Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Background
Adhesives allowed Bracket does not have to be 1 piece Can touch ground until point D B doesnt have to be used. Allowed 30mm clearance instead of 20mm
Performance Index
Priority:
1. Load 2. Mass 3. Cost
P I= c*m
3 2
Material Selection
1018 Steel, and 3 grades of Al. 1018 steel is our choice. Considering cost and strength advantage. highest yield stress, (smaller deformation). Costs significantly less than all Al alloys. Only candidate that can be welded together (rivets or bolts arent as strong and heavier). Much heavier, but we can minimize mass in design, not material.
Design Directions
Maximize moment of inertia in an easily manufacturable shape Use welding Get bracket as close to edge as possible No need for mount at B Start with thickest steel then shave weight Not welding all connections/interchangeability
Preliminary Designs
Jims Design
Jims FEM
Erics Design
S-shape: bring compression column as close as possible to load (reduce moment) Square cross-section: high moment of inertia Reinforced joints Only mounted at A Simple 3-tube design Notch to prevent slipping of applied load
Erics FEM
High deformation Hard to manufacture Needed tension component
Finite Element Analysis: 1. Stress concentrated near applied load. 2. Large displacement of top beam. 3. No buckling in column
Mikes Design
Mikes FEM
3. here
Manufacturing Issues
Clearance for spot welder Error in 90 degree angles Thinking you used steel when it was Al Welding through more than 2 layers Lengths after welding Folding a cube Sharper creases Clearance for rivet tool Cutting tolerances
Iterations
Iteration 1
1.5mm steel Duct tape and spot welding Reinforced lip U beam cantilever 600N failure of cantilever Tensile and column not deformed
Weight: ~250 g
Load: 600N
Iteration 2
Slightly taller 3 u shaped members not welded Forming square shape Much heavier
Iteration 2
Finite Element Analysis: 1. Deformation confined to cantilever but high displacement 2. Little displacement of tensile member 3. No buckling in column
Iteration 2
1.5mm steel Duct tape eliminated Tensile weld Wide tensile Tensile and column not deformed Crease at column
Weight: ~350 g Load: 1750N
Iteration 3
T-beam shape (manuf.) Reinforcing top plate Column grips cantilever to top Tensile width decreased Filler added to make column wide enough Corners cut to reduce mass and add clearance
Iteration 3
Finite Element Analysis: 1. Deformation still concentrated at front of column 2. Strange behavior in tensile member 3. No buckling in column
Iteration 3
Thinner steel in column Tensile weld narrow tensile Tensile and column not deformed Crease at column
Weight: 240 g Load: 1780N
Final Design
Final Dimensions
Mounting (no B)
FEM
Finite Element Analysis: 1. Strange tensile behavior not observed in testing 2. Less displacement of cantilever tip 3. No buckling in column
The Bracket
Thin steel in column (1.5mm) Tensile weld Free column Change in philosophy about how to proportion leaving distance to displace vs. taller cantilever
Weight: 190g
Load: 2000N
Clearance/Thickness Tradeoff
Al 2024 and Al 7075
90000 80000
70000
60000
Stress (psi)
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
AL 2024 AL 7075 .1% offset 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Strain (in/in) 0.2 0.25 0.3
Conclusions
Performance Index
In the problem statement, the performance index is given as I = P / (c*m). Our final bracket yields an index of: I = (2000 N) / (($0.195/kg)*(.19 kg)) = 54.0
kN/$
Future Improvements
Reduce weight in cantilever holes T-beam Use thinner column
Thank you
Questions