You are on page 1of 43

Semester​ ​Design​ ​Project:​ ​Deployable​ ​Bridge

Course​ ​Name​:​ ​Mechanical​ ​Design​ ​II​ ​(ME​ ​471)

Design​ ​Group​ ​4​:​ ​Zachary​ ​Sadler,​ ​Do-Hyung​ ​Kim,​ ​Gabe​ ​Lefere,

Justin​ ​Barg,​ ​Nathan​ ​O'Sullivan,​ ​Zachary​ ​Bowling

Section​ ​002​:​ ​MWF​ ​1:50​ ​PM​ ​-​ ​2:40​ ​PM

Instructor​:​ ​Yang​ ​Guo

Submission​ ​Date​:​ ​Friday,​ ​December​ ​8th,​ ​2017

1
Executive​ ​Summary
Background
Each​ ​semester,​ ​students​ ​in​ ​Mechanical​ ​Design​ ​II​ ​are​ ​tasked​ ​with​ ​a​ ​project
that​ ​includes​ ​the​ ​engineering​ ​design​ ​of​ ​machine​ ​elements​ ​and​ ​mechanical​ ​systems,
and​ ​the​ ​computer-based​ ​analysis​ ​in​ ​support​ ​of​ ​that​ ​design.​ ​The​ ​project​ ​should​ ​be
designed​ ​for​ ​static​ ​strength,​ ​fatigue​ ​strength,​ ​deflection,​ ​and​ ​reliability​ ​using​ ​analysis
techniques​ ​provided​ ​in​ ​the​ ​course​ ​and​ ​developed​ ​in​ ​prerequisite​ ​courses.

Project​ ​Purpose
The​ ​objective​ ​of​ ​the​ ​project​ ​this​ ​semester​ ​was​ ​to​ ​design,​ ​manufacture,
assemble,​ ​and​ ​test​ ​a​ ​scaled-down​ ​version​ ​of​ ​a​ ​deployable​ ​bridge.​ ​A​ ​litany​ ​of
objectives,​ ​constraints,​ ​and​ ​specifications​ ​were​ ​provided​ ​for​ ​each​ ​team​ ​to​ ​meet,​ ​the
main​ ​requirements​ ​being​ ​that​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​deploy​ ​30”​ ​from​ ​the​ ​table​ ​and​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​to
hold​ ​a​ ​50​ ​lb​ ​load​ ​at​ ​the​ ​end.​ ​The​ ​bridge​ ​must​ ​be​ ​smoothly​ ​deployed​ ​in​ ​under​ ​60
seconds​ ​using​ ​a​ ​controlled​ ​motor​ ​mounted​ ​on​ ​the​ ​table,​ ​and​ ​loaded​ ​with​ ​in​ ​the​ ​next
60​ ​seconds.​ ​The​ ​optimization​ ​goal​ ​of​ ​this​ ​project​ ​was​ ​to​ ​minimize​ ​both​ ​the​ ​deflection
and​ ​the​ ​total​ ​mass​ ​of​ ​the​ ​system.

Design​ ​and​ ​Implementation


Three​ ​prototype​ ​designs​ ​were​ ​considered​ ​before​ ​settling​ ​on​ ​our​ ​final​ ​design,
entitled​ ​“The​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge.”​ ​The​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge​ ​utilizes​ ​a​ ​base
connector​ ​that​ ​secures​ ​the​ ​table​ ​with​ ​four​ ​bolts.​ ​A​ ​series​ ​of​ ​four​ ​linkages​ ​on​ ​each
side​ ​connected​ ​to​ ​the​ ​base​ ​make​ ​up​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​itself.​ ​To​ ​deploy​ ​from​ ​the​ ​closed
position​ ​to​ ​the​ ​open​ ​position,​ ​the​ ​linkages​ ​rotate​ ​about​ ​the​ ​base​ ​using​ ​a​ ​hinge
system.​ ​Springs​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​the​ ​ends​ ​of​ ​each​ ​link​ ​provide​ ​the​ ​deployment​ ​force​ ​in
the​ ​form​ ​of​ ​potential​ ​energy.​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​avoid​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​being​ ​deployed​ ​too​ ​quickly
by​ ​the​ ​springs,​ ​the​ ​system​ ​is​ ​held​ ​in​ ​place​ ​and​ ​slowly​ ​let​ ​out​ ​using​ ​a​ ​string​ ​and​ ​motor
system.​ ​Thanks​ ​to​ ​careful​ ​design​ ​considerations,​ ​modifications​ ​of​ ​the​ ​original​ ​design
were​ ​minimal.

Results
The​ ​measured​ ​weight​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge​ ​is​ ​7.8​ ​lbs.​ ​The​ ​calculated
deployment​ ​time​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Mile’s​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge​ ​is​ ​32.33​ ​seconds​ ​and​ ​the​ ​measured
time​ ​is​ ​38​ ​seconds.​ ​The​ ​theoretical​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​was​ ​calculated​ ​to​ ​be​ ​1.76​ ​while
the​ ​ANSYS​ ​analysis​ ​yielded​ ​a​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​of​ ​2.187.​ ​The​ ​total​ ​deflection​ ​of​ ​the
loaded​ ​bar​ ​was​ ​found​ ​theoretically​ ​to​ ​be​ ​0.435516​ ​inches.​ ​The​ ​deflection​ ​found​ ​in
the​ ​bar​ ​using​ ​Ansys​ ​was​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be​ ​0.17133​ ​inches.​ ​The​ ​deflection​ ​with​ ​a​ ​50​ ​lb​ ​load
is​ ​1​ ​inch,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​theoretical​ ​weight​ ​is​ ​140​ ​lbs.​ ​The​ ​calculations​ ​for​ ​these
results​ ​including​ ​more​ ​in​ ​depth​ ​analysis​ ​can​ ​be​ ​found​ ​in​ ​their​ ​respective
sections​ ​below.

2
Goals​ ​and​ ​Problem​ ​Statement
The​ ​goal​ ​of​ ​this​ ​project​ ​is​ ​to​ ​design,​ ​build​ ​and​ ​test​ ​a​ ​deployable​ ​bridge​ ​that
minimizes​ ​deflection​ ​and​ ​total​ ​mass​ ​of​ ​the​ ​system​ ​and​ ​must​ ​meet​ ​all​ ​required
specifications​ ​given​ ​in​ ​the​ ​project​ ​description.​ ​The​ ​bridge​ ​is​ ​required​ ​to​ ​fit​ ​inside​ ​a
box​ ​with​ ​dimensions​ ​10”x10”x15”(width),​ ​and​ ​be​ ​mounted​ ​to​ ​a​ ​table​ ​using​ ​only​ ​four
bolts.​ ​The​ ​bridge​ ​will​ ​be​ ​deployed​ ​to​ ​reach​ ​a​ ​distance​ ​of​ ​30”​ ​and​ ​can​ ​not​ ​be​ ​more
than​ ​1​ ​inch​ ​above​ ​the​ ​horizontal​ ​line​ ​of​ ​the​ ​table.​ ​The​ ​width​ ​at​ ​any​ ​point​ ​along​ ​the
bridge​ ​can​ ​not​ ​be​ ​less​ ​than​ ​10”.​ ​All​ ​structural​ ​components​ ​and​ ​fasteners​ ​on​ ​the
bridge​ ​must​ ​be​ ​made​ ​from​ ​steel​ ​or​ ​aluminium.​ ​No​ ​welding​ ​is​ ​allowed​ ​on​ ​the
bridge.To​ ​test​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​deflection​ ​once​ ​deployed,​ ​a​ ​50lb​ ​weight​ ​is​ ​loaded​ ​onto
the​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​and​ ​vertical​ ​deflection​ ​is​ ​measured.​ ​The​ ​bridge​ ​must​ ​be
deployed​ ​in​ ​under​ ​60​ ​seconds​ ​and​ ​then​ ​loaded​ ​within​ ​the​ ​next​ ​60​ ​seconds.​ ​The
deployment​ ​must​ ​be​ ​smoothly​ ​controlled​ ​using​ ​a​ ​motor​ ​that​ ​is​ ​mounted​ ​on​ ​the​ ​table.
The​ ​deployment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​system​ ​must​ ​be​ ​safe​ ​for​ ​all​ ​intended​ ​purposes.​ ​The​ ​table​ ​that
the​ ​bridge​ ​mounts​ ​to​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​Figure​ ​1

Figure​ ​1.​ ​Table​ ​dimensions


The​ ​final​ ​performance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​is​ ​measured​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​deflection
that​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​experiences​ ​under​ ​the​ ​50lb​ ​load.​ ​The​ ​final​ ​performance​ ​score​ ​is
based​ ​off​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deflection,​ ​system​ ​weight,​ ​number​ ​of​ ​inputs​ ​and​ ​completed​ ​time​ ​and
can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​Equation​ ​1​ ​below.

Equation​ ​1.​ ​Performance​ ​score​ ​equation

3
The​ ​number​ ​of​ ​inputs​ ​is​ ​one​ ​with​ ​the​ ​motor,​ ​and​ ​increases​ ​by​ ​one​ ​with​ ​each​ ​input
needed​ ​to​ ​deploy​ ​the​ ​bridge.​ ​The​ ​system​ ​weight​ ​includes​ ​all​ ​components​ ​of​ ​the
bridge​ ​except​ ​for​ ​the​ ​motor.​ ​The​ ​normalized​ ​deflection​ ​and​ ​system​ ​weight,​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as
the​ ​normalized​ ​completion​ ​time,​ ​which​ ​must​ ​be​ ​under​ ​two​ ​minutes,​ ​is​ ​determined​ ​by
the​ ​ratio​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridges​ ​performance​ ​over​ ​the​ ​best​ ​performance​ ​from​ ​all​ ​groups​ ​and
can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​Equation​ ​2

Equation​ ​2.​ ​Normalized​ ​Performance​ ​measure

4
Concept​ ​Development​ ​and​ ​Selection
Three​ ​different​ ​bridge​ ​designs​ ​were​ ​considered​ ​before​ ​selection,​ ​a​ ​prototype
of​ ​the​ ​design​ ​selected​ ​was​ ​created​ ​then​ ​a​ ​final​ ​design​ ​was​ ​created​ ​and
manufactured.​ ​The​ ​first​ ​design​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​Figure​ ​2.

