University of Limerick

OLLSCOIL LUIMNIGH

FACULTY OF SCIENCE & ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL, AERONAUTICAL ​AND BIOMEDICAL
ENGINEERING

COVER SHEET – COURSEWORK

TITLE: Structural Engineering and Design: Trigger 2

MODULE: ME4032
ACADEMIC TERM: 2
SUBMISSION DATE: 29/03/2019
LECTURER: Mr. Quilligan

It is hereby declared that this coursework item is entirely our own work, unless otherwise stated,
and that all sources of information have been properly acknowledged and referenced. It is also
declared by us that this coursework item has not previously been submitted by any member of
the group as part fulfilment of any module assessment requirement.

Name (​BLOCK CAPITALS​) Student ID Signature Date

CIAN BRESLIN 18182526 28/03/2019

It is vital that all sources of information and shared work is acknowledged even if the work is handed in
for group assessment.

Students are advised that failure to follow Department requirements in declaring and acknowledging
the source of all information may necessitate a reduction in all or part of the module assessment.

Dr. Jeremy Robinson

Head, Department of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Biomedical Engineering
Summary
For our structure we opted for the 1200mm cantilevered option as opposed to the
simply supported structure. The initial inspiration for our design came from the
construction tower crane, and what we learned about beams in equilibrium in our
Engineering Science module last semester.
The primary ideas behind our design were: To have a large counterweight at the back
of the structure to keep it in equilibrium, and to use triangles throughout the design as
they are a naturally stable shape. Eventually we decided on a prism shaped truss
structure as this design was stable and statically determinable.

The key area where my learning has developed from this module was learning how to
apply the skills we learned in other modules such as Statics and Engineering Science
to real life scenarios. Most importantly beams in equilibrium and framework analysis.
I learned how to take the calculations I had done and put them into practise.
As well as this I learned the importance of creating a structure that is stable but also
statically determinable and how to do it. I also gained some valuable teamwork skills.
Evolution of Design
Our initial design took heavy inspiration from construction tower cranes. We built this
design out of primarily 6mm paper straws and presented it in week 4.

While this design was more than capable of supporting the required load it was
incredibly flawed.The design failed at two joints which we had secured on the outside
along the bottom beams of the structure.

As well as this we had a massive number of unnecessary struts. This meant it was
impossible to calculate the forces through each individual strut. The large number of
unnecessary struts coupled with the fact that the structure was primarily built using
6mm straws was a huge waste of resources. Proof of this was that despite the fact that
we had a poorly secured joint the bridge still overperformed.
Our second design was very similar to the first except it was built with less struts than
the original and twice as large to meet the new requirements.

After numerous failed attempts we realised that the structure was still statically
indeterminable. We realised at least one strut would have to be removed to make the
calculations possible.
We tried removing struts from inside the structure but realised that removing them
would drastically reduce the stability of the structure. We finally opted to remove the
long struts connecting the levers of the structure to the top of the base.

After removing these stuts it was clear that the central tower now held very little
purpose so we removed it. This left us with our current design which is both stable
and statically determinable.
Finally after materials testing we discovered after materials testing that our structure
would be more efficient if we used three weights instead of one.
Structural Analysis
Material Testing
To test the straws we set up a wooden lever with a counterweight so that the lever was
just lying of the top of the straw. We attached a bucket to the end of the lever and
slowly filled the bucket with sand until the straw buckled. We then measured the mass
of the bucket with the sand and converted it to Newtons. The test was repeated three
times by each group for three different lengths of straw. The test was done for both
4mm and 6mm straws. We gathered the following results:

4mm:

Straw Length Sample No. distance Force applied Buckling

(mm) applied (mm) (N) Force (N)

380 1 700 2.05 2.39

2 700 2.06 2.40

3 700 1.99 2.32

270 1 700 3.64 5.00

2 700 3.45 4.74

3 700 2.78 3.81

165 1 700 3.65 7.74

2 700 3.66 7.76

3 700 5.94 12.59

6mm​:

Straw Length Sample No. distance Force applied Buckling

(mm) applied (mm) (N) Force (N)

380 1 700 3.31 3.86

2 700 3.76 4.39

3 700 4.59 5.35

270 1 700 7.64 10.49

2 700 6.69 9.18

3 700 5.91 8.11

165 1 700 8.84 18.75

2 700 9.77 20.73

3 700 8.13 17.25

Possible sources of error for this testing include: Adding sand too quickly, straw at an
angle other than 90 degrees, counterweight putting force on straw from the start.
Member Selection

When every groups results from the material testing was put together it creates the
following graphs
Using this graph we estimated the minimum buckling forces of the members we are
using in our design and decided we needed one member to be a 6mm straw.

Diameter (mm) Length (mm) Buckling force (N)

4 200 8

4 220 6.3

6 200 10.7

Using this table I was able to work out the loading on each straw (see Structural
Analysis section). This gave us two members (on each side) at 100% utilisation.
A tension test on the straws showed it could withstand tension between 40-50N.
As this was wildly above anything our structure would experience we chose to ignore
tension loading.

We predicted the members at 100% utilisation at the back would fail first. In theory
our structure could carry between 500g and 690g, but given the high number of
members at 100% utilisation or close to it (96%, 82% etc.) we predicted it would fail
closer to 500g.
Conclusions:

On the day of the testing our cantilever took a few dents which required some last
minute repairs. Despite this our structure still failed in the members we predicted as
seen in the photo above. The structure failed at 501g which was just within our
predicted range. We suspect the damage taken by the structure prior to testing had an
impact on why the maximum loading was so close to the bottom of the range.

I gained a lot of useful skills over the course of this projects. These include technical
applications of skills such as structural analysis. I learned how to calculate tensile and
compressive forces acting through a structure, and the relationship between these
calculations and the performance of the model. I also gained some valuable teamwork
skills. Working with my group was very useful in both the structural analysis and the
actual building of the model. Having multiple people working on the design meant we
were able to spot mistakes a lot more easily. Finally through working alongside my
group I gained some skills in project planning. Dividing the workload for the
construction of the structure made things run much more efficiently, and saved us a
lot of time.
The experience and skills I gained during this module are very useful for any engineer
to have. I believe they will be very applicable to my future career in mechanical
engineering.