ ​shorter​ ​to​ ​account​ ​for​ ​the​ ​spaghetti​ ​piece​ ​sitting​ ​not​ ​directly​ ​on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​the
other​ ​pieces,​ ​but​ ​on​ ​the​ ​hot​ ​glue​ ​instead.​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​after​ ​each​ ​layer,​ ​a​ ​clipboard​ ​or​ ​some​ ​other

12
flat​ ​object​ ​should​ ​be​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​the​ ​tower​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​it​ ​is​ ​level;​ ​if​ ​it​ ​is​ ​not,​ ​the​ ​layer​ ​after​ ​can​ ​be
modified​ ​to​ ​account​ ​for​ ​that.
CONCLUSIONS
As​ ​a​ ​whole,​ ​this​ ​study​ ​effectively​ ​taught​ ​lessons​ ​about​ ​engineering​ ​design​ ​and
construction.
Through​ ​the​ ​process​ ​of​ ​testing​ ​designs,​ ​patterns​ ​about​ ​what​ ​designs​ ​were​ ​stable​ ​emerged,
like​ ​the​ ​importance​ ​of​ ​triangles​ ​and​ ​many​ ​joints​ ​for​ ​force​ ​to​ ​be​ ​distributed.​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​it​ ​showed
how​ ​weaknesses​ ​could​ ​be​ ​accounted​ ​for​ ​in​ ​multiple​ ​ways;​ ​each​ ​with​ ​distinct​ ​advantages.​ ​The
bendiness​ ​of​ ​the​ ​spaghetti​ ​could​ ​be​ ​alleviated​ ​by​ ​cutting​ ​it​ ​shorter,​ ​which​ ​had​ ​the​ ​added​ ​benefit
of​ ​increasing​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​contact​ ​points,​ ​or​ ​doubling​ ​up​ ​on​ ​spaghetti​ ​in​ ​key​ ​segments,​ ​which
helped​ ​increase​ ​overall​ ​strength.​ ​Other​ ​lessons​ ​were​ ​learned​ ​through​ ​trial​ ​by​ ​fire,​ ​like​ ​the
importance​ ​of​ ​keeping​ ​records​ ​so​ ​the​ ​same​ ​error​ ​of​ ​design​ ​isn’t​ ​made​ ​again.
The​ ​construction​ ​itself​ ​showed​ ​that​ ​while​ ​having​ ​a​ ​clear​ ​blueprint​ ​and​ ​design​ ​is​ ​vital,​ ​it​ ​is
equally​ ​important​ ​to​ ​not​ ​get​ ​bogged​ ​down​ ​in​ ​perfection;​ ​it​ ​is​ ​more​ ​important​ ​to​ ​make​ ​what​ ​exists
work​ ​than​ ​strive​ ​towards​ ​an​ ​impossible​ ​theoretical​ ​design.​ ​In​ ​addition,​ ​it​ ​demonstrates​ ​how
things​ ​that​ ​may​ ​not​ ​even​ ​be​ ​thought​ ​of​ ​in​ ​the​ ​design​ ​affect​ ​the​ ​end​ ​product;​ ​the​ ​hot​ ​glue​ ​adding​ ​a
thickness​ ​had​ ​not​ ​even​ ​been​ ​considered​ ​and​ ​had​ ​to​ ​somehow​ ​be​ ​accounted​ ​for​ ​or​ ​just​ ​accepted​ ​as
part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​process.
​ ​The​ ​end​ ​tower​ ​was​ ​a​ ​physical​ ​culmination​ ​of​ ​all​ ​the​ ​failed​ ​attempts​ ​and​ ​lessons​ ​learned
thereof,​ ​drawing​ ​on​ ​both​ ​the​ ​structures​ ​and​ ​the​ ​building​ ​techniques​ ​of​ ​the​ ​previous​ ​designs​ ​to​ ​be,
even​ ​though​ ​it​ ​did​ ​not​ ​completely​ ​succeed.

13
REFERENCES
“Truss.”​ ​NEXT.cc,​ ​http://www.next.cc/journey/discovery/truss.​ ​Accessed​ ​21​ ​Sept.​ ​2017.

14