Figure​ ​2.​ ​Design​ ​1​ ​in​ ​folded​ ​position.


Design​ ​one​ ​utilized​ ​a​ ​three​ ​bar​ ​linkage​ ​which​ ​connected​ ​to​ ​the​ ​base​ ​plate
using​ ​a​ ​through​ ​bolt​ ​system,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​also​ ​what​ ​the​ ​arms​ ​rotated​ ​around​ ​while​ ​linking
them​ ​together.​ ​This​ ​system​ ​was​ ​not​ ​chosen​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​bolts​ ​that​ ​the​ ​base
connector​ ​utilized,​ ​the​ ​project​ ​is​ ​limited​ ​to​ ​four.​ ​Design​ ​one​ ​is​ ​also​ ​the​ ​largest​ ​of​ ​the
three​ ​designs,​ ​and​ ​weight​ ​minimization​ ​was​ ​a​ ​large​ ​priority​ ​when​ ​choosing​ ​from​ ​the
three​ ​designs.​ ​Design​ ​two​ ​is​ ​shown​ ​in​ ​Figure​ ​3.

Figure​ ​3.​ ​Design​ ​two​ ​in​ ​deployed​ ​position.


Design​ ​two​ ​utilizes​ ​an​ ​I-beam​ ​linkage​ ​design​ ​to​ ​minimize​ ​the​ ​stress​ ​due​ ​to
bending​ ​in​ ​the​ ​links​ ​by​ ​maximizing​ ​the​ ​second​ ​moment​ ​of​ ​inertia.​ ​This​ ​method​ ​was
not​ ​chosen​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​difficulty​ ​of​ ​manufacturing​ ​I-beams​ ​using​ ​a​ ​mill,​ ​a​ ​process​ ​that

5
would​ ​take​ ​hours​ ​of​ ​manufacturing​ ​time,​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​a​ ​failure​ ​point​ ​would
be​ ​directly​ ​on​ ​the​ ​hinge​ ​that​ ​connected​ ​the​ ​first​ ​link​ ​to​ ​the​ ​base​ ​plate​ ​connectors.
The​ ​weight​ ​of​ ​this​ ​bridge​ ​was​ ​also​ ​large​ ​compared​ ​to​ ​the​ ​design​ ​chosen.​ ​Design
three​ ​was​ ​the​ ​design​ ​chosen​ ​for​ ​prototype​ ​manufacturing​ ​and​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in
Figure​ ​4.

Figure​ ​4.​ ​Design​ ​three​ ​in​ ​deployed​ ​position

Design​ ​three​ ​utilized​ ​a​ ​separated​ ​base​ ​connector​ ​which​ ​holds​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​to
the​ ​table​ ​with​ ​four​ ​bolts.​ ​The​ ​bridge​ ​has​ ​four​ ​arms​ ​that​ ​connect​ ​to​ ​the​ ​base
connector​ ​with​ ​a​ ​hinge​ ​system.​ ​The​ ​links​ ​rotate​ ​around​ ​bolts​ ​which​ ​connect​ ​each
link.​ ​Two​ ​of​ ​the​ ​links​ ​also​ ​act​ ​as​ ​channel​ ​which​ ​the​ ​other​ ​arms​ ​sit​ ​in,​ ​this​ ​increases
the​ ​surface​ ​area​ ​that​ ​the​ ​links​ ​touch​ ​which​ ​is​ ​good​ ​for​ ​bending.​ ​This​ ​design​ ​is​ ​also
the​ ​lightest​ ​of​ ​the​ ​three​ ​designs.​ ​Due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​positive​ ​features​ ​in​ ​design​ ​three,​ ​it​ ​was
chosen​ ​for​ ​prototype​ ​creation.​ ​After​ ​the​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​prototype,​ ​testing​ ​on​ ​the
bridge​ ​revealed​ ​issues​ ​with​ ​the​ ​design.​ ​The​ ​hinge​ ​system​ ​set​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​at​ ​a​ ​step
below​ ​the​ ​table,​ ​which​ ​was​ ​deemed​ ​unacceptable.​ ​The​ ​bridge​ ​also​ ​experienced
large​ ​amounts​ ​of​ ​deflection​ ​between​ ​each​ ​arm​ ​before​ ​loading​ ​which​ ​was​ ​due​ ​to​ ​how
the​ ​connector​ ​arms​ ​fit​ ​within​ ​the​ ​channeled​ ​arms.​ ​This​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​Figure​ ​5.

6
Figure​ ​5.​ ​Unwanted​ ​deflection​ ​due​ ​to​ ​how​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​fits​ ​in​ ​the​ ​channel

The​ ​bridge​ ​prototype​ ​also​ ​showed​ ​extreme​ ​deflection​ ​during​ ​loading,​ ​this​ ​was
due​ ​to​ ​all​ ​of​ ​the​ ​stress​ ​of​ ​the​ ​load​ ​falling​ ​on​ ​the​ ​bolts​ ​that​ ​connected​ ​the​ ​arms.​ ​To
combat​ ​this​ ​a​ ​new​ ​design​ ​of​ ​the​ ​connecter​ ​links​ ​was​ ​created​ ​which​ ​included​ ​a​ ​notch
that​ ​ensured​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​sat​ ​perfectly​ ​parallel​ ​to​ ​the​ ​table.​ ​The​ ​notch​ ​also​ ​acted​ ​as​ ​an
area​ ​for​ ​stress​ ​to​ ​fall​ ​on.​ ​The​ ​new​ ​link​ ​design​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​Figure​ ​6.

Figure​ ​6.​ ​New​ ​link​ ​design​ ​with​ ​notch

7
With​ ​this​ ​new​ ​linkage​ ​design​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​held​ ​the​ ​50lb​ ​weight​ ​with​ ​small
deflection.The​ ​issue​ ​with​ ​the​ ​hinge​ ​connectors​ ​was​ ​also​ ​redesigned​ ​so​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​sat
perfectly​ ​even​ ​with​ ​the​ ​table.​ ​The​ ​deployment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​was​ ​then​ ​tested.​ ​It​ ​was
found​ ​that​ ​connectors​ ​across​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​would​ ​help​ ​with​ ​an​ ​even​ ​deployment​ ​of​ ​the
bridge​ ​so​ ​three​ ​connectors​ ​were​ ​added​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​the​ ​arms​ ​would​ ​fall​ ​at​ ​the​ ​same
time.​ ​To​ ​assist​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​in​ ​deploying,​ ​springs​ ​were​ ​added​ ​to​ ​each​ ​arm.​ ​A​ ​plate​ ​was
added​ ​to​ ​connect​ ​the​ ​spring​ ​for​ ​the​ ​hinge​ ​to​ ​the​ ​table​ ​which​ ​adds​ ​more​ ​force​ ​on​ ​the
first​ ​hinge​ ​to​ ​help​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​fall.​ ​A​ ​nylon​ ​cord​ ​connected​ ​the​ ​motor​ ​to​ ​the​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the
bridge.​ ​When​ ​the​ ​motor​ ​was​ ​activated,​ ​the​ ​cord​ ​releases​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​and​ ​deployed​ ​it
at​ ​a​ ​slow​ ​rate.​ ​To​ ​increase​ ​the​ ​rate​ ​a​ ​link​ ​was​ ​connected​ ​to​ ​the​ ​motor​ ​that​ ​increased
the​ ​tangential​ ​velocity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cord​ ​and​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​then​ ​deployed​ ​in​ ​under​ ​60​ ​seconds.
The​ ​final​ ​design​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​Figure​ ​7.

Figure​ ​7.​ ​Final​ ​bridge​ ​design​ ​in​ ​CAD

8
Kinematic​ ​Analysis
During​ ​the​ ​first​ ​trial​ ​of​ ​deployment,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​deployment​ ​time​ ​was
out​ ​of​ ​specifications​ ​with​ ​the​ ​project​ ​requirements.​ ​Design​ ​changes​ ​were
implemented​ ​by​ ​creating​ ​an​ ​adaptor​ ​for​ ​the​ ​motor​ ​instead​ ​of​ ​initially​ ​planning​ ​to​ ​wind
the​ ​cable​ ​around​ ​the​ ​given​ ​motor​ ​pinion.​ ​Increasing​ ​the​ ​radial​ ​distance​ ​from​ ​the
motor’s​ ​center​ ​of​ ​rotation​ ​to​ ​the​ ​cables​ ​release​ ​point​ ​increases​ ​the​ ​velocity​ ​of​ ​the
cable.​ ​A​ ​higher​ ​diameter​ ​of​ ​5.25”​ ​was​ ​chosen​ ​knowing​ ​that​ ​this​ ​diameter​ ​would​ ​not
cause​ ​interference​ ​with​ ​the​ ​table​ ​when​ ​the​ ​motor​ ​is​ ​rotating​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​making​ ​it​ ​long
enough​ ​to​ ​increase​ ​the​ ​cable​ ​speed​ ​and​ ​meet​ ​the​ ​deployment​ ​time​ ​constraint​ ​of​ ​one
minute.​ ​The​ ​kinematic​ ​analysis​ ​and​ ​calculations​ ​were​ ​made​ ​using​ ​this​ ​design
change.​ ​The​ ​kinematic​ ​analysis​ ​was​ ​performed​ ​by​ ​calculating​ ​the​ ​time​ ​it​ ​takes​ ​to
move​ ​each​ ​individual​ ​linkage​ ​from​ ​their​ ​initial​ ​position​ ​to​ ​their​ ​respective​ ​final
positions.​ ​The​ ​summation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​individual​ ​durations​ ​is​ ​the​ ​total​ ​time​ ​it​ ​takes​ ​for​ ​the
bridge​ ​to​ ​deploy.​ ​The​ ​bridge​ ​deploys​ ​in​ ​a​ ​consecutive​ ​manner​ ​where​ ​link​ ​1​ ​deploys
first,​ ​link​ ​2​ ​deploys​ ​second,​ ​link​ ​3​ ​deploys​ ​third,​ ​and​ ​link​ ​4​ ​deploys​ ​fourth.​ ​Figure​ ​8
below​ ​shows​ ​a​ ​schematic​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​at​ ​initial​ ​position.​ ​The​ ​radius​ ​arm​ ​and​ ​change
in​ ​rotation​ ​is​ ​labeled.​ ​The​ ​four​ ​different​ ​stages​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​position​ ​is​ ​shown​ ​below
in​ ​Figures​ ​9-12.​ ​The​ ​time​ ​to​ ​complete​ ​each​ ​stage​ ​is​ ​found​ ​in​ ​the​ ​following.

