You are on page 1of 34

# PROBLEM NO.

4 BREAKING SPAGHETTI
Find the conditions under which dry spaghetti falling on a hard floor does not break.

OVERVIEW
  

mechanical properties

Young’s modulus

impact buckling
 

Euler’s critical buckling load modes fracture points tube, camera, debris weakest fracture force, various sizes surface, number of spaghetti, angle dependence comparison

 

simulation
    

experimental setup results

conclusion

SPAGHETTI PROPERITES

lenght = 25.5cm mass, density – five sizes Young’s modulus (E)

mass (g) 0.474 0.627 0.81 0.980 1.177

density (kg/m3) 1515.474 1489.091 1486.303 1429.764 1399.133

stress/strain ratio

material characteristic
w+ w0, w0 initial deflection (spaghetti mass) F load applied at end

measured from beam deflection
 

l
w0

w

F

circular cross-section l r 4 I 2 w0+w x   F applied load F  m spaghetti mass . E Young’s modulus deflection for 𝑥 = 0. 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑕𝑜𝑑  bending moment d 2w M  M F  2 EI dx 𝑙3 𝐹 𝑤 = 𝐸𝐼 3 . l lenght.SPAGHETII PROPERTIES  Young’s modulus E – beam deflection  area moment of inertia .

76E+10 N/m 1.004 0.BEAM DEFLECTION – YOUNG’S MODULUS  determined from the coefficient  different applied loads F  deflection measurement ymax 𝑙3 𝑤 = 𝑤0 + 𝐹 3𝐸𝐼 spaghetti °2  °1 • 0.006 0.020  °3 • 2 0.81E+10 N/m 1.022 beam deflection / m  °2 • 2 0.018 0.010 0.014  °5 • 2 0.010 0.012 applied load / N .008 0.024 1.016  °4 • 2 0.13E+09 N/m 2 0.04E+10 N/m 9.012 0.31E+10 N/m 1.

IMPACT elastic  spaghetti fall accellerated (g)  impact with the surface  both surface and spaghetti  acting like springs that obey Hooke's law  force is proportional to the amount of deformations  height time velocity time .

IMPACT  momentum 𝑚𝑑𝑣 is the surface force impulse 𝐹𝑑𝑡    force is small at first enlarges to a maximum when spaghetti reverses directions drops down as it jumps-off • approximated constant F • interested in maximum • varies for different surfaces • 𝑚∆𝑣 = 𝐹∆𝑡 • ∆𝑣 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ∆𝑡 𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜 • 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 − 𝑚𝑔 • causes spaghetti do deform • break Fg time force F-reaction force .

beam returns to the initial position   M = Mel indifferent equilibrium – remains at δ: 𝐹 = 𝑘l  initial buckling occurs  M > Mel unstable equilibrium – plastic deformations .BUCKLING  displacement of structure transverse to load F δ F F β   buckling model (spring) elastic force moment  Mel = 𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑙 = 𝑘δl  l k-spring constant  load moment  M = 𝐹δ M < Mel stable equilibrium .

BUCKLING  at M = Mel buckling occurs   critical condition depends on the beam support type  beam support lower end simple (can rotate and slide)  upper end free 𝐹 = 𝐹𝑐𝑟 f  B x w A – deflection at point A B – deflection at point B (f) A .

BUCKLING  buckling moment. equation of the beam elastic line f x l 𝐹 = 𝐹𝑐𝑟 B  𝑀 = −𝐹 𝑓 − 𝑤 = 𝑑2𝑤  𝑑𝑥2 𝑑2𝑤  𝑑𝑥2 𝑑2𝑤 − 2 𝐸𝐼 𝑑𝑥 w A = 𝐸𝐼 = 𝐹 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑓 − 𝑤 𝑢 harmonic oscillator equation.2.3. 𝑛 2 = 1. α2 = 𝐸𝐼 𝐹 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐹 𝐸𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛 to simplify calculations   𝑤 = 𝐴𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼𝑥 − 𝐵𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼𝑥 + 𝑓 . 𝛼𝑙 = 2𝑛 − 1 π . 𝑥 = 0  𝑤 0 = 𝐴𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼0 − 𝐵𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼0 + 𝑓 = 0 𝐵 = −𝑓  𝑤 ′ 0 = 𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼0 + 𝐵𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼0 = 𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼0   cos(𝛼𝑙) = 0 critical states . integrated equation of the beam elastic line boundary conditions at point A. … minimal critical force n=1  𝐹𝑐𝑟 = π2𝐸𝐼 4𝑙2 .

