Optimizing Cantilever Design: Solving for Minimum Mass and Maximum Strength

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a project involving a 1.2m cantilever beam subjected to axial and torque/shear forces, requiring the selection of a rod with minimal mass that can withstand these forces without yielding. The user initially focused on axial stress calculations for a 2-cm radius aluminum rod, concluding that it could support a force of 120 kN, which raised concerns about the accuracy of their calculations. Feedback highlighted the importance of considering combined stresses from axial, bending, torsional, and shear forces, rather than relying solely on axial stress. The user acknowledged the oversight regarding combined loadings and plans to revise their approach accordingly. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of cantilever design and the need for a comprehensive analysis of all acting forces.
Vircona
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I'm in a sophomore-level general engineering class (mechanics of materials), and I was assigned a project that I had a good idea on how to tackle, but I'm running into an error.

The project: I'm given a 1.2m long cylindrical cantilever with forces acting on it; one axial tensile force, and two forces producing torque/shear along the outside edge of the beam. I can choose either a solid, hollow, or composite rod, and can choose from steel, aluminum, or titanium. I can also vary my outer radius (and inner/boundary radii in the cases of hollow or composite rods). I need to find the rod of the least mass that can still resist the forces without YIELDING (not failing) given a 1.5 factor of safety.

My approach: I wrote up the equations for axial, shear, torsional, and bending stresses in excel. I just dragged and dropped the formula for each down the columns with varying radii in the first column (only for solid rods so far; once I get past this hiccup I'll be working on composites).

My problem: Using a type of aluminum with a ~250 MPa tensile yield strength and 2.7 g/cm^3 density, my equations show that a 2-cm radius aluminum rod can resist a force of 120 kN (diagram shows 80 kN --> 120 kN accounting for the FoS). This definitely sounds wrong, obviously, and the equations for just the tensile force is exceedingly simple. I still, for some reason, can't figure out where I've gone wrong.

My Calculations: Without going into all of the different radii I used, I'll show what I did for the 2-cm radius rod. Axial stress = F/A; the force is 120 kN. Area is (obviously) pi*r^2 --> pi*(0.02)^2 --> 0.001256637. F/A = 120,000/0.001256637 = 95.5 x 10^6 N/m^2 = 95.5 MPa. So the rod is experiencing 95.5 MPa of stress, but its tensile yield strength is 250 MPa, so this 2-cm radius aluminum rod can hold 120 kN (or roughly 27,000 lbs) of force (according to my surely-wrong calculations).

I know this should be very easy, but I honestly can't figure out where I'm going wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
It's not clear why you think this obviously simple tensile stress calculation must be wrong. (Note: it isn't)

Since the bar must withstand not only axial, but a combination of axial, bending, torsional, and shear stresses, it is unlikely that applying a purely axial load is going to be the limiting factor in the selection of the size of the rod or the material from which the rod is fabricated.

Apply several different loads to your bar and see what the combined stresses are. If you haven't covered theories of failure (besides loading things up to the tensile yield point), then these theories are likely going to come into play once you have bending stresses combined with shear stresses.
 
Sorry, I should have specified in the original post. I was only concerned with axial forces for now because it seems strange that an aluminum rod 2-cm in radius could hold 27,000 lbf. However, I do have the calculations written for shear, bending, and torsional stresses as well.

I did forget about combined loadings, though. We just went over them, and I'd started this project before combined loading was discussed in class, so I hadn't really put the two together yet. I'll take a look at that and should be able to figure it out using that. Thanks!
 
Vircona said:
Sorry, I should have specified in the original post. I was only concerned with axial forces for now because it seems strange that an aluminum rod 2-cm in diameter could hold 27,000 lbf. However, I do have the calculations written for shear, bending, and torsional stresses as well.

I did forget about combined loadings, though. We just went over them, and I'd started this project before combined loading was discussed in class, so I hadn't really put the two together yet. I'll take a look at that and should be able to figure it out using that. Thanks!

According to your OP, the rod is not 2 cm in diameter; the radius of the rod is 2 cm. The diameter of the rod is ... ?

In any event, tensile loads are some of the easiest to support. Compressive loads, and the possibility of structural instability (i.e., buckling), are much more interesting (and complicated) to analyze.
 
Edited my post; I meant radius, typed diameter. Oops.

Luckily, there's not a compressive loading on the beam. I guess I'm just surprised to find that such a small rod can hold that much force, so I assumed my calculations had to have been off.

Anyway, I'll start analyzing the combined loadings and see if I can tinker with my formulas to get them to work for me. Thanks for the help!
 
I have Mass A being pulled vertically. I have Mass B on an incline that is pulling Mass A. There is a 2:1 pulley between them. The math I'm using is: FA = MA / 2 = ? t-force MB * SIN(of the incline degree) = ? If MB is greater then FA, it pulls FA up as MB moves down the incline. BUT... If I reverse the 2:1 pulley. Then the math changes to... FA = MA * 2 = ? t-force MB * SIN(of the incline degree) = ? If FA is greater then MB, it pulls MB up the incline as FA moves down. It's confusing...
Hi. I noticed that all electronic devices in my household that also tell time eventually lag behind, except the ones that get synchronized by radio signal or internet. Most of them are battery-powered, except my alarm clock (which runs slow as well). Why does none of them run too fast? Deliberate design (why)? Wrong temperature for quartz crystal? Decreasing battery voltage? Or just a coincidence?
Back
Top