# HOOK DESIGN

TEAM 2

STEPHANIE MANSER, SCOTT SLATTERY, ROB BULINS,
GAMMANA PEIRIS

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CALCULATIONS
1. Using the equation; π
= πΎπ‘ πΉ π΄

We calculated the max load at the upper hole of the hook.

2. Using the equation; π
= πΎπ‘ πΉ π΄

We were unable to calculate the max load on the stress concentration on the gradual
slope because our radius was too high, and the Kt value was unable to be determined.
Therefore, we calculated the tensile load along
the bar connecting the upper hole and the bottom
hook using the equation; π
= πΉ π΄

3. Using the equation; π
= ππ πΌ

We were able to calculate the bending moment
inside the bottom of the hole. Then using; π
=πΉΓπ
We were able to calculate the max load on the
bending area at the bottom of the hook.

HAND CALCULATIONS FOR THE FIRST DESIGN

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
INITIAL DESIGN
We understood that the dimensions, and the shape of the hook will be finalized by
understanding the competition guidelines. The design must be able to withstand a high
load applied, and keep a very low weight. With our preliminary calculations on a simple
J-shaped hook, it was understood that a high bending moment would occur at the
bottom of the hook.

SECOND DESIGN
To compensate for the bending moment calculated from the first design, we decided to
add in extra support at the end of the hook to create a closed hook design. However, we
were unable to determine which hook design would be able to reach the highest load to
weight ratio.
First, we created CAD models and ran a FEA test on each design to ensure our
calculation result of the large bending moment on the bottom corner of the hook. The
results confirmed our assumptions, and also demonstrated the closed hook design was
able to tolerate a much higher bending stress in the bottom corner of the hook. We
were also able to determine that, although the closed hook design was heavier, the load
the design can handle was much greater than the simple J-hook design. π€πππ
βπ‘ πππ’ππ‘πππ π
= πππ π  ππππ’ππ πππ π

= ππππ’ππ Γ π

FINAL DESIGN
Due to design guideline changes, we
returned to our initial J-shaped hook
design. To compensate for the
material around the bending
moment, and inputted an I-beam
shape. Finally by running numerous
FEA tests, we managed to shave off
unnecessary material to shed weight,

FINAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS

32.695 MPa

36.403 MPa

30.911 MPa

63.249 MPa

Dimensions taken from Diagram A-1

TENSILE FORCE ON CONNECTING ROD

Part
1 (Top)
2 (Mid)
3 (Bottom)
Total

Hook Bending Stress (Detail Section D)
Aiyi,
Ai, mmΒ²
yi, mm
mmΒ³
Ii, mmβ΄ di=Θ²-yi, mm AidiΒ², mmβ΄ Ii+AidiΒ², mmβ΄
23.70
11.50
272.550 17.775
11.50
3134.325
3152.100
33.75
10.75
362.813 512.578
10.75
3900.234
4412.813
31.60
2.00
63.200 42.133
2.00
126.400
168.533
89.05

I-Total
Θ², mm=

Detail Section D
Part #
Height, mm Width, mm
1 (Top)
3.00
7.90
2 (Mid)
13.50
2.50
3 (Bottom)
4.00
7.90

7733.446

7.845
Bending Data Summary
Flexural Yield Stress, MPa
Bending Moment, N*mm
Distance from Applied Force

104.000
102526.243
22.655
2805.306

DIAGRAM A-1

Diagram A-1

HOOK DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Weight (g)

BEFORE AND AFTER
PICTURES

14.66
6432
None

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
In the hook evaluation test we found that our hook broke exactly where the FEA displayed.
However, our calculations for using the new material type of Polycarbonate was significantly
different from our results. Although, we were able to determine that the weakest component of
the design was the bending load at the bottom of the hook.
We were surprised by the brittle type fracture compared to a more ductile stretching of the
material. We believe this was due to the fact that our FEA was conducted using ABS material.
Things we would do differently if we were able to refine the design further would be to shave off
more weight around the area of the hole, add more material toward the area of fracture of the
hook under load, and change our inner shape from an I-beam like structure to a T-beam to save
more material. We would also have kept a solid design near the fracture area to increase the
strength in handling the bending moment. We would also like further optimize our design by
allowing all the key points to fracture at the same time.