Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Group 15
Matthew Eyles z5075263
Atitat Rattanachata z5227470
Jordan Epstein z5059278
Michael Tran z5059861
i
Contents
1 Introduction 1
3 Summary 2
5 Test Report 8
6 Weight Report 10
7 Cost Report 11
8 Conclusion 12
9 Drawings 13
A Appendices 15
A.1 Tensile Efficiency Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2 Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Ultimate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.3 Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Yield) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.4 Stress Concentration Factor for Rivet Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.5 Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ii
List of Figures
1 Sikorsky King Stallion undertaking a search and rescue mission [1] . . . . . . . . 1
2 Example Lug Design [2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3 Plot of testing results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Rivet Failure in Experimental Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.1 Tension Efficiency Factor [5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2 Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Ultimate)[5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.3 Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Yield)[5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.4 Stress concentration factor for rivet holes[6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Tables
1 Summary of the dimensions and parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Summary of material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Margin of Safety Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4 Mass Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5 Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6 Testing results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
iii
1 Introduction
The structural design of any aircraft must be done towards the extent that assures confidence
and the safety in the overall structure. The structural lug being designed is to be used in a
hypothetical situation involving a winch operating for the attachment of a harness. A typical
scenario which may involve the use of such a design is in the application of search and rescue
missions. In this context, failure of the lug may lead to injury to the winch operative or place
the safety of the crew at risk. Thus it is imperative to acknowledge the importance of design
a structural component to adequacy.
Figure 1: Sikorsky King Stallion undertaking a search and rescue mission [1]
.
This report aims to provide a detail analysis surrounding the development of a structural lug
for its application in this hypothetical situation while providing a feasible solution towards
minimising cost and weight.
Throughout the report, design calculations will be performed to ensure the structural integrity
of the lug itself. Additionally, a weight and cost study is provided to illustrate how the lug
1
has been designed to improve in those areas. Results from the physical test and reasons for
discrepancies between the results have been highlighted.
Aluminium Rivet
2024-T3 clad MS20470AD3
Material property Value Material property Value
Sheet thickness 0.063in Rivet diameter 0.0938in
Diameter of drilled hole
Fitting factor, k 1.15 0.0960in
for rivet
Diameter of lug cutout 0.255in Wet pin effects 0.85
Limit load 350lbf
Ultimate load
525lbf
(1.5 × limit load)
Aluminium Rivet
2024-T3 clad MS20470AD3
Material property Value (psi) Material property Value (lbf )
Ultimate Tensile
62000 Rivet Strength 217
Stress (Ftu )
Yield Tensile Stress (Fty ) 44000
Ultimate Bearing Stress (Fbru ) 125000
Yield Bearing Stress (Fbry ) 84000
3 Summary
The margin of safety summary results has been summarised in Table 3.
2
4 Structural Analysis and Design
This section will detail the structural analysis process. The necessary information for the
calculations below can be found in Tables 1 and 2. The tension failure as well as the shear
out and bearing failure will be investigated at the hole for the load point. The number or
rivets required to withstand the limit and ultimate load will also be determined with the
corresponding margin of safety. Lastly, as an additional precautionary step, the tensile and
bearing failure of the rivet holes will be investigated.
The value for the stress concentration factor Kt can be determined from the Figure A.1. Due
to the scale of the graph, the value for the stress concentration factor has been presented to
two decimal places. The cross sectional area associated with tensile failure can be determined
based on the following formula.
At = (W − D)t (2)
At = (0.55 − 0.255)(0.063)
At = 0.01859 in2
Ptu = (0.88)(62000)(0.01859)
Ptu = 1014.2704 lbf
Ptu
M argin of Saf ety = −1 (3)
(Papplied )(k)
1014.2704
M argin of Saf ety = −1
(525)(1.15)
M argin of Saf ety (ultimate) = 0.6792
The tensile yield failure can be calculated in a similar manner and has been outlined below. It
is important to ensure the material falls under the allowable yield so that plastic deformation
will not exist.
3
Pty = (0.88)(45000)(0.01859)
Pty = 736.164 lbf
Pty
M argin of Saf ety = −1 (4)
(Papplied )(k)
736.164
M argin of Saf ety = −1
(350)(1.15)
M argin of Saf ety (yield) = 0.8290
e 0.27 t 0.063
= = (5)
D 0.255 D 0.255
e t
= 1.059 = 0.2471
D D
The ultimate and yield values for the shear-bearing efficiency factors , Kbru and Kbry respec-
tively can be determined through interpolating with Figures A.2 and A.3, which can be found
in the appendix.
