Structure Analysis of 6061-T651 Aluminum Bridge Team Blackboard Mechanical Engineering University of...
1
Structure Analysis of 6061-T651 Aluminum Bridge Team Blackboard • Mechanical Engineering • University of Rochester Team Blackboard Department of Mechanical Engineering Rochester, NY 14627-0132 [email protected] The Members of team Blackboard Sam Selonick Kevin McNelis Chris Babcock Nick Stadnyk work is supported by The University of Rochester anical Engineering Research Department r the direction of Prof. David Quesnel †We work best under pressure. The objective of this project was to design a bridge and maximize its figure of merit (the total supported load divided by the bridge weight) such that the structure that would span an 8” chasm and allow a 5” wide by 3” tall object to bass below its deck. This bridge was constructed using 6061-T651 aluminum sheet metal and 1/8” aluminum pop rivets. Under maximum load, the bridge should have a maximum of .1” deformation and remain suspended off the ground. To start designing a solution to this task, our group made preliminary sketches and basic cardboard models to obtain a better understanding of the load distribution and subsequent deflections of the beams. From these tests, we drew the conclusion that an I-beam structure with a top sheet metal brace could handle maximum load without the use of too much material. A CAD of our final sketch was then made in ANSYS Workbench and tested with an approximate load of 500 pounds centered across the middle of the bridge deck, where the loading beam would rest. From the post-processing data we found the optimum areas for rivet placement, such that they were in the places of lowest stress concentration; as well as the stresses and deformations involved in the loading of the structure. Both parts and assembly drawings were then made and submitted for machining. The final analysis of the constructed bridge will be a load test of the bridge suspended above the chasm with 2 group members balancing on a plank centered about the bridge deck. A real value for figure of merit can then be recorded and used to determine the effectiveness of the structure. Executive Summary The People Presentation: 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm Monday, December 13, 2004 May Room, Wilson Commons, University of Rochester •Bridge operation and material constraints outlined. •Paper and pencil methods for minimizing deflection discussed. •Results of ANSYS stress analysis reviewed and construction parameters determined by location of maximum and minimum stress concentrations. •Conclusion that only one type of bridge material used, 6061-T651 selected for its high stiffness and relatively low weight. •All parts and overall assembly drafted and depicted, with all aspects of design laid out in detail. Summary ANSYS Analysis Material Properties For further Information and technical discussion, contact Test Setup I-Beam bridge Table 8” oading bar Design The experimental setup is depicted above. Our bridge design was initially tested element by element using the Equivalent Stress theory to optimize the beam lengths. This theory was used to make sure that the bridge did not deflect any more than the .1” requirement. Aluminum 6060-T651 Material Properties Hardness, Brinell 95 Hardness, Knoop 120 Hardness, Rockwell A 40 Hardness, Rockwell B 60 Hardness, Vickers 107 Tensile Strength, Ultimate 45000 psi Tensile Strength, Yield 39900 psi Elongation at Break 12 % Modulus of Elasticity 10000 ksi Notched Tensile Strength 47000 psi Ultimate Bearing Strength 88000 psi Bearing Yield Strength 56000 psi Poisson's Ratio 0.33 Fatigue Strength 13800 psi Fracture Toughness 26.4 ksi-in½ Machinability 50 % Shear Modulus 3770 ksi Shear Strength 29700 psi The values for various aluminum properties are found in the table to the right. The high stiffness of 6061- T651 and low density .098 lb/in 3 as well as high machinability made it the perfect material choice for the task. Aluminum pop rivets, with a 1/8” diameter, were used rated with an ultimate tensile stress at 240 lbs. and a breaking point stress at 400 lbs. Pop Rivet 3 2 1 3 1 Equivalent Stress Plot: Max stress = 3.085E4 psi Safety Factor: Ranges from 1.0 – 15.0 the safety factor is high, and bridge may have been overbuilt in certain areas. Total Deformation Plot Plot Displaying Spot Weld Placement The max yield for the material used to build the bridge is 40.6 ksi. Our distortion theory plot (equivalent stress plot) gave us a value of 3.085E4 psi. Comparing the two shows that when placed under 500 lbf of force, the bridge does not reach the max yield point where it would break. Also comparing our value to the tensile strengths, it is apparent that the bridge is operational under this condition, seen in the safety factor. The figure of merit obtained by dividing the weight held by the bridge ( experimentally 500 lbf) by the weight of the bridge itself, which was found to be .87742 lbm. The figure of merit for this weight is therefore 569.85. The bridge is expected to hold much more weight though, and this figure will be higher. Analysis Interpretations
-
date post
20-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Structure Analysis of 6061-T651 Aluminum Bridge Team Blackboard Mechanical Engineering University of...
