In need of some advice regarding Science Olympiad boomilever

  • Thread starter Thread starter 996gt2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Olympiad Science
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the construction and optimization of a boomilever for a Science Olympiad competition. Participants explore various design aspects, material choices, and structural integrity related to the boomilever's ability to support a significant weight while minimizing its own mass.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their current boomilever design, noting its weight and the materials used, and questions the necessity of vertical support members for load-bearing capacity.
  • Another participant suggests that removing some trusses and laminating thicker pieces of wood could help reduce weight, indicating a trial-and-error approach.
  • A different participant argues that vertical supports are necessary for better stress distribution but proposes that some horizontal bracing could be removed if the load is static.
  • One suggestion includes performing a truss analysis to determine the axial forces on each member and adjusting the cross-sectional areas accordingly, while also considering the critical buckling load for compression members.
  • A participant shares a link to a program that may assist in the design of load-bearing structures.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the necessity of vertical support members, with some advocating for their removal under certain conditions while others emphasize their importance for structural integrity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal design choices for the boomilever.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various assumptions about load conditions (static vs. dynamic) and the importance of material properties, such as wood grain orientation, which may affect the performance of the boomilever. Specific mathematical analyses and structural considerations are suggested but not fully explored.

996gt2
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Our school is going to the state Science Olympiad competition next week, and I am responsible for construction of our boomilever. Basically, it is a crane-like device; one end is bolted to a wall and the other end carries a bucket filled with up to 15kg of sand. I have been building and testing various models since last winter, and have gotten some good advice from teachers and friends regarding vairous aspects of construction. However, I seem to have reached a plateau as far as boomilever construction is concerned. My current model is built from balsa (~90%) and basswood (~10%); it weighs in at around 10 grams and can hold most of the required weight. I do not know of any way to lighten this structure unless some of the trusses bridging the tension and compression members are removed (the wood chosen for the other parts are the lightest available pieces and each is individually weighed before use).


So...my question is: are the vertical support members between the tension and compression members of the boomilever necessary in order to support most or all of the 15kg dangling from the front of the structure? I have seen some designs that do not utilize them at all, and have heard of some schools that have constructed 7 or even 6 gram boomilever structures. I know that these supports add stiffness to the whole structure and spread the load imposed by the sand, but are would performance of the structure dwindle dramatically without them?

Attached is a picture of my latest boomilever. The top right end contains the hole for the attachment bolt, and the lower right end rests perpendicularly to the attachment wall. The weight is suspended in a bucket that is secured to the boomilever structure at the lower bottom end by a square loading block with a bolt and chain going through it.

Thanks for any help in advance
 

Attachments

  • test.jpg
    test.jpg
    55.3 KB · Views: 3,432
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
my best guesses, though my boomilever is floundering far behind yours, is that you can probably ditch a couple of trusses and maybe laminate the thicker pieces of wood. Beyond that, cut fat by trial and error.
 
Well I don't know I think the vertical ones are necesary just to distribute the stresses better. Perhaps if it is a static load like you imply you can remove some of the horizontal bracing. Or the diagnals could be changed to be perpendicular to the two parallel heavy weight pieces. This could probably lighten it a couple of grams, even though it decreases the stiffness a bit.
 
I'd say it would be a good idea to do a quick truss analysis on your current design, and see what the axial force on each member is. Then, vary the cross-sectional area of each spar linearly with the axial force each one experiences. Make sure to take into account the critical buckling load for each spar in compression, and maybe do a quick search on tensile/compressive strengths of Balsa wood parallel to its grains.

Which makes me want to mention: make sure all of your pieces of wood have their grains going in the same direction as the force being applied on them (axial direction).
 
Last edited:
Those of you building such load-bearing structures might be interested in this nice little program. It's fun to play around with.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/method_comp/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
31K
Replies
11
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
40
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
3K