Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 22

University of New South Wales

AERO3110 - Aerospace Design

Design Build Test

Group 15
Matthew Eyles z5075263
Atitat Rattanachata z5227470
Jordan Epstein z5059278
Michael Tran z5059861

October 26, 2018


Executive Summary
The design build test challenge involved the practical application of skills obtained during
AERO3110, and involved the design and manufacture of a lug for an overhead grab lanyard
for a helicopter winch operator.
The lug had to be capable of sustaining specific load conditions with no deformation at the
applied limit load of 350lb and no failure of either the lug or rivets at the ultimate load of
520lb when loaded by the Instron testing machine. Furthermore, the weight and cost index
requirements must be optimised to be as close to 2 grams and below 25 cost units, respectively.
Our design produced a weight of 3.3 grams including rivets and a cost index of 24 units.
Stress analysis of the design allowed the structure of the lug, including sheet thickness, number
of required rivets, and the rivet pattern to be determined. This analysis also presented potential
failure scenarios for the lug and rivets. There are two failure scenarios that can be considered
for this design – either bearing failure or tensile failure. Ultimately, the lug was successful up
until a load of around 820lb and failed due to rivet shear, which indicates the strength of our
lug design.
A margin of safety summary has been provided, illustrating the structural integrity of the final
component. All final margins of safety for a variety of failure conditions were found to be
positive. This information can be found in Table 3.

i
Contents
1 Introduction 1

2 Problem Definition and Design Approach 1


2.1 Dimensions and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3 Summary 2

4 Structural Analysis and Design 3


4.1 Failure of Lug - Loading Hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1.1 Tension Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1.2 Shear out and bearing failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2 Rivet Failure - Minimum Rivet Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3 Failure of Lug - Rivet Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3.1 Tension Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3.2 Bearing Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5 Test Report 8

6 Weight Report 10

7 Cost Report 11

8 Conclusion 12

9 Drawings 13

A Appendices 15
A.1 Tensile Efficiency Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2 Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Ultimate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.3 Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Yield) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.4 Stress Concentration Factor for Rivet Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.5 Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

ii
List of Figures
1 Sikorsky King Stallion undertaking a search and rescue mission [1] . . . . . . . . 1
2 Example Lug Design [2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3 Plot of testing results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Rivet Failure in Experimental Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.1 Tension Efficiency Factor [5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2 Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Ultimate)[5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.3 Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Yield)[5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.4 Stress concentration factor for rivet holes[6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

List of Tables
1 Summary of the dimensions and parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Summary of material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Margin of Safety Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4 Mass Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5 Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6 Testing results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

iii
1 Introduction
The structural design of any aircraft must be done towards the extent that assures confidence
and the safety in the overall structure. The structural lug being designed is to be used in a
hypothetical situation involving a winch operating for the attachment of a harness. A typical
scenario which may involve the use of such a design is in the application of search and rescue
missions. In this context, failure of the lug may lead to injury to the winch operative or place
the safety of the crew at risk. Thus it is imperative to acknowledge the importance of design
a structural component to adequacy.

Figure 1: Sikorsky King Stallion undertaking a search and rescue mission [1]
.

This report aims to provide a detail analysis surrounding the development of a structural lug
for its application in this hypothetical situation while providing a feasible solution towards
minimising cost and weight.

2 Problem Definition and Design Approach


The Design-Build-Test challenge is to design and manufacture a lug for an overhead grab
lanyard for a helicopter winch operator. The designed lug will be tested by attaching the lug
to a steel backing plate using solid head rivets and tested on the Instron where a progressively
increasing tensile load will be applied. Figure 2 provides a description of the project itself.

Figure 2: Example Lug Design [2]


.

Throughout the report, design calculations will be performed to ensure the structural integrity
of the lug itself. Additionally, a weight and cost study is provided to illustrate how the lug
1
has been designed to improve in those areas. Results from the physical test and reasons for
discrepancies between the results have been highlighted.

