Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1
Executive Summary
Background
Each semester, students in Mechanical Design II are tasked with a project
that includes the engineering design of machine elements and mechanical systems,
and the computer-based analysis in support of that design. The project should be
designed for static strength, fatigue strength, deflection, and reliability using analysis
techniques provided in the course and developed in prerequisite courses.
Project Purpose
The objective of the project this semester was to design, manufacture,
assemble, and test a scaled-down version of a deployable bridge. A litany of
objectives, constraints, and specifications were provided for each team to meet, the
main requirements being that the bridge deploy 30” from the table and be able to to
hold a 50 lb load at the end. The bridge must be smoothly deployed in under 60
seconds using a controlled motor mounted on the table, and loaded with in the next
60 seconds. The optimization goal of this project was to minimize both the deflection
and the total mass of the system.
Results
The measured weight of the Miles Bridges Bridge is 7.8 lbs. The calculated
deployment time of the Mile’s Bridges Bridge is 32.33 seconds and the measured
time is 38 seconds. The theoretical factor of safety was calculated to be 1.76 while
the ANSYS analysis yielded a factor of safety of 2.187. The total deflection of the
loaded bar was found theoretically to be 0.435516 inches. The deflection found in
the bar using Ansys was found to be 0.17133 inches. The deflection with a 50 lb load
is 1 inch, and the maximum theoretical weight is 140 lbs. The calculations for these
results including more in depth analysis can be found in their respective
sections below.
2
Goals and Problem Statement
The goal of this project is to design, build and test a deployable bridge that
minimizes deflection and total mass of the system and must meet all required
specifications given in the project description. The bridge is required to fit inside a
box with dimensions 10”x10”x15”(width), and be mounted to a table using only four
bolts. The bridge will be deployed to reach a distance of 30” and can not be more
than 1 inch above the horizontal line of the table. The width at any point along the
bridge can not be less than 10”. All structural components and fasteners on the
bridge must be made from steel or aluminium. No welding is allowed on the
bridge.To test the amount of deflection once deployed, a 50lb weight is loaded onto
the end of the bridge and vertical deflection is measured. The bridge must be
deployed in under 60 seconds and then loaded within the next 60 seconds. The
deployment must be smoothly controlled using a motor that is mounted on the table.
The deployment of the system must be safe for all intended purposes. The table that
the bridge mounts to can be seen in Figure 1
3
The number of inputs is one with the motor, and increases by one with each input
needed to deploy the bridge. The system weight includes all components of the
bridge except for the motor. The normalized deflection and system weight, as well as
the normalized completion time, which must be under two minutes, is determined by
the ratio of the bridges performance over the best performance from all groups and
can be seen in Equation 2
4
Concept Development and Selection
Three different bridge designs were considered before selection, a prototype
of the design selected was created then a final design was created and
manufactured. The first design can be seen in Figure 2.
5
would take hours of manufacturing time, as well as the fact that a failure point would
be directly on the hinge that connected the first link to the base plate connectors.
The weight of this bridge was also large compared to the design chosen. Design
three was the design chosen for prototype manufacturing and can be seen in
Figure 4.
Design three utilized a separated base connector which holds the bridge to
the table with four bolts. The bridge has four arms that connect to the base
connector with a hinge system. The links rotate around bolts which connect each
link. Two of the links also act as channel which the other arms sit in, this increases
the surface area that the links touch which is good for bending. This design is also
the lightest of the three designs. Due to the positive features in design three, it was
chosen for prototype creation. After the creation of the prototype, testing on the
bridge revealed issues with the design. The hinge system set the bridge at a step
below the table, which was deemed unacceptable. The bridge also experienced
large amounts of deflection between each arm before loading which was due to how
the connector arms fit within the channeled arms. This can be seen in Figure 5.
6
Figure 5. Unwanted deflection due to how the arm fits in the channel
The bridge prototype also showed extreme deflection during loading, this was
due to all of the stress of the load falling on the bolts that connected the arms. To
combat this a new design of the connecter links was created which included a notch
that ensured the bridge sat perfectly parallel to the table. The notch also acted as an
area for stress to fall on. The new link design can be seen in Figure 6.
