Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
(For the specic steps taken to estimate bridge weight, refer to the Data
Appendix.)
Design Methodology
We initially approached the project by making the simplest designs possible. The rst three proposed designs include a bridge that takes up as much volume as possible (Fig. 1), a Minimalist design (Fig. 2), and another that involves parabolic arches (Fig. 3). Figure 1: Punch Out Figure 2: Minimalist Figure 3: Truss Arch
After Dennis incorporated these simple designs into SolidWorks, Nick did some research online for various archetypal bridges and brought to the attention of the group that a simple truss or arch brige would most likely be ideal for the situation. With this in mind, we determined the Truss Arch (Fig. 3) was the best of our initial designs, so we kept its general shape and tossed the others. Nick then proceeded to create detailed schematics for a truss-arch bridge hybrid (Fig. 4), Jon and Ben created a design that incorporates I-beams as well(Fig. 5), and then Dennis and Jon re-designed Nick's general design using llets instead of a simple truss (Fig. 6). Figure 4: Nick's Part Figure 5: I Beam Figure 6: Full Arc
Nick and Dennis then met with Jordan to discuss possible using a macro to run several load studies while varying certain aspects of the bridge to nd an optimum design. Jon, Ben, and Dennis then spent quite a long time tinkering with beam hights, widths, lengths, radii, etc. of all arch designs (Figs. 3-6) After a long night of optimizing the six dierent designs, the Full Arc (Fig. 6) was found to have the highest predicted applied f orce ratio. For enlarged schematics for any of the six designs, refer to the Schematics Appendix. weight
So by varying several dimensions of each design, we were then able to select the each design's optimum dimensions. Finally, we compared the design scores of each optimized design. The Full Arc (Fig. 6) had the best score of 53933 P a in3 , indicating that it would be able to withstand the greatest applied load prior to failure.
Table 1: Calculated ZP150 Material Properties from Lab 2 Yield Stress, yield (M P a) Y oung s P oisson s Horizontally Built Vertically Built M odulus, E (GP a) Ratio , Tension 3.14 3.07 2.1255 Compression 41.49 48.73
The general calculation is as follows: (Note that the horizontal yield stress was used when the observed stress acted parallel to the build layers of the bridge, and vertical yield stress was used when the observed stress acted perpendicular to the build layers.)
F0 = k0 FM AX = kM AX FM AX = F0 M AX 0 = (1N ) M AX 0 N M AX 0
FM AX =
After FM AX was calculated for both tension and compression, we took the lesser of these two values and dened that as the load at which failure will occur, FF AIL . We then ran the same Load Study with the applied load as 0.1 (FF AIL ) and observed the maximum displacement, 10% to predict a load-displacement relationship for each of the three possible loading scenarios. (Insert 3-panel of gures showing 10% and the stress concentration caused by 0.1 (FF AIL )) Table 2: FF AIL and 10% Data & Calculations Long-Side Load Short-Side Load Diagonal Load FM AXT (N ) 1661.64 1286.09 2543.75 FM AXC (N ) 52128.80 46627.12 42033.99 FF AIL in T or C? T T T 0.1 (FF AIL ) (N ) 166.164 128.609 254.375 10% (m) 6.422 2.673 6.739 For specic calculation steps, refer to the Data Appendix
Based on the calculations above, the expected mode of failure for the Full Arc bridge is failure due to
PCRIT
EI = = L2
2.1255 GP a
1 4 12 in
(m)4 (39.3701in)4
3 in
2 m 39.3701in
kN 103N
Because the calculated FM AX for each of the three loading scenarios is far below PCRIT , as long as there are no discontinuties nor other signicant variables introduced in the actual Z-printing of the bridge, the Full Arc bridge will assuredly not fail due to buckling.
Data Appendix
(insert weight calculation) (insert Excel optimization data) (insert specic FF AIL calculations)
Schematics Appendix