BUCKLING  buckling modes  if the force 𝐹 =   spaghetti forms a sinusoidal line depending on the relation – different buckling modes π2𝐸𝐼 4𝑙2 2𝑛 − 1 2 .58 N.simulation . °4 0.72 N. °2 0. 𝑛 ∈ 𝑁 related to 𝐹 = 2𝑛 − 1 2𝐹𝑐𝑟  greatest deflection – highest stress point  critical buckling force π2𝐸𝐼  𝐹𝑐𝑟 = n=1 4𝑙2  °1 0. °5 1.33 N. °3 0.20 N   n=2 n=3 even the smallest impact forces exceed these values! buckling deformation occurs  since surface reaction force is not related to 𝐹𝑐𝑟  IRREGULAR BUCKING MODE  greatest probability fracture points .91 N.

directioned through spaghetti highest stress point • center  ~gradual mesh  .FRACTURE POINT irregular buckling modes  debris lenght measured     most probable values and simulation compared simulation AutoCAD. Autodesk simulation multiphysics  measured material properties and spaghetti dimension  force acting conditions  whole surface.

FRACTURE POINT  highest stress points  most probable fracture point mashing conditions  free ends  force acting on the whole cross-section  .

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP directed through a long vertical pipe  obtaining ~equal impact velocities  recording the process camera     120 fps impact time and velocity evaluation fracture point probability of fracture debris measured   .

mass surface hardness  impact angle   buckling and bending surface roughness  number of spaghetti  interactions during the fall . area inertia moment.PARAMETERS weakest fracture force  spaghetti size    Young’s modulus.

002 0.004 0.4 2.relation to critical buckling force 4𝑙 ∆𝑣 𝐹 = 𝑚 ∆𝑡 .8 1.21 °5 repeated measurements marked spaghetti image sequence observed 2.008 °3 °2 °4 °1 Young's modulus*area inertia momentum EI [Nm ] 2 .4 0.SPAGHETTI SIZE DEPENDENCE YOUNG’S MODULUS   𝐹 = π2𝐸𝐼 𝑎 2 𝑎 .006 0.evaluated from video  𝐹/𝐹𝑐𝑟~2 = (2𝑛 − 1)2  buckling mode ~𝑛 = 1.2 1.6 0.2 weakest fracture force [N] 2.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.

0 𝐹 = 0.59 ± 0.0 average debris lenght [cm] simulation regression measured values 3.80 0.5  debris lenght zero at   2.0 2.SPAGHETTI SIZE DEPENDENCE YOUNG’S MODULUS  on a narrow force scale   smaller debris lenght is proportional to impact force  mode slightly changes  simulation and measured values agreement 4.90 experimenal value  force [N] .56 N estimated from the simulation 𝐹 = 0.85 0.70 0.5  °1 spaghetti – 3 initial heights metal surface – steel 3.5 0.75 0.03𝑁  1.

SURFACE DEPENDENCE  HB – Brinell hardness     steel 120HB (oak) wood 3.8HB rubber not comparable rough/smooth stone 35HB  DIFFERENT SURFACE impact duration  velocity after impact   losses due to surface deformation .

𝑣1 velocity after impact varies!  linear fit coefficient =  𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐹 = 1.05𝑁.09 ± 0.02𝑁 spaghetti °2 .10 ± 0. 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝐹 = 1.SURFACE DEPENDENCE  HARDNES necessary force remains the same 𝐹 = 𝑚 ∆𝑣 𝑣0 + 𝑣1 = 𝑚 ∆𝑡 ∆𝑡  𝑣0 velocity before impact ~shared.

smooth stone surface surface reaction force is vertical to the surface Fs  buckling 𝐹1 = 𝐹𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼 and bending 𝐹2 = 𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 component as the impact angle 𝛼 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑠  bending force becomes more significant (𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼)   strucutures are more sensitive to bending displacements friction force is not great enough to keep the spaghetti steady it slides of the surface – no fracture  𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒   Fs F1 α α F2 α α .IMPACT ANGLE DEPENDENCE   tube remains vertical  surface changes angle.

25 m spaghetti °2 at angles exceeding 80° no fracture Fs F1 α F2 α . bending gains significance over buckling  strucutures break more easily under bending loads  angle ~30° friction force is not great enough to keep the spaghetti steady  slides – no fracture • • • tube height 3.IMPACT ANGLE DEPENDENCE  complex buckling/bending relation  as the angle increases.