7
With this new linkage design the bridge held the 50lb weight with small
deflection.The issue with the hinge connectors was also redesigned so the bridge sat
perfectly even with the table. The deployment of the bridge was then tested. It was
found that connectors across the bridge would help with an even deployment of the
bridge so three connectors were added to ensure the arms would fall at the same
time. To assist the bridge in deploying, springs were added to each arm. A plate was
added to connect the spring for the hinge to the table which adds more force on the
first hinge to help the bridge fall. A nylon cord connected the motor to the end of the
bridge. When the motor was activated, the cord releases the bridge and deployed it
at a slow rate. To increase the rate a link was connected to the motor that increased
the tangential velocity of the cord and the bridge then deployed in under 60 seconds.
The final design can be seen in Figure 7.
8
Kinematic Analysis
During the first trial of deployment, it was found that the deployment time was
out of specifications with the project requirements. Design changes were
implemented by creating an adaptor for the motor instead of initially planning to wind
the cable around the given motor pinion. Increasing the radial distance from the
motor’s center of rotation to the cables release point increases the velocity of the
cable. A higher diameter of 5.25” was chosen knowing that this diameter would not
cause interference with the table when the motor is rotating as well as making it long
enough to increase the cable speed and meet the deployment time constraint of one
minute. The kinematic analysis and calculations were made using this design
change. The kinematic analysis was performed by calculating the time it takes to
move each individual linkage from their initial position to their respective final
positions. The summation of the individual durations is the total time it takes for the
bridge to deploy. The bridge deploys in a consecutive manner where link 1 deploys
first, link 2 deploys second, link 3 deploys third, and link 4 deploys fourth. Figure 8
below shows a schematic of the bridge at initial position. The radius arm and change
in rotation is labeled. The four different stages of the bridge position is shown below
in Figures 9-12. The time to complete each stage is found in the following.
9
Figure 9. Stage 1 Figure 10. Stage 2
The rotational velocity of the motor, wm was calculated by measuring the time it takes
for the motor to complete one rotation and converting that value to radians per
second. wm was calculated to .66 rad/s. The velocity of the cable being released
from the motor is calculating using
V m = wm rm
Where rm is the radius arm of the motor. The tangential velocity of linkage 1, V 1 is
the same as the velocity of the cable. The following correlation can be made
Vm =Vm
wm rm = w1 r1
Where w1 is the rotational velocity of the first linkage, and r1 is the distance between
the point of rotation of the first linkage to the connection of the cable. w1 can now be
isolated and solved for.
w1 = wm rm /r1
10
Using the definition of rotational velocity, isolating change in time, and substituting
w1 with the equation found above, the time for linkage 1 to rotate from its initial
position to its final position can be calculated.
w1 = Δθ1 /Δt
Δt = Δθ1 /w1
Δt = Δθ1 r1 /wm rm
The duration for stage 1 to complete is calculated using the above equation and
known values Δθ1 = π /2 rad, r1 = 8", rm = 2.625.
Δt =7.25 seconds
The time to complete stage 2, 3, and 4 can be calculated using the same equation
but replacing the change in rotation and radius arm values of the linkage for its
respective stage. Table 1 below shows the change in rotation, radius arm, and
duration to complete the stage. The total sum of the time is also calculated and is the
amount of time needed to fully deploy the bridge. The calculated total time of 32.33
seconds is relatively close to the measured time of 38 seconds.
Stage Δθ (radians) r (inches) Δt (seconds)
1 π /2 8 7.25
2 π /2 8.8 8
Total 32.33
Table 1: Kinematic Results
11
Finite Element Structural Analysis
The Finite Element Structural Analysis was conducted using the ANSYS
Static Structural Analysis package.