Figure​ ​8.​ ​Initial​ ​Position

9
​​
Figure​ ​9.​ ​Stage​ ​1 Figure​ ​10.​ ​Stage​ ​2

Figure​ ​11.​ ​Stage​ ​3

Figure​ ​12.​ ​Stage​ ​4

The​ ​rotational​ ​velocity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​motor,​ ​ wm was​ ​calculated​ ​by​ ​measuring​ ​the​ ​time​ ​it​ ​takes
for​ ​the​ ​motor​ ​to​ ​complete​ ​one​ ​rotation​ ​and​ ​converting​ ​that​ ​value​ ​to​ ​radians​ ​per
second.​ ​ wm ​ ​was​ ​calculated​ ​to​ ​.66​ ​rad/s.​ ​The​ ​velocity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cable​ ​being​ ​released
from​ ​the​ ​motor​ ​is​ ​calculating​ ​using
V m = wm rm
Where​ ​ rm is​ ​the​ ​radius​ ​arm​ ​of​ ​the​ ​motor.​ ​The​ ​tangential​ ​velocity​ ​of​ ​linkage​ ​1,​ ​ V 1 ​ ​ ​is
the​ ​same​ ​as​ ​the​ ​velocity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cable.​ ​The​ ​following​ ​correlation​ ​can​ ​be​ ​made
Vm =Vm
wm rm = w1 r1
Where​ ​ w1 ​ ​is​ ​the​ ​rotational​ ​velocity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​first​ ​linkage,​ ​and​ ​ r1 is​ ​the​ ​distance​ ​between
the​ ​point​ ​of​ ​rotation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​first​ ​linkage​ ​to​ ​the​ ​connection​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cable.​ ​ w1 ​ ​can​ ​now​ ​be
isolated​ ​and​ ​solved​ ​for.
w1 = wm rm /r1

10
Using​ ​the​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​rotational​ ​velocity,​ ​isolating​ ​change​ ​in​ ​time,​ ​and​ ​substituting
w1 with​ ​the​ ​equation​ ​found​ ​above,​ ​ ​the​ ​time​ ​for​ ​linkage​ ​1​ ​to​ ​rotate​ ​from​ ​its​ ​initial
position​ ​to​ ​its​ ​final​ ​position​ ​can​ ​be​ ​calculated.
w1 = Δθ1 /Δt
Δt = Δθ1 /w1
Δt = Δθ1 r1 /wm rm
The​ ​duration​ ​for​ ​stage​ ​1​ ​to​ ​complete​ ​is​ ​calculated​ ​using​ ​the​ ​above​ ​equation​ ​and
known​ ​values Δθ1 = π /2 rad, ​ ​ r1 = 8", rm = 2.625.
Δt =7.25​ ​seconds
The​ ​time​ ​to​ ​complete​ ​stage​ ​2,​ ​3,​ ​and​ ​4​ ​can​ ​be​ ​calculated​ ​using​ ​the​ ​same​ ​equation
but​ ​replacing​ ​the​ ​change​ ​in​ ​rotation​ ​and​ ​radius​ ​arm​ ​values​ ​of​ ​the​ ​linkage​ ​for​ ​its
respective​ ​stage.​ ​Table​ ​1​ ​below​ ​shows​ ​the​ ​change​ ​in​ ​rotation,​ ​radius​ ​arm,​ ​and
duration​ ​to​ ​complete​ ​the​ ​stage.​ ​The​ ​total​ ​sum​ ​of​ ​the​ ​time​ ​is​ ​also​ ​calculated​ ​and​ ​is​ ​the
amount​ ​of​ ​time​ ​needed​ ​to​ ​fully​ ​deploy​ ​the​ ​bridge.​ ​The​ ​calculated​ ​total​ ​time​ ​of​ ​32.33
seconds​ ​is​ ​relatively​ ​close​ ​to​ ​the​ ​measured​ ​time​ ​of​ ​38​ ​seconds.
Stage Δθ (radians) r (inches) Δt ​ ​(seconds)

1 π /2 8 7.25

2 π /2 8.8 8

3 3π/4 9.25 12.58

4 2π/3 3.75 4.5

Total 32.33
Table​ ​1:​ ​Kinematic​ ​Results

11
Finite​ ​Element​ ​Structural​ ​Analysis
The​ ​Finite​ ​Element​ ​Structural​ ​Analysis​ ​was​ ​conducted​ ​using​ ​the​ ​ANSYS
Static​ ​Structural​ ​Analysis​ ​package.

Setup

Geometry
The​ ​NX​ ​CAD​ ​model​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​was​ ​converted​ ​to​ ​a​ ​step​ ​file​ ​and​ ​imported
into​ ​the​ ​ANSYS​ ​Mechanical​ ​workspace.​ ​The​ ​table​ ​and​ ​deployment​ ​aid​ ​were
suppressed​ ​to​ ​simplify​ ​the​ ​analysis,​ ​as​ ​the​ ​stress,​ ​strain,​ ​and​ ​deformation​ ​in​ ​these
components​ ​is​ ​not​ ​of​ ​concern.

Connections
The​ ​connections​ ​(see​ ​Fig.​ ​13.)​ ​between​ ​imported​ ​geometry​ ​created​ ​many
difficulties​ ​in​ ​the​ ​analysis.​ ​To​ ​create​ ​a​ ​realistic​ ​simulation,​ ​all​ ​connections​ ​between
links​ ​were​ ​converted​ ​to​ ​frictional​ ​connections​ ​with​ ​a​ ​coefficient​ ​of​ ​friction​ ​of​ ​1.05
(Aluminum​ ​to​ ​Aluminum​ ​contact​ ​-
http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/frictioncoefficients.htm​).​ ​Frictional
connections​ ​act​ ​similar​ ​to​ ​a​ ​rough​ ​contact​ ​region​ ​in​ ​that​ ​the​ ​user​ ​is​ ​allowed​ ​to​ ​specify
a​ ​coefficient​ ​of​ ​friction.​ ​This,​ ​however,​ ​required​ ​long​ ​computation​ ​times​ ​and​ ​would
repeatedly​ ​deliver​ ​the​ ​error​ ​message​ ​in​ ​regards​ ​to​ ​too​ ​high​ ​of​ ​a​ ​coefficient​ ​of​ ​friction.
The​ ​contact​ ​regions​ ​were​ ​then​ ​changed​ ​to​ ​frictionless,​ ​which​ ​allows​ ​part​ ​faces​ ​to
slide​ ​against​ ​one​ ​another​ ​and​ ​separate,​ ​but​ ​restricts​ ​them​ ​from​ ​pushing​ ​through
each​ ​other.​ ​This​ ​too​ ​required​ ​a​ ​long​ ​computation​ ​time​ ​and​ ​would​ ​deliver​ ​an​ ​error
message​ ​stating​ ​that​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​body​ ​(in​ ​reference​ ​to​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​assembly)​ ​was​ ​not
rigid.​ ​Although​ ​an​ ​unrigid​ ​assembly​ ​is​ ​an​ ​exact​ ​representation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge,​ ​the
static​ ​structural​ ​ANSYS​ ​was​ ​being​ ​used;​ ​thus,​ ​an​ ​entire​ ​rigid​ ​body​ ​was​ ​required​ ​to
carry​ ​out​ ​the​ ​analysis.​ ​All​ ​contact​ ​regions​ ​were​ ​then​ ​adjust​ ​to​ ​bonded,​ ​which​ ​treats
the​ ​interface​ ​as​ ​a​ ​perfect​ ​weldment.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​an​ ​assumption​ ​that​ ​was​ ​required​ ​to​ ​be
made​ ​to​ ​complete​ ​the​ ​ANSYS​ ​analysis​ ​and​ ​generate​ ​stress,​ ​strain,​ ​and​ ​deformation.

12
​​​
Figure​ ​13.​ ​Example​ ​bonded​ ​contact​ ​region​ ​between​ ​left​ ​hinge​ ​and​ ​¼”​ ​bolt.

Mesh
The​ ​meshing​ ​was​ ​initially​ ​automatically​ ​generated.​ ​Upon​ ​running​ ​the​ ​solver,
an​ ​error​ ​message​ ​that​ ​parts​ ​were​ ​only​ ​1​ ​element​ ​thick​ ​was​ ​generated,​ ​and​ ​this​ ​was
attributed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​first​ ​and​ ​third​ ​links​ ​A​ ​refinement​ ​setting​ ​of​ ​3​ ​was​ ​then​ ​added​ ​to​ ​these
parts​ ​to​ ​refine​ ​the​ ​mesh.

Figure​ ​14.​ ​Final​ ​mesh​ ​of​ ​bridge​ ​in​ ​ANSYS​ ​Static​ ​Structural​ ​Analysis.

13
Force
ANSYS​ ​was​ ​unable​ ​to​ ​define​ ​a​ ​point​ ​load​ ​in​ ​the​ ​center​ ​of​ ​the​ ​end​ ​bar.​ ​To​ ​get
around​ ​this,​ ​a​ ​small​ ​notch​ ​was​ ​cut​ ​out​ ​on​ ​the​ ​end​ ​bar​ ​(see​ ​Fig.​ ​15.)​ ​so​ ​that​ ​the​ ​face
of​ ​this​ ​notch​ ​could​ ​be​ ​selected​ ​to​ ​apply​ ​the​ ​50​ ​lbs​ ​force.​ ​This​ ​notch​ ​also​ ​better
represented​ ​the​ ​area​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applied​ ​force.

Figure​ ​15.​ ​The​ ​50​ ​lbs​ ​force​ ​on​ ​the​ ​fabricated​ ​notch​ ​of​ ​the​ ​end​ ​bar.

