Student name: Jonathan O Dwyer

Student id: 18233643

Group: A7

Trigger Brief 2:
Design and build a structure capable of safely
carrying a load of 500 grams.
Summary:
Our design is based on a cantilever beam with an overall span of 1.97 meters
and 1.2 meters being cantilevered. Originally our design was based around
cable-stayed bridges like the Samuel Beckett bridge in Dublin. However, this
design was gradually changed to resemble a cantilever bridge with trusses
instead of cables. We found that this gave more support and strength for the
longer members. Due to this design a counter weight must be used to created
equilibrium. Our design also features very low tension in its members relative
to both the weight and length of members under tension, resulting in a low
utilization in our tension members. However, in contrast there is a high-
tension force in some members causing a high degree of utilization in the same
members.

The Samuel Beckett

bridge which our
first iteration is
based off

Throughout the brief we have learned a lot about the key areas in structural
analysis. Firstly, we learned how to correctly calculate a detailed analytical
design of a structure, using equilibrium of the forces to find the forces acting
on each member. We then tested a material for its strength in tension and
compression, for our brief we tested paper straws of two different diameters,
4mm and 6mm. We combined these two areas to calculate the utilization
present in each member and the factor of safety present in a structure. During
the brief we also learned which designs are better suited for support and
stability such as trusses and why they would be used, in the case of a truss its
triangular shape makes it hard to bend out of shape. All of these contributed
gave us a greater understanding of how to carry out a structural analysis of a
structure.
Evolution of Design:
The first iteration of our design for our brief started out based on a previous
model we tested. This iteration is inspired by cable-stayed bridges such as the
Samuel Beckett bridge in Dublin. This type of model was previously tested
under a weight of 500 grams loaded at one point with an overall shorter length
then in brief 2. Under these conditions the model failed around 900 grams. We
observed that this failure occurred in some members that acted as supports
for the cantilevered part of our model due to the high compression in the
members, causing them to buckle upwards . We decided to change the design
taking the buckling at the failure point GD into consideration. Another problem
found in this design was the large forces that were found in most of our
members were, when looking at the length of the members the forces were
acting upon, prone to failure.

We decided to change our first iteration by replacing the cables found in our
first design with a series of increasing in size trusses. This choice was made so
to stop the buckling from occurring by using trusses due to their structural
stability. However, in this second iteration the forces found in the members
were still too large for the members length in both tension, such as in the
members AE and ED, and in compression in member CE. To try to lessen the
forces on some members we spread out the load the structure was carrying
onto three points.

In order to lessen the forces found on some members we decided to try to

spread out the load from one point to three separate points along the bottom
member CD. This mostly fixed the issue of high forces specifically along the
member ED going from 7.2 newtons to 2.43 newtons and distributing the rest
of the force along the member CD, as well as lowering the forces of the
members in joint A. However, the force in member CE remained too high and

considering the length of the member is 550 mm, this member is a clear
failure point.
 We decided instead of trying to decrease the force in member CL by changing
the design we instead decided in the fourth iteration our design to lower the
overall length of our design until the member CL was a small enough length
that it could hold the compression force in the member. While this would have

allowed the member to resist the force found in member CL, we decided to not
use this as our final iteration as the members BL and AL both gained more
compression force increasing to 6.4N and 1.8N respectively.

For our final iteration and the one we would use for our model we went back
to an earlier iteration. We used iteration three as a base and added three new
members to it. These members were either used to prevent buckling as is the
case in the member CL which is under 5.9N force in compression or to lower
the length of the member such as in the members CD and DE which are under
4.1N and 3.7N compression forces respectively. These new members are
initially under very little to no force they gradually increase as more and more
weight is added.
Structural Analysis:
Material Testing:
Summary:
To test the compressive and tension strength in our material, paper straws, we
undertook a series of tests of various lengths and two different diameters. In
these tests we used a wooden lever that let us place a paper straw of a certain
length between the lever, we then placed a bucket at the end of the lever. We
gradually filled up the bucket with sand and when the paper straw gave out,
we took note of the weight and change the weight of the bucket into newtons.
We then used a formula to find what force the straw was subjected to when it
gave out this gave us a good indication of the maximum force a specific length
of paper straw could withstand without failing. We repeated this experiment
for a variety of lengths and graphed these lengths against the forces at which
the straw broke. This gave a scatter graph and created a line of best fit for the
graph could be created for the force at which a length would break at.

Results;
4 mm diameter test results with trendline:
6 mm diameter test results with trendline:

Error:
In the experiment the main area of error that can take place is human error. In
the experiment examples of this would be the exact moment that the straw
gave out due to tension or compression can’t be found accurately due to
human error. Error can also take place in the experiment due to a
compromised straw that may already be damaged in some way which would
cause it to give out before it should and alter our results.
Member Selection:
In order to select which type of straw to use, either 4 mm or 6 mm in diameter,
we interlinked our calculations for the analysis and our member testing. We
used the trendline on the graph we got through the member testing.
Comparing the lengths and forces of certain members to this trendline,
decided if the forces would hold on a 4 mm diameter straw and if not would a
6mm diameter straw hold the force for the member. Once finished our
member selection we found the utilization present in each member by dividing
the max force found in the member by the force in the member due to load,
linking the structural analysis and the material testing together. Using the
utilization present we found the factor of safety of the structure.
The factor of safety is important for a structure to have as it is the load
carrying capacity of a structure beyond what the structure is carrying.
Essentially the factor of safety is how much stronger a system is then required.
This is incredibly important for a structure, as you can clearly see how much
extra force a structure can be subject to, without having to go through the
process of another structural analysis and material testing for a different load.
An example of this is the load a bridge must carry, as the load is constantly
changing a factor of safety of a certain weight can be easily used to see how
much more percent of the weight the bridge can take. Using this you could
easily find the max weight the bridge could take. Another reason the factor of
safety is so important is that if it is wrong or off by a few percent failure in the
structure will fail possibly resulting in loss of life.
For our structure we selected an overall factor of safety of 0.8 or 8%. We did
this by taking the highest utilization found in our structure which is 0.92 and
finding how much more weight could be added which became our factor of
safety.
Conclusion
In conclusion this project helped me enormously in some key areas which
previously I struggled with. The technical areas that I noticeably improved in
would be the structural analysis, previously I struggled in this area but during
the project due to the many iterations of our project I had plenty of
opportunity to practice and understand this mathematical analysis. Another
technical area I improved in would be in carrying out an experiment to test a
member’s strength in compression and tension. I never previously attempted
an experiment like this as part of a group or on my own. Using the results from
this experiment to find the utilisation of members, helped me understand how
engineers can judge when a member would give out.

The project also gave me experience in project planning as this would be my

first long term project with the same group. During the project I learned a lot
about how setting deadlines and keeping to them are vital for a project to
progress. Each group member must contribute to these deadlines because if a
group goes off one person’s calculations then mistakes are simple to make.
This project also taught me about meeting and how to structure one properly
to get as much ideas out of a group. With one person taking minutes, one
person being the group leader and following a timetable and the roles being
changed each meeting, this gave everyone in the group a chance to taking and
contribute their own ideas for the project.

The project also showed me the relationship between the theoretical analysis
and the actual behaviour of the structure under a load. Which will help me in
future projects that involves understanding this relationship and how it can be
applied to larger structures. Overall, I think this project gave me an experience
and an insight into what’s it like working as part of a group, and how to use
effective teamwork to achieve a common objective. Something that an
engineer would be asked to do often to achieve a common goal for a client.