Setup
Geometry
The NX CAD model of the bridge was converted to a step file and imported
into the ANSYS Mechanical workspace. The table and deployment aid were
suppressed to simplify the analysis, as the stress, strain, and deformation in these
components is not of concern.
Connections
The connections (see Fig. 13.) between imported geometry created many
difficulties in the analysis. To create a realistic simulation, all connections between
links were converted to frictional connections with a coefficient of friction of 1.05
(Aluminum to Aluminum contact -
http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/frictioncoefficients.htm). Frictional
connections act similar to a rough contact region in that the user is allowed to specify
a coefficient of friction. This, however, required long computation times and would
repeatedly deliver the error message in regards to too high of a coefficient of friction.
The contact regions were then changed to frictionless, which allows part faces to
slide against one another and separate, but restricts them from pushing through
each other. This too required a long computation time and would deliver an error
message stating that the entire body (in reference to the entire assembly) was not
rigid. Although an unrigid assembly is an exact representation of the bridge, the
static structural ANSYS was being used; thus, an entire rigid body was required to
carry out the analysis. All contact regions were then adjust to bonded, which treats
the interface as a perfect weldment. This is an assumption that was required to be
made to complete the ANSYS analysis and generate stress, strain, and deformation.
12
Figure 13. Example bonded contact region between left hinge and ¼” bolt.
Mesh
The meshing was initially automatically generated. Upon running the solver,
an error message that parts were only 1 element thick was generated, and this was
attributed to the first and third links A refinement setting of 3 was then added to these
parts to refine the mesh.
Figure 14. Final mesh of bridge in ANSYS Static Structural Analysis.
13
Force
ANSYS was unable to define a point load in the center of the end bar. To get
around this, a small notch was cut out on the end bar (see Fig. 15.) so that the face
of this notch could be selected to apply the 50 lbs force. This notch also better
represented the area of the applied force.
Figure 15. The 50 lbs force on the fabricated notch of the end bar.
Supports
The table was suppressed to speed up analysis time, so a zero x/y/z
displacement was applied to the underside of the base plates (see Fig. 16). This
simulated the base plates being bolted to the table. This zero displacement support
was a valid assumption as the base plates will not be undergoing high amounts of
stress/strain/deformation.
14
Figure 16. Zero displacement support condition applied to underside of base plates.
Analysis
The ANSYS Static Structural Analysis was successfully completed. The
highest stress states were found to be in the predicted areas: the end bar and the
first link (see Figs. 17. and 18.) These stresses in the first link were found to be at
the base of the table next to the hinges. Values of stress ranged from 9808.1 psi in
the center of the top surface to 18386 psi at the edge. The end bar where the 50 lbs
weight is applied showed compressive stress states ranging from 14528 psi to 16308
psi. These values are most likely a deviation from the true value due to the notch in
the CAD geometry.
Fig. 19 shows the stress state in the cross section of the first link. The tensile
stress state at the top edge of the link has an example value of 18470 psi. In the
center of the link an example value of stress is 942.15 psi. The compressive stress
state at the bottom edge of the link has an example value of 2029.7 psi.
It is noted that the maximum stress is reported as 1.15E5 psi. This value
arose in an arbitrary position in the end link and may be due to computation error,
meshing inadequacies, or lack of convergence criteria. It was neglected due to
mechanical knowledge of the actual stress state of the bridge.
15
Figure 17. Side view of highest stress area in first link from table.
Figure 18. Stress located at site of weight application (end bar).
