Preliminary Design Report

Lecture Section A3, Professor Elise Morgan

Group Members:

Devin Bidstrup, ​Charles Liang

Emanuel Perez, ​Shihao Xing (Eric)

 1

Table Of Contents:

Introduction:……………………………………………………………………….………………2

Procedure………………………………………………………………………….…………….2-3

Analysis:……………………………………………………………………….………………..4-9

Data:…………………………………………………………………………….…………….10-11

Results:…………………………………………………………………………..……………….12

Discussion:……………………………………………………………………………………….13

Appendix:…………………………………………………………………………..………...14-16
 2

Introduction:

The purpose of the preliminary design is to establish the methods for analyzing all of the

relevant metrics of a truss before physically creating anything. Essentially by creating a generic

process of analyzing the truss max load, cost, and other features allow us to experiment with

truss designs to find the most effective design choices. Using a MATLAB program to analyze

truss designs facilitates rapid analysis, allowing more design variations to be considered (rather

than slogging through the math by hand each time). While the theoretical minimum amount of

load that needs to be supported is 500 g (4.91 N), the hope is to learn the most effective features

of the preliminary truss designs (of which there will be many more before the final design is

chosen).

Procedure:

Design Restrictions:

1. The simple trusses can only be composed in the triangle.

2. The relation between the number of joints (J) and members (M): M = 2J - 3.

3. The total cost ( cost = $10J + $1L) must be less than $320.

4. The span of the truss: 54.5 cm ​± 1 cm.

5. The truss must support a minimum load of 4.91N for 60 seconds.

6. The distance between adjacent joints must be at least 10 cm and no longer than 15 cm

7. The distance between the load and the pin joint must be 21 cm ± 0.5 cm.

Detailed Procedure:

The first step of the design process was to fulfill the constraints of the truss span and the

loading point distance. With that completed the rest of the truss is designed by adding two
 3

members at a time while confirming the geometric proportions were correct. When designing the

second truss certain variables were changed to test the effects. In particular, angles between

members, member length, variance of member lengths, and number of joints. Certain design

features were kept in mind during preliminary design such as avoiding zero force members and

reducing costs wherever possible.

 4

Analysis:

a.) Hand Calculations:

Figure . Sample truss free body diagram

1.) ​Reaction forces

ΣF x = Ax = 0 ΣF y = A y + H y = 0

ΣM A = < 4, 4, 0 >*< 0,− 25, 0 > + < 12, 0, 0 >*< 0, H y, 0 > = − 100 + 12 * H y = 0

H y = 8.33 N (+ ĵ) Ay = 16.7 N (+ ĵ) Ax = 0 N

B y geometry we know all non 0, non 90 angles are equal, thus θ = arcsin( 44 ) = 45 °
 5

