Trigger 2 Detailed Design

Report

Name: Brian Mc Auliffe

Group: 2A
ID: 18225365

Page 1 of 23
 Summary
Task
Design and build a structure capable of safely carrying a load of 500g, using 4/6mm paper straws,
with the choice of a simply supported 2400mm span or a 1200mm cantilever.

Objective
Learn how to appropriately design, analyse, test and build a structure with given requirements, fully
understand how the structure will behave under various loadings, minimise members used, maximise
utilisation factors in each member and be able to predict failure.

Major Design Aspects

We chose the cantilever option and based our design off a tower crane. The paper straws resemble
steel members which are strong in tension but weak in compression, because of this, we tried to
maximise tension in the structure.
This was done by connecting ties from the end of the horizontal boom up to the top of the tower,
meaning, any load applied to the cantilever would be transferred through tension in the tie and down
the tower to the table.
Because the straws are strong in tension, the ties do not need to be braced from buckling but the
horizontal boom and the vertical tower in compression need to be braced to prevent buckling.
The structure has two contact points with the table, this means that there are only two reaction forces
to calculate when analysing the structure.

Learning Development
My learning started developing from when we first attempted to design the structure. I learned that
the free body diagram of the structure must be in its simplest form without any detail apart from the
structure’s outline. This helped me understand how to approach analysing complex structures.
Propping the structure up on two supports at two specific points instead of the base being spread
across the table’s surface made it possible to calculate the reaction forces by letting the moment
about any point equal to zero.
When analysing the internal forces of each member for the single point load at the end of the
horizontal boom, I found that its truss was full of zero force members, however, these could not be
removed as they are needed to brace the base member which is in compression. Dividing the load
into three equal parts and dispersing them across the horizontal boom made it much more
complicated to analyse the internal forces in each of the members of the boom. I had to superimpose
the truss from the overall structure and calculate new reaction forces as if the boom was supported at
either end, this made it possible to calculate the forces in the internal members of the boom. When
applying the truss back to the overall structure I had to add up the new reaction forces and the
horizontal internal forces along the base member.
Using the utilisation factor of each member I was able to redesign the structure using both 4mm and
6mm straws in order to maximise the overall utilisation of the structure, from this, I learned how to
minimize the number of members needed in the structure to support the given requirements.
Page 2 of 23
 Evolution of Design
Original Design
As mentioned above, we based our
structure off a tower crane with two
ties connected to a tower. We chose
this design as it is similar to the
design of the structure we built for
the previous assignment where we
had to build a cantilever to support
500g with a 600mm span.
We felt the structure's design was
proficient or the task, we wanted to
develop it and understand how it
behaved under different loadings.
In the original design, Fig.1, the
horizontal boom was in the shape of Figure 1. Original Design
an equilateral triangle and there are
supports at either side of the tower.
The base of the structure is spread across the table, each section of the horizontal boom is 150mm
and the tower is 730mm high. A counterweight will be placed at the end of the boom on the table and
the 500g will hang at the opposite end.

Tower Height
We varied the height of the tower as the structure supported the 500g load and calculated the internal
forces in the tie and horizontal boom. This gave us information on how to design the optimal tower
height, we wanted to minimise compression in the boom and maximise tension in the tie.
From the results, Fig.2, we found, the taller the tower the less tension and compression in the tie and
boom. We did not pick the 0.93m high tower as this is an excessive height and would waste
materials, we chose 0.73m because the compression force is not too large, and neither is the height of
the tower.

Figure 2. Tower Height Tests

Page 3 of 23
 Improved Design
When attempting to analyse our
structure we discovered it was statically
indeterminate and that we needed to
improve it. As viewed in Fig.3, we got
rid of the side supports as they were not
needed because the structure is wide
enough, there was no need for two
diagonals in each section of the tower so
now there is only one per section.
The horizontal boom from A to B
(Fig.3) is now designed in a way that it
can be superimposed to calculate its
internal members. The structure now
reacts only at two specific points on the
table as it is propped up at points B and
C (Fig.3). Figure 3. Improved Design with Free Body Diagram

The horizontal boom will now take the 3-dimensional shape of a cuboid rather than a prism, this is
for ease of calculations and construction. The height of the tower and length of the boom remain the
same as the original design (Fig.1). After drawing the Free Body Diagram (FBD) of the structure
(Fig.3), the reaction forces can be calculated using moments.