16
Failure Analysis
When calculating the factor of safety for material failure of the bridge, it is
assumed that the bridge acts as a perfect cantilever beam. The Free Body Diagram
can be seen in the figure below:
The failure was calculated for one arm of the bridge so it is assumed that the 50lb
load is distributed perfectly in half for the bridge. The smallest I value was assumed
to ensure a conservative factor of safety. The height of the bridge is assumed to be
1.2in and the width is assumed to be .25in. Therefore the second moment of inertia I
can be calculated :
I = b * h3 ∖12 = 0.036 in4
The maximum moment can be found for one arm by multiplying the 25lb force
experienced by the length of the bridge :
M max = F * l = 750 lb * in
With these two values, the maximum stress can be found for the arm of the bridge :
σ max = MI y = 12500 psi
The yield strength of the aluminium is assumed to be standard 35000 psi, therefore
the factor of safety for the arm of the bridge can be found :
n = 35000/12500 = 2.8
In Ansys the maximum stress was found to be 15000 psi, making the factor of safety
found to be 2.33. Factor of safety calculated using Ansys is expected to be lower
than calculated as perfect cantilever due to Ansys considering more geometrical
factors, and is calculating the stress due to torsion and shear, not only bending.
Therefore it is expected that these values are different and FS to be lower
considering higher stress is calculated in Ansys. To find the maximum allowable
force, it is assumed that 35000 psi of stress is experienced on the bridge. Then,
solving backwards the max theoretical allowable force is found to be 140lbs. This is
a very conservative estimate due to the conservative geometrical estimates made for
this arm.
17
Deflection was found theoretically using Castigliano’s method for a cantilever beam
with load F at the end and a Young’s Modulus of E = 10,000 ksi:
F *L3
δ= 3*E *I
= 1.25 in
The total deflection was found theoretically to be 1.25 in for one arm. In ansys, the
total deflection was found to be 0.44165 for the entire bridge. The reason for this
difference may be because in the actual bridge there is a larger surface area that
supports the bridge to the table. The theoretical calculation is a conservative
estimate.
For the end bar, which the 50lb weight hangs on, the cylinder is assumed to be
simply supported. It is also assumed that the 50lb weight is placed exactly one half
the length of the bar away from the supports. The diameter of the bar is assumed to
be exactly 0.386in. The free body diagram of the bar can be seen below:
Figure 21. Free body diagram simplification of the end bar
18
maximum allowable force allowed by the end bar is found using 35000 psi as the
stress that occurs on the bar, when doing this it is found that the maximum allowable
force on the bar is 88lbs. This approximation assumes a perfectly centered load,
therefore in reality it may vary. The deflection in the bar was found using
Castigliano’s method for a simply supported beam experiencing bending and
transverse shear force to be:
F *L3 3*F *L
δ= 48*E *I
+ 10*G*A
= 0.435516 in
A Young’s modulus of 10,000 ksi was used. It was found to be 0.00109, and a G of
3770 was used. The total deflection of the bar was found theoretically to be
0.435516 inches. The deflection found in the bar using Ansys was found to be
0.17133 inches which was expected since the factor of safety was found to be higher
than the theoretical valued.
19
Fatigue Analysis
Fatigue refers to the issues that arise from excessive working time. Fatigue
has led to bridges failure throughout time and is a vital component to the engineering
of the bridge. Engineers have used numerous methods to determine fatigue life. For
simplification purposes the stress-life method was used in order to calculate Fatigue.
Miles Bridges Bridge was constructed using 6061-Aluminum. Fatigue can occur at
any point in the bridge but is more likely to begin at the location of maximum stress.
To find this location ANSYS workbench was used. Fatigue analysis was conducted
at the two maximum stress locations found in figures 17 and 18.
The first step when conducting fatigue is to calculate the fatigue factor of
safety using the equation:
6061 Aluminum ultimate tensile strength is 45,000 psi. For simplification purposes
σ min was assumed to be zero even though that is impossible due to the weight of the
bridge creating a force. Because σ min = 0 σ a = σ m which is equal to the stress at that
point divided by 2. At both maximum stress locations the stress was averaged with
using values from three different probes.
The last unknown variable for calculating the fatigue factor of safety is
calculating the endurance limit S e . The endurance limit is obtained using the
equation below.