Supports
The​ ​table​ ​was​ ​suppressed​ ​to​ ​speed​ ​up​ ​analysis​ ​time,​ ​so​ ​a​ ​zero​ ​x/y/z
displacement​ ​was​ ​applied​ ​to​ ​the​ ​underside​ ​of​ ​ ​the​ ​base​ ​plates​ ​(see​ ​Fig.​ ​16).​ ​This
simulated​ ​the​ ​base​ ​plates​ ​being​ ​bolted​ ​to​ ​the​ ​table.​ ​This​ ​zero​ ​displacement​ ​support
was​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​assumption​ ​as​ ​the​ ​base​ ​plates​ ​will​ ​not​ ​be​ ​undergoing​ ​high​ ​amounts​ ​of
stress/strain/deformation.

14
Figure​ ​16.​ ​Zero​ ​displacement​ ​support​ ​condition​ ​applied​ ​to​ ​underside​ ​of​ ​base​ ​plates.

Analysis
The​ ​ANSYS​ ​Static​ ​Structural​ ​Analysis​ ​was​ ​successfully​ ​completed.​ ​The
highest​ ​stress​ ​states​ ​were​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be​ ​in​ ​the​ ​predicted​ ​areas:​ ​the​ ​end​ ​bar​ ​and​ ​the
first​ ​link​ ​(see​ ​Figs.​ ​17.​ ​and​ ​18.)​ ​These​ ​stresses​ ​in​ ​the​ ​first​ ​link​ ​were​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be​ ​at
the​ ​base​ ​of​ ​the​ ​table​ ​next​ ​to​ ​the​ ​hinges.​ ​Values​ ​of​ ​stress​ ​ranged​ ​from​ ​9808.1​ ​psi​ ​in
the​ ​center​ ​of​ ​the​ ​top​ ​surface​ ​to​ ​18386​ ​psi​ ​at​ ​the​ ​edge.​ ​The​ ​end​ ​bar​ ​where​ ​the​ ​50​ ​lbs
weight​ ​is​ ​applied​ ​showed​ ​compressive​ ​stress​ ​states​ ​ranging​ ​from​ ​14528​ ​psi​ ​to​ ​16308
psi.​ ​These​ ​values​ ​are​ ​most​ ​likely​ ​a​ ​deviation​ ​from​ ​the​ ​true​ ​value​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​notch​ ​in
the​ ​CAD​ ​geometry.
Fig.​ ​19​ ​shows​ ​the​ ​stress​ ​state​ ​in​ ​the​ ​cross​ ​section​ ​of​ ​the​ ​first​ ​link.​ ​The​ ​tensile
stress​ ​state​ ​at​ ​the​ ​top​ ​edge​ ​of​ ​the​ ​link​ ​has​ ​an​ ​example​ ​value​ ​of​ ​18470​ ​psi.​ ​In​ ​the
center​ ​of​ ​the​ ​link​ ​an​ ​example​ ​value​ ​of​ ​stress​ ​is​ ​942.15​ ​psi.​ ​The​ ​compressive​ ​stress
state​ ​at​ ​the​ ​bottom​ ​edge​ ​of​ ​the​ ​link​ ​has​ ​an​ ​ ​example​ ​value​ ​of​ ​2029.7​ ​psi.
It​ ​is​ ​noted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​stress​ ​is​ ​reported​ ​as​ ​1.15E5​ ​psi.​ ​This​ ​value
arose​ ​in​ ​an​ ​arbitrary​ ​position​ ​in​ ​the​ ​end​ ​link​ ​and​ ​may​ ​be​ ​due​ ​to​ ​computation​ ​error,
meshing​ ​inadequacies,​ ​or​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​convergence​ ​criteria.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​neglected​ ​due​ ​to
mechanical​ ​knowledge​ ​of​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​stress​ ​state​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge.

15
Figure​ ​17.​ ​Side​ ​view​ ​of​ ​highest​ ​stress​ ​area​ ​in​ ​first​ ​link​ ​from​ ​table.

Figure​ ​18.​ ​Stress​ ​located​ ​at​ ​site​ ​of​ ​weight​ ​application​ ​(end​ ​bar).

Figure​ ​19.​ ​Cross​ ​sectional​ ​cut​ ​at​ ​highest​ ​stress​ ​area.


This​ ​is​ ​located​ ​in​ ​the​ ​first​ ​link​ ​from​ ​table.

16
Failure​ ​Analysis
When​ ​calculating​ ​the​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​for​ ​material​ ​failure​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge,​ ​it​ ​is
assumed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​acts​ ​as​ ​a​ ​perfect​ ​cantilever​ ​beam.​ ​The​ ​Free​ ​Body​ ​Diagram
can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​the​ ​figure​ ​below:

Figure​ ​20.​ ​Free​ ​Body​ ​diagram​ ​simplification​ ​of​ ​1​ ​arm

The​ ​failure​ ​was​ ​calculated​ ​for​ ​one​ ​arm​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​so​ ​it​ ​is​ ​assumed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​50lb
load​ ​is​ ​distributed​ ​perfectly​ ​in​ ​half​ ​for​ ​the​ ​bridge.​ ​The​ ​smallest​ ​I​ ​value​ ​was​ ​assumed
to​ ​ensure​ ​a​ ​conservative​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety.​ ​The​ ​height​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​is​ ​assumed​ ​to​ ​be
1.2in​ ​and​ ​the​ ​width​ ​is​ ​assumed​ ​to​ ​be​ ​.25in.​ ​Therefore​ ​the​ ​second​ ​moment​ ​of​ ​inertia​ ​I
can​ ​be​ ​calculated​ ​:
I = b * h3 ∖12 =​ ​0.036​ ​ in4
The​ ​maximum​ ​moment​ ​can​ ​be​ ​found​ ​for​ ​one​ ​arm​ ​by​ ​multiplying​ ​the​ ​25lb​ ​force
experienced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​length​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​:
M max = F * l = 750 lb * in
With​ ​these​ ​two​ ​values,​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​stress​ ​can​ ​be​ ​found​ ​for​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​:
σ max = MI y = 12500 psi
The​ ​yield​ ​strength​ ​of​ ​the​ ​aluminium​ ​is​ ​assumed​ ​to​ ​be​ ​standard​ ​35000​ ​psi,​ ​therefore
the​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​for​ ​the​ ​arm​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​can​ ​be​ ​found​ ​:
n = 35000/12500 = 2.8
In​ ​Ansys​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​stress​ ​was​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be​ ​15000​ ​psi,​ ​making​ ​the​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety
found​ ​to​ ​be​ ​2.33.​ ​Factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​calculated​ ​using​ ​Ansys​ ​is​ ​expected​ ​to​ ​be​ ​lower
than​ ​calculated​ ​as​ ​perfect​ ​cantilever​ ​due​ ​to​ ​Ansys​ ​considering​ ​more​ ​geometrical
factors,​ ​and​ ​is​ ​calculating​ ​the​ ​stress​ ​due​ ​to​ ​torsion​ ​and​ ​shear,​ ​not​ ​only​ ​bending.
Therefore​ ​it​ ​is​ ​expected​ ​that​ ​these​ ​values​ ​are​ ​different​ ​and​ ​FS​ ​to​ ​be​ ​lower
considering​ ​higher​ ​stress​ ​is​ ​calculated​ ​in​ ​Ansys.​ ​To​ ​find​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​allowable
force,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​assumed​ ​that​ ​35000​ ​psi​ ​of​ ​stress​ ​is​ ​experienced​ ​on​ ​the​ ​bridge.​ ​Then,
solving​ ​backwards​ ​the​ ​max​ ​theoretical​ ​allowable​ ​force​ ​is​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be​ ​140lbs.​ ​This​ ​is
a​ ​very​ ​conservative​ ​estimate​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​conservative​ ​geometrical​ ​estimates​ ​made​ ​for
this​ ​arm.

17
Deflection​ ​was​ ​found​ ​theoretically​ ​using​ ​Castigliano’s​ ​method​ ​for​ ​a​ ​cantilever​ ​beam
with​ ​load​ ​F​ ​at​ ​the​ ​end​ ​and​ ​a​ ​Young’s​ ​Modulus​ ​of​ ​E​ ​=​ ​10,000​ ​ksi:
F *L3
δ= 3*E *I
= 1.25​ ​in
The​ ​total​ ​deflection​ ​was​ ​found​ ​theoretically​ ​to​ ​be​ ​1.25​ ​in​ ​for​ ​one​ ​arm.​ ​In​ ​ansys,​ ​the
total​ ​deflection​ ​was​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be​ ​0.44165​ ​for​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​bridge.​ ​The​ ​reason​ ​for​ ​this
difference​ ​may​ ​be​ ​because​ ​in​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​bridge​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​larger​ ​surface​ ​area​ ​that
supports​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​to​ ​the​ ​table.​ ​The​ ​theoretical​ ​calculation​ ​is​ ​a​ ​conservative
estimate.