2.1 Dimensions and Parameters


The dimensions and parameters of the sheet metal for the lug and rivets have been summarised
in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of the dimensions and parameters

Aluminium Rivet
2024-T3 clad MS20470AD3
Material property Value Material property Value
Sheet thickness 0.063in Rivet diameter 0.0938in
Diameter of drilled hole
Fitting factor, k 1.15 0.0960in
for rivet
Diameter of lug cutout 0.255in Wet pin effects 0.85
Limit load 350lbf
Ultimate load
525lbf
(1.5 × limit load)

2.2 Material Properties


The material properties of aluminium 2024-T3 clad aluminium sheet and rivets MS20470AD3
are summarised in the below in Table 2. Information was obtained from MMPDS-11 Table
3.2.4.0 and MMPDS-11 table 8.1.2(b) [3]

Table 2: Summary of material properties

Aluminium Rivet
2024-T3 clad MS20470AD3
Material property Value (psi) Material property Value (lbf )
Ultimate Tensile
62000 Rivet Strength 217
Stress (Ftu )
Yield Tensile Stress (Fty ) 44000
Ultimate Bearing Stress (Fbru ) 125000
Yield Bearing Stress (Fbry ) 84000

3 Summary
The margin of safety summary results has been summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Margin of Safety Summary

Failure Category Ultimate Load Limit Load


Lug Failure Tension Failure 0.6850 0.8345
Loading Hole Shear out/Bearing
0.3528 0.7242
Failure
Rivet Failure Rivet Shear 0.07826 0.6174
Lug Failure Tension Failure 0.3690 1.054
Rivet Hole Bearing Failure 2.193 2.219

2
4 Structural Analysis and Design
This section will detail the structural analysis process. The necessary information for the
calculations below can be found in Tables 1 and 2. The tension failure as well as the shear
out and bearing failure will be investigated at the hole for the load point. The number or
rivets required to withstand the limit and ultimate load will also be determined with the
corresponding margin of safety. Lastly, as an additional precautionary step, the tensile and
bearing failure of the rivet holes will be investigated.

4.1 Failure of Lug - Loading Hole


4.1.1 Tension Failure
The tensile failure of the lug at the loading point is dependent on its cross sectional area.
Because the hole for the load point has a fixed diameter, increasing the width of the lug will
increase the cross sectional area and thus the allowable load for the lug increases. The ratio
between the width of the lug and the diameter of the hole for the load point was maintained
to be slightly over 2 at a value of 2.15. This conservative decision was done to ensure the hole
for the loading will remain structurally sound while improving the simplicity of the calculation
process. The Failure due to the yield and ultimate load has been summarised below
The maximum allowable load that the material can withstand is given in the equations below

Ptu = Kt Ftu At (1)

The value for the stress concentration factor Kt can be determined from the Figure A.1. Due
to the scale of the graph, the value for the stress concentration factor has been presented to
two decimal places. The cross sectional area associated with tensile failure can be determined
based on the following formula.

At = (W − D)t (2)
At = (0.55 − 0.255)(0.063)
At = 0.01859 in2

Ptu = (0.88)(62000)(0.01859)
Ptu = 1014.2704 lbf

Ptu
M argin of Saf ety = −1 (3)
(Papplied )(k)
1014.2704
M argin of Saf ety = −1
(525)(1.15)
M argin of Saf ety (ultimate) = 0.6792

The tensile yield failure can be calculated in a similar manner and has been outlined below. It
is important to ensure the material falls under the allowable yield so that plastic deformation
will not exist.

3
Pty = (0.88)(45000)(0.01859)
Pty = 736.164 lbf

Pty
M argin of Saf ety = −1 (4)
(Papplied )(k)
736.164
M argin of Saf ety = −1
(350)(1.15)
M argin of Saf ety (yield) = 0.8290

4.1.2 Shear out and bearing failure


Bearing failure or bearing stress can be thought of as the contact pressure between two bodies
that are pressing against each other. Because the load will be applied to the lug using an AN4
bolt, there will be a contact forces acting on the hole and the bolt that goes through. Shear
out is a type of failure where the material in the lug will shear and the bolt eventually tear out
from. To prevent shear out from occurring a higher edge distance would be favourable. Both
the shear out and bearing failure modes can be modelled using a single equation.
Firstly the ratio between the e, the centre to edge distance of the load hole , to D and t will
be determined.

e 0.27 t 0.063
= = (5)
D 0.255 D 0.255

e t
= 1.059 = 0.2471
D D

The ultimate and yield values for the shear-bearing efficiency factors , Kbru and Kbry respec-
tively can be determined through interpolating with Figures A.2 and A.3, which can be found
in the appendix.

Kbru = 0.82 Kbry = 0.96

The area of contact can be determined by performing the following calculation.