S e = k a k b k c k d k e k f S ′e
S ′e is derived from the Ultimate tensile strength of the material. If S ut < 200kpsi
S ′e = .5S ut = 22500 psi. k a is the surface factor that depends on the surface finish and
the ultimate strength. Both maximum stress locations are on the surface of the
material. In order to compute the surface factor parameters a and b need to be
obtained from figure 21 below.
k a = aS ut b
20
All of the components in Miles Bridges Bridge were machined resulting in a surface
modification factor a value of .157. k b is found using a converted diameter to using
the rectangular section equivalent diameter equation shown below where h & b are
the cross sectional area of the beam shown in figure 19.
de = 0.808(hb)1/2
After solving for the diameter de , k b is obtained using figure 22.
For the remaining factors contributing to the endurance limit assumptions
about the structure must be made. k c is the loading factor and can have three
different values. The assumption for the loading factor is that bending was the only
load type present resulting in a k c value of one. The temperature factor k d = 1 if
ultimate strength is known at operating temperature. Miles Bridges bridge will be
assumed to only be used at room temperature. Lastly the reliability factor has many
miscellaneous effects. For Simplifying data 50% reliability is assumed equating to a
reliability factor k e . It is important to note that 50% reliability only adjusts
assumptions for factors contributing to the reliability factor not the imply overall
reliability. The values of all factors assumed to be contributing to the endurance limit
on the first link are shown below.
S ′e = 22500 psi
k a = .157
k b = .969
kc = kd = ke = kf = 1
S e = 3422.99 psi
Figure 17 focuses on the stress in the first link, in contrast Figure 18 displays
the maximum stress created in the end bar. The only factor that changes when
conducting the endurance limit is the size factor. After using the round diameter for
the end bar k b = .973 resulting in a endurance limit value of S e = 3439.46 psi.
21
After conducting the endurance limit calculating the fatigue factor of safety will
allow one to conclude if the fatigue life is finite or infinite. The fatigue factor of safety
found in the first link is equal to .253 as opposed to the end bars fatigue factor
equaling .255. Both of the fatigue factors are less than one resulting in a finite fatigue
lifetime. In addition to the calculated fatigue factor of safety a ANSYS solution of
fatigue safety factor was conducted and is shown below.
Using the equations below the number of cycles the bridge can withstand
before fatigue life runs out can be calculated.
Where f is the fatigue strength fraction acquired from the graph below using
are corresponding S ut .
After obtaining our f value it is now possible to equate the number of cycles
Miles bridges bridge can withhold. After using the equations above it is found that the
22
first link could withstand 3.5 * 103 cycles and the end bar could withstand 3.7 * 103
cycles.
All values of a safety factor below one are shown in red. From Figure 24 it is
fair to say that fatigue life is finite for just a very small critical are in the first link and
the end bar. While ANSYS calculation are not always correct, the change in colors is
a great visualization of where these critical locations on the bridge are. The critical
location of the first link is around the hole where the screws of the base hinges come
into contact with that first link. As expected the fatigue life is shortest on the end rod
where the location of the force is located.
23
Cost Analysis
Cost for all necessary manufactured components was estimated to be
$577.88 dollars. The national average hourly rate of machinists of $18.82 dollars
was used in calculating manufacturing costs. Aluminum was the the only raw
material purchased and estimates were received from Midwest Steel and Aluminum.
All bolts and springs were priced from Home Depot. The price estimation is
considered to be accurate and the total cost is low due to the simplicity of parts and
low volume of material
Table 2: Breakdown of Production Costs
Component # of Material Cost Time to Manufacture Cost per
parts per part ( dollars) per part (hours) part (dollars)
24
Marketing Considerations
Elevator pitch
We’d like to introduce you to the Miles Bridges bridge. We were truly inspired
by Miles Bridges’ performance on the basketball court last season, and we were
ecstatic to see his skillset return this year. Thus, we wanted to embody his expert
sportsmanship into this beautiful crafted deployable bridge. A lightweight
powerhouse weighing in at only 7.8 lbs, it can be easily transported to wherever it is
needed. Our engineers worked with designers to provide a minimalistic, yet
reinforced and safe, deployable bridge. Finely crafted aluminum links help cut costs
and lower weight, but utilize a unique geometry to provide extra support at the joints.
