During the design phase, we focused on developing and refining our structural concepts through collaborative sessions and detailed calculations. Our work was split between hands-on collaboration in the Capstone Room and whiteboard-based ideation sessions, where we drafted initial concepts and performed critical engineering calculations.

• ➤
  Spent several sessions in the Capstone Room collaborating on structural layout and material selection.
• ➤
  Utilized whiteboard brainstorming to sketch initial design concepts and iterate on ideas.
• ➤
  Conducted detailed loading and deflection calculations to validate the structural integrity of our proposed solution.
• ➤
  Considered various structural alternatives before finalizing the optimal design based on project criteria.
• ➤
  Developed initial CAD models and cross-checked with manual and software-based analysis.

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 

Our team utilized Revit for Building Information Modeling (BIM) to visualize and coordinate the structural design before construction. This digital model served as a critical reference throughout the project, enhancing accuracy and collaboration.

• ➤
  Visible Simpson Strong-Tie hardware, placed according to structural requirements
• ➤
  Dimensional accuracy of the structure, including framing layout and elevation details
• ➤
  Real-time visualization of construction sequencing and component placement
• ➤
  Our roof design imitates the San Francisco Peaks highlighting the beauty of Flagstaff, Arizona.
• ➤
  The person is 6 feet from the ground in the BIM Model picture, this shows the true dimensions of our structure compared to a person.

1. 
2. 

The video displayed below was created by our teammate Jesa’Lyn Waggoner, offering a dynamic walkthrough of our finalized model.

Our team prefabricated the structure at Northern Arizona University (NAU) in accordance with the project plans. This off-site preparation ensured a smoother and more efficient on-site build. This stage was essential for quality control and time management. Some of the prefabrication process included:

• ➤
  Cutting lumber to precise measurements
• ➤
  Screwing nails for secure and accurate assembly
• ➤
  Nailing components together to form subassemblies
• ➤
  Painting elements for our Ski Lodge
• ➤
  HomeCo donated pallets of Lumber in which we were thankful to use for our framing. This generous donation is what made our structure sustainable making us earn full points for sustainability.

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 

On Build Day, we operated under several critical constraints that shaped both our planning and on-site execution:

• ➤
  Team Size Restriction: Only 4 to 6 builders were allowed to participate during the build. Among them, at least one had to be an upperclassman and one an underclassman; ​this is where Oscar Delgado (upperclassmen) and Zach Millett (underclassmen) became key members during construction. 
• ➤
  Simpson Strong-Tie Installation: All Simpson Strong-Tie connectors and hardware were required to be installed on-site during Build Day. No pre-installation or partial fastening was allowed beforehand, requiring precise coordination and task delegation during the event.
• ➤
  Build Area Limits: The structure had to be constructed within a strict 18 ft x 18 ft build zone-- smaller than last years build area of 20 ft x 20 ft. This constraint influenced our layout and necessitated accurate field measurements and alignment.
• ➤
  Power Tool Usage: ​ Power tools using compressed air, powder actuation or rotating blades such as nail guns, power saws, cordless saws, reciprocating saws etc. were not permitted to be used at the competition. However, battery operated tools such as drills or screwdrivers were permitted.
• ➤
  Pre-Fabrication Restrictions: While some prefabrication of wall panels and components was allowed off-site, full assembly or permanent fastening was not permitted until Build Day. Teams were required to demonstrate that connections were made on-site by leaving key fasteners out or clearly marking them.
• ➤
  Our temporary shoring had used skies attached to them to go with our ski lodge theme.
• ➤
  PPE and Safety Compliance: All team members were required to wear the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at all times while in the build zone. This included hard hats, safety glasses, gloves, and close-toed shoes.
• ➤
  Time Limit: The entire build had to be completed within 90 minutes, adding pressure to work efficiently while maintaining quality and safety. We finished our structure in 65 minutes making us one of the fastest teams to complete our structure and ultimately earning that extra point.

Sample Title

Sample Text

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 
23. 
24. 
25. 
26. 
27. 
28. 
29. 
30. 
31. 
32. 
33. 
34. 
35. 
36. 
37. 
38. 
39. 
40. 
41. 
42. 

The time lapse video below was taken by our teammate Colton Davis. It records the entire 65 minutes of construction on build day showing our progress from start to finish.

The video below shows the initial start of build day. The university next to us took 3 people to open up a ladder, while our university was fast to assemble our 1st story walls.

The video below shows our progress compared to other universities where we have already started on our roof structure while others barely have their 1st story up!

The cantilever deflection test was a key demonstration of our structural design’s performance. In accordance with competition rules, the load location was determined randomly by a dice roll performed just before construction began.

• ➤
  The Head Judge assigned test load locations using a roll of a standard 6-sided die.
• ➤
  Each die value corresponded to a predefined distance from the wall face on the cantilever beam.
• ➤
  Our teammate Giselle performed the dice roll, landing on value 4, setting the test load at 3’-9” from the wall.
• ➤
  A 150 lb load was applied at the designated location using the standard apparatus.
• ➤
  We monitored deflection and compared it to our predicted values, validating our design’s strength and accuracy.
• ➤
  The test showcased the effectiveness of our cantilever beam design and its ability to handle real-world stress.

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

• ➤
• Our Measured Deflection @ 3'9" = 0.83
• ➤
  Our Predicted Deflection @ 3'9" = 0.53