Internal Forces on Improved Design (Single Load and Load/3)

Figure 5. Load/3 Superimposed Truss Internal

Forces
Figure 4. Single Load Internal Forces

For the Single Load internal forces (Fig.4) the full horizontal boom has 0N apart from the base
member, the other members are there to stop this member from buckling. Fig.5 shows the
superimposed horizontal boom with its reactions and internal forces. All the internal forces of the
load/3 are shown in Fig.6 below, with the superimposed truss applied to it, the horizontal truss
members between F and C have very little internal force and are there to prevent buckling.

Page 4 of 23
 Figure 6. Load/3 Internal Forces
Final Design
The previous design was too strong as the utilisation factors of each member were too low even for
the 4mm straws, this is discussed below in Member Selection. To maximize the utilisation factors of
the members and design a structure that supports a specific spread load which will fail at greater
loads, we had to redesign again. As viewed in Fig.7 below, the number of sections in the horizontal
truss from A to B has been reduced and the length of each section has increased from 150mm to
300mm apart from end section connected to B. There are now three sections in the tower as opposed
to four in the previous design. This new design has fewer members, but it has more members with
utilisation factors close to one. The final design will support a 500g load divided into three equal
parts but will fail sooner than the previous design as more weights are added, this also makes it easier
to estimate which members will fail first.

Figure 7. Final Design with Internal and External Forces

Page 5 of 23
Failure Modes
There are four critical members with high utilisation factors (calculated and shown below), labelled
a, b, c and d in Fig.8. These members have the highest risk of failure and one of these will be the first
to fail. From the calculations below, members b and c have the highest utilisation factor, meaning
they should fail first.
I calculated that either member b or c will fail at a load range of 5.56N to 13.42N divided evenly at
each of the three load points. However, this is just the theoretical estimate, because some straws may
be faulty or damaged in construction, members a or d may fail before members b or c.

Figure 8. Failure members with Utilisation Factors

Page 6 of 23
Calculations

Page 7 of 23
Page 8 of 23
Page 9 of 23
Page 10 of 23
Page 11 of 23
Page 12 of 23
Page 13 of 23
Page 14 of 23
Page 15 of 23
Page 16 of 23
Page 17 of 23
Page 18 of 23
Page 19 of 23
 Material Testing
Experiment to test a straw’s buckling force (4mm & 6mm)

Figure 9. Experiment Setup

We needed to create a graph of the straw’s buckling force over its effective tube length in order to
calculate each member’s utilisation factor for both 4mm and 6mm straws. This data gave us the
information we needed to know if our structure would fail or be too strong for the specific loading.
The experiment setup is shown above in Fig.9 which comprises of a balancing apparatus with a
counterweight at one end and a bucket at the opposite end in which sand is gradually added.
To start the experiment, we first made sure the horizontal beam was level while the straw stood
perpendicularly below it.
We measured the perpendicular distance from the pin to the straw and to where the bucket was hung
from, the straw length was also measured prior to testing.
Sand was gradually added to the bucket; the weight of the sand is the applied force.
When the straw fails, the sand in the bucket is weighed in kilograms, this mass is multiplied by 9.81
to calculate the applied force.
We tested three different straw lengths three times each and recorded the results in a table.
To calculate the force in the straw we used the moments of the forces to get this formula;
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑤 𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑭𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑤 × 𝒅𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑤 = 𝑭𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 × 𝒅𝐴𝑝𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑
𝑭𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 × 𝒅𝐴𝑝𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑
𝑭𝑺𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒘 =
𝒅𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑤

Page 20 of 23
We handed up our results, these were added to graphs that composed of each groups’ results plotted
together for both 4mm and 6mm straws, these graphs are shown below in Figs.10 & 11.
We drew two trendline curves on each graph, a lower curve for the minimum buckling force and an
upper curve for the maximum buckling force (Figs.10 & 11).