Miles Bridges may sink 3’s, but our Miles Bridges does just the opposite of sinking
and can hold an approximated 140 lbs. Our bridge is a real slam dunk, and we urge
you to support your Michigan State Spartans Basketball team by supporting the
Miles Bridges Bridge.
25
Drawings of Final Design
1. Install the base plate onto the table with 5/16”-2” bolts in the holes indicated in the
picture below.
Figure 36.
2. Install deployment bracket onto the base plate using two 1/4"-1/4" bolt and 1/4" lug
nut
Figure 37.
31
3. Load spring attached to the hinge bracket onto the bolt installed on the
deployment bracket indicated below.
Figure 38.
4. Install motor adaptor onto the motor pinion by tightening four 1/4"-2” bolts through
the four adaptor holes and onto the motor pinion.
Figure 39.
32
5. Close up bridge to its starting position as shown below. Keep cable in tension by
winding cable around motor adaptor.
Figure 40.
6. Turn on motor in the direction that releases the cable to deploy the bridge
33
Recommendations
With any design, process, or product, there are always opportunities to
innovate and improve. No matter how well something is designed, there is always
something that can be refined or even changed entirely to benefit the final product.
After all, continuous improvement is one of the cornerstones of the industry quality
standard, LEAN manufacturing. For a physical product like the Miles Bridges Bridge,
possible improvements that come to mind surround the small changes to the design
and manufacturing process.
One of the easiest improvements that can be made to the bridge deals with
the overall appearance. If this product ever went to market, a simple but effective
improvement that could be added to the manufacturing process would be polishing
or painting the bridge to make it more visually appealing. This would not add much in
terms of manufacturing time or cost and would drastically increase the marketability
of the product. If this bridge was going up against a similarly priced / effective bridge,
adding sleek finish would give the Miles Bridges Bridge an edge to beat out the
competition.
Another improvement that can be made would be to decrease the overall
weight of the bridge. Weighing in at just 7.8 lbs, The Mile Bridges Bridge’s design is
already lighter than most of its competitors. However there are definitely areas where
this weight can be decreased. For example, the area of each base plate connector,
mainly around the mounting bolts, could be decreased. Another easy area where the
material used could be decreased would be the connecting rods. For this design,
stock threaded rods were used for three of the cross members. To decrease weight,
the ends of these rods could be trimmed exactly to size for the nuts to fit snugly on
the edges. To find specific areas where excess material can be removed without
changing the overall design, more in-depth FEA would have to be run.
When manufacturing future prototypes, higher manufacturing accuracy could
improve the deflection and strength of our bridge without changing the design at all.
While the dimensions of our physical parts are extremely close to the CAD design, it
is difficult for us as students to match the accuracy of a professional machinist or
CNC mill. More precise parts would improve the fit between each link and decrease
any initial sag our current design has. As precision increases, the closer our product
will be to the theoretical. However, it should be taken into consideration that
increasing precision can increase cost and the benefits of each variable should be
optimized for a production part.
It has been noted that CNC milling is more precise than machine by hand. It is
also important to note that CNC milling is much faster. Any additional costs garnered
by increased precision would be negligible compared to the costs saved by
automating the machining process. If properly implemented, production time for all of
the aluminum parts could be cut from the current ~25 hours to about an hour or two
depending on the size of the CNC mill. A drop in production time of this magnitude
would significantly decrease the cost.
34
On the theoretical side of things improvements could be made to our analysis
as well. With more time and research, our analysis calculations could be more
accurate as many assumptions were made to obtain our current results. Our biggest
issue was figuring out where to start as well as ensuring the right equations were
used. In a professional environment, a company would ideally have a standard
procedure to perform this analysis as well as the proper computer software to do so.
Our kinematic, fatigue, and failure analysis were essentially done by hand. If we had
access or knowledge of the proper FEA / optimization software, these calculations
could be much more accurate with more iterations performed. Even with access to a
program like ANSYS, more accurate and realistic analysis could be performed if we
took a deeper dive into how to use the software.
