PASCO Beam Project Phase: 3

MME 213
Group 2
Vilppu Anttila
Jack VanKeuren
Melvin Ikwubuo
Hikaru Canode

1. Abstract
In this phase 3 report, the details from both the 3D models and the finite element
analysis are discussed. We discuss the price differences as well as the differences in max
stress between ABS and PVC used in both I-beams and the hex tube we have designed.
Future work needed for optimizing the research and design process are also discussed.
The main improvement needed seems to be a better center-cut hole, as a circular hole
would defend against premature crack propagation. The failure and safety modes are
also discussed, as well as examples of when the model may fail.

2.

3-D model details

The 3-D model we decided on appears as follows:

Figure 1: This is a screenshot of a cantilever test of an PVC Hex Beam. The load has a
magnitude of 10, and is placed on the center of the top edge on the far end of the beam.
Its made out of PVC, has a regular hexagonal cross section, is 10 mm tall, with each of
the six sides about 5.77 mm across, 2 mm thick. The beams come in a standard length of
10 cm, but different sizes can be found in the kits.

3.

Finite element model details

Figure 1: This is a 2D wire frame model of a truss built from PVC Hex Beams. A load
with a magnitude of ten was applied to the area displayed in red.
The 2D truss system consisted of seven 10 cm long beams (dimensions in section 2),
with fixed supports at the bottom corners, and a load of magnitude ten applied at the
bottom, middle. Under this load, the truss had a maximum deflection of 1.75834e-009
at the point where force was applied. This is quite a small deflection for a comparatively
large amount of force. The performance of the truss system could be augmented in a 3D
model using gusset plates. Its also worth remembering that the kit is intended for
studying truss performance, and the maximum weights that come with the kits are only
about 200 grams.
4.

Design refinement/improvement
The design we have may have been selected as the best of our designs overall by

use of the selection matrix, however the piece is not perfect. For example, the hole cut
out of the tube is a hexagon shape, however as we learned first hand in Lab 11, stress
tends to build up in angular corners, so this is not ideal. The hole inside the beam would
ideally be circular, as this will prevent stress from building up in the piece in instances

where the beam experiences forces from either the sides or the top or bottom. This
would be helpful in situations where a student steps on the beam, or a heavy load is
placed on the beam, because the increased resistance to stress would prevent the piece
from collapsing on itself and potentially shattering or splintering.

5.

Safety and failure modes

Failure modes of concern for the beam designed under the intended operation

are virtually nonexistent due to the low forces. The only one that might cause issues is
wear due to repeated attachment of the pieces via the attachment system. However,
under misuse, excessive deflection, buckling, ductile fracture (e.g. too much load,
somebody falls on the structure), brittle fracture (e.g. someone steps on the piece),
impact (e.g. the beams are used for sword fighting).
6.

Future work
Refine the design as indicated above by altering the inside cut out and making it

circular instead of hexagonal. More extensive stress analysis. 3-D print prototypes and
compare to the refined design then using those to simulate real life testing. Focus groups
could also be used to see what people like better, between the refined product and the Ibeams to make sure this is a marketable product. Redesign the attachment mechanism
to accommodate this type of a beam. Modify a pasta maker, add heating elements and
water cooling, to extrude hex-beams out of PVC jam.