Testing and Test Results

Figure 1- Final AutoCAD Design

Introduction
The final product of the Green Pier project is a completed AutoCAD rendering from each section of the project, including the pier, land, and chapel areas. These renderings were used in the testing procedure to evaluate the final product. My part of the project was to design the piers with both recreational and professional visitors in mind. These piers will extend off the promenade on the land in the Sandy Hook Bay area.The final product to be tested is shown in Figure 1. The site where the testing will take place is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2- Area of Development

The finished product will meet all specifications and limitations. The piers are built within the regulations of both the National Park Service and the government. The piers are beneficial to both professional and recreational fishermen. The entire structure will pass an inspection that ensures it is safe for visitor use. The final product is structurally sound. The entire product is built with eco-friendly materials. The bulkhead is sturdy enough to withstand effects of ocean waves without failing. The entire product is aesthetically pleasing. Since all of these testing specifications are hypothetical and the final product has not physically been built, the form of testing used has been through feedback from professionals and possible users of the pier area.

Testing Procedures
All testing procedures were carried out and conducted as meetings are.
Preliminary Testing- Exploratory1. Meet and discuss solutions with the group to ensure all of the solutions fit together.

Figure 3- Alt. Solution #3

• Meet with the group
• Discussion of all our solutions down to every last detail (Figure 3 shows alternate solution)
• Decide whether or not project ideas are fitting together as planned

2. Speak with mentor about dock structure to ensure the dock is structurally safe and sound.

• Ask about support beams and railings- make sure safety rules are in check
• Revise any and all small discrepancies that could affect the final solution

3. Check with teachers to make sure all plans are feasible and correct.

Figue 4- Chosen Solution #2

• Meet with the teachers
• Show final design solutions (Figure 4 shows chosen solution)
• Ask about its viability and advice on how to fix anything that may be off
• Fix all minor and major discrepancies in the solutions before moving forward

Secondary Testing- Assessment
1. Bring all final solutions back together to determine feasibility.

• Is the concept workable? All pieces must fit together and work together to achieve the final product of a neatly constructed recreational area.
• Check with teachers to make sure they agree that the final solution is 100% feasible.
• Contact mentors for updated information and advice on any and all improvements.

2. Decide whether or not all the solutions are the best way to achieve the final product.

• If there are any other ideas, they will be presented now at the latest.
• All possible solutions must be brought back to mind to determine whether or not this is the best solution.
• Ask for outside opinions- this area will be open to the public, so the best judge will be the public itself.

3. Is the final solution usable and useful to visiting tourists and fishermen?

• Make sure users are comfortable in such an environment
• Ask relatives, family, friends about what they personally think about the layout
• Use these opinions to add new concepts or better reform the final solution

Tertiary Testing- Validation
1. Check back to all specifications and limitations.

• Use a checklist to ensure the final structure meets all the requirements.
• If the design does not meet all requirements, return to the preliminary testing stage.

Figure 5- Sample Survey

Quaternary Testing- Comparison
1. Make sure that the site is more user-friendly, eco-friendly, and stable than the previous site.

• Compare to original site by visitation
• Use the following survey to get user opinions (Figure 5 shows sample survey)

Testing Results

Preliminary Testing- Exploratory1. Met and discussed solutions with the group to ensure all of the solutions fit together.

• Met with the group
• Discussed of all our solutions down to every last detail
• Decided the project ideas fit together as planned

The group met without any problems. Each of us had our alternate solutions completed on time and were able to discuss the best way to move forward. I chose alternate solution 2 (Figure 4) because it fit best with the promenade design another group member had come up with.

2. Spoke with mentor about dock structure to ensure the dock is structurally safe and sound.

• Asked about pier stucture- fixed, added joists 
• Revised any small discrepancies that could affect the final solution

There were a few initial flaws with my pier design (such as the absence of joists) that were easily corrected with the supervision of my mentor. Overall the design was structurally sound and all safety rules for construction were in fact intact.

3. Checked with teachers to make sure all plans are feasible and correct.

• Met with the teachers
• Showed final design solutions
• Asked about its viability and advice on how to fix anything that may be off
• Fixed all minor and major discrepancies in the solutions before moving forward

After showing the final design solution to the teachers, everything was set to move forward. It was determined that this solution was the best solution of all the alternate solutions and all plans for the upcoming design were feasible. All specifications and limitations initially set forth were met and spproved by the teachers.

Secondary Testing- Assessment
1. Brought all final solutions back together to determine feasibility.

• The concept was workable. All pieces fit together and worked together to achieve the final product of a neatly constructed recreational area.
• Checked with teachers- they agreed that the final solution was 100% feasible.
• Contacted mentors for updated information and advice on any and all improvements.

After deciding our solutions were all viable, we met again to make sure our solutions fit together still with any extra workings done. They all fit perfectly and we created a final product. The teachers then agreed that our solutions would work well together. I contacted my mentor and got updated information for the next steps in working on the solution.

2. Decided the solutions were the best way to achieve the final product.

• All possible solutions were brought back to mind, determined chosen solutions were the best.
• Asked for outside opinions- all approved

As a group we looked back on our other solutions to be absolutely sure that our chosen solutions were the best to move forward with. We also considered any other possible solutions, but realized the chosen solutionf for the pier was definitely the best to fit the project. I asked family, friends, and my mentor what they thought about the final solution and they all agreed it would be the best based off aesthetics, comfortability, and accessibility.

3. The final solution is usable and useful to visiting tourists and fishermen.

• Made sure users were comfortable in such an environment
• Asked relatives, family, friends about what they personally think about the layout
• Used these opinions to add new concepts or better reform the final solution

I asked further questions to friends and family, such as the aesthetics of a rock versus a wood bulkhead, and a long professional pier and short recreational pier versus one long pier. They all agreed the best solution was my chosen solution, and there were no further improvements to add to the chosen solution.

Tertiary Testing- Validation
1. Checked back to all specifications and limitations.

• Used a checklist to ensure the final structure meets all the requirements.

The design was lacking in structural support. I went back to the design and fixed the joist positioning and added crossed posts for stabilization on the pilings to add to the structurally sound aspect of the final product. After that was fixed, the final structure met all the specfications and limitations originally dictated.

Quaternary Testing- Comparison
1. Made sure that the site is more user-friendly, eco-friendly, and stable than the previous site.

• Planned the site and compared it to previous construction.

I had planned the site to meet all specifications and limitation set forth to create an eco-friendly pier. The original site did not have a pier and the wooden bulkhead was broken down in many different places due to the force of the ocean waves. If the site was actually being built, there would be two structurally sound piers and a sturdy rock bulkhead. A survey would be administered after construction to get user feedback (see Figure 5 for sample survey). 

Conclusion
Throughout the course of testing this design, there was one major flaw which was easily repaired. The structure was not entirely sound, but was fixed by adding posts to stabilize the pilings and changing the orientation of the joists to better suit the structure. After fixing the stability of the structure, it was easy to finish the testing. The product met all specifications and limitations, and the site was much improved in comparison to the current state of the site as it is. Had the construction actually gone underway, users would be surveyed to calculate the overall success of the pier and bulkhead design.