Abearing = D × t (6)
Abearing = 0.255 × 0.063
Abearing = 0.01607 in2
U ltimate Y ield
4
Pbru = (0.82)(62000)(0.01607) Pbry = (0.96)(45000)(0.01607)
Pbru/y
M argin of Saf ety = −1 (8)
k × applied load
816.7 694.0
−1 −1
1.15 × 525 1.15 × 350
M oS = 0.3528 M oS = 0.7242
U ltimate Y ield
Pult Plimit
number of rivets = number of rivets = (9)
k × rivet strength k × rivet strength
525 350
1.15 × 217 1.15 × 217
2.104(≈ 3) 1.403(≈ 2)
3 × 217 2 × 217
−1 −1
525 × 1.15 350 × 1.15
M oS = 0.07826 M oS = 0.6174
Thus, the results illustrated that three rivets would be structurally adequate.
5
4.3 Failure of Lug - Rivet Holes
As a precautionary measure, the failure of the holes where the rivets would be located was
investigated. Similarly to how the loading hole would have failed, the tension and bearing
failure conditions were studied. A detailed explanation as to how these calculations were
performed have been outlined below.
4.3.1 Tension Failure
Due to the drilled holes in the lug for the installation of the rivets, an inevitable stress concen-
tration factor would be introduced into the lug and thus increase the chances of failure if not
adequately designed. Because the design of the lug itself is tapered towards the rivet loading, a
minimum width value of 0.2559 in has been used to ensure all rivets exhibit a positive margin
of safety.
The cross sectional area associated with tensile failure of the rivet holes can be determined
using equation 2
At = (0.2559 − 0.096)(0.063)
At = 0.01007 in2
the diameter to width ratio for the narrowest portion of the lug can be calculated as follows.
D Diameterof rivethole
= (11)
W N arrowestW idthof Lug
D 0.096
=
W 0.2559
D
= 0.3751
W
Referring to Figure A.4 in the appendix, the stress concentration factor could be extrapolated.
It is important to note that the stress concentration factor used has been provided by Shigley’s
Mechanical Engineering Design Textbook.
Kt = 2.267
To calculate the applied stress at each of the rivet holes, an assumption has been made that
the applied limit and ultimate load is equally reaction across all three rivets.
U ltimate Limit
525 350
Applied load at each rivet = Applied load at each rivet =
3 3
Applied load at each rivet = 175 lbs Applied load at each rivet = 116.7 lbs
6
The applied stress can now be determined for both the ultimate and yield failure conditions
175 116.7
Applied Stress = 2.267 × Applied Stress = 2.267 ×
0.01007 0.01007
The margin of safety has been determined below for the ultimate and limit loads for tension
failure of the rivet holes.
Allowable Stress
M argin of saf ety = −1 (14)
k × Applied Stress
62000 45000
−1 −1
1.15 × 39380 1.15 × 26254
M oS = 0.3690 M oS = 1.054
Applied load × k
σbearing limit/ultimate = (15)
D×t
The bearing allowables were reduced by 15% to account for wet pin effects at the rivet holes.
U ltimate Limit
σallowable bearing ultimate = 125000 × 0.85 σallowable bearing limit = 84000 × 0.85
7
The margin of safety can now be determined as illustrated below
Allowable Stress
M argin of saf ety = −1 (16)
Applied Stress
106250 71400
−1 −1
33275 22184
M oS = 2.193 M oS = 2.219
5 Test Report
Testing of the component was conducted in the UNSW Laboratories using an Instron testing
machine. Testing showed that the component held successfully at both the limit and ultimate
load required. The component failed due to rivet failure at slightly above 816.9lb. Below,
Figure 3 displays the load displacement data obtained during testing, full data can be seen in
the Appendix in Table 6.
Rivet failure was the predicted mode of failure as outlined in Section 4, as it had the lowest
margin of safety at ultimate load out of any of the possible failure modes. Accounting for wet
pin effects, the rivets should have failed at 567lb according to the hand calculations, however
testing the component showed that the rivets failed nearly 250lb above this at 816.9lb. Rivet
failure during testing is shown below in Figure 4.
8
Figure 4: Rivet Failure in Experimental Testing
This large discrepancy between theoretical and experimental load is most likely due to friction
between the lug and the attached fixture, the normal force to produce this friction supplied
by the tension of the rivets. This friction would have been able to support some of the shear
load between the lug and fixture, and so decrease the load on the rivets, leading to later shear
failure than initially predicted.