Abearing = D × t (6)
Abearing = 0.255 × 0.063
Abearing = 0.01607 in2

U ltimate Y ield

Pbru/y = (Kbru/y )(Ftu/y )(Abr ) (7)

4
Pbru = (0.82)(62000)(0.01607) Pbry = (0.96)(45000)(0.01607)

Pbru = 816.7 lbs Pbry = 694.0 lbs

The margin of safety has been calculated below

Pbru/y
M argin of Saf ety = −1 (8)
k × applied load

816.7 694.0
−1 −1
1.15 × 525 1.15 × 350

M oS = 0.3528 M oS = 0.7242

4.2 Rivet Failure - Minimum Rivet Requirement


To determine the minimum number of rivets required to hold the limit load and ultimate load,
the MMPDS-11 table 8.1.2 (b) is considered in order to find the single shear strength of the
given rivet. This finding has been summarised in Table 2. The number of rivets for both the
ultimate and yield case can be found below and are shown on the left and right hand side
respectively.

U ltimate Y ield

Pult Plimit
number of rivets = number of rivets = (9)
k × rivet strength k × rivet strength

525 350
1.15 × 217 1.15 × 217

2.104(≈ 3) 1.403(≈ 2)

number of rivets × strength of rivet


M argin of Saf ety = −1 (10)
P ×k

3 × 217 2 × 217
−1 −1
525 × 1.15 350 × 1.15

M oS = 0.07826 M oS = 0.6174

Thus, the results illustrated that three rivets would be structurally adequate.

5
4.3 Failure of Lug - Rivet Holes
As a precautionary measure, the failure of the holes where the rivets would be located was
investigated. Similarly to how the loading hole would have failed, the tension and bearing
failure conditions were studied. A detailed explanation as to how these calculations were
performed have been outlined below.
4.3.1 Tension Failure
Due to the drilled holes in the lug for the installation of the rivets, an inevitable stress concen-
tration factor would be introduced into the lug and thus increase the chances of failure if not
adequately designed. Because the design of the lug itself is tapered towards the rivet loading, a
minimum width value of 0.2559 in has been used to ensure all rivets exhibit a positive margin
of safety.
The cross sectional area associated with tensile failure of the rivet holes can be determined
using equation 2

At = (0.2559 − 0.096)(0.063)
At = 0.01007 in2

the diameter to width ratio for the narrowest portion of the lug can be calculated as follows.

D Diameterof rivethole
= (11)
W N arrowestW idthof Lug
D 0.096
=
W 0.2559
D
= 0.3751
W
Referring to Figure A.4 in the appendix, the stress concentration factor could be extrapolated.
It is important to note that the stress concentration factor used has been provided by Shigley’s
Mechanical Engineering Design Textbook.

Kt = 2.267

To calculate the applied stress at each of the rivet holes, an assumption has been made that
the applied limit and ultimate load is equally reaction across all three rivets.

U ltimate Limit

Applied U ltimate/Limit Load


Applied load at each rivet = (12)
N umber of Rivets

525 350
Applied load at each rivet = Applied load at each rivet =
3 3

Applied load at each rivet = 175 lbs Applied load at each rivet = 116.7 lbs

6
The applied stress can now be determined for both the ultimate and yield failure conditions

Applied load at each rivet


Applied Stress = Kt × (13)
At

175 116.7
Applied Stress = 2.267 × Applied Stress = 2.267 ×
0.01007 0.01007

Applied Stress = 39380 psi Applied Stress = 26254 psi

The margin of safety has been determined below for the ultimate and limit loads for tension
failure of the rivet holes.

Allowable Stress
M argin of saf ety = −1 (14)
k × Applied Stress

62000 45000
−1 −1
1.15 × 39380 1.15 × 26254

M oS = 0.3690 M oS = 1.054

4.3.2 Bearing Failure


The bearing failure can be determined by first determining the bearing stress for the limit and
ultimate scenarios. Similarly, the assumption will be made that the applied limit and ultimate
loads will be equally reacted among all three rivets.

Applied load × k
σbearing limit/ultimate = (15)
D×t

The bearing allowables were reduced by 15% to account for wet pin effects at the rivet holes.

U ltimate Limit

175 × 1.15 116.7 × 1.15


σbearing ultimate = σbearing limit =
0.096 × 0.063 0.096 × 0.063

σbearing ultimate = 33275 psi σbearing limit = 22184 psi

Accounting for wet pin effects on the allowable loads.

