Framework Problem: Constructing Engine Mount for Airplane

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around constructing a framework for an airplane engine mount, focusing on the challenges of hand calculations in 3-D. The user has successfully completed CAD simulations but struggles with creating an equation system for the calculations, particularly due to the exclusion of top and bottom diagonals, leading to confusion. Suggestions include dividing the framework into independent frames and analyzing forces separately, emphasizing the importance of symmetry in the calculations. Additionally, the user faces complications from two forces acting on the framework: gravitational force (mg) and thrust force. Simplifying the analysis by treating each frame section independently and summing the results is recommended for clarity and accuracy.
MECHIS
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi!
I'm currently doing a project where I'm constructing a framework for an engine mount connecting an airplane with an engine. The project involves both calculations by hand and with CAD(Creo), and i have no problem with the CAD part as i have done the simulations.
The part with doing calculations by hand have caused some problems where I'm doing the calculations in 3-D, and its causing some problems.
The top and bottom diagonals are not to be considered in the calculation by hand. Therefore you have 6 symmetrical beams.
So far what I have done in the calculations is that I've created a equation system with help of directional cosines which seems to get me the wrong answers. So I'm looking for some help in creating the equations system for this problem.
 

Attachments

  • beams1-8.png
    beams1-8.png
    21.9 KB · Views: 507
  • beams1-8.png
    beams1-8.png
    21.9 KB · Views: 499
  • coordinatesxyz.png
    coordinatesxyz.png
    20.2 KB · Views: 531
Engineering news on Phys.org
upload_2017-5-3_22-48-55.png


I don't understand .

If you take the top and bottom diagonals away then you just have two independent frames .

The three components of anyone of the frames are all in the same plane . For any likely system of loads and fixations the analysis is trivial ?
 
Nidum said:
View attachment 198290

I don't understand .

If you take the top and bottom diagonals away then you just have two independent frames .

The three components of anyone of the frames are all in the same plane . For any likely system of loads and fixations the analysis is trivial ?

Thanks for the answer Nidium! So what you're suggesting is that we divide the two frames and calculate the forces on one of the pairs, then suggest symmetry?

I also forgot to mention that we have two different forces affecting the framework, one is mg and one is thrust force.

We can't seem to get this right on account of having little knowledge in 3-dimensional calculations.
 

Attachments

  • coordinatesv2.PNG
    coordinatesv2.PNG
    21.5 KB · Views: 477
If you are trying to create a composite equation including all elements and loads then you are making the problem more difficult than it needs to be. You would be better off to simply do independent analyses on the different frame structure sections. By transferring the thrust load and the lateral force moment to the back plate then analyzing those loads independently and summing those results the analysis should be straight forward. Since mg is still a force load its components should be able to be combined with static lateral and thrust loads.
 
Had my central air system checked when it sortta wasn't working. I guess I hadn't replaced the filter. Guy suggested I might want to get a UV filter accessory. He said it would "kill bugs and particulates". I know UV can kill the former, not sure how he thinks it's gonna murder the latter. Now I'm finding out there's more than one type of UV filter: one for the air flow and one for the coil. He was suggesting we might get one for the air flow, but now we'll have to change the bulb...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
523
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K