For​ ​the​ ​end​ ​bar,​ ​which​ ​the​ ​50lb​ ​weight​ ​hangs​ ​on,​ ​the​ ​cylinder​ ​is​ ​assumed​ ​to​ ​be
simply​ ​supported.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​assumed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​50lb​ ​weight​ ​is​ ​placed​ ​exactly​ ​one​ ​half
the​ ​length​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bar​ ​away​ ​from​ ​the​ ​supports.​ ​The​ ​diameter​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bar​ ​is​ ​assumed​ ​to
be​ ​exactly​ ​0.386in.​ ​The​ ​free​ ​body​ ​diagram​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bar​ ​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​below:

Figure​ ​21.​ ​Free​ ​body​ ​diagram​ ​simplification​ ​of​ ​the​ ​end​ ​bar

The​ ​maximum​ ​moment​ ​of​ ​this​ ​system​ ​can​ ​be​ ​found​ ​:


M max = F * l/4 = 125 lb * in
From​ ​this​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​stress​ ​in​ ​the​ ​bar​ ​can​ ​be​ ​found​ ​:
σ max = 32π *dM3 = 19894.4 psi
*
The​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​can​ ​the​ ​be​ ​calculated​ ​for​ ​the​ ​aluminum​ ​bar​ ​and​ ​is​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be:
n = 35000/19894 = 1.76
In​ ​Ansys​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​stress​ ​found​ ​in​ ​the​ ​bar​ ​was​ ​16000​ ​psi​ ​This​ ​values​ ​yields​ ​a
safety​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​2.187​ ​which​ ​is​ ​not​ ​expected​ ​due​ ​to​ ​Ansys​ ​considering​ ​all​ ​stresses​ ​on
the​ ​bar​ ​not​ ​just​ ​bending​ ​which​ ​is​ ​what​ ​we​ ​assumed​ ​in​ ​this​ ​calculation.​ ​The​ ​error
could​ ​be​ ​due​ ​to​ ​an​ ​error​ ​in​ ​the​ ​stress​ ​application​ ​in​ ​Ansys​ ​or​ ​could​ ​be​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the
conservative​ ​assumptions​ ​made​ ​by​ ​the​ ​theoretical​ ​maximum​ ​stress​ ​calculations.​ ​The
reason​ ​could​ ​also​ ​be​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​assumption​ ​of​ ​a​ ​simply​ ​supported​ ​beam​ ​with​ ​two
point​ ​reaction​ ​forces.​ ​In​ ​Ansys​ ​the​ ​load​ ​is​ ​distributed​ ​on​ ​the​ ​end​ ​link​ ​and​ ​this​ ​beam
will​ ​not​ ​receive​ ​as​ ​high​ ​of​ ​a​ ​stress​ ​compared​ ​to​ ​a​ ​simply​ ​supported​ ​beam.​ ​The

18
maximum​ ​allowable​ ​force​ ​allowed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​end​ ​bar​ ​is​ ​found​ ​using​ ​35000​ ​psi​ ​as​ ​the
stress​ ​that​ ​occurs​ ​on​ ​the​ ​bar,​ ​when​ ​doing​ ​this​ ​it​ ​is​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​allowable
force​ ​on​ ​the​ ​bar​ ​is​ ​88lbs.​ ​This​ ​approximation​ ​assumes​ ​a​ ​perfectly​ ​centered​ ​load,
therefore​ ​in​ ​reality​ ​it​ ​may​ ​vary.​ ​The​ ​deflection​ ​in​ ​the​ ​bar​ ​was​ ​found​ ​using
Castigliano’s​ ​method​ ​for​ ​a​ ​simply​ ​supported​ ​beam​ ​experiencing​ ​bending​ ​and
transverse​ ​shear​ ​force​ ​to​ ​be:
F *L3 3*F *L
δ= 48*E *I
+ 10*G*A
=​ ​ ​0.435516​ ​in
A​ ​Young’s​ ​modulus​ ​of​ ​10,000​ ​ksi​ ​was​ ​used.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be​ ​0.00109,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​G​ ​of
3770​ ​was​ ​used.​ ​The​ ​total​ ​deflection​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bar​ ​was​ ​found​ ​theoretically​ ​to​ ​be
0.435516​ ​inches.​ ​ ​The​ ​deflection​ ​found​ ​in​ ​the​ ​bar​ ​using​ ​Ansys​ ​was​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be
0.17133​ ​inches​ ​which​ ​was​ ​expected​ ​since​ ​the​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​was​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be​ ​higher
than​ ​the​ ​theoretical​ ​valued.

19
Fatigue​ ​Analysis
Fatigue​ ​refers​ ​to​ ​the​ ​issues​ ​that​ ​arise​ ​from​ ​excessive​ ​working​ ​time.​ ​Fatigue
has​ ​led​ ​to​ ​bridges​ ​failure​ ​throughout​ ​time​ ​and​ ​is​ ​a​ ​vital​ ​component​ ​to​ ​the​ ​engineering
of​ ​the​ ​bridge.​ ​Engineers​ ​have​ ​used​ ​numerous​ ​methods​ ​to​ ​determine​ ​fatigue​ ​life.​ ​For
simplification​ ​purposes​ ​the​ ​stress-life​ ​method​ ​was​ ​used​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​calculate​ ​Fatigue.
Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge​ ​was​ ​constructed​ ​using​ ​6061-Aluminum.​ ​Fatigue​ ​can​ ​occur​ ​at
any​ ​point​ ​in​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​but​ ​is​ ​more​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​begin​ ​at​ ​the​ ​location​ ​of​ ​maximum​ ​stress.
To​ ​find​ ​this​ ​location​ ​ANSYS​ ​workbench​ ​was​ ​used.​ ​Fatigue​ ​analysis​ ​was​ ​conducted
at​ ​the​ ​two​ ​maximum​ ​stress​ ​locations​ ​found​ ​in​ ​figures​ ​17​ ​and​ ​18.
The​ ​first​ ​step​ ​when​ ​conducting​ ​fatigue​ ​is​ ​to​ ​calculate​ ​the​ ​fatigue​ ​factor​ ​of
safety​ ​using​ ​the​ ​equation:

6061​ ​Aluminum​ ​ultimate​ ​tensile​ ​strength​ ​is​ ​45,000​ ​psi.​ ​ ​For​ ​simplification​ ​purposes
σ min was​ ​assumed​ ​to​ ​be​ ​zero​ ​even​ ​though​ ​that​ ​is​ ​impossible​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​weight​ ​of​ ​the
bridge​ ​creating​ ​a​ ​force.​ ​Because​ ​ σ min =​ ​0​ ​ ​ σ a = σ m which​ ​is​ ​equal​ ​to​ ​the​ ​stress​ ​at​ ​that
point​ ​divided​ ​by​ ​2.​ ​At​ ​both​ ​maximum​ ​stress​ ​locations​ ​the​ ​stress​ ​was​ ​averaged​ ​with
using​ ​values​ ​from​ ​three​ ​different​ ​probes.
The​ ​last​ ​unknown​ ​variable​ ​for​ ​calculating​ ​the​ ​fatigue​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​is
calculating​ ​the​ ​endurance​ ​limit​ ​ S e .​ ​The​ ​endurance​ ​limit​ ​is​ ​obtained​ ​using​ ​the
equation​ ​below.
​ ​ S e = k a k b k c k d k e k f S ′e
S ′e is​ ​derived​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Ultimate​ ​tensile​ ​strength​ ​of​ ​the​ ​material.​ ​If​ ​ S ut < 200kpsi
S ′e = .5S ut = 22500 psi.​ ​ ​ ​ k a is​ ​the​ ​surface​ ​factor​ ​that​ ​depends​ ​on​ ​the​ ​surface​ ​finish​ ​and
the​ ​ultimate​ ​strength.​ ​Both​ ​maximum​ ​stress​ ​locations​ ​are​ ​on​ ​the​ ​surface​ ​of​ ​the
material.​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​compute​ ​the​ ​surface​ ​factor​ ​parameters​ ​a​ ​and​ ​b​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be
obtained​ ​from​ ​figure​ ​21​ ​below.
​ ​ ​ ​ k a = aS ut b

Figure​ ​21:​ ​Parameter​ ​for​ ​main​ ​surface​ ​modification​ ​factor

20
All​ ​of​ ​the​ ​components​ ​in​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge​ ​were​ ​machined​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​a​ ​surface
modification​ ​factor​ ​a​ ​value​ ​of​ ​.157.​ ​ k b is​ ​found​ ​using​ ​a​ ​converted​ ​diameter​ ​to​ ​using
the​ ​rectangular​ ​section​ ​equivalent​ ​diameter​ ​equation​ ​shown​ ​below​ ​where​ ​ h ​ ​&​ ​ b ​ ​are
the​ ​cross​ ​sectional​ ​area​ ​of​ ​the​ ​beam​ ​shown​ ​in​ ​figure​ ​19.

de = 0.808(hb)1/2

After​ ​solving​ ​for​ ​the​ ​diameter​ ​ de ,​ ​ k b is​ ​obtained​ ​using​ ​figure​ ​22.

Figure​ ​22:​ ​Piecewise​ ​size​ ​factor​ ​calculation

For​ ​the​ ​remaining​ ​factors​ ​contributing​ ​to​ ​the​ ​endurance​ ​limit​ ​assumptions
about​ ​the​ ​structure​ ​must​ ​be​ ​made.​ ​ k c is​ ​the​ ​loading​ ​factor​ ​and​ ​can​ ​have​ ​three
different​ ​values.​ ​The​ ​assumption​ ​for​ ​the​ ​loading​ ​factor​ ​is​ ​that​ ​bending​ ​was​ ​the​ ​only
load​ ​type​ ​present​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​a​ ​ k c value​ ​of​ ​one.​ ​The​ ​temperature​ ​factor​ ​ k d = 1 if
ultimate​ ​strength​ ​is​ ​known​ ​at​ ​operating​ ​temperature.​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​bridge​ ​will​ ​be
assumed​ ​to​ ​only​ ​be​ ​used​ ​at​ ​room​ ​temperature.​ ​Lastly​ ​the​ ​reliability​ ​factor​ ​has​ ​many
miscellaneous​ ​effects.​ ​For​ ​Simplifying​ ​data​ ​50%​ ​reliability​ ​is​ ​assumed​ ​equating​ ​to​ ​a
reliability​ ​factor​ ​ k e .​ ​It​ ​is​ ​important​ ​to​ ​note​ ​that​ ​50%​ ​reliability​ ​only​ ​adjusts
assumptions​ ​for​ ​factors​ ​contributing​ ​to​ ​the​ ​reliability​ ​factor​ ​not​ ​the​ ​imply​ ​overall
reliability.​ ​The​ ​values​ ​of​ ​all​ ​factors​ ​assumed​ ​to​ ​be​ ​contributing​ ​to​ ​the​ ​endurance​ ​limit
on​ ​the​ ​first​ ​link​ ​are​ ​shown​ ​below.

