How Can I Correctly Calculate Support for Light Fixtures at a Launch Facility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter steves1080
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Statics
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the structural support needed for light fixtures at a launch facility, addressing failures due to inadequate design. The primary forces considered include rocket blast waves, wind speed, and fixture weight, leading to a calculated shear stress of 311 ksi on a proposed bolt, which is deemed excessively high. Participants suggest adjusting the wind pressure calculation and using a moment arm of 382 mm instead of 613 mm to reduce stress. Recommendations include using a stronger bolt, such as an M16 or a 0.6250-11 UNC-2A bolt, to ensure adequate support.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of structural engineering principles
  • Familiarity with ASCE wind load calculations
  • Knowledge of shear stress and moment calculations
  • Experience with bolt specifications and material strength
NEXT STEPS
  • Research ASCE 7 wind load standards for accurate pressure calculations
  • Learn about shear stress analysis in structural components
  • Explore bolt selection criteria for load-bearing applications
  • Investigate methods for mitigating load on structural supports
USEFUL FOR

Structural engineers, launch facility designers, and maintenance personnel responsible for ensuring the integrity and safety of light fixtures in high-stress environments.

steves1080
Messages
64
Reaction score
1
Thanks for checking out my post-

I work at a launch facility, and we have light fixtures around the site that have proven to be poorly designed by the manufacturer. Multiple fixtures joints have failed over time due to lack of proper structural support - My goal is to add sufficient supports to these fixtures without over-complicating things, and then backing up my corrective action with calculations.

The largest force acting on these fixtures is from the rocket blast, which I assumed to act as a blast wave at a 45-degree angle to the top surface of the fixture (based on the fixture location). I also used wind speed and fixture weight as additional forces, and then I calculated the resultant moment acting on the joint. From that, I simply calculated the reaction moment on the other side of the joint, and then determined the force acting on the new bolt I plan to add for support.

See attached for my calculation. As you can see, my final shear stress on the bolt was found to be 311 ksi, which seems way too large to be correct.. I was pretty conservative in this approach, but I still would not expect an answer on this order of magnitude.

Any help would be extremely appreciated.
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
I think your loading due to wind pressure is a tad low.

For a wind speed of 120 mph, P = 0.00256*V^2 approximately, according to the ASCE.

For V = 120 mph, P = 37 lb/ft^2 = 0.256 psi, instead of 0.10 psi.

http://www-classes.usc.edu/architecture/structures/wind/ASCE7%20Wind%20Load.pdf

Using a 1/4" bolt to support a load of 450 lbs at 24" is much too small. You've either got to mitigate the load or find a different way to support this fixture.
 
Thanks for the input, you're right about the wind pressure. But my confusion here is that 311 ksi seems extremely large. And now apparently this is actually too low... I just want to make sure this solution makes sense or if I'm way off base here. Thanks again for responding.
 
steves1080: Although you perhaps could adjust your wind pressure, your calculations are correct, and your answer is correct, for the given assumptions.

However, the applied forces actually act at the lamp centerline, which is a moment arm of 382 mm, instead of 613 mm. Therefore, this reduces your current stress; but your bolt is still overstressed.

Is your bolt in single shear, or double shear? I.e., does it have one shear plane, or two shear planes? Know what I mean?

Use a moment arm of 382 mm. And if your bolt has one shear plane, then perhaps try an M16 bolt or a 0.6250-11 UNC-2A bolt.
 
Last edited:
Thanks so much for the response. Yes I suppose using a moment at the edge of the plate may have just been overly conservative.. it makes sense to place the forces in the middle of the plate, which is more realistic.

I assumed one shear plane, because you basically have one bolt through two flush surfaces, each trying to move in opposite directions perpendicular to the bolt.

Thanks again!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K