Figure 11. 4mm Buckling Force Graph

Figure 10. 6mm Buckling Force Graph

Experimental Error
Because the straws may have been faulty or have slight manufacturing errors prior to testing, the
buckling force for a straw with the same length and diameter will vary. The impact force when
adding the sand to the bucket may have caused a straw to buckle before reaching its true buckling
load. We observed from the plotted results on both graphs above, that the results are scattered within
a range rather than packed together at more definite points. This meant that we needed to estimate
each members’ failure mode between a range of forces and not at a single force.

Page 21 of 23
 Member Selection
Factors of Safety
We chose the lower trendline curve from both graphs (Figs.10 & 11) as the factor of safety for the
structure. This factor of safety means that we can say with confidence that the structure will not fail
if each member does not exceed its corresponding buckling force along the lower trendline curve. As
mentioned below, if a member does exceed this factor of safety it must be redesigned, or its thickness
must be increased.

4mm or 6mm Straws

Fig.12 shows the final structure with 6mm and 4mm straws. We chose between 4mm and 6mm
straws after calculating the utilisation factor of every compression member for both 4mm and 6mm,
using the minimum trendline curve of each graph for the buckling force as a factor of safety, these
calculations can be viewed above in the Calculations section.
We started with every member being a 4mm straw but if a member that had a utilisation factor above
one, it was changed to a 6mm straw. There are three members (gh, 3B, 4F) that had a utilisation
factor below one for 4mm straws but for construction purposes we decided to change them to 6mm
members.
Note: all tension and zero force members are 4mm as the straws are stronger in tension compared to
their compressive strength. It can also be noted that the failure members of the structure are 6mm.

Page 22 of 23
 Conclusion
After testing the structure, I got a great insight into the relationship between theoretical analysis and
actual behaviour of structures, I had predicted that members a, b, c or d (Fig.8) would fail first as the
load was gradually increased, theoretically, members b and c (Fig. 8) had the highest utilisation
factors so I calculated that they should fail between the load range of 5.56N and 13.42N. While
testing, the structure was capable of safely carrying the 5N load divided equally by three, as we
gradually increased the load we carefully observed the structure’s behaviour, paying particular
attention to members a, b, c and d (Fig.8). It was member b that failed first which caused the entire
structure to catastrophically fail at a total load of 10.5N. This result shows that there is a close
relationship between theoretical analysis and the actual behaviour of structures as the predicted
member failed first within the predicted load range. Because of this result, I can rely on theoretical
calculations to predict the actual behaviour of structures in future projects.

From the beginning of the project I started to realise the importance and benefit of working in a
group, each member expressed their own ideas to the group, we were able to combine them and
decide on our first design concept. Throughout the project, we were able to help each other progress,
point out each other’s mistakes and fix them, making sure each member fully understood. I found the
team working involved in this project very valuable as I know that I will be working in teams for
projects after I graduate.

My project planning and time management skills developed while completing this project as we had
to plan each tutorial session, stick to a timeline, make sure the project progressed each time the group
met and decide what tasks needed to be completed before the next session. This was particularly
important in the initial stages of design and while we were analysing/calculating the design because
we needed to confirm on one design as soon as possible so that everyone could start analysing it at
the same time. Because we planned ahead, each member of the group came to the following session
with their own calculations completed, we compared these calculations to make sure they were all
correct, this also made it easy to point out any small mistakes that might have been made.

Coming into the project my knowledge of how to analyse structures was very limited and I found it
difficult to analyse complex structures like our own design. But with help from lectures, books,
tutorial sessions and lots of practice, I am now able to analyse complex structures and understand the
various methods that are needed such as the method of sections which was particularly helpful when
calculating the horizontal truss in our structure. After analysing our structure in detail, I feel
confident that I will be able to apply this knowledge in future jobs and projects.

Page 23 of 23