2.) ​Using Method of Joints

Figure FBD Joint A

ΣF x = cos(θ) |AD| = 0 AD = 0 N

ΣF y = Ay + AB = 0 AB =− 16.7 N = 16.7 N C

Figure FBD B

ΣF x = B D + cos(θ) |BC | = 0 BD = 16.7 N T

 6

ΣF y = AB + sin(θ) |BC | = 0 BC =− 23.56 N = 23.6 N C

Figure FBD Joint C

ΣF x = C E + cos(θ) |BC | = 0 CE = − 16.7 N = 16.7 N C

ΣF y = sin(θ) |BC | − C D = 0 CD = 16.7 N T

Figure FBD Joint D

 7

ΣF x = DF + cos(θ) |DE | − B D = 0 DF = 8.33 N T

ΣF y = C D + sin(θ) |DE | − 25 = 0 DE = 11.8 N T

Figure FBD Joint E

ΣF x = C E + cos(θ) |EG| − cos(θ) |DE | = 0 EG =− 11.8 N = 11.8 N C

ΣF y =− E F − sin(θ) |EG| − sin(θ) |DE | = 0 EF = 0 N

Figure FBD Joint F

ΣF x = F G + cos(θ) |F H | − DF = 0 F G = 8.33 N T

ΣF y =− sin(θ) |F H | = 0 FH = 0 N
 8

Figure FBD Joint G

ΣF y =− H G − sin(θ) |EG| = 0 EF = 0 N

3.) ​Final Results

AB(m1) = 16.7 N C BC(m4) = 23.6 N C BD(m3) = 16.7 N T

C E(m6) = 16.7 N C CD(m5) = 16.7 N T

DE(m7) = 11.8 N T DF (m8) = 8.33 N T EG(m7) = 11.8 N C

F G(m11) = 8.33 N T HG(m13) = 8.33 N C

Z ero F orce M embers : AD(m2), EF (m10), HF (m12)

 9

b.) Code Output (Code in the appendix):

The uncertainty analysis came from the usage of the given information (length dependent

truss uncertainty excel). After making two graphs for the Euler fitted force and the Uncertainty,

we found the most accurate trend lines (using power option in excel) for both graphs. The result
1384.4
for the Euler fitted force is F = L2
where L is the length of the straw and F is the Euler

706.79
fitted force in Newtons (Figure B), and the result for the Uncertainty is U = L3
where U is

the uncertainty (+/-) in Newtons (Figure A).

 10

Data:

Design 1:

Figure Design 1

We did not include buckling strength for the tension members since it’s not buckling according to our function that

relies on compression.

Design 2:
 11

Figure Design 2

We did not include buckling strength for the tension members since it’s not buckling according to our function that

relies on compression.
 12

Results:

Truss 1:

The critical member is Member 8 (From Joint D to Joint F)

● Length: 11cm

● Buckling Strength: 11.4 N

● Uncertainty(Buckling Strength): +/- .531 N

● Maximum Theoretical Load of N: 8.92 N

● Uncertainty(Theoretical Load): +/- .414 N

● Truss Cost: $299.61

● Load-Cost Ratio: 0.0298 N/$

Truss 2:

The critical member is Member 6 (From Joint B to Joint D)

● Length: 14cm

● Buckling Strength: 7.07 N

● Uncertainty(Buckling Strength): +/- 0.258 N

● Maximum Theoretical Load of N: 6.5 N

● Uncertainty(Theoretical Load): +/- 0.237 N

● Truss Cost: $272.13

● Load-Cost Ratio: 0.0239 N/$

 13

Discussion:

The first design overall is more effective than the second, with a higher theoretical max

load (8.92 N) and Load-Cost Ratio (0.0297 N/$) than the second (6.5 N, 0.0239 N/$). This is

interesting because the first design has a zero force member. While we need the member to

constitute a simple truss, the member is not cost efficient since it provides no real function in the

truss. Having more horizontal and vertical members increased the Load-Cost Ratio, this is most

likely because this reduced the individual forces on the members by completely splitting the load

into its x and y components; this could explain why design 2 fails earlier and is less cost efficient

Interestingly, there are more varied straw lengths in design 1 compared to the presence of

equilateral triangles and mirrored shape of design 2. The initial theory was that equilateral

triangles and mirroring would increase the buckling load by equally distributing the load

between straws. Something that may explain why this theory is incorrect is the location of the

load, since the load is closer to the pin joint than the roller, the moment experienced by the

straws between the roller and the load is greater than that between the pin and the load.

Therefore, equilateral and mirror design would have uneven distribution of load, causing one

side to fail before the other. While it is reasonable to state more joints (and thus members)

generally increases maximum load, it is uncertain if this would also increase the Load-Cost

Ratio. The first design has 5 members constituting the top horizontal span, while the second has

4; The first design member also has horizontal members on the bottom horizontal span while the

second has angled members. While these two features seem non-trivial, more testing is required

before any effects can be hypothesized. Unfortunately a different load application point was not
 14

tested; ideally the effects of having 20.5 cm and 21.5 cm from the pin joint would have been

tested.

Appendix:

Figure A: The Uncertainty vs Straw Length

 15

Figure B: The Euler Fitted Force vs Straw Length