σallowable bearing ultimate = 125000 × 0.85 σallowable bearing limit = 84000 × 0.85

= 106250 psi = 71400 psi

7
The margin of safety can now be determined as illustrated below

Allowable Stress
M argin of saf ety = −1 (16)
Applied Stress

106250 71400
−1 −1
33275 22184

M oS = 2.193 M oS = 2.219

5 Test Report
Testing of the component was conducted in the UNSW Laboratories using an Instron testing
machine. Testing showed that the component held successfully at both the limit and ultimate
load required. The component failed due to rivet failure at slightly above 816.9lb. Below,
Figure 3 displays the load displacement data obtained during testing, full data can be seen in
the Appendix in Table 6.

Figure 3: Plot of testing results

Rivet failure was the predicted mode of failure as outlined in Section 4, as it had the lowest
margin of safety at ultimate load out of any of the possible failure modes. Accounting for wet
pin effects, the rivets should have failed at 567lb according to the hand calculations, however
testing the component showed that the rivets failed nearly 250lb above this at 816.9lb. Rivet
failure during testing is shown below in Figure 4.
8
Figure 4: Rivet Failure in Experimental Testing

This large discrepancy between theoretical and experimental load is most likely due to friction
between the lug and the attached fixture, the normal force to produce this friction supplied
by the tension of the rivets. This friction would have been able to support some of the shear
load between the lug and fixture, and so decrease the load on the rivets, leading to later shear
failure than initially predicted.
Force due to static friction is given by;

Ff = µk N

The coefficient of static friction for non-lubricated aluminum is 1.05 - 1.35[4], as a more exact
value could not be obtained, for the sake of sample calculations µk will be taken to be 1.
Rearranging the above, equation;

Ff
N=
µk
250
=
1
=250.0lbf

This means that each rivet must supply one third of this compressive force, or 67lb. There is
very little literature on this topic, perhaps because the compressive force supplied by a rivet is
highly dependent on how it is driven. However, given the force and effort required to drive each
rivet, this seems like a realistic value for the value of compressive force provided by each rivet.
As such, it is likely that the higher than predicted ultimate load is due to friction between the
lug and fixture.
9
6 Weight Report
Given the aerospace application for this lug component, weight is a vital factor in the design
and manufacture for the part to maintain overall aircraft flight efficiency. As a result, weight
was one of the most fundamental aspects to the design of the lug for the challenge.
To calculate the mass of the piece before manufacture, the average width of the piece was
used in the volumetric-density calculation. The density of 2024-T3 aluminium is 0.1 lb/in3.
The chosen sheet thickness was 0.063”, the average width of the designed lug was 0.5” and its
length was designed to be 1.9 inches. Therefore, the calculated weight of the piece before any
curved cuts or the removal of any rivet or loading holes was found to be 2.7 grams (0.006 lb).
Three different mass measurements were taken to determine the mass of the lug including its
three rivets. Firstly, the steel backing plate prior to lug attachment was accurately measured on
a set of electric scales. Secondly, the lug itself (with measurements both including and excluding
the weight of the rivets) was weighed to provide a confirmation once the final measurements
were taken. Lastly, the assembly, which consisted of the backing plate, lug and rivets was
weighed. The final mass of the lug and rivets was taken as the entire assembly mass (including
rivets) minus the backing plate mass.

Table 4: Mass Summary

Item/s: Mass (g): Mass (lb):


Steel Backing Plate 536.5 1.18
Lug Only 2.3 0.0051
Rivets Only 0.9 0.002
Lug + Rivets 3.1 0.0068
Assembly (Backing Plate + Lug + Rivets) 539.8 1.19