S ′e = 22500 psi

k a = .157

k b = .969

kc = kd = ke = kf = 1

S e = 3422.99 psi

Figure​ ​17​ ​focuses​ ​on​ ​the​ ​stress​ ​in​ ​the​ ​first​ ​link,​ ​in​ ​contrast​ ​Figure​ ​18​ ​displays
the​ ​maximum​ ​stress​ ​created​ ​in​ ​the​ ​end​ ​bar.​ ​The​ ​only​ ​factor​ ​that​ ​changes​ ​when
conducting​ ​the​ ​endurance​ ​limit​ ​is​ ​the​ ​size​ ​factor.​ ​After​ ​using​ ​the​ ​round​ ​diameter​ ​for
the​ ​end​ ​bar​ ​ k b = .973 ​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​a​ ​endurance​ ​limit​ ​value​ ​of​ ​ S e = 3439.46 psi.

21
After​ ​conducting​ ​the​ ​endurance​ ​limit​ ​calculating​ ​the​ ​fatigue​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​will
allow​ ​one​ ​to​ ​conclude​ ​if​ ​the​ ​fatigue​ ​life​ ​is​ ​finite​ ​or​ ​infinite.​ ​The​ ​fatigue​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety
found​ ​in​ ​the​ ​first​ ​link​ ​is​ ​equal​ ​to​ ​.253​ ​as​ ​opposed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​end​ ​bars​ ​fatigue​ ​factor
equaling​ ​.255.​ ​Both​ ​of​ ​the​ ​fatigue​ ​factors​ ​are​ ​less​ ​than​ ​one​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​a​ ​finite​ ​fatigue
lifetime.​ ​In​ ​addition​ ​to​ ​the​ ​calculated​ ​fatigue​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​a​ ​ANSYS​ ​solution​ ​of
fatigue​ ​safety​ ​factor​ ​was​ ​conducted​ ​and​ ​is​ ​shown​ ​below.

Using​ ​the​ ​equations​ ​below​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​cycles​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​can​ ​withstand
before​ ​fatigue​ ​life​ ​runs​ ​out​ ​can​ ​be​ ​calculated.

Where​ ​ f is​ ​the​ ​fatigue​ ​strength​ ​fraction​ ​acquired​ ​from​ ​the​ ​graph​ ​below​ ​using
are​ ​corresponding​ ​ S ut .

Figure​ ​23.​ ​Fatigue​ ​strength​ ​fraction​ ​graph

After​ ​obtaining​ ​our​ ​ f value​ ​it​ ​is​ ​now​ ​possible​ ​to​ ​equate​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​cycles
Miles​ ​bridges​ ​bridge​ ​can​ ​withhold.​ ​After​ ​using​ ​the​ ​equations​ ​above​ ​it​ ​is​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the

22
first​ ​link​ ​could​ ​withstand​ ​ 3.5 * 103 cycles​ ​and​ ​the​ ​end​ ​bar​ ​could​ ​withstand​ ​ 3.7 * 103
cycles.

Figure​ ​24:​ ​Fatigue​ ​Safety​ ​Factor.

All​ ​values​ ​of​ ​a​ ​safety​ ​factor​ ​below​ ​one​ ​are​ ​shown​ ​in​ ​red.​ ​From​ ​Figure​ ​24​ ​it​ ​is
fair​ ​to​ ​say​ ​that​ ​fatigue​ ​life​ ​is​ ​finite​ ​for​ ​just​ ​a​ ​very​ ​small​ ​critical​ ​are​ ​in​ ​the​ ​first​ ​link​ ​and
the​ ​end​ ​bar.​ ​While​ ​ANSYS​ ​calculation​ ​are​ ​not​ ​always​ ​correct,​ ​the​ ​change​ ​in​ ​colors​ ​is
a​ ​great​ ​visualization​ ​of​ ​where​ ​these​ ​critical​ ​locations​ ​on​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​are.​ ​The​ ​critical
location​ ​of​ ​the​ ​first​ ​link​ ​is​ ​around​ ​the​ ​hole​ ​where​ ​the​ ​screws​ ​of​ ​the​ ​base​ ​hinges​ ​come
into​ ​contact​ ​with​ ​that​ ​first​ ​link.​ ​As​ ​expected​ ​the​ ​fatigue​ ​life​ ​is​ ​shortest​ ​on​ ​the​ ​end​ ​rod
where​ ​the​ ​location​ ​of​ ​the​ ​force​ ​is​ ​located.

23
Cost​ ​Analysis
Cost​ ​for​ ​all​ ​necessary​ ​manufactured​ ​components​ ​was​ ​estimated​ ​to​ ​be
$577.88​ ​dollars.​ ​The​ ​national​ ​average​ ​hourly​ ​rate​ ​of​ ​machinists​ ​of​ ​$18.82​ ​dollars
was​ ​used​ ​in​ ​calculating​ ​manufacturing​ ​costs.​ ​Aluminum​ ​was​ ​the​ ​the​ ​only​ ​raw
material​ ​purchased​ ​and​ ​estimates​ ​were​ ​received​ ​from​ ​Midwest​ ​Steel​ ​and​ ​Aluminum.
All​ ​bolts​ ​and​ ​springs​ ​were​ ​priced​ ​from​ ​Home​ ​Depot.​ ​The​ ​price​ ​estimation​ ​is
considered​ ​to​ ​be​ ​accurate​ ​and​ ​the​ ​total​ ​cost​ ​is​ ​low​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​simplicity​ ​of​ ​parts​ ​and
low​ ​volume​ ​of​ ​material
Table​ ​2:​ ​Breakdown​ ​of​ ​Production​ ​Costs
Component #​ ​of Material​ ​Cost Time​ ​to​ ​Manufacture Cost​ ​per
parts per​ ​part​ (​ dollars) per​ ​part​ ​(hours) part​ ​(dollars)

Base​ ​Plate 2 $10.69 1.5 $38.98

Left​ ​Hinge 2 $3.37 2 $41.09

Right​ ​Hinge 2 $3.37 2 $41.09

First​ ​Link 2 $2.28 1.5 $30.51

Second​ ​Link 2 $4.38 2 $42.02

Third​ ​Link 2 $2.53 1 $21.35

Final​ ​Link 2 $2.19 1.5 $30.42

Connecting​ ​Rod 4 $1.25 .25 $5.96

Deployment​ ​Aid 1 $6.90 1 $25.72

5/16" Bolts 4 $0.44 0 $0.44

1/4" ​ ​Bolts 9 $0.34 0 $0.34

3/16" Bolts 8 $0.15 0 $0.15

3/16" ​ ​Eye​ ​Hook 1 $1.18 0 $1.18

4”​ ​Spring 6 $1.99 0 $1.99

1’​ ​Spring 3 $6.24 0 $6.24

Totals 50 $107.38 25 $577.88

24
Marketing​ ​Considerations

Figure​ ​25.​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge​ ​logo

Elevator​ ​pitch
We’d​ ​like​ ​to​ ​introduce​ ​you​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​bridge.​ ​We​ ​were​ ​truly​ ​inspired
by​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges’​ ​performance​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basketball​ ​court​ ​last​ ​season,​ ​and​ ​we​ ​were
ecstatic​ ​to​ ​see​ ​his​ ​skillset​ ​return​ ​this​ ​year.​ ​Thus,​ ​we​ ​wanted​ ​to​ ​embody​ ​his​ ​expert
sportsmanship​ ​into​ ​this​ ​beautiful​ ​crafted​ ​deployable​ ​bridge.​ ​A​ ​lightweight
powerhouse​ ​weighing​ ​in​ ​at​ ​only​ ​7.8​ ​lbs,​ ​it​ ​can​ ​be​ ​easily​ ​transported​ ​to​ ​wherever​ ​it​ ​is
needed.​ ​Our​ ​engineers​ ​worked​ ​with​ ​designers​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​a​ ​minimalistic,​ ​yet
reinforced​ ​and​ ​safe,​ ​deployable​ ​bridge.​ ​Finely​ ​crafted​ ​aluminum​ ​links​ ​help​ ​cut​ ​costs
and​ ​lower​ ​weight,​ ​but​ ​utilize​ ​a​ ​unique​ ​geometry​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​extra​ ​support​ ​at​ ​the​ ​joints.
Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​may​ ​sink​ ​3’s,​ ​but​ ​our​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​does​ ​just​ ​the​ ​opposite​ ​of​ ​sinking
and​ ​can​ ​hold​ ​an​ ​approximated​ ​140​ ​lbs.​ ​ ​Our​ ​bridge​ ​is​ ​a​ ​real​ ​slam​ ​dunk,​ ​and​ ​we​ ​urge
you​ ​to​ ​support​ ​your​ ​Michigan​ ​State​ ​Spartans​ ​Basketball​ ​team​ ​by​ ​supporting​ ​the
Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge.

25
Drawings​ ​of​ ​Final​ ​Design

Figure​ ​26.​ ​Dimensioned​ ​Base​ ​Plate

Figure​ ​27.​ ​Dimensioned​ ​Left​ ​Hinge


26
Figure​ ​28.​ ​Dimensioned​ ​Right​ ​Hinge

Figure​ ​29.​ ​Dimensioned​ ​First​ ​Link


27
Figure​ ​30.​ ​Dimensioned​ ​Second​ ​Link

Figure​ ​31.​ ​Dimensioned​ ​Third​ ​Link


28
Figure​ ​32.​ ​Dimensioned​ ​Final​ ​Link

​ ​Figure​ ​33.​ ​Dimensioned​ ​Connecting​ ​Bar


29
Figure​ ​34.​ ​Dimensioned​ ​Deployment​ ​Aid

Figure​ ​35.​ ​Isometric​ ​Assembly​ ​View


30
Installation​ ​and​ ​Operation​ ​Instructions

1.​ ​Install​ ​the​ ​base​ ​plate​ ​onto​ ​the​ ​table​ ​with​ ​5/16”-2”​ ​bolts​ ​in​ ​the​ ​holes​ ​indicated​ ​in​ ​the
picture​ ​below.

Figure​ ​36.

2.​ ​Install​ ​deployment​ ​bracket​ ​onto​ ​the​ ​base​ ​plate​ ​using​ ​two​ ​1/4"-1/4"​ ​bolt​ ​and​ ​1/4"​ ​lug
nut

Figure​ ​37.

31
3.​ ​Load​ ​spring​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​the​ ​hinge​ ​bracket​ ​onto​ ​the​ ​bolt​ ​installed​ ​on​ ​the
deployment​ ​bracket​ ​indicated​ ​below.

