The table below portrays the decision matrix made to determine the appropriate timber grade to be used in the project. This would allow for a timber grade to be chosen that would best suit its intended use. The timber grades were scored based on the criteria of cost, appropriate strength, and availability. The cost criteria were scored based on the fact that lower-quality timber would have a lower cost. With grade 1 timber being the highest quality timber based on strength and physical imperfections, this would also be the most expensive. The appropriate strength criteria were scored based on the timber grades being able to handle the given design loads. It was also scored with the goal of not using a timber grade that would be considered as being overly designed. The availability criteria were scored based on the timber grade that was most readily available at local lumber yards. After scoring, timber grade 2 was chosen as the appropriate timber grade to be used.
Back to Top
The table below shows the decision matrix that was made to determine a softwood type to be used in the project. The softwood types graded were wood types that were allowed to be used in the competition. The wood types were graded against the same criteria used to determine timber grade. The cost score associated with the wood types comes from an assumed price with hem fir being relatively low cost. The strength of the timber species correlates with their cost with a stronger timber species having a higher cost. Availability was also scored to choose a timber species that was readily available locally. After scoring, hem fir was chosen as the timber species to be used.
Back to Top
The table below shows the decision matrix used to determine the design for the proposed structure. Three different designs were chosen and graded for cost, aesthetics, constructability, and roof construction.
The
criteria for this decision matrix were based on the goals of maximizing points
for the competition design scores of budgets, aesthetics, and constructability. The cost of the designs were based on the amount of wood that was predicted to be utilized in the project. Aesthetics were subjective to the team members judgement of the corrlating theme of the design. Prefabrication constructability was determined based on the amount of repeating stud lengths that would need to be cut in the construction phase. More repeating lengths would allow for less probability that mistakes would be made as well as allow for a quicker construction time. Roof constructability was based on previous experience and cost. The other design alternatives not chosen consisted of mono-pitched and truss roof types. A mono-pitched roof would be more difficult to construct at competition due to the amount of pieces would need to be held in the air. If a truss roof was chosen, then it would be probable that truss construction would be outsourced to a company. This would further impact the cost of the design. Design 3 was then chosen as the design that would allow for the most possible points to be awarded.
Back to Top
This site was created with the Nicepage