Even further improvements in accuracy could be made doing tests and
analysis on the physical structure itself. Using an InstronⓇ compression testing
machine, we could experimentally determine the exact maximum weight our bridge
can handle by loading it until failure. After, the failure modes could be analyzed and
the data collected could be used to improve the design and strength of The Miles
Bridges Bridge.
35
Summary and Conclusions
After 100+ combined hours of work, our team was able to successfully design
and implement a deployable bridge that meets all of the project requirements stated
in the project description. When disconnected from the table, the bridge fits inside a
10”x10”x15” box. It is mounted on the table using only four bolts, and the fully
deployed bridge reached 30” away from the table.
The mass of the bridge was minimized to be 7.8 lbs. The calculated
deployment time of the Mile’s Bridges Bridge is 32.33 seconds and the measured
time is 38 seconds. The theoretical factor of safety was calculated to be 1.76 while
the ANSYS analysis yielded a factor of safety of 2.187. The total deflection of the
loaded bar was found theoretically to be 0.435516 inches. The deflection found in
the bar using Ansys was found to be 0.17133 inches. The actual deflection with a 50
lb load is 1 inch, but most of that deflection was due to the bridge’s starting position
and not the material itself. The maximum theoretical weight of the bridge is 140 lbs.
When our bridge was tested on Design Day, it held 140 lbs, and failed with 160 lbs,
verifying our theoretical data. The total calculated cost of ot the Miles Bridges Bridge,
including parts and labor, is $577.88. This cost can be reduced by automating the
manufacturing process and / or decreasing the material used for the bridge.
The main roadblock our team ran into occured when testing our initial
prototype. After the creation of the prototype, testing on the bridge revealed issues
with the design. The hinge system set the bridge at a step below the table, which
was deemed unacceptable by the professor. This problem was resolved by
redesigning the hinges to allow the links to sit higher up. The bridge also
experienced large amounts of deflection between each arm before loading which
was due to how the connector arms fit within the channeled arms. This problem was
resolved by redesigning the mid-links with notches on the bottom to maximize the
surface contact area. After the changes were made, our new prototype was tested
and passed with flying colors. This experience and the project as a whole taught us
the importance of making and testing prototype parts. While a design might be
perfect in a theoretical computer model, that is not always the case for the physical
model. The quick turnaround of a redesign, manufacturing, and testing of new parts
that worked demonstrated our group’s ability to problem solve on the fly.
This semester project had many similarities to a project that might be
assigned in the industry. Our group was given a set of requirements and constraints
to design a product and a deadline to complete it by. To accomplish this task, we
had to delegate work to each group member and each individual was responsible for
the success of the group. When curve balls were thrown, we adapted and adjusted
as necessary to meet the requirements.The skills developed, experiences, and the
lessons learned throughout the course of this project will be invaluable looking
forward to the future as we enter the workforce.
36
Appendix
Figure 41. Bridge successfully holding 50 lbs with team members Zac Sadler and
Justin Barg cheering it on.
Figure 42. Isometric view of NX CAD rendering of bridge in undeployed state.
37
Figure 43. Front view of NX CAD rendering of bridge in undeployed state.
Figure 44. Side view of NX CAD rendering of bridge in undeployed state.
38
Figure 45. Isometric view of NX CAD rendering of bridge in deployed state.
Figure 46. Exploded view of NX CAD rendering of bridge with labeled components.
39
Table 3: Bill of Materials
Part Component Quantity Material
Number
Figure 47. Side view of NX CAD rendering of bridge in deployed state.
40
Figure 48. Top view of NX CAD rendering of bridge in deployed state.
Figure 49. Isometric view of stylized rendering of final bridge product in
undeployed state.
41
Figure 50. Isometric view of stylized rendering of final bridge product in deployed
state.
Figure 51. Side view of stylized rendering of final bridge product in deployed state.
42
Figure 52. Close view of stylized rendering of final bridge product in deployed state.
43