1 force [N] (evaluated for smooth surface) .02𝑁 expected value (smooth) 𝐹 = 1.5 average debris lenght [cm] 3. smooth  rough stone surface changes the spaghetti impact angle (surface imperfections)  greater angle results in more bending deformation – longer debris debris lenght zero for smooth surface (regression linear coefficient)   𝐹 = 1.46 ± 0.01𝑁 smooth stone surface rough stone surface 3.9 2.5 1.8 1.6 1. same stone two sides – rough.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 0.0 2.48 ± 0.SURFACE DEPENDENCE  ROUGHNESS spaghetti °4.5 1.0 0.7 1.

hit the surface under a small angle   greater angle results in more bending deformation – longer debris collide with each other α smooth stone surface .SINGLE ROD / BULK DEBRIS LENGHT COMPARISON  too many movements for the force to be evaluated on camera force and debris lenght are proportional  on the same height≈ 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒   spaghetti interact in a bulk  change direction.

59 ± 0.03𝑁 = 1.01𝑁 = 2.26 ± 0.02𝑁 = 1.03 𝑁   debris lenght at a force → 𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑕𝑡   predicted using simulation and measured – agreement same minimum fracture forces  surface hardness dependence different impact duration and velocity change .29 ± 0.CONCLUSION   theoretical explanation buckling conducted experiment  conditions under which spaghetti does not break  lowest fracture impact forces at vertical fall      °1 𝐹 °2 𝐹 °3 𝐹 °4 𝐹 °5 𝐹 = 0.02 𝑁 = 1.10 ± 0.48 ± 0.confiration  impact angle dependence   surface roughness dependence number of spaghetti falling  changes the bending/buckling influence on dispacements .

Otpornost materijala 2. Walker. Neukirch. Fundamentals of physics. Resnick. Školska knjiga. Halliday. Otpornost materijala 1. V. Audoly.REFERENCES     V. B. 1995.Šimić. S. Školska knjiga.jussieu. http://www.Šimić. 2003. 1995.fr/spaghetti/ .lmm.

THANK YOU! .

.

IMPACT typical stress strain curve for brittle materials  Hook’s diagram  yield strenght material becomes permanently deformed 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝜍 = 𝐹 ∆𝑥 = 𝐸 𝐴 𝑥0 ∆𝑥 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑥0 stress fracture point proportional limit Hook’s law velid  fracture modes  𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒 = 𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒  for a long thin object strain .

.

AREA MOMENT OF INERTIA  property of a cross section  geometrically: the strain in the beam maximum at the top  decrease linearly to zero at the medial axis  continues to decrease linearly to the bottom   energy stored in a cross-sectional slice of the bent beam • proportional to the sum of the square of the distance to the medial axis  circle  symmetrical (same on every axis) • 𝑑𝐴 = 2𝜋𝜌𝑑𝜌 ρ 4 𝑟 𝑟 𝜋 3 2𝜋𝜌 𝑑𝜌= 0 2 dρ dA r  𝐼 = 𝐴 𝜌2𝑑𝐴 = .

𝐷 = 0.BEAM DEFLECTION METHOD beams with complex loads. 𝐶 = 0  𝑤 = 𝑀 𝐸𝐼 . boundary deflections d 2w M  M F  2 EI  equation of the elastic line for a beam   load intensity and bending moment relation 𝑑2𝑀 𝑑𝑥2 = −𝑞 dx  consider probe beam with load intensity of 𝑞 = 𝑀  same shaped stress diagram as the bending moment of our beam 𝑑2𝑀 𝑑𝑥2  𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡  = −𝑞 = −𝑀 = 𝑑2𝑤 − 2 𝐸𝐼 𝑑𝑥 𝐸𝐼𝑑2𝑤 = 𝑑2𝑀 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔  𝐸𝐼𝑤 = 𝑀 + 𝐶𝑥 + 𝐷 − 𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑛𝑑.

BEAM DEFLECTION METHOD l w0 applied load-small weight w F 𝐹 C 𝑀 𝟐𝒍 𝟑 𝑙 2 𝑙 𝐹 = 𝐹𝑙 2 2 𝐹𝑙3 𝑀 = 𝐹 𝑙 = 3 3   𝐹 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑀 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑀 𝐹𝑙3 𝑤 = = 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐹 𝐸𝐼 3𝐸𝐼 .

.

0 average debris lenght [cm] 3.0 1.SIMULATION REGRESSION 4.0 2.5 2.75 0.85 0.70 0.5 simulation regression simulation measured values 3.90 force [N] .80 0.5 0.