Figure​ ​38.
4.​ ​Install​ ​motor​ ​adaptor​ ​onto​ ​the​ ​motor​ ​pinion​ ​by​ ​tightening​ ​four​ ​1/4"-2”​ ​bolts​ ​through
the​ ​four​ ​adaptor​ ​holes​ ​and​ ​onto​ ​the​ ​motor​ ​pinion.

Figure​ ​39.

32
5.​ ​Close​ ​up​ ​bridge​ ​to​ ​its​ ​starting​ ​position​ ​as​ ​shown​ ​below.​ ​Keep​ ​cable​ ​in​ ​tension​ ​by
winding​ ​cable​ ​around​ ​motor​ ​adaptor.

Figure​ ​40.
6.​ ​Turn​ ​on​ ​motor​ ​in​ ​the​ ​direction​ ​that​ ​releases​ ​the​ ​cable​ ​to​ ​deploy​ ​the​ ​bridge

33
Recommendations
With​ ​any​ ​design,​ ​process,​ ​or​ ​product,​ ​there​ ​are​ ​always​ ​opportunities​ ​to
innovate​ ​and​ ​improve.​ ​No​ ​matter​ ​how​ ​well​ ​something​ ​is​ ​designed,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​always
something​ ​that​ ​can​ ​be​ ​refined​ ​or​ ​even​ ​changed​ ​entirely​ ​to​ ​benefit​ ​the​ ​final​ ​product.
After​ ​all,​ ​continuous​ ​improvement​ ​is​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cornerstones​ ​of​ ​the​ ​industry​ ​quality
standard,​ ​LEAN​ ​manufacturing.​ ​For​ ​a​ ​physical​ ​product​ ​like​ ​the​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge,
possible​ ​improvements​ ​that​ ​come​ ​to​ ​mind​ ​surround​ ​the​ ​small​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​design
and​ ​manufacturing​ ​process.
One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​easiest​ ​improvements​ ​that​ ​can​ ​be​ ​made​ ​to​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​deals​ ​with
the​ ​overall​ ​appearance.​ ​If​ ​this​ ​product​ ​ever​ ​went​ ​to​ ​market,​ ​a​ ​simple​ ​but​ ​effective
improvement​ ​that​ ​could​ ​be​ ​added​ ​to​ ​the​ ​manufacturing​ ​process​ ​would​ ​be​ ​polishing
or​ ​painting​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​to​ ​make​ ​it​ ​more​ ​visually​ ​appealing.​ ​This​ ​would​ ​not​ ​add​ ​much​ ​in
terms​ ​of​ ​manufacturing​ ​time​ ​or​ ​cost​ ​and​ ​would​ ​drastically​ ​increase​ ​the​ ​marketability
of​ ​the​ ​product.​ ​If​ ​this​ ​bridge​ ​was​ ​going​ ​up​ ​against​ ​a​ ​similarly​ ​priced​ ​/​ ​effective​ ​bridge,
adding​ ​sleek​ ​finish​ ​would​ ​give​ ​the​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge​ ​an​ ​edge​ ​to​ ​beat​ ​out​ ​the
competition.
Another​ ​improvement​ ​that​ ​can​ ​be​ ​made​ ​would​ ​be​ ​to​ ​decrease​ ​the​ ​overall
weight​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge.​ ​Weighing​ ​in​ ​at​ ​just​ ​7.8​ ​lbs,​ ​The​ ​Mile​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge’s​ ​design​ ​is
already​ ​lighter​ ​than​ ​most​ ​of​ ​its​ ​competitors.​ ​However​ ​there​ ​are​ ​definitely​ ​areas​ ​where
this​ ​weight​ ​can​ ​be​ ​decreased.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​the​ ​area​ ​of​ ​each​ ​base​ ​plate​ ​connector,
mainly​ ​around​ ​the​ ​mounting​ ​bolts,​ ​could​ ​be​ ​decreased.​ ​Another​ ​easy​ ​area​ ​where​ ​the
material​ ​used​ ​could​ ​be​ ​decreased​ ​would​ ​be​ ​the​ ​connecting​ ​rods.​ ​For​ ​this​ ​design,
stock​ ​threaded​ ​rods​ ​were​ ​used​ ​for​ ​three​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cross​ ​members.​ ​To​ ​decrease​ ​weight,
the​ ​ends​ ​of​ ​these​ ​rods​ ​could​ ​be​ ​trimmed​ ​exactly​ ​to​ ​size​ ​for​ ​the​ ​nuts​ ​to​ ​fit​ ​snugly​ ​on
the​ ​edges.​ ​To​ ​find​ ​specific​ ​areas​ ​where​ ​excess​ ​material​ ​can​ ​be​ ​removed​ ​without
changing​ ​the​ ​overall​ ​design,​ ​more​ ​in-depth​ ​FEA​ ​would​ ​have​ ​to​ ​be​ ​run.
When​ ​manufacturing​ ​future​ ​prototypes,​ ​higher​ ​manufacturing​ ​accuracy​ ​could
improve​ ​the​ ​deflection​ ​and​ ​strength​ ​of​ ​our​ ​bridge​ ​without​ ​changing​ ​the​ ​design​ ​at​ ​all.
While​ ​the​ ​dimensions​ ​of​ ​our​ ​physical​ ​parts​ ​are​ ​extremely​ ​close​ ​to​ ​the​ ​CAD​ ​design,​ ​it
is​ ​difficult​ ​for​ ​us​ ​as​ ​students​ ​to​ ​match​ ​the​ ​accuracy​ ​of​ ​a​ ​professional​ ​machinist​ ​or
CNC​ ​mill.​ ​More​ ​precise​ ​parts​ ​would​ ​improve​ ​the​ ​fit​ ​between​ ​each​ ​link​ ​and​ ​decrease
any​ ​initial​ ​sag​ ​our​ ​current​ ​design​ ​has.​ ​As​ ​precision​ ​increases,​ ​the​ ​closer​ ​our​ ​product
will​ ​be​ ​to​ ​the​ ​theoretical.​ ​However,​ ​it​ ​should​ ​be​ ​taken​ ​into​ ​consideration​ ​that
increasing​ ​precision​ ​can​ ​increase​ ​cost​ ​and​ ​the​ ​benefits​ ​of​ ​each​ ​variable​ ​should​ ​be
optimized​ ​for​ ​a​ ​production​ ​part.
It​ ​has​ ​been​ ​noted​ ​that​ ​CNC​ ​milling​ ​is​ ​more​ ​precise​ ​than​ ​machine​ ​by​ ​hand.​ ​It​ ​is
also​ ​important​ ​to​ ​note​ ​that​ ​CNC​ ​milling​ ​is​ ​much​ ​faster.​ ​Any​ ​additional​ ​costs​ ​garnered
by​ ​increased​ ​precision​ ​would​ ​be​ ​negligible​ ​compared​ ​to​ ​the​ ​costs​ ​saved​ ​by
automating​ ​the​ ​machining​ ​process.​ ​If​ ​properly​ ​implemented,​ ​production​ ​time​ ​for​ ​all​ ​of
the​ ​aluminum​ ​parts​ ​could​ ​be​ ​cut​ ​from​ ​the​ ​current​ ​~25​ ​hours​ ​to​ ​about​ ​an​ ​hour​ ​or​ ​two
depending​ ​on​ ​the​ ​size​ ​of​ ​the​ ​CNC​ ​mill.​ ​A​ ​drop​ ​in​ ​production​ ​time​ ​of​ ​this​ ​magnitude
would​ ​significantly​ ​decrease​ ​the​ ​cost.

34
On​ ​the​ ​theoretical​ ​side​ ​of​ ​things​ ​improvements​ ​could​ ​be​ ​made​ ​to​ ​our​ ​analysis
as​ ​well.​ ​With​ ​more​ ​time​ ​and​ ​research,​ ​our​ ​analysis​ ​calculations​ ​could​ ​be​ ​more
accurate​ ​as​ ​many​ ​assumptions​ ​were​ ​made​ ​to​ ​obtain​ ​our​ ​current​ ​results.​ ​Our​ ​biggest
issue​ ​was​ ​figuring​ ​out​ ​where​ ​to​ ​start​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​ensuring​ ​the​ ​right​ ​equations​ ​were
used.​ ​In​ ​a​ ​professional​ ​environment,​ ​a​ ​company​ ​would​ ​ideally​ ​have​ ​a​ ​standard
procedure​ ​to​ ​perform​ ​this​ ​analysis​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​proper​ ​computer​ ​software​ ​to​ ​do​ ​so.
Our​ ​kinematic,​ ​fatigue,​ ​and​ ​failure​ ​analysis​ ​were​ ​essentially​ ​done​ ​by​ ​hand.​ ​If​ ​we​ ​had
access​ ​or​ ​knowledge​ ​of​ ​the​ ​proper​ ​FEA​ ​/​ ​optimization​ ​software,​ ​these​ ​calculations
could​ ​be​ ​much​ ​more​ ​accurate​ ​with​ ​more​ ​iterations​ ​performed.​ ​Even​ ​with​ ​access​ ​to​ ​a
program​ ​like​ ​ANSYS,​ ​more​ ​accurate​ ​and​ ​realistic​ ​analysis​ ​could​ ​be​ ​performed​ ​if​ ​we
took​ ​a​ ​deeper​ ​dive​ ​into​ ​how​ ​to​ ​use​ ​the​ ​software.
Even​ ​further​ ​improvements​ ​in​ ​accuracy​ ​could​ ​be​ ​made​ ​doing​ ​tests​ ​and
analysis​ ​on​ ​the​ ​physical​ ​structure​ ​itself.​ ​Using​ ​an​ ​Instron​Ⓡ​​ ​compression​ ​testing
machine,​ ​we​ ​could​ ​experimentally​ ​determine​ ​the​ ​exact​ ​maximum​ ​weight​ ​our​ ​bridge
can​ ​handle​ ​by​ ​loading​ ​it​ ​until​ ​failure.​ ​After,​ ​the​ ​failure​ ​modes​ ​could​ ​be​ ​analyzed​ ​and
the​ ​data​ ​collected​ ​could​ ​be​ ​used​ ​to​ ​improve​ ​the​ ​design​ ​and​ ​strength​ ​of​ ​The​ ​Miles
Bridges​ ​Bridge.

