ME240 Bracket Design

Eric Grossman Jim Lovsin Mike Worth

Spring 2003, Northwestern University

Background

Setup and Rules To Note

Adhesives allowed Bracket does not have to be 1 piece Can touch ground until point D B doesnt have to be used. Allowed 30mm clearance instead of 20mm

Performance Index
Priority:
1. Load 2. Mass 3. Cost

P I= c*m
3 2

Material Selection
1018 Steel, and 3 grades of Al. 1018 steel is our choice. Considering cost and strength advantage. highest yield stress, (smaller deformation). Costs significantly less than all Al alloys. Only candidate that can be welded together (rivets or bolts arent as strong and heavier). Much heavier, but we can minimize mass in design, not material.

Design Directions
Maximize moment of inertia in an easily manufacturable shape Use welding Get bracket as close to edge as possible No need for mount at B Start with thickest steel then shave weight Not welding all connections/interchangeability

Preliminary Designs

Jims Design

Jims FEM

Erics Design
S-shape: bring compression column as close as possible to load (reduce moment) Square cross-section: high moment of inertia Reinforced joints Only mounted at A Simple 3-tube design Notch to prevent slipping of applied load

Erics FEM
High deformation Hard to manufacture Needed tension component

Finite Element Analysis: 1. Stress concentrated near applied load. 2. Large displacement of top beam. 3. No buckling in column

Mikes Design

Mikes FEM

Finite Element Analysis: 1. Blah. 2. Add your comments

3. here

Manufacturing Issues
Clearance for spot welder Error in 90 degree angles Thinking you used steel when it was Al Welding through more than 2 layers Lengths after welding Folding a cube Sharper creases Clearance for rivet tool Cutting tolerances

Iterations

Iteration 1
1.5mm steel Duct tape and spot welding Reinforced lip U beam cantilever 600N failure of cantilever Tensile and column not deformed

Weight: ~250 g

Load: 600N

It.1: Interchangeable beams

Cantilevers to interchange, none tested. Alignment problems Edges not crisp, contributed to misalignment Thinner steel used, not likely to support load Shapes that didnt require welding tried. Shear forces

Iteration 2
Slightly taller 3 u shaped members not welded Forming square shape Much heavier

Iteration 2

Finite Element Analysis: 1. Deformation confined to cantilever but high displacement 2. Little displacement of tensile member 3. No buckling in column

Iteration 2
1.5mm steel Duct tape eliminated Tensile weld Wide tensile Tensile and column not deformed Crease at column
Weight: ~350 g Load: 1750N

Iteration 3
T-beam shape (manuf.) Reinforcing top plate Column grips cantilever to top Tensile width decreased Filler added to make column wide enough Corners cut to reduce mass and add clearance

Iteration 3

Finite Element Analysis: 1. Deformation still concentrated at front of column 2. Strange behavior in tensile member 3. No buckling in column

Iteration 3
Thinner steel in column Tensile weld narrow tensile Tensile and column not deformed Crease at column
Weight: 240 g Load: 1780N

Final Design

Final Dimensions

Mounting (no B)

All dimensions in mm.

FEM

Finite Element Analysis: 1. Strange tensile behavior not observed in testing 2. Less displacement of cantilever tip 3. No buckling in column

The Bracket
Thin steel in column (1.5mm) Tensile weld Free column Change in philosophy about how to proportion leaving distance to displace vs. taller cantilever

Weight: 190g

Load: 2000N

Clearance/Thickness Tradeoff
Al 2024 and Al 7075
90000 80000

70000

60000

Stress (psi)

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

AL 2024 AL 7075 .1% offset 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Strain (in/in) 0.2 0.25 0.3

Conclusions

Performance Index
In the problem statement, the performance index is given as I = P / (c*m). Our final bracket yields an index of: I = (2000 N) / (($0.195/kg)*(.19 kg)) = 54.0

kN/$

Future Improvements
Reduce weight in cantilever holes T-beam Use thinner column

Thank you
Questions