The Honeycombs
Sentel Rodgers
Matt Billock
Jonathan Barth
Chris Fenstermaker
Sentel Rodgers 1550-50003
Matt Billock 1550-50003
Jonathan Barth 1550-5003
Chris Fenstermaker 1550-50003
Introduction
Purpose
This report documents design and testing of a structure composed of 3x5 inch index cards. The
objective of this structure is to support a maximum amount of weight compared to the cost of the
structure. We had to because you said so.
Problem
The Honeycombs, one of the greatest engineering groups in the history of YSU, were given the
project of designing a structure consisting of 3x5 index cards and staples if sought after. The
main purpose of this structure was to hold as many bricks as possible based on the total cost of
the structure.
Scope
Design conditions:







Index cards must be placed on an edge
A fold in the cards must have a crease(no curves)
Structure must be able to hold a least 2 bricks
Structure must be at least 1 ½ in. off testing surface
All pieces of structure must be connected on some fashion
Index cards cannot be torn or cut
Cost of building the structure was calculated as:
Index cards = $1.00 ea.
Staples = $0.75 ea.
Folds = $0.50 ea.
Cost Equation:
# 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑠
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒
× 100 = Total competition points
Background
Theory
The group first came up with the idea to use triangles as our structure but then they noticed that
triangles were not as strong as other shapes. After everyone agreed to get rid of the idea of using
triangles The Honeycombs came up with the new shape of a hexagon. Hexagons were found to
be stronger than triangles through testing and surprisingly not much more expensive. Once we
were positive we were going to use hexagons they had to figure out what shape to put to
hexagons in and how many actual hexagons to use in order to make that shape. This is where
The Honeycombs had the most trouble. They came up with many ideas. Some ideas were let’s
just use one hexagon, let’s make a huge hexagon with like 20 hexagons, and let’s make an eight
shape with the hexagons, and let’s just make a hexagon which is six sides with six hexagons. The
group immediately threw out two of the ideas, the 20 hexagon idea and the one hexagon idea.
These ideas were thrown out because we tested the one hexagon idea and it did poorly because it
was very hard to balance and the 20 hexagon idea because it would have had to hold a ridiculous
amount of bricks. They came up with the final structure which was 6 hexagons placed together to
form one large hexagon. To get the maximum proficiency from our structure we decided that our
best option to obtain a structure that would hold the most bricks would obviously be to try to get
the strongest shape, which is a cylinder or tube shape. The group also found out that triangles are
physically dominant as well. The Honeycombs decided to combine the two together by forming
a structure that contained 6 hexagons (which could be made up of 6 triangles each but would be
more expansive) and put them together to form a shape that is closely related to a cylinder, a
hexagon. (Figure 1)
Figure 1
Research
The group was able to find valid information online and with one book.
Test and Evaluation
Development
The structure’s design consisted of six note cards. Each note card was folded into a hexagon
figure.





Each card was folded once long ways (hotdog bun style)
Next the cards were folded wide ways three times (hamburger style)
Then the folds created six creases in the note card
The card was formed into a hexagon by overlapping two of the folds
After six small hexagons were made efficiently they were placed to make a
larger hexagon.
Total Cost
The group used the following formula to find the total cost of the structure:
Total Cost = i  .50 f  .75s



i = number of index cards
f = number of folds
s = number of staples
With the groups numbers put into the equation the total cost of the structure is:
Total Cost = 6+ .50(24) + .75(0) = $18.00
Testing
The hexagon structure was tested by placing bricks on top of an 18x18 in piece of wood. Before
stacking the bricks the group had to center the wood in the middle of the structure. After the
wood was centered The Honeycombs placed the bricks on the wood by first placing two bricks at
a time in the center of the wood then for each layer after they alternated the bricks 90 degrees.
After every two layers high in the center they then stacked one brick on each side of the wooden
square and then began stacking bricks in the center again until another two layers were
completed then the process was repeated.
The completion points were determined by this equation:
B
x100  CP
C
So that:
B = # of bricks
C= cost of structure
CP = competition Points
CP =
16
18
× 100 = 88
Findings
The Honeycombs found that our structure was not the best design. Even though it failed our
structure was best one at the time it was tested.
Conclusion
Even though our structure failed, it was sturdy yet inconsistent. Our guess is that the balance was
not even throughout the base of the structure. It is possible was that the structure was not
centered correctly or the bricks were stacked unevenly. The structure could have been perfected
with more testing and probably increasing the area at the base of the structure by adding more
individual hexagons surrounding the structure and forming them into different patterns.
Background information for “Structures and Shapes”. 2007 Canada Science and Technology
Museum. 3 October 20007
<http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/English/schoolzone/info_structures.cfm.>
Pothorn, Herbert. Architectural styles: an historical guide to world design. New York: Facts on
File 1982.
Weisstein, Eric W. "Hexagon." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource.
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hexagon.html>