35
Summary​ ​and​ ​Conclusions
After​ ​100+​ ​combined​ ​hours​ ​of​ ​work,​ ​our​ ​team​ ​was​ ​able​ ​to​ ​successfully​ ​design
and​ ​implement​ ​a​ ​deployable​ ​bridge​ ​that​ ​meets​ ​all​ ​of​ ​the​ ​project​ ​requirements​ ​stated
in​ ​the​ ​project​ ​description.​ ​When​ ​disconnected​ ​from​ ​the​ ​table,​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​fits​ ​inside​ ​a
10”x10”x15”​ ​box.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​mounted​ ​on​ ​the​ ​table​ ​using​ ​only​ ​four​ ​bolts,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​fully
deployed​ ​bridge​ ​reached​ ​30”​ ​away​ ​from​ ​the​ ​table.
The​ ​mass​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​was​ ​minimized​ ​to​ ​be​ ​7.8​ ​lbs.​ ​The​ ​calculated
deployment​ ​time​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Mile’s​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge​ ​is​ ​32.33​ ​seconds​ ​and​ ​the​ ​measured
time​ ​is​ ​38​ ​seconds.​ ​The​ ​theoretical​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​was​ ​calculated​ ​to​ ​be​ ​1.76​ ​while
the​ ​ANSYS​ ​analysis​ ​yielded​ ​a​ ​factor​ ​of​ ​safety​ ​of​ ​2.187.​ ​The​ ​total​ ​deflection​ ​of​ ​the
loaded​ ​bar​ ​was​ ​found​ ​theoretically​ ​to​ ​be​ ​0.435516​ ​inches.​ ​The​ ​deflection​ ​found​ ​in
the​ ​bar​ ​using​ ​Ansys​ ​was​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be​ ​0.17133​ ​inches.​ ​The​ ​actual​ ​deflection​ ​with​ ​a​ ​50
lb​ ​load​ ​is​ ​1​ ​inch,​ ​but​ ​most​ ​of​ ​that​ ​deflection​ ​was​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​bridge’s​ ​starting​ ​position
and​ ​not​ ​the​ ​material​ ​itself.​ ​The​ ​maximum​ ​theoretical​ ​weight​ ​of​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​is​ ​140​ ​lbs.
When​ ​our​ ​bridge​ ​was​ ​tested​ ​on​ ​Design​ ​Day,​ ​it​ ​held​ ​140​ ​lbs,​ ​and​ ​failed​ ​with​ ​160​ ​lbs,
verifying​ ​our​ ​theoretical​ ​data.​ ​The​ ​total​ ​calculated​ ​cost​ ​of​ ​ot​ ​the​ ​Miles​ ​Bridges​ ​Bridge,
including​ ​parts​ ​and​ ​labor,​ ​is​ ​$577.88.​ ​This​ ​cost​ ​can​ ​be​ ​reduced​ ​by​ ​automating​ ​the
manufacturing​ ​process​ ​and​ ​/​ ​or​ ​decreasing​ ​the​ ​material​ ​used​ ​for​ ​the​ ​bridge.
The​ ​main​ ​roadblock​ ​our​ ​team​ ​ran​ ​into​ ​occured​ ​when​ ​testing​ ​our​ ​initial
prototype.​ ​After​ ​the​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​prototype,​ ​testing​ ​on​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​revealed​ ​issues
with​ ​the​ ​design.​ ​The​ ​hinge​ ​system​ ​set​ ​the​ ​bridge​ ​at​ ​a​ ​step​ ​below​ ​the​ ​table,​ ​which
was​ ​deemed​ ​unacceptable​ ​by​ ​the​ ​professor.​ ​This​ ​problem​ ​was​ ​resolved​ ​by
redesigning​ ​the​ ​hinges​ ​to​ ​allow​ ​the​ ​links​ ​to​ ​sit​ ​higher​ ​up.​ ​The​ ​bridge​ ​also
experienced​ ​large​ ​amounts​ ​of​ ​deflection​ ​between​ ​each​ ​arm​ ​before​ ​loading​ ​which
was​ ​due​ ​to​ ​how​ ​the​ ​connector​ ​arms​ ​fit​ ​within​ ​the​ ​channeled​ ​arms.​ ​This​ ​problem​ ​was
resolved​ ​by​ ​redesigning​ ​the​ ​mid-links​ ​with​ ​notches​ ​on​ ​the​ ​bottom​ ​to​ ​maximize​ ​the
surface​ ​contact​ ​area.​ ​After​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​were​ ​made,​ ​our​ ​new​ ​prototype​ ​was​ ​tested
and​ ​passed​ ​with​ ​flying​ ​colors.​ ​This​ ​experience​ ​and​ ​the​ ​project​ ​as​ ​a​ ​whole​ ​taught​ ​us
the​ ​importance​ ​of​ ​making​ ​and​ ​testing​ ​prototype​ ​parts.​ ​While​ ​a​ ​design​ ​might​ ​be
perfect​ ​in​ ​a​ ​theoretical​ ​computer​ ​model,​ ​that​ ​is​ ​not​ ​always​ ​the​ ​case​ ​for​ ​the​ ​physical
model.​ ​The​ ​quick​ ​turnaround​ ​of​ ​a​ ​redesign,​ ​manufacturing,​ ​and​ ​testing​ ​of​ ​new​ ​parts
that​ ​worked​ ​demonstrated​ ​our​ ​group’s​ ​ability​ ​to​ ​problem​ ​solve​ ​on​ ​the​ ​fly.
This​ ​semester​ ​project​ ​had​ ​many​ ​similarities​ ​to​ ​a​ ​project​ ​that​ ​might​ ​be
assigned​ ​in​ ​the​ ​industry.​ ​Our​ ​group​ ​was​ ​given​ ​a​ ​set​ ​of​ ​requirements​ ​and​ ​constraints
to​ ​design​ ​a​ ​product​ ​and​ ​a​ ​deadline​ ​to​ ​complete​ ​it​ ​by.​ ​To​ ​accomplish​ ​this​ ​task,​ ​we
had​ ​to​ ​delegate​ ​work​ ​to​ ​each​ ​group​ ​member​ ​and​ ​each​ ​individual​ ​was​ ​responsible​ ​for
the​ ​success​ ​of​ ​the​ ​group.​ ​When​ ​curve​ ​balls​ ​were​ ​thrown,​ ​we​ ​adapted​ ​and​ ​adjusted
as​ ​necessary​ ​to​ ​meet​ ​the​ ​requirements.The​ ​skills​ ​developed,​ ​experiences,​ ​and​ ​the
lessons​ ​learned​ ​throughout​ ​the​ ​course​ ​of​ ​this​ ​project​ ​will​ ​be​ ​invaluable​ ​looking
forward​ ​to​ ​the​ ​future​ ​as​ ​we​ ​enter​ ​the​ ​workforce.

36
Appendix

Figure​ ​41.​ ​Bridge​ ​successfully​ ​holding​ ​50​ ​lbs​ ​with​ ​team​ ​members​ ​Zac​ ​Sadler​ ​and
Justin​ ​Barg​ ​cheering​ ​it​ ​on.

Figure​ ​42.​ ​Isometric​ ​view​ ​of​ ​NX​ ​CAD​ ​rendering​ ​of​ ​bridge​ ​in​ ​undeployed​ ​state.

37
Figure​ ​43.​ ​Front​ ​view​ ​of​ ​NX​ ​CAD​ ​rendering​ ​of​ ​bridge​ ​in​ ​undeployed​ ​state.

Figure​ ​44.​ ​Side​ ​view​ ​of​ ​NX​ ​CAD​ ​rendering​ ​of​ ​bridge​ ​in​ ​undeployed​ ​state.

38
Figure​ ​45.​ ​Isometric​ ​view​ ​of​ ​NX​ ​CAD​ ​rendering​ ​of​ ​bridge​ ​in​ ​deployed​ ​state.

Figure​ ​46.​ ​Exploded​ ​view​ ​of​ ​NX​ ​CAD​ ​rendering​ ​of​ ​bridge​ ​with​ ​labeled​ ​components.

39
Table​ ​3:​ ​Bill​ ​of​ ​Materials
Part Component Quantity Material
Number

1 Base​ ​Plate 2 Aluminum​ ​Alloy


6061

2 Left​ ​Hinge 2 Aluminum​ ​Alloy


6061

3 Right​ ​Hinge 2 Aluminum​ ​Alloy


6061

4 First​ ​Link 2 Aluminum​ ​Alloy


6061

5 Second​ ​Link 2 Aluminum​ ​Alloy


6061

6 Third​ ​Link 2 Aluminum​ ​Alloy


6061

7 Final​ ​Link 2 Aluminum​ ​Alloy


6061

8 Connecting​ ​Rod 4 Aluminum​ ​Alloy


6061

Figure​ ​47.​ ​Side​ ​view​ ​of​ ​NX​ ​CAD​ ​rendering​ ​of​ ​bridge​ ​in​ ​deployed​ ​state.

40
Figure​ ​48.​ ​Top​ ​view​ ​of​ ​NX​ ​CAD​ ​rendering​ ​of​ ​bridge​ ​in​ ​deployed​ ​state.

Figure​ ​49.​ ​Isometric​ ​view​ ​of​ ​stylized​ ​rendering​ ​of​ ​final​ ​bridge​ ​product​ ​in
undeployed​ ​state.

41
Figure​ ​50.​ ​Isometric​ ​view​ ​of​ ​stylized​ ​rendering​ ​of​ ​final​ ​bridge​ ​product​ ​in​ ​deployed
state.

Figure​ ​51.​ ​Side​ ​view​ ​of​ ​stylized​ ​rendering​ ​of​ ​final​ ​bridge​ ​product​ ​in​ ​deployed​ ​state.

42
Figure​ ​52.​ ​Close​ ​view​ ​of​ ​stylized​ ​rendering​ ​of​ ​final​ ​bridge​ ​product​ ​in​ ​deployed​ ​state.

43