Roller Coaster Lab Report
Daniel Lorance
Alex Bresee
James Lacy
Christina Frazier
Engineering Fundamentals 151
Section 10
6 December 2008
1
ABSTRACT
The final team project of designing and building a functioning roller coaster was
conducted to see how individuals could work together in a team atmosphere while at the same
time giving their own thoughts. Guidelines and specifics had to be addressed while in the design
process. Our team decided to use easily available materials in the construction of our roller
coaster. Major problems consisted of finding a common meeting time to design and construct the
project. Overall the project went well with a few minor setbacks that were addressed.
2
INTRODUCTION
The task of Project 6 was to design and build an original roller coaster. The objectives for
the team project were specifically to (1) solve an open-ended problem while working as a team,
(2) demonstrate ways that engineers communicate consisting of presentations, spreadsheets, and
written reports, (3) apply the principles that we have learned from EF 151 and EF 105 over the
course of the semester, and finally (4) have fun! Our individual team objective was to create a
roller coaster that would be competitive amongst the class while also having an original but
structured design.
DESIGN PROCESS
The design process of the roller coaster was a very rigorous process with strategic
planning, team member input, and also trial and error. The design had to fall within given
guidelines that included but weren’t limited to: the device must fit inside a 0.5m X 0.5m X 0.5m
box when folded up, must complete run in as close to 15 seconds as possible, materials not to
exceed budget of $40, and finally the device must be safe (See Appendix A for original design).
Other hints provided were that the roller coaster should not just be one long ramp or loop, but
should include in the design a loop or a jump. Also stated was that the actual building process
should not take a long time. With that in mind, we discarded the idea of the track being opentopped and chose the alternate plastic hose track which is enclosed and would obviously be
easier to assemble which would in turn take less time.
DEVICE DESCRIPTION
We decided that our roller coaster would consist of plastic tubing encased in a 3-sided
plywood box with a plywood bottom as well. Wooden dowels, glue, and 24 gauge wire would
support the plastic tubing track while we determined to use a small ball bearing as the cart. Our
tubing track starts at the top right front corner extending counter-clockwise for 1.5 downward
spirals, the track then plummets down leading into the first loop followed directly by a roughly
45o side loop. From there it finishes with another spiral and then out of the box. The motion of
our roller coaster starts with turning the potential energy that the ball bearing possesses into
kinetic energy that it will use while on the track. Once the ball is set in motion the ball begins to
accelerate down into the first spiral or turn. At this instant is when the centripetal force takes the
ball around the curve because the track is curved the ball will go along with it. The ball continues
to accelerate making it to the loop where momentum will take it to the top and that’s where
gravity and kinetic energy will keep the ball moving through the tube. It will then go around
another series of loops before being blasted out of the box and to the conclusion of the ride.
Item:
Plywood
Price($):
15
3
Wire
Glue
Dowels
Ball Bearings
Tubing
RESULTS
5
2
5(owned)
6
8
Upon completion of the roller coaster, the results showed that in fact it is possible to
build a roller coaster with respect to the given specifications and have its duration last
approximately fifteen seconds. Other results show that at the start, the ball bearing has enough
potential energy to carry it through the given course. All calculations of the ball’s kinetic and
potential energy can be found by using Conservation of Energy. The potential energy of the ball
was found to be 5.4E-3 Joules (Eq. 1). The velocity of the ball after making its way through the
spiral is calculated to be 1.867 m/s (Eq. 2). The next calculated velocity comes after the ball
goes through the drop and heads for the first loop. The velocity at the before entering the loop is
3.13 m/s (Eq.3). After the ball makes its way to the top of the loop, it still has potential energy
and a velocity of 2.6 m/s (Eq. 4). The ball then heads for the second loop and has a calculated
velocity of 2.78 m/s after completing the loop (Eq.5). At this point the ball makes its way
through the final stretches while gradually dropping a couple more inches. The final velocity of
the ball upon coming out of the hole in the box is 2.95 m/s (Eq.6). there is energy loss
throughout the course due to friction in the tubing; however, without knowing a coefficient of
kinetic friction, the losses are not able to be calculated.
Eq. 1PE = mgh (Appendix B)
Eq. 2 mgh = ½mv² + mgh (Appendix B)
Eq. 3 ½mv² + mgh = ½mv² (Appendix B)
Eq. 4 ½mv² = ½mv² + mgh (Appendix B)
Eq. 5 ½mv² + mgh = ½mv² + mgh (Appendix C)
Eq. 6 ½mv² + mgh = ½mv² + mgh (Appendix C)
CONCLUSIONS
Our project roller coaster for the most part was successful. We learned to set up ideas
which gave us early thoughts on the project and how to organize our ideas as a group. The major
problems that our team encountered was finding a common meeting time to prepare the project
due to very conflicting school, work, and holiday travel schedules. Small team problems
4
consisted of ultimately deciding on the final design which can be expected from a group of four
people that all have strong opinions. Transportation of the final design seemingly became
difficult as well due to the large size of the final product. Actual project problems arose once the
plastic tubing was opened. Due to its packaging, the tubing wanted to lay flat and was packaged
in the shape of a coil. This caused difficulty in the rolling of the ball and managing the tubing
while applying the supports for the roller coaster design. The ball bearings in our possession also
caused small problems. They were inconsistent in that they all had varying flat edges which
made them not have a true roll. This caused variations in the final time frame that was given to
us in the guidelines. Another problem was the surprisingly cold weather which in transportation
caused the tubing to have variations from the tube being so cold. Other conclusions that could
possibly be different were the final design with respect to the fifteen second target time. After the
product was finished we determined that an elevator would have been a great idea to take up
more time while keeping the project in a manageable size. After these problems and minor
setback, overall the final team project was a success.
REFERENCES
http://www.rcca.com/
http://www.coasters.net/designers/
http://www.ef.engr.utk.edu/