Force due to static friction is given by;
Ff = µk N
The coefficient of static friction for non-lubricated aluminum is 1.05 - 1.35[4], as a more exact
value could not be obtained, for the sake of sample calculations µk will be taken to be 1.
Rearranging the above, equation;
Ff
N=
µk
250
=
1
=250.0lbf
This means that each rivet must supply one third of this compressive force, or 67lb. There is
very little literature on this topic, perhaps because the compressive force supplied by a rivet is
highly dependent on how it is driven. However, given the force and effort required to drive each
rivet, this seems like a realistic value for the value of compressive force provided by each rivet.
As such, it is likely that the higher than predicted ultimate load is due to friction between the
lug and fixture.
9
6 Weight Report
Given the aerospace application for this lug component, weight is a vital factor in the design
and manufacture for the part to maintain overall aircraft flight efficiency. As a result, weight
was one of the most fundamental aspects to the design of the lug for the challenge.
To calculate the mass of the piece before manufacture, the average width of the piece was
used in the volumetric-density calculation. The density of 2024-T3 aluminium is 0.1 lb/in3.
The chosen sheet thickness was 0.063”, the average width of the designed lug was 0.5” and its
length was designed to be 1.9 inches. Therefore, the calculated weight of the piece before any
curved cuts or the removal of any rivet or loading holes was found to be 2.7 grams (0.006 lb).
Three different mass measurements were taken to determine the mass of the lug including its
three rivets. Firstly, the steel backing plate prior to lug attachment was accurately measured on
a set of electric scales. Secondly, the lug itself (with measurements both including and excluding
the weight of the rivets) was weighed to provide a confirmation once the final measurements
were taken. Lastly, the assembly, which consisted of the backing plate, lug and rivets was
weighed. The final mass of the lug and rivets was taken as the entire assembly mass (including
rivets) minus the backing plate mass.
7 Cost Report
The design of our lug was optimised to fall within the minimum cost requirements of 25 cost
units for this project to be awarded the full five marks available.
When considering the cost of the lug, the importance of each feature was justified and alter-
natives were investigated to ensure that the lug was optimised for its strength given the cost
limitations.
Material thickness selection was the first priority to determine the remaining variables in the
design of the lug. Following the aforementioned stress analysis for both 0.04” and 0.063” ma-
terial, it was clear that the 0.063” was the optimal choice to prevent any material deformation
during testing of the lug as would likely be the case for the 0.04” sheet. This selection of 0.063”
thickness with a cost index of 8 units provided the basis for the remaining design decisions,
while maintaining a focus on the lug cost. A single layer of material was found to be sufficient
to meet the strength requirements of this application.
8 Conclusion
The aim of the project was to design a lug capable of sustaining specific load conditions with
no deformation at the applied limit load of 350lb and no failure of either the lug or rivets at
the ultimate load of 520lb. Group 15 was successful in achieving these outcomes.
The lug test failed due to rivet shear at around 820lb and the lug was visually intact following
testing. The MS for Bearing, for both limit and ultimate loads were found to be 2.219 and
2.193, respectively.
The weight and cost index requirements were optimised to be as close to 2 grams and below
25 cost units, respectively. Our design produced a weight of 3.3 grams including rivets and a
cost index of 24 units.
12
9 Drawings
13
References
[1] (2018). Search and rescue rovs: Underwater robots to the rescue, Deep Trekker,
[Online]. Available: https://www.deeptrekker.com/search-and-rescue-rovs/
?locale=en.
[2] D. S. Brown, “Aerospace design lecture notes”, University of New South Wales,
Oct. 2018.
[3] (2016). Metallic materials properties development and standardization (mmpds-11),
Battelle Memorial Institute, [Online]. Available: https://app.knovel.com/web/
toc.v/cid:kpMMPDSM74/viewerType:toc//root_slug:viewerType%5C%3Atoc/
url _ slug : root _ slug % 5C % 3Ametallic - materials - properties ? kpromoter =
federation.
[4] E. Toolbox. (2004). Friction and friction coefficients, [Online]. Available: https:
//www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html.
[5] E. Bruhn and R. Bollard, Analysis and design of flight vehicle structures. Indianapo-
lis: SR Jacobs and Associates, 1973.
[6] R. G. Budynas and K. J. Nisbett, Mechanical Engineering Design, 10th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.
14
A Appendices
A.1 Tensile Efficiency Factor
15
A.3 Shear-bearing efficiency factor (Yield)
16
A.4 Stress Concentration Factor for Rivet Holes
17
A.5 Test Data
Table 6: Testing results
18