Total Lug & Rivets Weight (Calculated from Assembly) = 3.3 g


Interestingly, there is a minor discrepancy between the mass of the Lug + Rivets (3.1g) mea-
surement and the mass of the assembly plate subtracted from the backing plate (3.3g). This
is likely due to any rounding errors and uncertainties associated with using the scales.
At this weight of 3.3g, the score from interpolation places our design in the 3/12 bracket, which
awards our team 90% of the marks allocated to this section. When including the mass of the
rivets (0.9g) in this analysis, it becomes highly unlikely for the overall design (including rivets)
to fall under 2 grams to ensure that the lug is sufficiently strong to hold the required loads.
Other than following the strength requirements for the challenge, many design decisions were
considered on the basis of the lug mass and cost. The mass of the material was already chosen
given the decision to use 0.063” thickness aluminum, as described above. Although lighter, the
0.04” would come with various strength limitations, as discussed below in Section 7.
If lightening holes were incorporated into the design, the mass would have remained within the
same weight index bracket at the detriment of the overall strength of the lug, so it was decided
to abandon the use of any lightening holes. The width of the lug on either side of the rivet
holes was determined by the wall distance for rivets, as was outlined in that section above.
Overall, it is impressive that the lug itself at a weight of only 2.4 grams can support a load
of 370kg (820lb). It was also remarkable that the mode of failure was due to the rivets and
not the lug itself, which infers that the lug has the potential to support an even larger load
through optimising the rivets and rivet pattern.
10
For future designs, a thinner sheet could be used to further reduce the weight of the lug.
However, it is likely that the use of a thinner sheet would deform at loads around that of
the limit load, as was evident on the testing day with other groups. To prevent this material
deformation, appropriate stiffeners could be implemented to help distribute the forces around
the loading point. FEA could be completed on the lug to optimise the design for the loading
conditions to determine the minimum weight of the lug. Testing the use of less material around
the curved cut of the loading point could also provide a source for some mass reduction.

7 Cost Report
The design of our lug was optimised to fall within the minimum cost requirements of 25 cost
units for this project to be awarded the full five marks available.
When considering the cost of the lug, the importance of each feature was justified and alter-
natives were investigated to ensure that the lug was optimised for its strength given the cost
limitations.
Material thickness selection was the first priority to determine the remaining variables in the
design of the lug. Following the aforementioned stress analysis for both 0.04” and 0.063” ma-
terial, it was clear that the 0.063” was the optimal choice to prevent any material deformation
during testing of the lug as would likely be the case for the 0.04” sheet. This selection of 0.063”
thickness with a cost index of 8 units provided the basis for the remaining design decisions,
while maintaining a focus on the lug cost. A single layer of material was found to be sufficient
to meet the strength requirements of this application.

Table 5: Cost Summary

Item: Cost Index: Quantity Required:


Material Cost (t=0.063”) 8 1
Straight Cut 1 5
Rivet Hole 1 3
Each Rivet 1 3
Precision Loading Point 3 1
Curved / Radius Cut 2 1

Total Cost = 24 Units


Therefore, our lug cost falls below the 25 units amount to qualify for the top rating in this
aspect of the challenge.
A straight cut at the furthest end from the loading point was deemed acceptable in place
of a radius cut for this challenge. Although at the detriment of lug aesthetics, this decision
was reasoned through the realization that this end of the lug would not be significantly load
bearing, and as such, any stress concentration factors would be at a minimum.
A short straight cut on either side of the lug at 90 degrees to the vertical end cut was produced
and successively connected to a straight cut that linked to the tangent of the curved cut around
the loading point.
Based on the rivet pattern calculations and applied loading conditions, the number of inline
rivets required was three.
Although the potential implementation of lightening holes was investigated, the variance in
strength of the lug in comparison with the marginal mass difference was ultimately considered
11
an unwarranted inclusion. This decision to not include a lightening hole or two provided a cost
index saving of between 1 and 3 units – depending on whether the hole/s would be considered
a ‘precision hole’ or if we could have used the same drill bit as the rivets to count the hole
within that lower price bracket.
A curved radius cut was used around the end of the lug where the precision loading point is
located. This was a chosen inclusion to help distribute the forces by reducing the likelihood
of any stress concentration factors while also considering Saint-Venant’s theorem, whereby the
intensity of a force is reduced with distance from the loading point within a material.
The reason for the high cost of the precision loading point at three units is due to the two-
step process associated with producing this feature. Initially, a hole is drilled at roughly 0.24”
(6.1mm). A reaming bit was then used to refine this precision hole to create the exact 0.25”
loading point hole diameter, as required.
In order to further reduce the cost of developing this lug while maintaining its relative strength,
there are few variations that can be recommended. Firstly, a straight cut from either side of
the lug could be merged into one continuous straight cut from the tangent point of the curved
cut through to the respective edge at the other end of the lug. Similarly, although the lug failed
due to rivet shear, this failure occurred at a magnitude far above that of the ultimate load
(almost at an equivalent load to if the limit load was added to the ultimate load and applied
at once!). Alas, if only concerned with the application of the ultimate load, it is plausible to
suggest that reducing the rivet pattern to two-rivets would provide a lower cost index, although
at potential detriment to the component. Instead, it is suggested for a two-rivet pattern that
they should be installed abreast to one another (instead of behind one another, which would
fall out of the design scope of this challenge) to provide the required strength – given that the
majority of the loading force was concentrated on the closest rivet to the loading point.