Structure Analysis of 6061-T651 Aluminum BridgeTeam Blackboard • Mechanical Engineering • University of Rochester
Team BlackboardDepartment of Mechanical Engineering
Rochester, NY [email protected]
The Members of team Blackboard
Sam SelonickKevin McNelisChris BabcockNick Stadnyk
This work is supported by The University of Rochester Mechanical Engineering Research Departmentunder the direction of Prof. David Quesnel
†We work best under pressure.
The objective of this project was to design a bridge and maximize its figure of merit (the total supported load divided by the bridge weight) such that the structure that would span an 8” chasm and allow a 5” wide by 3” tall object to bass below its deck. This bridge was constructed using 6061-T651 aluminum sheet metal and 1/8” aluminum pop rivets. Under maximum load, the bridge should have a maximum of .1” deformation and remain suspended off the ground.
To start designing a solution to this task, our group made preliminary sketches and basic cardboard models to obtain a better understanding of the load distribution and subsequent deflections of the beams. From these tests, we drew the conclusion that an I-beam structure with a top sheet metal brace could handle maximum load without the use of too much material. A CAD of our final sketch was then made in ANSYS Workbench and tested with an approximate load of 500 pounds centered across the middle of the bridge deck, where the loading beam would rest. From the post-processing data we found the optimum areas for rivet placement, such that they were in the places of lowest stress concentration; as well as the stresses and deformations involved in the loading of the structure.
Both parts and assembly drawings were then made and submitted for machining. The final analysis of the constructed bridge will be a load test of the bridge suspended above the chasm with 2 group members balancing on a plank centered about the bridge deck. A real value for figure of merit can then be recorded and used to determine the effectiveness of the structure.
Executive Summary
The People
Presentation: 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm Monday, December 13, 2004
May Room, Wilson Commons, University of Rochester
•Bridge operation and material constraints outlined.
•Paper and pencil methods for minimizing deflection discussed.
•Results of ANSYS stress analysis reviewed and construction parameters determined by location of maximum and minimum stress concentrations.
•Conclusion that only one type of bridge material used, 6061-T651 selected for its high stiffness and relatively low weight.
•All parts and overall assembly drafted and depicted, with all aspects of design laid out in detail.
Summary
ANSYS Analysis Material Properties
For further Information and technical discussion, contact:
Test Setup
I-Beam bridge
Table
8”
Loading barDesign
The experimental setup is depicted above. Our bridge design was initially tested element by element using the Equivalent Stress theory to optimize the beam lengths. This theory was used to make sure that the bridge did not deflect any more than the .1” requirement.
Aluminum 6060-T651 Material Properties
Hardness, Brinell 95
Hardness, Knoop 120
Hardness, Rockwell A 40
Hardness, Rockwell B 60
Hardness, Vickers 107
Tensile Strength, Ultimate 45000 psi
Tensile Strength, Yield 39900 psi
Elongation at Break 12 %
Modulus of Elasticity 10000 ksi
Notched Tensile Strength 47000 psi
Ultimate Bearing Strength 88000 psi
Bearing Yield Strength 56000 psi
Poisson's Ratio 0.33
Fatigue Strength 13800 psi
Fracture Toughness 26.4 ksi-in½
Machinability 50 %
Shear Modulus 3770 ksi
Shear Strength 29700 psi
The values for various aluminum properties are found in the table to the right. The high stiffness of 6061-T651 and low density .098 lb/in3 as well as high machinability made it the perfect material choice for the task. Aluminum pop rivets, with a 1/8” diameter, were used rated with an ultimate tensile stress at 240 lbs. and a breaking point stress at 400 lbs.
Pop Rivet
3
2
1
3
1
Equivalent Stress Plot: Max stress = 3.085E4 psi
Safety Factor: Ranges from 1.0 – 15.0 the safety factor is high, and bridge may have been overbuilt in certain areas.
Total Deformation Plot
Plot Displaying Spot Weld Placement
The max yield for the material used to build the bridge is 40.6 ksi. Our distortion theory plot (equivalent stress plot) gave us a value of 3.085E4 psi. Comparing the two shows that when placed under 500 lbf of force, the bridge does not reach the max yield point where it would break. Also comparing our value to the tensile strengths, it is apparent that the bridge is operational under this condition, seen in the safety factor.
The figure of merit obtained by dividing the weight held by the bridge ( experimentally 500 lbf) by the weight of the bridge itself, which was found to be .87742 lbm. The figure of merit for this weight is therefore 569.85. The bridge is expected to hold much more weight though, and this figure will be higher.
Analysis Interpretations