8 Conclusion
The aim of the project was to design a lug capable of sustaining specific load conditions with
no deformation at the applied limit load of 350lb and no failure of either the lug or rivets at
the ultimate load of 520lb. Group 15 was successful in achieving these outcomes.
The lug test failed due to rivet shear at around 820lb and the lug was visually intact following
testing. The MS for Bearing, for both limit and ultimate loads were found to be 2.219 and
2.193, respectively.
The weight and cost index requirements were optimised to be as close to 2 grams and below
25 cost units, respectively. Our design produced a weight of 3.3 grams including rivets and a
cost index of 24 units.

12
9 Drawings

13
References
[1] (2018). Search and rescue rovs: Underwater robots to the rescue, Deep Trekker,
[Online]. Available: https://www.deeptrekker.com/search-and-rescue-rovs/
?locale=en.
[2] D. S. Brown, “Aerospace design lecture notes”, University of New South Wales,
Oct. 2018.
[3] (2016). Metallic materials properties development and standardization (mmpds-11),
Battelle Memorial Institute, [Online]. Available: https://app.knovel.com/web/
toc.v/cid:kpMMPDSM74/viewerType:toc//root_slug:viewerType%5C%3Atoc/
url _ slug : root _ slug % 5C % 3Ametallic - materials - properties ? kpromoter =
federation.
[4] E. Toolbox. (2004). Friction and friction coefficients, [Online]. Available: https:
//www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html.
[5] E. Bruhn and R. Bollard, Analysis and design of flight vehicle structures. Indianapo-
lis: SR Jacobs and Associates, 1973.
[6] R. G. Budynas and K. J. Nisbett, Mechanical Engineering Design, 10th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.

14
A Appendices
A.1 Tensile Efficiency Factor

Figure A.1: Tension Efficiency Factor [5]


.

A.2 Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Ultimate)

Figure A.2: Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Ultimate)[5]


.

15
A.3 Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Yield)

Figure A.3: Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Yield)[5]


.

16
A.4 Stress Concentration Factor for Rivet Holes

Figure A.4: Stress concentration factor for rivet holes[6]


.

17
A.5 Test Data
Table 6: Testing results

Expected Expected Actual Actual


) Displacement (in)
Load(%) Load(lb) Load(%) Load(lb)
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
25.00 87.50 25.09 87.80 0.0061
0.000 0.0000 0.3429 1.200 0.0020
25.00 87.50 25.11 87.90 0.0062
50.00 175.0 49.800 174.3 0.0078
75.00 262.5 74.74 261.6 0.0093
100.0 350.0 99.51 348.3 0.0108
0.000 0.000 0.0286 0.1000 0.0040
25.00 87.500 25.14 88.00 0.0067
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0040
100.0 350.000 99.51 348.3 0.0113
105.0 367.500 104.8 366.9 0.0116
110.0 385.000 109.9 384.6 0.0119
115.0 402.500 114.9 402.2 0.0122
120.0 420.000 119.8 419.2 0.0125
125.0 437.500 124.7 436.4 0.0128
130.0 455.000 129.9 454.6 0.0131
135.0 472.500 134.8 471.8 0.0134
140.0 490.000 139.9 489.7 0.0138
145.0 507.500 144.8 506.7 0.0141
150.0 525.000 150.1 525.2 0.0145
155.0 542.500 154.8 541.7 0.0148
160.0 560.000 159.4 558.0 0.0152
165.0 577.500 164.2 574.6 0.0156
170.0 595.000 169.7 594.1 0.0160
175.0 612.500 174.8 611.8 0.0164
180.0 630.000 180.0 629.9 0.0168
185.0 647.500 184.7 646.6 0.0172
190.0 665.000 189.7 663.8 0.0175
195.0 682.500 194.7 681.3 0.0184
200.0 700.000 197.8 692.3 0.0190
205.0 717.500 205.5 719.1 0.0200
210.0 735.000 209.5 733.1 0.0206
215.0 752.500 215.0 752.6 0.0217
220.0 770.000 219.2 767.3 0.0225
225.0 787.500 224.2 784.7 0.0238
230.0 805.000 229.2 802.3 0.0252
235.0 822.500 233.4 816.9 0.0563

18